Delhi District Court
He Claimed That He Could Not Identify ... vs State [(2) Crimes 599 on 28 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CC No. 30/2009
ID No. 02401R0066492001
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
1) Mukesh Vij
S/o. Shri Madan Lal,
R/o. B-111, Mansha Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
2) Karamjeet Singh (Deceased)
3) Dharam Singh
S/o. Shri Niranjan Singh
R/o. WZ-G-72-A, Sant Nagar (East),
New Delhi.
4) Vinod Chopra
S/o. Shri Inder Nath,
R/o. H-9, Mukhran Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
5) Sunil Sharma
S/o. Shri Madan Lal,
R/o. A-1/156, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
CC No.30/2009 Page1 of 114
6) Pradeep Kumar
S/o. Shri Banarasi Dass,
R/o. WZ-1, New Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi.
7) Baldev Raj
S/o. Late Shri Charan Dass Malhotra,
R/o. A-158, Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
8) J.S. Sethi
S/o. Shri Raghubir Singh,
R/o. K-56, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi.
9) H.S. Dhaliwal
S/o. Late Shri Swaran Singh,
WZ-707, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh
Delhi.
10) Satish Sehgal
S/o. Shri D.N. Sehgal,
R/o. 5/65, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi.
........ accused persons
Case arising out of: FIR No. RC-DAI-1998-A-0005
Date of FIR : 02.02.1998
Date of Institution : 04.08.2000
Date of conclusion of
Final Arguments : 22.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 28.07.2014
(Case is more than ten years old)
CC No.30/2009 Page2 of 114
JUDGMENT:
1 FIR in this case was registered on 2.2.1998 on basis of a written complaint of Inspector P.K. Sharma, CBI to the effect that there was reliable information that several private persons were acting as Agents in and around office of Transport Authority, Janakpuri and were collecting money from the public for getting their Authority related work done by making them believe that the work would be got done by inducing officials of STA by corrupt or illegal means. On basis of the information received, a surprise check raid was claimed to have been conducted at premises of STA, Janakpuri. It had been claimed that the raid was conducted by CBI officials and independent witnesses had also been joined therein. It was claimed to have been observed that many persons were collecting documents and money from public persons on pretext of getting their work done speedily by inducing officials of Transport Department posted in STA, Janakpuri. It had been claimed that conversations to that effect had also been over-heard. As per allegations, accused Karamjit Singh (since deceased), Mukesh Vij, Dharam Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Vinod Chopra, Baldev Raj, Satish Sehgal and and Sunil Sharma were found working as Agents in the said office. It was further claimed that names of J.S. Sethi and H.S. Dhaliwal also cropped up during investigation and on raid of their premises, several incriminating documents were seized.
2 On basis of aforesaid allegations against accused persons, charges were framed against the accused persons for offences punishable U/s 120B IPC read with Section 8 & 9 of PC Act and substantive offences U/s 8 & 9 PC Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No.30/2009 Page3 of 114
3 In order to prove the case against the accused persons
prosecution examined as many as 85 witnesses.
4 PW-1 Roshan Kumar claimed that he had purchased a
scooter from Narender Kumar about 6 - 7 years back (he was examined on 30.7.2004). He claimed having gone to Janakpuri Authority for getting the scooter transferred in his name and claimed having obtained Form No. 29 & 30 from persons sitting outside Janakpuri Authority. He claimed that one person asked him to get signature of the seller on the forms. He claimed that he lost the Form, procured fresh form and after getting the forms filled through some person he deposited the same in the office alongwith prescribed fee.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he denied the suggestion of having met J.S. Sethi outside office of Authority. He also denied the suggestion about J.S. Sethi having demanded Rs.878/- from him for getting the job done. He also denied the suggestion of having handed over documents to J.S. Sethi during his second visit or that Sethi handed over the documents to Pardeep Kumar with direction to get the registration book prepared. He further denied the suggestion that after some days he was handed over the RC by Pardeep Kumar in presence of J.S. Sethi. He denied the suggestion that they had helped him in preparation of the registration book on payment of Rs.878/- out of which he was only given receipt of Rs.528/-. Witness identified the forms Ex.PW-1/B1 to B4 but denied the suggestion of having handed over the same to J.S. Sethi. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons or was deposing falsely. 5 PW-2 Sardar Singh claimed that on 2.2.1998 he was posted as Head Clerk in MCD, Civil Line and had gone to Janakpuri CC No.30/2009 Page4 of 114 Authority with CBI officials on that day. He claimed that some persons were arrested from Janakpuri Authority and were brought to CBI office. He further claimed that as seven years had passed he could not identify those persons. He further claimed that he was watching activities of persons present in the Authority but could not say what activities were seen by him.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness admitted that his statement was recorded in CBI office on 3.2.1998. He admitted having stated in his statement that subsequently he came to know names of the apprehended persons which were mentioned in his statement. He further admitted that he had seen the persons whose names were mentioned in his statement and they were collecting various papers and money Rs.300/- to Rs. 500/- from public persons. He further admitted having stated to CBI officer that those persons were saying that out of collected money some money had to be paid to officials of Authority for speedy work. He admitted that those persons who were apprehended were present in the Court. He further admitted that all proceedings were recorded in CBI office vide Memo Ex. PW-2/A and identified his signature on the same. He admitted that he could not recollect the facts earlier and recollected the same after it was suggested to him as to what had happened. He claimed that he could not individually identify the accused persons either by name or face as all were apprehended collectively. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accuseds witness claimed that he himself did not give any form or application to any person or to any of the accused. He claimed that he did not have CC No.30/2009 Page5 of 114 any talk with the accused nor could he give name and description of any person who had given any application or form or money to anyone or any accused or had talked with them. He could not give details of particular amounts recovered from any of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or had signed documents at instance of CBI officer.
6 PW-3 Dharamvir claimed that on 2.2.1998 he was psoted in Vigilance Department, MCD and was deputed to attend the CBI office by his Senior Officer. He claimed having reached CBI office at 8.00 AM and the raiding party went to Janakpuri Authority. He claimed that he was directed to keep watch on certain persons who were Agents. He claimed that it was revealed that there was some bungling in cash box and a raid report was prepared at the spot and he signed the same. He further claimed that some persons were arrested but he could not identify them. Witness identified his signature on the Memo Ex. PW2/A which he claimed was prepared at the spot.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness claimed that he could not say if his statement was recorded by CBI officer. He admitted having stated to the CBI officer that at the time of raid he had seen certain persons collecting forms and money directly from the clients. He admitted that subsequently names of those Agents were revealed as Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma and Pardeep Kumar. He denied the suggestion of having heard the Agents telling people that part of the collected amount was to be paid to officers of Transport Authority. He admitted that some documents were taken into possession and that a huge crowd had collected. He CC No.30/2009 Page6 of 114 denied the suggestion that the Agents admitted in CBI office that they were working as touts for the last several years. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately denying to identify the accused persons present in Court. He admitted that he was knowing contents of Memo Ex. PW-2/A before he signed it.
7 PW-4 Manoj Duggal claimed having purchased a second hand scooter from his brother-in-law Vipin Gupta in 1995. He claimed that both of them went to STA office Janak Puri for transfer of registration certificate and after obtaining the requisite form from the office, they filled it up and deposited the same at the Counter alongwith requisite fee. He claimed that he collected RC after transfer after about one week. Witness identified his documents i.e. Form No. 26 Ex. PW-4/A and his affidavit Ex. PW-4/B. After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that he did not remember if his statement was recorded, but claimed that Inspector AK. Singh did question him. He denied the suggestion of having stated to CBI that for registration of his scooter, he had met concerned official in STA office, Janak Puri who did not respond properly. He further denied the suggestion of having handed over documents to one Sri Chand who used to sit outside STA office or had paid Rs.380/- to him for getting the work done. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 8 PW-5 Devender Pal Singh claimed that he worked as a Cook and his friend Sanjeev Kumar had handed over to him Driving License for obtaining a Form for renewal purposes. Witness claimed having collected the same from Counter of STA Janakpuri and as he could not himself fill the Form, he left it incomplete and went to DESU Office.
CC No.30/2009 Page7 of 114 After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness denied the suggestion of having met Shri Pradeep Kumar during his visit to STA Janakpuri. He denied having stated to CBI about Pradeep Kumar having told him about his good relations with STA Officials and that he would get the renewal done by charging Rs.150/-. Witness identified the partially filled in form Ex.PW-5/B and also identified DL of Sanjeev Kumar and other documents Ex.PW-5/C to E. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely having been won over by accused. 9 PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar claimed having handed over documents Ex.PW-5/B to E to Devender Pal Singh for getting his DL renewed. He claimed that as Devender did not meet him thereafter, he remained unaware about status of his renewal work and came to know subsequently through Inspector A.K. Singh that his D.L. was recovered from some Agent.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that he had not stated to CBI that Devender Pal on return had informed him about having handed over the documents to Pradeep Kumar for getting prepared a new DL or that Pradeep had demanded Rs.150/- for the same. He denied the suggestion about having visited STA Janakpuri 3 to 4 times in search of Pradeep Kumar who could not be found. He denied the suggestion he had deposed falsely.
10 PW-7 Shree Chand claimed that he had been working as Document Writer cum Typist outside Office of STA Janakpuri for the last 10 to 12 years but did not know any Vipin Gupta. He claimed that Vipin Gupta had not handed over to him any document for transfer of CC No.30/2009 Page8 of 114 registration of Scooter sold to Manoj Duggal.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that his statement was recorded by Inspector A.K. Singh. He claimed that he could neither admit nor deny having stated to CBI that one Vipin Gupta who was known to him came to him and requested him to help him (Vipin) transferring registration of Scooter he had sold. He denied the suggestion of having stated to CBI Officer that after taking documents from Vipin Gupta, he handed over the same to Pradeep Kumar alongwith Rs. 380/- or that Pradeep assured to get the work done in a week. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 11 PW-8 Shri Anil Sharma claimed having visited Janakpuri Authority during January, 1997 in connection with getting prepared a permanent Driving License. He claimed having taken the Form from the Counter and having filled it up with the help of some person. Form and documents were identified by him as Ex.PW-8/A. He claimed that he could not identify the person who helped him in filling up the Form.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he claimed that his statement was recorded by CBI. While pointing out towards accused Pradeep, witness claimed that perhaps he was the person who helped him in filling up the Form. He stated that he might also have identified Pradeep before the I.O. 12 PW-9 Shri Ram Adhar Singh claimed having visited STA Janakpuri alongwith application and documents for renewal of his DL. Witness claimed that he met a boy there on whose asking he told him his problem. He claimed that the boy told him that he would have to CC No.30/2009 Page9 of 114 spend Rs.500/- for the work and he gave Rs.150/- to the boy alongwith his application and document. Witness further claimed that the boy told him to collect the License on the next day but was not available when he again visited STA Janakpuri. He claimed that the said boy was not present in Court. He identified the documents Ex.PW-9/A as being the same which he handed over to the boy.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI Officer. He denied the suggestion of having stated to the I.O. that he met Sunil Sharma in STA who assured him to get work done as he had good relations in STA Office. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying Sunil Sharma having been won over. 13 PW-10 Shri Ram Niwas claimed that in January, 1997, he had gone to STA Janakpuri for issuance of a duplicate DL and got his application filled from some unknown person. He identified his signature on the Form Ex.PW-10/A. He claimed having personally deposited the Form and that he had not sought help from anyone for the same.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI Officer wherein he stated that he was working as Driver cum Conductor in a Private Bus. He denied the suggestion of having stated to CBI Officer that while he was standing in queue for submission of his application, someone advised him to meet Agents working outside STA. He denied having stated to CBI Inspector that when he came out, Sunil Sharma came to him and asked about his problem or that Sunil claimed that he would help him in getting the CC No.30/2009 Page10 of 114 duplicate License as he had good contacts with STA Officials. He further denied having stated that Sunil Sharma demanded sum of Rs. 400/- for providing the help or that he himself assured payment after completion of work. He further denied having stated to CBI Officer about his having signed Form filled up by Sunil Sharma or regarding having handed over any document to him. Photocopies of his FIR and Election ID Card were identified as Ex.PW-10/C-1 & C-2. He further denied the suggestion of having stated to CBI that Sunil Sharma assured him that the duplicate License would be ready within two or three days or asked him to come to collect the same after three days alongwith Rs.400/-. He further denied having identified the documents before CBI Officer as being the same which were handed over by him to Sunil Sharma. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused or was deposing falsely.
14 PW-11 Shri Raj Kumar Anand claimed that Application Form for renewal of DL was brought by employee Prem who also filled it up and then he (witness) himself submitted it in STA. He identified his signature and photograph on Form Ex.PW-11/A and his Visiting Card Ex.PW-11/A-1.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he admitted that his statement had been recorded by the I.O. He denied having stated to CBI Officer about his visiting STA Janakpuri in first week of December, 1997 in connection with renewal of his DL. He further denied having stated to CBI Officer that as he had little time, he contacted Agent Pradeep Kumar who assured to get the License renewed and demanded Rs.200/- for the work or that he gave Rs.100/- on the same day and assured Pradeep to pay the balance after renewal of License. He denied having sent Prem Pal to CC No.30/2009 Page11 of 114 STA Office for handing over documents to Pradeep Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely having been won over by accused.
15 PW-12 Shri Jasbir Singh claimed that his friend Shri Shalabh Kaushik had purchased a Car which was then converted into HSD Vehicle. He further claimed that Shri Kaushik requested him to get the same transferred in his name in STA and also get done necessary entries. Witness claimed that both of them went to Tilak Marg, STA Office where no one was willing to help them. He claimed that he knew accused J.S. Sethi and met him. He claimed that Sethi informed them about complete procedure and also told them that a sum of Rs.300 - Rs.350/- would be payable in Office and asked them to come on the next day. He claimed that when they went to him on the next day, J.S. Sethi was not available.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI Officer. He admitted that Sethi had told them that fee of Rs.350/- would be payable inside the STA Office. Witness claimed that when he requested the accused to take reasonable amount, accused told him that roughly expenses would be Rs.300/- - Rs.350/-. Witness denied the suggestion of having handed over all papers to Sethi who asked him to come after one week. He identified his documents Ex.PW-12/B-1 to B-11. He further admitted that the same had been handed over to J.S. Sethi for getting work done in STA Office. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused. 16 PW-13 Shri Ram Niwas claimed that in the year 1997, he had gone to Office of Transport Authority Janak Puri for issuance of a duplicate license in his name. He claimed that he had gone there CC No.30/2009 Page12 of 114 twice but the record was not traceable. He further claimed that his brother-in-law Shri Arun Tanwar told him that he knew someone who would get the work done and hence, he handed over photocopy of his documents to him. Witness claimed that thereafter he did not personally go to the Transport Office.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he denied the suggestion of having told CBI Officer that he met Sunil Sharma at residence of his brother-in-law where Sunil assured to get his duplicate DL from STA Janakpuri as he had good relations there. He denied the suggestion of having told CBI Officer that he gave Sunil Sharma bunch of papers or that he was asked by Sunil to meet him after seven days. Witness admitted having stated to CBI Officer that he got a fresh License prepared from STA Rajpur Road. He also identified his documents Ex.PW-13/B, C, D & E. He denied the suggestion that when these documents were shown to him by CBI Officer, he had stated the same to be the documents handed over by him to Shri Sunil Sharma. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused or was deposing falsely. 17 PW-14 Shri Raj Kumar claimed that in 1997, he had gone to Janakpuri STA Office for renewal of his DL . He claimed that while he was standing in the queue, accused Karamjeet Singh approached him claiming that he would provide help in getting the DL renewed. Witness claimed that on money being demanded, he handed over Rs. 50/- to Karamjeet who claimed that the balance would be charged after getting the DL renewed. Witness identified his application Ex.PW-14/A and copy of his Ration Card Ex.PW-14/B. 18 PW-15 Shri Ravi Kumar claimed having visited Janakpuri STA Office in 1998 for getting duplicate DL. While identifying accused CC No.30/2009 Page13 of 114 Sunil Sharma as 'Michi', witness claimed having met him there. He further stated that accused Sunil filled up his papers for getting duplicate DL and told him that he himself (witness) should stand in the queue.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness identified the documents Ex.PW-15/A, B, C & D. He denied the suggestion that he had been told by Shri Sunil Sharma that he (Sunil) had good relations in STA Office, Janakpuri and would get the work done at the earliest. He further denied the suggestion that Sunil told him that he would take money after the work was done. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 19 PW-16 Shri Akhileshwar Kumar claimed that in 1998, he went to Janakpuri STA for getting his DL renewed. He claimed that one Sardar Ji Karamjeet Singh met him there and claimed that he would take Rs.300/- for filling up the Form and depositing the same. Witness claimed that he was called to come on the next day and that Karamjeet Singh had not told him as to how he would get the work done. Witness identified his documents Ex.PW-16/A, B, C & D. After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that his statement was recorded by Inspector A.K. Singh. He admitted having stated to A.K. Singh that Karamjeet had told him that he would get prepared the Driving License as he had good relations with Officers of the Office of STA Janakpuri and would deposit the Application Form in the Office without the witness standing in the queue. Witness claimed having paid Rs.100/- to Karamjeet for expenses and that he had been asked to come on the next day. He further stated that when he went there CC No.30/2009 Page14 of 114 on the next day, he came to know that Karamjeet had been arrested by CBI.
20 PW-17 Shri Om Dutt Tyagi claimed that during 1997-98, he was working as a Driver in M/s. Indian Holiday, Noida under Shri Maninder Singh. He claimed that his employer had purchased TATA Sumo DL-4CE-2986 but he did not know as to how Maninder Singh got the vehicle transferred in his name. Witness claimed that he did not visit STA Janakpuri for the said purpose.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that he had never been examined by any Officer of CBI nor had he made any statement to CBI. He denied having visited STA Janakpuri on 27.01.1998 or that he found the window dealing with transfer of registration closed. He denied the suggestion of having met 'Fauji' there and further denied the suggestion of Fauji having demanded Rs.1100/- for transferring the registration of the vehicle. He denied having handed over the requisite documents to Fauji. He further denied the suggestion of having again visited STA Janakpuri on 29.01.1998 or on 02.02.1998. He denied the suggestion that Fauji was not traceable on account of raid by CBI in present case. He denied having visited CBI Office with his employer. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save any accused in this case. He specifically denied knowing accused H.S. Dhaliwal who was specifically point out to him by ld. PP. 21 PW-18 Shri Salabh Kaushik claimed having purchased Maruti Zypsy DL-2C-4286 from Tilak Singh Rana in 1997. He claimed that he handed over documents of the vehicle to his friend Jasbir Singh. He claimed that he did not know how Jasbir Singh dealt with the documents or from where transfer of registration was to be done.
CC No.30/2009 Page15 of 114 He claimed that Jasbir Singh had assured to get the work done from RTO. He further claimed that he only knew that Jasbir Singh had told that he would hand over documents to some Shri Sethi and a sum of Rs.300/- was to be paid as Sarkari Fees. Witness identified the documents Ex. PW-12/B2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11. He also identified signatures of Shr Tilak Singh Rana on documents Ex. PW-18/A1, A2, B & C1. He claimed that he could not produce the originals having already sold the vehicle in the year 2000.
22 PW-19 Harpreet Singh claimed that in December, 1997 he had gone to Transport Authority Janak Puri for obtaining a Driving License where he saw many persons outside the Authority. He claimed that in order to save time he contacted one Baldev Raj who was sitting near the scooter parking and asked him to get a driving license made for him. He claimed that Baldev Raj told him that he would have to pay a sum of Rs.800/- which he immediately paid. Witness claimed that Baldev Raj asked him to come after a week and at the time of taking money, Baldev Raj had told him that he need not talk to staff of Transport Authority and that he (Baldev Raj) would get the entire job done and would give him the DL. He claimed that when he again went to the Janakpuri Transport Authority after a week for obtaining the license, he had asked persons there about Baldev Raj but they caught hold of him by hand and took him to CBI office. Witness identified his signature on Production cum Seizure Memo Ex. PW-19/1. He claimed having produced six documents before the CBI officer which were seized vide the said Memo. (Documents were marked as Ex. PW-19/2 to 7). He also identified his signatures at points C,D,E, F on page No. 1,2,4 & 5 on the Surprise Check Memo Ex. PW-2/A. CC No.30/2009 Page16 of 114 During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he had been driving his scooter for the last 10 - 11 years. He admitted about display of big notice boards at Transport Authority, Janakpuri informing general public about steps to be taken for obtaining driving license and other connected matters. He claimed that when he had gone to the Janakpuri Transport Authority in January, 1998, he did not go inside the office and also did not meet any staff member. He denied the suggestion that he did not pay any money to accused Baldev Raj. He claimed having gone to office of Transport Authority at about 9.00 AM in January, 1998. He denied the suggestion that he used to work as informer of CBI and / or police. He admitted that PS Janakpuri and the Transport Authority were situated on the same road. He denied the suggestion that he did not pay any money to Baldev Raj for preparation of his driving license or had not met him on 15.12.1997 or 2.2.1998 or at any time between the said dates or thereafter for getting his license. He denied the suggestion that his license was not got prepared by accused Baldev Raj or that as he was working as a secret informer, he had made false statement at instance of CBI officers. He claimed that he had been lifted by CBI officers at about 9.30 / 10.00 AM from Janakpuri Authority and admitted that accused Baldev Raj was not apprehended at the same time. He denied the suggestion that he had been deposing falsely.
23 PW-20 Dr. Anil Gupta claimed that he was a Medical Practitioner and in 1998 used to issue Medical Certificate in STA Janakpuri to persons seeking issuance of Driving Licenses. (After seeing the persons present in Court) Witness claimed that none of them ever came to him for issuance of a Medical Certificate.
CC No.30/2009 Page17 of 114 After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he admitted that in 1998, he used to charge Rs.50/- for issuance of Medical Certificate to a person. He further claimed that CBI Officer had enquired from him, his name, parentage and address. He denied the suggestion that Satish Sehgal, Kamal Budhiraja, H.S. Dhaliwal, Pradeep Kumar, Vinod Chopra, Rajender Singh, Mukesh Vij, J.S. Sethi, Karamjeet Singh, Baldev Raj, Dharam Singh, Satinder Pal and Sunil Sharma used to meet him during working hours of RTO Janakpuri and Palam. He claimed that he used to sit inside his Office and denied the suggestion that J.S. Sethi and H.S. Dhaliwal used to come to him for issuance of certificates. He further denied the suggestion that J.S. Sethi and H.S. Dhaliwal used to pay money to Officers posted in State Transport Offices at Janakpuri and Palam for getting work done. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally deposing falsely to help the accused.
24 PW-21 Shri Neeraj Chawla claimed that he was a student in 1998 when he had been called by CBI Officer who asked him as to whom he had sold his vehicle DL-4CD-4920. Witness claimed having replied that it had been sold by his Uncle Raj Kumar Chawla to one Kulwant who was known to him. Witness identified his signatures on documents Ex.PW-21/1, 1A, 2, 2A & 3.
25 PW -22 Shri Gurjeet Singh claimed that in 1998 he had purchased Maruti Car No. DL-4CB-7101 from one Shri Shyam Sunder. He claimed that he did not know name of the person whom he met in Transport Authority, Janakpuri in connection with change of name in the RC, but claimed having paid Rs.250/- to him in that regard. He claimed that as the said person did not get the work done, he got it done himself. Upon seeing the accused persons, witness CC No.30/2009 Page18 of 114 claimed that the said person was not present in Court. Witness identified the documents Ex.PW-22/1 & 2.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that CBI Officer had made enquiries from him. He denied the suggestion that he had paid Rs.250/- to accused J.S. Sethi present in court. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused or was deposing falsely with a view to save him.
26 PW-23 Yatender Sharma claimed that in 1997 he had purchased a Bajaj Chetak Scooter from his friend Ravinder for Rs. 5,000/-. He claimed that in January, 1998 he had gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri for getting the RC transferred in his name and met one Sikh gentleman present there. (He identified accused J.S. Sethi as being the said Sikh gentleman). He claimed that accused J.S. Sethi had stated that he would get his name transferred in the RC from the Transport Authority and had demanded Rs.300/-. Witness claimed having paid him only Rs.50/-. Witness proved the documents Ex. PW23/1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,8,9 and claimed that photocopy of Ration Card, Pollution Certificate were got attested from Notary by J.S. Sethi.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused J.S. Sethi witness denied the suggestion of having made statement at instance of CBI. He further denied the suggestion that he did not purchase any scooter or that his name was not to be substituted in any RC.
27 PW-24 Shri Durga Prasad claimed that during 1997 Surender Kumar Bhatia owner of vehicle DL-4C-6097 had asked him to visit Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting No Objection Certificate in respect of the same. He claimed that when he went CC No.30/2009 Page19 of 114 there, he met a gentleman who told him that the work would take a lot of time and that he himself would get it done from inside. Witness claimed that the said person demanded Rs.700/- or Rs.800/- for getting the work done but at that time he had paid Rs.300/- or Rs.400/- to the said person. He claimed that due to lapse of time he could not identify the said person. He also claimed having handed over certain documents including RC to the said person.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness claimed that he did not remember if he had told CBI officer that name of the said person was Sunil Sharma. When accused Sunil Sharma was pointed out to the witness, he claimed that he could not identify him as the same person. He denied the suggestion that he had mixed up with accused and was intentionally not identifying him.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that no accused was arrested in his presence nor any document was recovered from any accused in his presence. While claiming that his statement had been recorded by CBI officer in CBI office, he claimed that he could not tell the location or address of the office nor the date in that regard. He denied the suggestion that he never came to Delhi for the said work nor was ever called by CBI officer.
28 PW-25 Shri Jatin Malhotra claimed that in 1998 he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his driving license renewed. He claimed that while he was standing in the queue he had taken help of 2-3 persons for filling up the form. He claimed that at that time he was in possession of photocopies and not the originals and hence he requested one of the persons standing in the queue to CC No.30/2009 Page20 of 114 fill up the form while he himself went to get the originals from his house. He claimed that when he returned back from his residence with the originals he did not find the said person there. He claimed that he could not identify the said person due to lapse of time. Witness identified his documents Ex. PW-25/1 & 2.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness claimed that he had been interrogated by CBI but did not remember having told the CBI officer that name of the said person who filled up the form was Pradeep Kumar. He claimed that he did not remember having so stated to CBI officer. He was duly confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW-25/A where it was so recorded. He further denied the suggestion that Pradeep Kumar had stated that he was familiar with the staff and would get the work done from inside. He further denied the suggestion that the said person had demanded Rs.200/- from him or that he handed over advance amount of Rs.100/- to the person. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying accused Pradeep Kumar.
29 PW-26 Anil Kumar claimed that he was working in a Printing Press in Pitam Pura and had learnt driving from Dhaliwal Driving School. Witness claimed that he possessed a driving license which was got made by personnel of the said driving school and that he had paid Rs.1500/- to them for the said job. He further claimed that the said person had informed that he would get the license made from Transport Authority at Ashok Vihar. Witness claimed that he did not remember name of the said person and could not identify if he was present in court. He identified his Learner License as Ex. PW-26/1.
CC No.30/2009 Page21 of 114 After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness admitted that the person who agreed to get the DL made was H.S. Dhaliwal and was a Sikh gentleman. He claimed that he could not identify the said Shri H.S. Dhaliwal one of the accused present in Court. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at instance of accused.
30 PW-27 Kailash Chand claimed that in 1997 he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Office for renewal of his driving license and went to the concerned window twice or thrice but his license could not be renewed. He claimed that he was informed by persons present there that he should contact one Mr. Sunil there and only then his license would be renewed. Witness claimed that Shri Sunil initially demanded Rs.1200/- and after depositing the fee amount demanded Rs.1500/- for renewal of the license. It was claimed that the said enhanced amount was demanded by him saying that the money would have to be paid to the staff of Transport Department working inside. Witness claimed that he left relevant papers with Mr. Sunil claiming that he did not want his driving license to be renewed. He identified the documents Ex.PW-27/1,2,3 & 4. He further claimed that he could not identify the said Sunil Kumar as the matter was 12 years old.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that on 1.4.1997 he did not lodge any complaint anywhere with the police and had not lodged any complaint in 1998 or 1999 in that regard. He admitted that on his own he had neither visited the police nor CBI from 1997 to 1999. He further admitted that no document was recovered from any person or accused by CBI officer in his presence.
CC No.30/2009 Page22 of 114
31 The next witness examined was Shri Deepak who due to
oversight was again mentioned as PW-27. He was examined on 23.2.2010 and claimed having gone to Ashok Vihar Transport Authority about 12 years back for getting his permanent driving license. He claimed that one Mr. Vij who was Agent / Outsider working outside the Authority Office met him there and demanded Rs. 800/- for getting issued the license claiming that he would get work done from inside the office and that he (witness) would have to pay nothing to the officials inside the office. He claimed that Vij took him to office of Dhaliwal at Rohini where papers were filled up. Witness claimed having paid Rs.300/- to Vij and further Rs.500/- to him when he handed over the permanent license. Witness claimed that he had been called to CBI office and had shown his permanent license. Witness identified the application Ex. PW-27/1 which was claimed to have been filled up in office of H.S Dhaliwal.
During course of cross examination he claimed that he did not report the matter to police at any point of time nor did he go to CBI office on his own to lodge the report. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.
32 PW-28 Sukhpal Singh claimed having purchased Maruti Car DNB-7654 in the name of his wife Seema Chauhan from one Pawan Kumar. He claimed having gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority Office for change of registration of ownership of car in the name of his wife. He claimed having met one Dhaliwal in his office at Rohini where talks of getting ownership transferred subject to expenses took place. He claimed that he could not identify the said Dhaliwal. He also did not remember the exact money demanded but claimed that it was about Rs.250/- - Rs.300/-. He claimed that responsibility taken by Dhaliwal was to get name of his wife entered CC No.30/2009 Page23 of 114 into Registration Book of the car from the Transport Department and the agreed work had been gone done. Witness identified the document Ex. PW-28/1.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that his statement was not recorded by CBI officer. He claimed that he did not remember if he had paid Rs.250/- to Dhaliwal as advance money and paid Rs.250/- on completion of work. He denied the suggestion that Dhaliwal had told him that work would be got done expeditiously after paying money to inside officials. He claimed that Dhaliwal was a private person and not a Government Servant working in Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over and was deposing falsely.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that he did not know when and from where papers had been seized by CBI. He further admitted that CBI had issued a notice to his wife and not to him.
33 PW-29 Roop Singh claimed that in December,1997 his Driver was going to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting driving license renewed and he (witness) also gave his license to the driver for making enquiry and getting the license renewed. Witness claimed that the driver gave him a telephone call informing that one Sardar Karamjit Singh was demanding Rs.400/- for getting the license renewed out of which he wanted Rs.200/- to be paid immediately and balance Rs.200/- to paid after renewal. He further claimed that the driver also informed him that the later sum of Rs.200/- was to be paid to inside staff of Authority at the time of taking out photograph for which he (witness) would have to come. Witness claimed that he subsequently came to know that Karamjit Singh had been arrested.
CC No.30/2009 Page24 of 114 Witness identified the documents Ex. PW-29/1,2 & 3.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that he had not brought the original license and had not been in possession of his DL ever since it was given for renewal. He claimed that he did not beat (meet) Karamjit Singh on any day or at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
34 PW-30 Jitender Sharma claimed that he had purchased an old scooter in 1997 and in the month of January, 1998 he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting transferred ownership thereof. He claimed that he had gone there several times but could not get the scooter transferred. Witness claimed that one Sethi met him at Transport Authority and told that he would get transferred ownership of the scooter within 15 days and also demanded Rs.300/- for the said work. Witness claimed having told Sethi that amount of Rs.300/- was on higher side. It was claimed that Sethi stated that the amount was needed to be spent on stamping, insurance etc. Witness claimed having handed over Rs.50/- alongwith his documents. Witness identified the documents Ex. PW-23/1,2,3,4 and claimed that the same were filled up by the said Sethi in his handwriting. He also identified documents Ex.PW-23/6,7 & 8.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that Inspector A.K. Singh had recorded his statement in CBI Office. He denied the suggestion that part of the said sum of Rs.300/- had to be paid to Officials of Janakpuri Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely with a view to help the accused.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the CC No.30/2009 Page25 of 114 accused, witness claimed that Insurance in respect of the Scooter was got done by him from J.S. Sethi and that J.S. Sethi had helped him in getting the Form attested from Notary and also in preparation of the Affidavit and for the said work he had paid Rs.50/- to J.S. Sethi. 35 PW-31 Shri Inder Singh claimed that he learnt driving in 1999 and had not learnt driving through any Driving School. He claimed having got issued his License himself from Janakpuri Transport Authority. Witness claimed that he did not know any Vinod Chopra and had not given Rs.600/- to Vinod Chopra for issuance of DL.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness identified the documents Ex.PW-31/1 to 5. He claimed that the documents were never shown to him by CBI Officer nor was he called by Inspector, CBI. He claimed that he had not told CBI Inspector that the Forms had been filled up by Shri Vinod Chopra who had taken Rs.600/- from him for getting issued the DL or had filled up application form in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely having been won over by the accused. 36 PW-32 Shri Jogender Singh claimed that he had been a Taxi Driver for the last 40 years and in January, 1998, he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority for renewal of his License. He claimed that his friend Shri Raj Kumar had told him that in case he had any work concerning Transport Authority, he (witness) could get the same done through his brother Shri Baldev Raj. Witness claimed that he went to Transport Authority Janakpuri but despite efforts could not meet Baldev Raj. He claimed having handed over his License and two Photographs to someone who was standing there. Witness claimed that he could not identify the said person. He claimed that CC No.30/2009 Page26 of 114 subsequently he was called to CBI Office where he was interrogated and was shown his License and photograph. He identified the documents Ex.PW-32/1, 2 & 3.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that documents Ex.PW-32/1,2 & 3 were shown to him by CBI Officer. He denied the suggestion that accused Baldev Raj met him at Janakpuri Transport Authority and demanded Rs.300/- for getting the work done. He denied the suggestion that accused Baldev Raj had told him (witness) that he (Baldev Raj) had good contacts in Transport Authority and after paying some money as bribe to Officials of Transport Department, would get the work done. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying accused Baldev Raj having been won over by him.
37 PW-33 Shri Narender Nath claimed having gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for renewal of his Driving License in January, 1998. He claimed that he got it renewed on his own. He claimed that he did not remember through whom he had got deposited his application form for renewal and probably fee meant for renewal was deposited by him. He claimed that the Form was filled up by his brother while he himself signed it and collected his License.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness identified documents Ex.PW-33/1 to 7 and claimed that the same were given in the Transport Authority. He claimed that he did not remember if the photographs and documents were given by him to Sunil Kumar Sharma. He admitted having stated to CBI Inspector that he was not educated enough and could CC No.30/2009 Page27 of 114 only sign. He claimed that he did not remember if he had stated to CBI Inspector that while handing over documents to the Agent, he had stated to the agent that he could only sign and that the Agent should fill up the Form. He claimed that he did not remember having stated to Inspector that the Agent had demanded Rs.400/- for renewal of the License or if the Agent had told him that he had to pass on some amount to persons / Officials working inside Office of Janakpuri Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that he was not deposing correct facts as he had been threatened by the accused or was deposing falsely having been won over by the accused.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he himself got renewed his Driving License from Janakpuri Transport Authority.
38 PW-34 Shri Vijay Kumar claimed that in January, 1998, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for renewal of his Driving License. He claimed having applied for renewal, having deposited his address proof, copy of Ration Card and DL in the Authority and a receipt was issued in that regard. He identified the documents Ex.PW-34/1,2 & 3.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he could not give any reason as to why copies of his Ration Card and photograph were available on judicial record. He claimed that the said documents were not shown to him by Inspector A.K. Singh and that he had not told Inspector that accused Baldev Raj had been residing in his Mohalla and working as Agent in Janakpuri Transport Authority. He further claimed that he had also not stated that Baldev Raj met him in Transport Authority and told him that after charging Rs.800/-, he would get Driving License renewed as he had CC No.30/2009 Page28 of 114 connections with those working there. He further denied having stated that as per Baldev Raj, some part of money was to go to the Staff working inside. Witness was duly confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW-34/4 where it was so recorded. He further denied having stated that he signed Form No. 9, 1 A & affixed his photograph on Form No. 9 and also gave photocopy of his Ration Card to Baldev Raj. He further denied having identified those documents before Inspector A.K. Singh. He further denied having stated that he had not given any money to Baldev Raj as he (Baldev Raj) had stated that he would take Rs.800/- after completion of work. Witness was duly confronted with various portions of statement Ex.PW-34/4 in that regard. He denied the suggestion that he had been threatened and won over by the accused.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he himself got renewed his Driving License from the Authority after deposing fee.
39 PW-35 Shri Mukesh Kumar claimed that on 10.04.1997, he went to get issued Learner Driving License and had himself filled up the Forms and deposited the same at the Counter. Witness claimed that as he had a defect in his right leg, Authority Officials asked him to produce a Medical Certificate regarding his fitness. He claimed that he had gone to DDU Hospital three or four times but could not get the required Certificate. He claimed that he did not go to Transport Authority again to get his License. He further stated that he did not know any Pradeep Kumar.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that he did not remember if on 25.02.1999, Inspector A.K. Singh had recorded his statement. He CC No.30/2009 Page29 of 114 admitted that his particulars were rightly mentioned in the statement Ex.PW-35/1. He admitted that the said facts were recorded by Inspector on his disclosure. He denied the suggestion that one Shri Pradeep Kumar met him in Janakpuri Transport Authority and assured to get his Driving License made as he had good relations with officials of the Transport Authority. He further denied the suggestion that Pradeep Kumar had demanded Rs.500/- for getting made his Learner as well as Permanent License. He denied the suggestion of having given Rs.100/- to Pradeep Kumar out of which Rs.30/- were deposited at the concerned Counter. Witness claimed that he did not remember if Inspector A.K. Singh had shown him receipt of Rs.30/- (Ex.PW-35/2). Witness also identified the documents Ex.PW-35/3 to 7 and claimed that the same had been got prepared for issuance of Driving License. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely as he had been won over by the accused.
40 PW-36 Shri Rakesh Kumar claimed that in September, 1997, he alongwith his father had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting a Permanent DL issued. He claimed that he went to the Counter situated at Transport Authority and they did not meet anyone.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that at that time, he was aged 45 years and his father about 65/66 years. He claimed that his father died in 1999. He further denied the suggestion that he alone had gone to the Transport Authority for getting DL issued. He admitted that Inspector A.K. Singh had recorded his statement at Lodhi Road Office. He denied the suggestion of having met Agent Baldev Raj when he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that CC No.30/2009 Page30 of 114 Baldev Raj enquired from him purpose of his visit upon which he stated that he had gone for issuance of a Driving License. Witness claimed that he had only met a person whom he told the purpose of his visit. He denied the suggestion that the said person had stated that he would charge Rs.1000/- for issuance of a Driving License, out of which something would be paid to Staff as bribe by him to get the work done. Witness identified the documents Ex.PW-36/2 to 7 and claimed that he could not say if the document Ex.PW 36/2 to 6 were filled up or got made by accused Baldev Raj. He however admitted that the documents had been given for the purpose of issuance of a DL. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused or was deposing falsely due to the same.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he did not speak to anybody at the Authority and his father had spoken to someone. He claimed that his father had got prepared the documents while he himself had gone to fetch Scooter. He admitted that nobody demanded money from him. He admitted that he did not get any License made from Janakpuri Authority. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 41 PW-37 Shri Mangal Singh claimed that earlier he was a Truck Driver and in March, 1997, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for renewal of his License for HMV. He claimed that he went to Doctor sitting outside the Authority and after getting the Form forwarded, deposited Rs.50/- and relevant papers and then went back. He claimed that he did not meet any Agent nor any Agent contacted him.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, he admitted that his statement was recorded by CC No.30/2009 Page31 of 114 Inspector A.K. Singh on 25.09.1999. He denied having stated that he had got his Form filled up from an Agent. He identified the documents Ex.PW-37/2 to 4. he claimed that he could neither deny nor affirm that name of the person who filled up portions on Ex.PW-37/3 & 4 was Pradeep Kumar. He denied the suggestion that it was the said Shri Pradeep Kumar who told him that he would charge money and after paying some money to inside staff would get the work done. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he did not give name of any person as Pradeep Kumar before CBI Officer. He admitted that the documents shown to him were handed over by him to the person sitting across the Counter in the Transport Authority.
42 PW-38 Shri B.S. Rajput claimed that in the year 1999, he was directed by his Sr. Officers to attend CBI Office for some secret official duty. Witness identified his signature on Ex.PW-38/1 to 32 and claimed having signed the same as a witness in token of having witnessed accused Karam Singh giving his specimen signature / handwriting in his presence. He also identified his signature on Ex.PW-38/33 to 43A and claimed having signed the same as a witness in token of having witnessed accused Vinod Chopra giving his specimen signature / handwriting in his presence. He also identified his signature on Ex.PW-38/44 to 55 and claimed having signed the same as a witness in token of having witnessed accused Sunil Sharma giving his specimen signature / handwriting in his presence. He also identified his signature on Ex.PW-38/56 to 71 and claimed having signed the same as a witness in token of having witnessed accused Pradeep Kumar giving his specimen signature / handwriting CC No.30/2009 Page32 of 114 in his presence.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he did not know the accused whose specimen handwriting/ signature had been taken and did not have a talk with them regarding their giving the writing/ signature voluntarily. He claimed that he did not remember whether Identity Cards of the accuseds for verifying their identities had been seen by him. He claimed that he had gone to CBI Office in connection with a raid which had been conducted in Office of NDMC. He denied the suggestion that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers which were later on converted into documents. He denied the suggestion that accused did not give handwriting/signature in his presence or that he was deposing falsely.
43 PW-39 Shri Prem Yadav identified documents Ex.PW-39/1 & 2. He claimed that Mark Q-410 in Ex.PW-39/1 was not in his handwriting. He claimed that he did not get prepared his License through anyone and had spent Rs.55/- Rs.60/- for this purpose.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that he had been called by Inspector A.K. Singh who made enquiries from him in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he knew accused Baldev Raj or had contacted him during August/September, 1997 at Janakpuri Transport Authority for preparation of a driving license. He further denied the suggestion that accused Baldev Raj had filled up all the necessary forms and had taken Rs.250/- from him and gave him his learner license. He further denied the suggestion that Baldev Raj had told him that he had good relations with officials working inside the office of CC No.30/2009 Page33 of 114 Transport Authority and would obtain learner driving license for the witness by passing some money out of said amount. Witness admitted that he had got prepared his permanent license by his own efforts after two or three months. He claimed that he himself had given the application Ex. PW-39/1 in respect of intimation of loss / destruction of license and issuance of duplicate driving license and denied the suggestion that it was got prepared / deposited through accused Baldev Raj. He further denied the suggestion that accused Baldev Raj had assured him to get the missing file traced. He volunteered that infact he did not know accused Baldev Raj. He further denied the suggestion that since Baldev Raj could not get the file traced, he did not pay any money to Baldev Raj. He claimed that his statement Ex. PW-39/3 was neither recorded nor read over to him. He also denied the suggestion that he had been won over by Baldev Raj or was deposing falsely to save him.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted having himself got prepared his driving license. He claimed that he did not pay any money to anyone. 44 PW-40 Shri M.C. Joshi was the Handwriting Expert who proved his opinion dated 28.03.2000 as Ex.PW-40/3. He also placed on record reasons in respect of his opinion which was proved as Ex.PW-40/4 and gave details in respect of the questioned writings and the specimens received and examined by him.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accuseds, witness denied the suggestion that the science of handwriting comparison was not a perfect science. He claimed that if complete Safeguards are adopted and complete information is furnished alongwith sufficient data, it is a perfect science. Due to want of knowledge, he could not say if any of the specimen writing taken CC No.30/2009 Page34 of 114 and forwarded to GEQD had infact been taken in presence of any Magistrate or Authority. In this regard, he volunteered that in GEQD, they are not concerned in whose presence the specimens have been taken and are only concerned with the questioned writings and the specimen writings forwarded to them. He admitted that no admitted writing or signature had been received in Office of GEQD in this case. He further stated that as the specimens provided were suitable and sufficient for comparison purposes, he did not feel it necessary to ask for any admitted writing or signature to be supplied for being compared with the questioned documents. He denied the suggestion that it was so under pressure of CBI. He denied the suggestion that reasons for opinion had not been sent earlier so that no one else could read or find fault with the same. He denied the suggestion that his opinions and reasons were false and incorrect. 45 PW-41 Shri Abhay Tyagi identified his signatures on Specimen handwriting / signature of Baldev Raj on the sheets Ex.PW-41/1 (S-74 to S-114). He claimed that on 30.08.1999, he was present in CBI Office in connection with some other case as a witness. He claimed that the handwriting /signature were taken in his presence and Baldev Raj voluntarily gave the same.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that he was a Businessman. He claimed that he did not know any CBI Officer prior to 30.08.1999 nor had ever met Baldev Raj by that date. He claimed that he had never visited residence of Baldev Raj before 30.08.1999 and that they had never been produced before any Court where Baldev Raj expressed his willingness regarding taking of his specimen signature. He claimed that on his asking, he was informed by CBI Officer that specimen signature of Baldev Raj were being taken in connection with CC No.30/2009 Page35 of 114 a case of fraud regarding Registration Certificate. He denied he suggestion that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by CBI Officer or that he was deposing falsely.
46 PW-42 Shri Pulam Singh claimed that in 1998, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority Office for renewal of his Driving License. He claimed that firstly he himself submitted his application for renewal of the DL and the application was cancelled. He claimed that he was suggested that he should get the Form filled from persons standing outside near the tree and accordingly, he went there. He claimed that he could not tell name of that person nor could he identify him. He claimed that the person demanded Rs.150/- and he gave Rs. 50/-. The person was claimed to have stated that he would take the balance Rs.100/- after getting the work done from Staff sitting inside. Witness claimed that his signatures were also obtained on various papers by the said person. He identified the documents Ex.PW-42/1 to 5.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that he had been interrogated by CBI Inspector in this case. He denied the suggestion of having disclosed to the I.O. that the person whom he met in the Authority was Sardar Dharam Singh. He claimed that this name was suggested to him by the I.O. and he answered affirmatively. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying accused Dharam Singh having been won over by him.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he had not lodged any complaint with CBI or Police till December, 1998 nor till the date of his deposition in Court. He claimed that he did not remember name of the Doctor who CC No.30/2009 Page36 of 114 conducted his Medical Examination. Witness claimed that he was aware of the procedure of getting the license renewed. He claimed that he himself had never told the CBI Officer name of Dharam Singh as he himself neither knew him nor knew his name.
47 PW-43 Shri Yogender Singh Arora claimed that he alongwith his daughter had gone to Transport Authority Janakpuri where he deposited duly filled up Form alongwith some documents and fee at the Counter and obtained his License.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness denied having ever gone to Inspector A.K. Singh or regarding his statement having been recorded. He denied the suggestion that while he was standing in the queue at Authority Office, Baldev Raj approached him and demanded Rs.250/- for issuance of Driving License for his daughter claiming that he (Baldev Raj) had good relations with officials of the Authority. He further denied the suggestion of having handed over the Form to Baldev Raj, who then went inside the Office and brought back the License. He denied having paid Rs.250/- to Baldev Raj in lieu of preparation of the License. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused or was deposing falsely.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that he did not know Baldev Raj and had never met him. He claimed that he had never told name of Baldev Raj to any Officer of CBI.
48 PW-44 Shri Nirmal Singh claimed that in 1998, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for renewal of his DL and had got the documents filled up from one Shri Dharam Singh. Witness claimed that he could not identify the said Dharam Singh. He CC No.30/2009 Page37 of 114 identified his documents Ex.PW-44/1 to 5. Witness claimed that Dharm Singh had demanded Rs.500/- from him for renewal of the DL from Officials of Transport Authority but he (witness) had claimed that money would be given after DL is handed over after renewal.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that he had been interrogated by CBI Inspector and his statement recorded. Witness denied the suggestion that Dharam Singh had told him that he (Dharam Singh) had relations with officials of Transport Authority and would get his work done after paying them money. Witness admitted that Dharam Singh used to work as Agent at Janakpuri Transport Authority during the relevant time. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying accused Dharam Singh present in the Court or had been won over by the accused.
49 PW-45 Shri Ajeet Singh claimed that he had not gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting duplicate Driving License nor for any other work. He claimed that he did not have a Driving License till date. When the documents (D-25 page Nos. 34 to 37) were shown to the witness, he claimed that the same did not belong to him. He further claimed that he had never worked as a Driver. 50 PW-46 Shri Surender Singh claimed that on 02.02.1998, on direction of his Sr. Officer, he alongwith three other officials of MCD had gone to CBI Office from where they were taken to Janakpuri Transport Office and were asked to watch and over-hear conversation between agents working outside the Office and general public. Witness claimed that he heard conversation between the said Agents and public persons who had come for getting their Driving Licenses etc. He claimed that the Agents were telling public persons that they CC No.30/2009 Page38 of 114 would get their Driving Licenses and other related documents issued with the help of inside officials of Transport Authority by paying money to them and for the said purpose, were taking payments from public persons. He claimed that he and the other independent witnesses informed the CBI Officers about the said talks. The Agents were claimed to have been arrested and documents seized from them. He claimed that as huge crowd had gathered, CBI Officers took all of them to CBI Office where a Memo regarding the proceedings was prepared. Witness identified his signature on the Memo Ex.PW-2/A and claimed that names of the arrested Agents were Mukesh Vij, Karamjeet Singh, Dharam Singh, Rajender Singh, Satinder Pal, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma & Pradeep Kumar.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that he himself nor any other independent witness in his presence had asked any Agent or any other person for getting his work done on payment of money. He claimed that he had not been given any Camera for taking photographs but a Tape Recorder was given to him by CBI Officers and he had used it and thereafter had handed over the same to CBI Officers on the same day. He admitted that the said Tape Recorder had neither been shown to him nor played in Court. He admitted that he himself did not talk to any of the aforesaid persons individually or collectively. He further claimed that he had not seen any kind of label displayed by the said persons to show that they were working as Agents nor did he go inside the Transport Authority Office to enquire about their identities. He further claimed that he did not know if there were other Offices situated in the said building. He claimed that he did not see number of Storeys in the building and could neither affirm nor deny that the said building was five / six storeyed. He could also CC No.30/2009 Page39 of 114 neither affirm nor deny that there were Offices of different Departments and about hundred Lawyers on various Floors of the said building. He could neither affirm nor deny that various shops of Coffee, Cold Drink, Eatables and other Items were situated in the said Building. Witness further stated that he recalled there being seats of Lawyers and various Officers in the building. He admitted that at that time number of public persons were coming and going and were also present in the building. He claimed that he had no knowledge if some authorized Stamp Vendors were also sitting in the Building. He claimed that he did not know if CBI Officer had joined any Shopkeeper or any person from the Offices as a witness. He further claimed that it was possible that during the period of 1 - 2 hours, thousand persons might have visited the Compound for getting their work done in different Offices. He claimed that he could not identify any one of those persons and did not hear their talks. He further claimed that in his presence, CBI Officers did not do any writing work either inside the building or outside it. He claimed that his signatures were not obtained on any paper by CBI Officers at that time and were obtained after coming back to CBI Office. He further claimed that he had gone to the spot in CBI Vehicle i.e. a Bus and after finishing his observation went and sat in the said Bus at about 12:00 Noon / 12:30 P.M. He admitted that during his stay in the Transport Authority Complex and also by the time they reached back at CBI Office, he did not come to know names of the arrested persons. He claimed that as 14 years had lapsed, he could not identify the arrested persons. He also did not remember the amount or anything else which had been recovered from them. He claimed that he had no knowledge as to which public person gave how much money to a particular person and the purpose thereof. He denied the suggestion that CBI Officers had CC No.30/2009 Page40 of 114 obtained his signatures on blank papers in CBI Office or that he did not observe any person in the Compound of Transport Authority or that he was deposing falsely. He claimed that he did not know the accused persons personally nor could he identify them. 51 PW-47 Shri Kamal Dev claimed that in 1997, he had purchased an Ambassador Car and had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting it registered in his name and for issuance of No Objection Certificate for sending the Car to his native place at New Delhi. He claimed that while he was standing in the queue, two Dalals viz. Dharam Singh and Karam Singh met him and told that they would get the NOC issued and get prepared necessary papers from Officials of the Transport Authority in case he (witness) paid Rs.2000/- to them. Witness claimed that he paid Rs.2000/- alongwith relevant papers / documents to them and both the Agents told him to come after a week. Witness claimed that when he went back to the Authority and met Dharam Singh and Karam Singh, they told him that his File was missing and further demanded sum of Rs.1000/- which was claimed to be required to be given to Officials of the Transport Authority. He claimed that accordingly, he gave Rs.1000/- more to the said Agent who asked him to come again after one week. Witness claimed that he went to them many a times but they did not get his work done he claimed that being harassed by them, he asked them to return back his documents and money, but they only returned his papers and not the money. He identified the documents Ex.PW-47/1 as being the same which were got signed from him by the Agent. He also identified copy of Insurance Policy Ex.PW-47/2.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that he had not met any CBI Officer when he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority in 1997.
CC No.30/2009 Page41 of 114 He claimed that he could not identify Dharam Singh or Karam Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at instance of CBI or that no person including Dharam Singh and Karam Singh had contacted him in Transport Authority for getting his work done. He also denied the suggestion that he had not paid any money to any Dharam Singh and Karam Singh for getting his work done. 52 PW-48 Shri R.C. Verma who had retired as MLO claimed that during 1998-99, individuals desiring to get DL, RC, etc. issued were required to appear in person before Officials of the Transport Authority and that no other private person were authorized to appear on their behalf as Agents for getting the job done. He claimed that persons known as 'Dalals' were working illegally and unauthorizedly outside/inside premises of Transport Authority.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that a person who wants to get a DL issued in his name has to appear before the concerned Officer / Inspector who takes the Driving test after the said person has deposited the complete required documents alongwith necessary Fee. He admitted that no other person can take the Driving Test except for the person concerned. He further admitted that an illiterate person can get his Form filled up from another person and put his signature / thumb impression thereon. He further admitted that only the applicant is allowed to enter Office of the Transport Authority and that any person including the applicant can go inside the Office for collecting Form and for making any query. He denied the suggestion that a relative/ friend of the applicant can accompany and enter Office of the Authority. Witness stated that the accompanying person can only go upto the enquiry Office. He further admitted that only employees of the Transport Authority are permitted to work inside its CC No.30/2009 Page42 of 114 Office and that no agent is allowed to work there. He denied the suggestion that the procedure stated by him was imaginary. 53 PW -49 Mohd. Iqbal. claimed that in December, 1997, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his DL prepared when two / three persons met him. He claimed that out of them a person Dharam Singh or Karam Singh met him and offered help for getting DL prepared. Witness claimed that the said person had since expired and was not present in Court. It was claimed that the said person told the witness that an expense of Rs.500/- was required to be paid for getting the License prepared and that initially, a Learner's Driving License and subsequently a regular Driving License would be given. Witness claimed having paid Rs.500/- to the said person. He identified the documents Ex.PW-49/1, 2 & 3. He claimed that Ex.PW-49/3 was filled up by Karam Singh who got his DL prepared and gave it to him.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that CBI Inspector had recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that he had met Dharam Singh and Karam Singh both Agents working there. He volunteered that he had met only one person. He further denied the suggestion of having met Dharam Singh and Karam Singh when he went to collect his Learner Driving License or the regular Driving License and claimed that he had met only one person. He admitted having given Rs.300/- to Karam Singh for his regular Driving License and that for the said work, he did not go to any Official of the Authority and the work was got done by Karam Singh on his own or through his contacts. Witness admitted that two persons i.e. Karam Singh and Dharam Singh were famous in Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting the Department CC No.30/2009 Page43 of 114 related work done. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to the effect that he had only met Karam Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save accused Dharam Singh having been won over by the accused.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that whenever he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority, he had met only one person who was not present in Court. He further admitted that document Ex.PW-49/3 was not filled up by any person in his presence. He admitted that he had not made any complaint against Karam Singh or any other person to Police or CBI.
54 PW-50 Shri Gurmeet Singh claimed having purchased a Maruti Van in 1998 from one Rana Jodhpal Singh. He claimed that he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting the said Vehicle transferred in his name and met one Karam Singh there. Witness claimed that on asking of Karam Singh, he disclosed purpose of his visit whereupon Karam Singh demanded Rs.600/- from him for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. Witness claimed having handed over his documents to Karam Singh claiming that he would pay the sum of Rs.600/- after completion of work. Witness claimed that after a few days, he again met Karam Singh who upon his asking about the work claimed that the documents had been lost by him (Karam Singh). Witness claimed that he did not pay any money to Karam Singh. He identified the documents as Ex.PW-50/1 and also identified his signature.
55 PW-51 Shri Vijay Aggarwal claimed having purchased TATA Sumo Vehicle DL-4CF-1773 in 1997 and that the Vehicle was stolen in the same year. He claimed having lodged a claim with National Insurance Company Ltd. but officials of the Company CC No.30/2009 Page44 of 114 directed him to get RC transferred in name of the Insurance Company. Witness claimed that he went to the Transport Authority where he met various Agents for getting the work done and had also bargained with them in that regard. He further claimed that ultimately one Agent who was sitting on a Two Wheeler Scooter agreed to get the work done subject to payment of Rs.1000/- to him claiming that it would include whatever payment that had to be made to the inside staff. Witness claimed that he did not remember name or sur name of that person and also could not identify him. He claimed having paid Rs.500/- to the said person and the balance had to be paid after the work was done. The person was claimed to have obtained his signature on the relevant blank papers and had also taken his RC with direction to come after a week. Witness claimed that when he went back to the Authority again, the said person could not be traced. He claimed that consequently he applied for issuance of a duplicate RC whereafter got the same transferred in name of the Insurance Company.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness identified the documents Ex.PW-51/1. He admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI Officer. He denied the suggestion of having told the CBI Officer that name of the Agent was J.S. Sethi. He volunteered that he had been told by CBI Officers that the documents referred in his examination-in-chief had been recovered from J.S. Sethi on which he stated that the same might have been recovered from him. Witness admitted that when he went to collect his RC, he came to know that the said Agent had been arrested by CBI. He claimed that he could not identify the Agent due to lapse of time but denied the suggestion that he was intentionally CC No.30/2009 Page45 of 114 not telling the name of the Agent J.S. Sethi. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused.
56 PW-52 Shri Purshottam Raturi claimed having purchased a Scooter No. DL -9S -3411 in 1997 / 1998. He claimed having sent his employee Ishwar Pal to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting RC transferred in his name. He claimed having handed over the documents Ex.PW-52/1 to Ishwar Pal. As per the witness, Ishwar Pal had not returned back the documents to him claiming that he had deposited the same in Janakpuri Transport Authority. 57 PW-53 Shri Madan Lal claimed that he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority where he handed over the documents Ex.PW-53/1 to an Agent for renewal of DL. He claimed that he did not remember name of the said Agent. The Agent was claimed to have demanded Rs.300/- - Rs.400/- for renewal of the License which included the amount to be paid to staff of Janakpuri Transport Authority. He claimed that he was supposed to pay the said amount after renewal of the License. As per the witness, when he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority after 4 -5 days, he came to know that the said Agent had been taken away by the CBI Officials. He claimed that his application form was filled up by the Agent himself. He claimed that he was called to CBI Office where the documents Ex.PW-53/1 were shown to him and he, after identifying the documents, told relevant facts to CBI Officer.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that his statement had also been recorded in CBI Office at the time when documents were shown to him. He claimed that he did not remember having then told the CBI Officers that he had handed over documents Ex.PW-53/1 to one Shri CC No.30/2009 Page46 of 114 Sunil Sharma. He admitted that he did remember name of the Agent when his statement was recorded by the Officer. He admitted having told the name of the Agent as Sunil Sharma. He also admitted that the said Sunil Sharma had demanded Rs.300/- from him for getting his work done from Janakpuri Transport Authority and that he had given Rs.100/- as advance to the Agent while the balance Rs.200/- was to be paid after completion of job.
58 PW-54 Shri Rajiv Kumar identified documents related to his application for learner's driving license as Ex.PW-54/1 and claimed that his application form was filled up in Chopra Motor Training School. He claimed that he wanted to get a commercial driving license which could not be obtained directly from the Authority and one had necessarily to go to a Driving School for getting it issued. He claimed that for obtaining a commercial driving license, one is supposed to make payment to the Driving School people in lieu of which they teach driving, get the driving license made and the charges include payment to be made to staff of the Authority. He claimed that when he was interrogated by CBI officers he had told true facts to them as his memory was fresh at that time.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that he had gone to a Driving School situated near Raj Cinema for getting a commercial driving license issued, but claimed that he did not remember if its name was Chopra Motor Driving School. He admitted that one person met him there and informed that he would have to pay Rs.800/- for learning driving and for issuance of commercial driving license and that the said amount would also include charges to be paid to staff of the Transport Department. Witness claimed that he did not remember if name of the CC No.30/2009 Page47 of 114 said person was Sunil Sharma or if he had paid Rs.300/- as advance to Sunil. Witness admitted that he had learnt that the person to whom he had give the documents and paid advance was arrested by CBI. He admitted that when he again went to Chopra Motor Training School, he met the said person who gave back sum of Rs.300/- to him. He reiterated that he did not remember if name of the said person was Sunil Sharma and claimed that he could not identify the said person and did not know if the said person was present in court or not. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not telling name of the Agent Sunil Sharma or had been won over by him. 59 PW-55 Gurbir Singh claimed that in December, 1997 or 1998 he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his DL renewed. He claimed that he observed long queues during his two visits there. He claimed that he also learnt that people coming there used to collude with inside staff through agents sitting outside. Witness claimed that he had gone for getting his DL renewed and contacted an agent sitting outside. Witness claimed that he did not remember his name nor could he identify said person. He further stated that the said person had told him that he (witness) would have to pay fixed charges in addition to Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- towards service charge. Witness claimed that the said agent probably had contacts with the staff inside the Transport Authority. He could not recall if the said agent was a Sikh gentleman or a clean shaven person. Witness claimed having handed over his license as well as signed application for renewal of DL. As per the witness, he had visited the Authority 2 - 3 times but learnt that on account of raid agents were not coming. He claimed that he did not get his license back and infact had been shown his expired driving license in CBI office.
CC No.30/2009 Page48 of 114 After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that his statement was recorded in CBI office. To a specific question, witness claimed that it was possible that name of the agent to whom he had handed over his driving license was Dharam Singh. Witness admitted that at the time of recording of his statement by CBI Inspector he had stated name of the agent as being Dharam Singh as the name was fresh in his mind at that time. He denied the suggestion that the said Dharam Singh was present in Court or that he was intentionally not identifying him.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that he did not make any report against any person with regard to renewal of his DL. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded in CBI office. 60 PW-56 Tara Chand claimed that he had got application for renewal of DL filled up from a person outside the gate of Transport Authority and identified his documents as Ex. PW-56/1.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness denied the suggestion that the person who filled up his form was also filling the forms of other persons. Witness claimed that the said person was filling up his own form and on request he filled up form of the witness also. He claimed that he was interrogated by CBI. He further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Baldev Raj. He denied the suggestion that Baldev Raj told him that he (Baldev Raj) would get his DL renewed from Janakpuri Transport Authority as he had connections with staff there and for it he would take Rs.200/- from the witness. He denied the suggestion that he paid Rs.150/- to Baldev Raj with promise to CC No.30/2009 Page49 of 114 pay the balance amount after completion of job. He admitted that he did not give any driving test. He denied the suggestion that Baldev Raj had told him that he need not give any test as he (Baldev Raj) would get issued the DL after depositing his application form in the Department. Witness denied the suggestion that the application form Ex. PW-56/1 was filled up by Baldev Raj. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons or was deposing falsely.
61 PW-57 Ram Dhan claimed that he was earlier working as a Driver and had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his DL renewed but as he was feeling pain in his eyes, he did not fill up any application form.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness produced his expired driving license which had been issued on 9.6.1986. He claimed that he did not know as to how the application form Ex. PW-57/1 which contained his particulars had been filled up. Witness admitted having gone to CBI office where his statement was recorded. He denied the suggestion that he knew Baldev Raj and claimed that he could not identify him. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying him. He further denied the suggestion that Baldev Raj had demanded Rs.750/- from him for getting the DL renewed by giving some amount to staff of Transport Authority or that he need not give any driving test and for that he gave Rs.50/- to Baldev Raj. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons and therefore was deposing falsely.
62 PW-58 Gagan Kumar claimed that he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his Learner Driving License, where he CC No.30/2009 Page50 of 114 met one Karamjeet Singh. Witness claimed that he did not remember the amount demanded by Karamjeet for the said work. He claimed that Karamjeet got some documents signed from him. Witness identified the documents Ex.PW-58/1 & 2.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that documents Ex.PW-58/1 & 2 had been shown to him in CBI Office when he was interrogated and his statement recorded. He claimed that he did not remember if the said Karamjeet had demanded Rs.600/- from him for getting the DL prepared. He also did not remember if on his request Karamjeet had agreed to receive Rs.500/-. He claimed that he did not remember if Karamjeet had also told him that he had relations with the Staff of the Transport Department. Witness claimed that he recalled that the said Karamjeet had initially demanded Rs.600/- from him and later on agreed to receive Rs.500/- which was paid to him. He claimed that Karamjeet had assured him that the said amount of Rs.500/- included Govt. Fee and also his Fee but he did not know if the said amount included the amount to be paid to staff of Transport Authority. Witness admitted that he himself had only deposited the Government Fee and that rest of the work related to issuance of DL was got done by Karamjeet. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused persons and was deposing falsely.
63 PW-59 Shri Francis K. Manual claimed that around 1999, he was posted as Assistant Director (SECTT) and had Office at Rajpura Road Transport Office, Delhi. Witness claimed that the guidelines / rules and Office orders regarding issuance of Learner License, Permanent License, Duplicate License and RC used to be issued by the Secretariat Branch while he used to prepare Circulars CC No.30/2009 Page51 of 114 and instructions to be issued and circulated to various RTOs. He claimed that having left the said Department around 2001, he might not be able to tell complete details regarding rules & regulations qua various Licenses and RCs. Witness thereafter gave details regarding issuance of Learner License, Private DL, Duplicate DL and RC. He further claimed that no Agent or any unauthorized person is permitted to do any sort of work in Office of Transport Authority nor can they interfere in any work relating to the Authority.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that authorized Driving Schools were authorized to impart training to Holders of LL for private as well as Commercial Vehicles. He claimed that as he did not remember, he could not say if around 1999, Dhaliwal Motor Driving School & Chopra Driving School, Best Driving School or Sehgal Driving School were registered with the Govt. and authorized to impart Driving training for commercial vehicles.
64 PW -60 Shri Chander Bhan claimed that he was last posted as MLO Zonal Office Wazirpur and was posted as MLO STA (West Zone) in 1998. Witness identified his signatures on Memo Ex.PW-60/A and the Annexures Ex.PW-60/A-1 & A-2. He claimed that lists of original Forms handed over by him to CBI on 03.02.1998 had been so handed over from the Office record.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he did not remember name of the concerned Dealing Assistant who was in physical possession of records handed over by him to CBI. He admitted that the Forms had been deposited by people who had approached the Office for issuance of Learner License/ Permanent/ Renewal / Duplicate Driving License.
CC No.30/2009 Page52 of 114
65 PW-61 Shri S.R. Singhal claimed that at the relevant time
he was posted as MLO, South-West Zone, STA, Janakpuri. He further claimed having handed over some original form in respect of permanent licenses to CBI officials. The same were claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-61/A and list thereof was proved as Ex. PW-61/A1. Same were claimed to have been handed over from the office record.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that he did not remember name of the Dealing Assistant who was in physical possession of the records handed over by him to CBI. He admitted that the form handed over had been deposited by people who had approached the office for issuance of permanent driving licenses.
66 PW-62 Shri Krishan Lal identified his signatures at point Mark-X on the sheets (Part of D-22) containing markings S-115 to S-168. He claimed that due to lapse of time he could not say in what regard the pages had been signed by him. When the documents were again shown to the witness, he reiterated that he could not say in what regard he had signed those pages.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that some person had written S-115 to S-168 in his presence and he himself signed the 54 pages at Points-X in witnessed thereof. He admitted that those pages had been written by one Jagpal Singh Sethi. (The relevant documents then were exhibited as Ex. PW-62/A (1 - 54).
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed having gone to office of CBI on direction received from Vigilance Department of his office. He claimed that he CC No.30/2009 Page53 of 114 was not sure but perhaps had joined investigation of 10 - 15 cases investigated by CBI. Witness claimed that he could not identify or recognize the said Jagpal Singh Sethi. He denied the suggestion that his signatures had been obtained on many blank papers by CBI which were subsequently converted into D-22. He denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness for CBI.
67 PW-63 Vijay Pal Singh claimed having visited RTO Office, Janak Puri in January, 1998 to get prepared a learner license. He claimed that he took a form from the counter but as he did not know how to fill it up he came outside where he got it filled from some person. Witness claimed that he then went to the Counter for submitting the Form where the person concerned asked for photocopy of his Election ID Card.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that he could not say whether or not his statement was recorded by CBI officer. He identified his Form as Ex. PW-63/A and admitted that his photograph was not affixed thereupon. He denied the suggestion that after getting his Form filled, he left the same with the person from whom he had got it filled. Witness claimed that infact he had taken his form to the Counter but did not remember where he left it thereafter. He claimed that he could not say if he had got his form filled from one Pardeep Kumar and could not identify the said person. When the witness was asked to take a look at all the accused persons, witness claimed that he could not say if that person was present in Court. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused from whom he got his form filled. He further denied the suggestion that the said person had asked for Rs.300/- for getting the learner license prepared. While CC No.30/2009 Page54 of 114 admitting that he was interrogated by CBI officer in this case, witness claimed that his statement was not recorded. He claimed that he had not mentioned about his having met one Pardeep Kumar who demanded Rs.300/- being well acquainted with officers of RTO, Janakpuri or that he himself had paid Rs.100/- to the said Pardeep. Attention of witness was drawn to statement Mark P-63/X where the facts were mentioned. He admitted that the person who filled his form was not known to him earlier. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused having been won over.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he had not lodged any complaint with CBI and that no raid was conducted in his presence and none was arrested. He admitted that no document was recovered or seized by CBI officers from any accused in his presence.
68 PW-64 Smt. Neena Makhija claimed that she had learnt driving from Dhaliwal Motor Driving College, Rohini. She claimed that she was unable to identify its proprietor from amongst the accused persons present in Court. She claimed that she only knew the Proprietor as Mr. Dhaliwal. She further claimed that she had paid Rs. 800/- for learning car driving and for preparation of her learner's driving license (LDL) and that Mr. Dhaliwal had assured that he would teach her driving and also get prepared her LDL. She claimed that he had not disclosed any other details to her regarding preparation of LDL. She further claimed that Mr. Dhaliwal took her to Transport Authority and after duly filling in the forms in respect of LDL, got it prepared. She identified the documents in that regard as Ex. PW-64/A & A1. She further claimed that after learning driving, she had requested Mr. Dhaliwal to get prepared her permanent driving license and after herself filling in the form, handed it over to Mr. CC No.30/2009 Page55 of 114 Dhaliwal alongwith her LDL and copy of ration card.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness claimed that she had not gone to office of CBI in connection with this case and also did not remember whether or not she had been examined by CBI Officer or if her statement was also recorded. She claimed that as she was not aware, she could not say if full name of Mr. Dhaliwal was H.S. Dhaliwal. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not admitting the said fact and not identifying the accused. She further denied the suggestion of being told by Dhaliwal that he would bear all the expenses regarding payments to officials of Transport Department out of sum of Rs.800/- given to him by her. She claimed that she had not so stated in her statement to CBI officer. Her attention was drawn to statement Mark P-64/X portion Y - Y1 where it was so recorded. She claimed that she did not remember if her LDL was handed over by Dhaliwal at her residence or if she had gone to Transport Authority to collect the same. She also did not remember if she had gone to Transport Authority for applying for the same. She claimed that she had not gone to Transport Authority after depositing her application for LDL and that she had appeared in oral test before LDL was issued and had also given driving test before permanent license was issued. She claimed that she had not paid any expenses at the Transport Authority at the time of preparation of LDL as the same were to be incurred by Dhaliwal out of Rs.800/- given by her. She claimed that she did not remember having disclosed name of Dhaliwal as H.S. Dhaliwal to the IO. Her attention was drawn to her statement Mark P-64/X where it was so recorded. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save H.S. Dhaliwal. When the accused H.S. CC No.30/2009 Page56 of 114 Dhaliwal was specifically pointed out to the witness, witness claimed that most probably he was Mr.Dhaliwal, proprietor of Dhaliwal Motor Driving College, but further submitted that some other person used to sit in the office with whom she had talks about LDL. She denied the suggestion that she did not have any talk with any other person or had talk with H.S. Dhaliwal.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that fee for preparation of LDL is taken by Government. She claimed that fee for her LDL and permanent license were included in Rs.800/- paid by her. She could not tell name of the person with whom she had talks regarding her LDL and license. She could not tell name of the person who used to come to teach her driving. She claimed that she did not learn driving on her personal car and had never got put any petrol in the car on which she learnt driving. She claimed that she had not identified any culprit before CBI officers.
Ld. PP for CBI sought permission to put leading questions to the witness by way of cross examination in respect of LDL and permanent license. During course of such cross examination witness claimed that she could not say if she started learning driving during October - November 1997. She admitted that she got prepared LDL only when she started to learn car driving. She further admitted having given Rs.800/- for learning driving and for preparation of LDL. She further admitted that she had not paid any money when she approached the college for a permanent license and had only handed over her form and documents. She denied the suggestion that there was no talk regarding payment of money for permanent license at that time or that money was to be paid after license was delivered. She claimed that she did not remember having mentioned to the CBI CC No.30/2009 Page57 of 114 officer that she had paid Rs.800/- for learning car driving and preparing learner's driving license. Her attention was drawn to her statement Mark P-64/X where it was so recorded. She denied the suggestion that expenses qua the permanent license were not included in Rs.800/-. Witness claimed that she had subsequently received her permanent DL.
69 PW-65 Ishwar Pal claimed that about 10-12 years back his Boss Shri Purshottam handed over to him some documents related to his scooter and had sent him to RTO, Janakpuri for transfer of name in the RC. Witness identified the said documents as Ex. PW-52/1. He claimed that he stood in the line for change of name when he was informed by the person concerned that there was no Insurance document with him. He claimed that accordingly he went outside the RTO for getting prepared the insurance and met the person who did insurance of vehicles. He claimed that as he did not have any money with him, the said person asked him to come the next day. He further claimed that when he again went to RTO, Janakpuri with money after 2 - 3 days, he did not meet the said person there. He also did not remember his name and claimed that on inquiry he came to know that the said person had gone on leave.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination, witness admitted that he was interrogated by CBI officer and his statement recorded. He admitted having gone to RTO, Janakpuri in January, 1998. He denied the suggestion that after being turned away from the window at RTO, he met a tout Sunil Sharma sitting in RTO, Janakpuri Office. Witness claimed that he had never stated these facts in his statement to CBI officer. His attention was drawn to statement Ex. PW-65/A where it was so recorded. He CC No.30/2009 Page58 of 114 further denied the suggestion that the person to whom he had handed over the documents was sitting in office of RTO and talking to employees or that he handed over documents to said person thinking that he could get the work done. He claimed that he did not mention in his statement to CBI officer that the person who met him claimed that he could get RC transferred in the name of Purshottam or that he had contacts with employees of RTO and could get work done by paying them money. He denied the suggestion that the said person had asked for Rs.100/- from him or that he himself promised to give money after the work was done. He claimed that he did not remember name of the said person. He could not say if he had handed over the same to Sunil Sharma for change of name in RC. Witness volunteered that infact he had handed over documents only for purpose of insurance of the scooter to the person who was to get it insured. He claimed that those documents were never received back by him. He specifically denied the suggestion that he had handed over the documents to Sunil Sharma for change of name in the RC or was intentionally not disclosing or admitting this fact having been won over by accused. He further claimed that the person to whom he had handed over the documents was not present in Court. When accused Sunil Sharma was specifically pointed out to the witness, he failed to identify him as being the person to whom documents were handed over by him.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he had not lodged any complaint / report with CBI and that none of the accused had been shown to him by CBI and he had not identified anyone before CBI.
70 PW-66 Rakesh Kumar Arora claimed that in 1997 he used CC No.30/2009 Page59 of 114
to put up stalls on Tehbazari in weekly markets. He claimed that in November - December 1997 he had gone to RTO Office, Janakpuri for getting prepared LDL and as he did not know how to fill up the form, he had taken one of his friends alongwith. Witness claimed that his said friend knew someone in RTO office and after getting the form filled he (Witness) deposited it in the office. He further claimed that the person who filled the form had some talk with his friend and he (witness) paid Rs.1000/- in that regard which included expenses for LDL, permanent driving license and all the fees payable besides some other expenses. Witness identified his documents Ex. PW-66/A & B. He claimed that he could not tell name of the person who had filled the form but he was one Mr. Sehgal. Witness identified the accused Satish Sehgal as being the said person.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that he had not lodged any report with police against any person in respect of LDL and had not gone to CBI office for making complaint regarding Rs.1000/- having been taken from him. He claimed that he had never disclosed name or address of his friend to CBI officer. He could not even tell his name. Witness claimed that now he has been driving school van since 2001 and had driven TSR from 1995 to 2000. He admitted that he did not have any DL in 1995-96 and had learnt driving TSR from his friends. He denied the suggestion that he had not given Rs.1000/- to anyone much less accused Satish Sehgal for getting prepared LDL. He further denied the suggestion that he had got prepared his LDL on his own or had not taken assistance of Satish Sehgal or anyone else. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
71 PW-67 Raj Kumar claimed that in 1999 he used to work with one R.C. Khanna who was in business of sale and purchase of CC No.30/2009 Page60 of 114 vehicles. He claimed that he did not remember anything in respect of Ambassador Car No. DL-9C-8036 or as to from whom it had been purchased or to whom it was sold. When the file D-28 was shown to the witness he identified his signatures on some of the pages in it. He claimed that some of the written portions therein which were already Q-519,520,521,522,523 & 524 were not in his handwriting.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused he claimed that he could not say who is / were author/s of the written portions Q-519,520,521,522,523 & 524. 72 PW-68 Inspector Anil Kumar Singh claimed investigation of the case was marked to him after registration of FIR. He proved the FIR Ex.PW-68/1 and identified signature of the S.P. thereupon. He claimed that FIR was registered on basis of complaint Ex.PW-68/2 made by Inspector P.K. Sharma. It was further stated that Offices of MLO (West & South-West) were situated in the same Complex and some documents had been seized on his direction from there. He claimed that raids had also been conducted at residences of J.S. Sethi and H.S. Dhaliwal on his instructions. He further claimed that some documents had been seized by him and he had also examined witnesses and taken specimen handwritings of accused persons which had been subsequently sent for Forensic Analysis. Witness claimed having seized documents from Harpreet Singh vide Memo Ex.PW-19/1 and from Shanker Lal vide Memo Ex.PW-68/3. He claimed having deputed Inspector D.K. Singh and Inspector S.N. Subramaniam for conducting search of residential premises of H.S. Dhaliwal and J.S. Sethi respectively. He further claimed that the Surprise Check Memo Ex.PW-2/A had also been put up before him by Inspector P.K. Sharma alongwith the Receipt Memos and the documents mentioned therein. Witness claimed having taken CC No.30/2009 Page61 of 114 specimen writings of accused Karam Singh, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma, Pradeep, Baldev Raj, J.S. Sethi, H.S. Dhaliwal vide documents Ex.PW-38/43A, 33 to 43, 44, 56, Ex.PW-41/1, Ex.PW-62/A & Ex.PW-68/5. The questioned documents (Q-1 to Q-609) alongwith Sheets of Specimen writing/signatures were claimed to have been sent for examination to GEQD vide letter Ex.PW-68/6. Witness claimed that on completion of his investigation, it transpired that the accused persons operated as Touts/Middlemen in the STA where Learner Licenses, Licenses, RC, etc. were dealt with in respect of Palam and Janakpuri Area and that the accused persons had duped many persons with false promises of getting their work done in Office of MLO / STA claiming that they had close contacts & personal links with Officials in the said Office and to get work done from other Officials by making payments to them out of money handed over to them by public persons. It was claimed that copies of documents relating to public persons who had approached accused persons for their License, RC, etc. had been recovered from accused persons and also during course of search of residential premises of H.S. Dhaliwal and J.S. Sethi. He claimed that it further transpired that Touts used to conspire together and make payment to H.S. Dhaliwal / J.S. Sethi / Mukesh Vij to get the work done.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness admitted that there was a multi storey market "District Center" in front of Office of STA Janakpuri. He claimed that he had never seen any of the accused persons talking to any Official of STA. Witness admitted that he had never recorded statement of any official of STA / MLO Office to the effect that any of the accused had approached him for getting his work done in return for some remuneration. He claimed that he himself had never seen CC No.30/2009 Page62 of 114 any accused handing over money to H.S. Dhaliwal. He admitted that no Local Police Official was called upon to join the proceedings nor statement of any Local Police Official recorded. He denied the suggestion that wrong opinion had been formed by him to charge sheet the accused persons or that it was done on insufficient evidence. He denied the suggestion that he had not correctly recorded statements of witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. or that no incriminating document had been recovered or seized in this case. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated at instance of his Sr. Officers.
73 PW-69 Dy. S.P. Shri Surender Malik claimed that on 02.02.1998, he was posted as Inspector with CBI, ACB, New Delhi and was a member of Surprise Check Team under Inspector P.K. Sharma for conducting surprise check in Offices of Transport Authority of West and South-West Zone in Janakpuri. Four independent witnesses viz. Shri Surender, Shri Ashok, Shri Dharamvir and Sardar Singh were claimed to have been arranged from Vigilance Department, MCD to join the Check Team. The Check Team reportedly reached Transport Authority, Janakpuri at 10:30 A.M. and its members took position to observe as to what was happening. He claimed that it had been observed that Agents were taking money from pubic persons for the purposes of getting prepared their Licenses & RCs of Vehicles. He claimed that they were seen collecting Rs.300 to Rs.800/- from public persons in that regard saying that they would get the License prepared within a short time by making payment to officer concerned. He further stated that Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Satender, Rajinder, Sunil, Vinod and Pardeep were apprehended after observing their conduct. He claimed that at the time of apprehension of the said Agents, one CC No.30/2009 Page63 of 114 Shankar Lal was found talking to Satender while Harjeet Singh was found making enquiry about Baldev claiming that he had handed over his license to Baldev. He further stated that except for Satender and Rajinder, the other apprehended agents were found in possession of some documents related to preparation of license, RC and change of ownership etc., which were then seized from them. He further claimed that public persons gathered at the spot and were requested to join the proceedings but none agreed. He further stated that due to large crowd which had collected, the check team felt unsafe to conduct further proceedings at the spot and hence returned back to CBI office alongwith the apprehended agents and the seized documents. The team reportedly returned back to office at 2.45 PM. Documents from Karamjit, Dharam Singh, Pardeep Kumar and Sushil Kumar were claimed to have been seized vide Memos Ex. PW-69/1,2 & 3. The proceedings conducted were claimed to have been reduced into writing vide Surprise Check Memo Ex. PW-2/A. During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accuseds, witness claimed that no FIR had been registered by the time CBI team left its office for Janakpuri. He admitted that although office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri is also situated in the same premises, no official from there was called upon to join the proceedings. He further admitted that none of the independent witnesses with the team had been deputed to act as a decoy witness to approach the Agents and talk to them regarding preparation of license / RC or about their tie-up with officials of Transport Authority. He was not aware as to whether or not any complaint had been received in office of CBI from any public person regarding presence of touts in the Authority who claimed to get the work done on payment of money. He admitted that no public person had approached the CBI CC No.30/2009 Page64 of 114 team at the spot with complaint in that regard. He denied the suggestion that they took the apprehended persons to CBI office as the public which collected at the spot claimed that accused had been wrongly apprehended. He admitted that he had not seen any of the apprehended persons talking to any employee of the Transport Authority. He denied the suggestion that no surprise check had been conducted by CBI team. He admitted that nothing had been recovered or seized in his presence on pointing out of the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that the receipt Memos and the Surprise Check Memos were false and fabricated documents or that no proceedings as mentioned in Ex.PW-2/A ever took place or that he was deposing falsely.
74 PW-70 Sahab Singh claimed that in 1998 he had visited RTO office, Janakpuri for getting prepared his driving license and had got it prepared after paying the requisite fee. He claimed having got it prepared through Driving College being run under the name of Tony.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI wherein he admitted that he had been interrogated by Inspector A.K. Singh of CBI. He claimed that he had not stated to the CBI officer that despite having visited RTO Office, Janakpuri for 2 - 3 days, he could not get the license prepared as RTO officers were finding one fault or the other with his documents. His attention was drawn to his statement Ex.PW-70/1 where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion of having met Agent Mukesh Vij in RTO Office or that Mukesh claimed that he would take Rs.1300/- and get prepared the DL. He denied the suggestion of having paid Rs.500/- to Mukesh as advance or that on his claiming that Rs.1300/- was excessive amount, Mukesh told him that he had contacts in Janakpuri RTO and would pay some amount to them out CC No.30/2009 Page65 of 114 of Rs.1300/- for getting the DL prepared. Due to lapse of time witness could not tell name of the officer of RTO with whom he had deposited his application or documents. He could not even say if he had personally deposited his application or documents in RTO office. Witness identified his signature on the application form Ex. PW-70/2 and also identified his photograph and the documents. However, he claimed that besides the signature nothing else was in his handwriting and he could not say who had filled it. He claimed that Tony Driving College was in Nangloi. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or had got his license prepared through Mukesh Vij after making payment to him. He admitted that the driving certificate attached with his documents was of Bombay Motor Driving College. He could not say as to who was Incharge of the same or where it was situated. He claimed that he had never taken driving license from that college and could not say if the certificate Mark P-70/A was a forged one. He denied the suggestion of having handed over his application and documents to accused Mukesh Vij (pointed out by Ld. PP) alongwith money for getting the DL prepared. He further denied the suggestion of having paid balance amount of Rs.800/- to him after the DL was prepared. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely having been won over by the accused persons. 75 PW-71 Nitin Goel claimed that around 1998 he was working as Marketing Manager with M/s Sandeep Publicity and many scooters / motorcycles were purchased by the said concern for use of its employees. He claimed that in any case he was never concerned with the same.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI wherein he claimed that as he did not remember he could not say if scooter number DL-4SP-4136 had CC No.30/2009 Page66 of 114 been purchased by Sandeep Publicity in 1995. He specifically claimed that he had never been interrogated by CBI officer on 24.3.1998 and that his statement was never recorded on that date by any CBI officer. He specified that during 1997-98 no one else by the name of Nitin Goel was working with Sandeep Publicity. He claimed that his official and residential telephone numbers had been rightly mentioned on the statement Mark P-71/A. Shri J.L. Malhotra was claimed to be Proprietor of Sandeep Publicity. Witness claimed having left the concern in 2008-09. He claimed that being Marketing Manager, he was not looking after all the affairs of the company and was primarily concerned with Marketing Department and Client booking. He denied the suggestion that in 1995, 10 - 12 scooters had been purchased by the company for workers of the Marketing Department. He further denied the suggestion that being the Marketing Manager, it was part of his duty to get RC prepared from STA. He claimed that the said work used to be got done by the Accounts Department or by owners of the company or their representatives. He claimed that the companies from where the scooters were purchased also used to get the RC prepared. He specifically claimed that as far as he remembered, he had never gone to office of STA, Janakpuri around September October, 1997 to collect RC of Scooter No. DL-4SP-4136 or that it could not be so collected due to heavy rush in the office. He claimed that he had never so stated in his statement to CBI officer. His attention was drawn to the statement Mark P-71/A where it was so recorded. He claimed that he did not remember if on 24.3.1998 any letter addressed to M/s Sandeep Publicity in respect of Scooter DL-4SP-4136 had been shown to him by CBI officer or if he had identified the same as belonging to the company. He denied having CC No.30/2009 Page67 of 114 made any such statement to the CBI officer. His attention was drawn to statement Mark P-71/A where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion of having been won over by accused persons or was deposing falsely having left his job with Sandeep Publicity. 76 PW-72 Shri P.K. Sharma claimed that on 2.2.1998 while he was on Deputation with ACB, CBI he had accompanied CBI team for surprise check at Transport Authority, Janakpuri. He claimed that there was a specific information from a reliable source with CBI that touts were functioning in the Transport Authority and used to take money from general public for getting prepared licenses and for work related to RC of vehicle. He further claimed that he was the Team Incharge of the team consisting of four independent witnesses and CBI officials. It was claimed that after reaching the Transport Authority, the independent witnesses were directed to move near the touts and overhear talks and observe transaction of money and inform CBI officers accordingly. He claimed that he and other CBI team members were also observing proceedings at the spot. Witness claimed that he observed that some touts were taking applications / forms from general public persons and also had observed money transactions taking place. He claimed that he had overheard people asking for different fee for different kind of work and were taking money while claiming to get the work done as soon as possible and would also be paying some officials of STA for getting the work done. He claimed that the independent witnesses pointed out persons who they claimed had taken money from public persons promising to get their work done in STA by using their influence. It was claimed that thereafter CBI team apprehended Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh / Dharamvir Singh, Vinod Chopra, Satender Pal, Rajinder Singh, Sunil Sharma etc. from outside STA Janakpuri. It was CC No.30/2009 Page68 of 114 claimed that large crowd had collected at the spot while the persons were apprehended and incriminating documents were also recovered from possession of the apprehended persons. He claimed that during course of proceedings at the spot, Shanker Lal and Harpreet Singh who had been found dealing with touts were requested by him to join the proceedings which they did. It was claimed that as a large crowd was collecting, it was thought fit to take the apprehended persons and witnesses to CBI office and accordingly they all reached there. The apprehended persons were claimed to have been interrogated and details thereof recorded in the Surprise Check Memo Ex. PW-2/A. Documents were claimed to have been seized vide Memos Ex. PW-69/1,2 & 3. The apprehended persons were claimed to have been formally arrested. All the facts were claimed to have been brought to knowledge of the SP in the form of a complaint filed before him by the witness. Witness identified his signature on the complaint Ex. PW-68/2. He claimed that thereafter further investigation was marked to Inspector A.K. Singh after registration of FIR.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that no one had been deputed to act as a decoy witness in this case. He admitted that office of Sub Registrar is also situated near STA, Janakpuri in the same complex and that there were seats of some lawyers between the two offices. He admitted presence of Lawyers, Munshies, Typists and other public persons at the spot. He admitted that there were photostat shops, tea vendors etc. and also people who used to prepare draft of documents in the complex. He claimed that he did see some touts going inside office of Transport Authority but admitted that the said fact or name of such person had not been mentioned in his complaint. He further denied CC No.30/2009 Page69 of 114 the suggestion that there were no touts present in the complex or that names of persons who had gone inside the office had not been so recorded as infact they were members of general public who had gone for their respective work. He admitted that he did not chase those persons. He also admitted that employees working in office of STA were not visible from outside the main gate where he was standing nor had he called or interrogated any such employee. He claimed that there was no queue outside windows of STA office as the work had not yet started. He admitted that names of persons who paid/received money or the purpose thereof had not been mentioned by him in his complaint. He denied the suggestion that it was so as infact he had not seen or observed any transaction taking place. While claiming that some lawyers had been requested to join proceedings but declined doing so, witness claimed that he could not tell name of any such lawyer. It was admitted that no videography was got conducted at the spot. He denied the suggestion that it was so as no illegal activity had been observed there. He denied the suggestion that the persons named in the complaint had been wrongly apprehended and wrongly named. He further admitted that name of none of the independent witnesses had been mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW-68/2. He denied the suggestion that it was so as there was no independent witness with him. Witness admitted that none of the persons named in his complaint had been seen handing over money to any STA official. He could not say if there was any stamp vendor sitting near the place where he was standing at the main gate. He denied the suggestion that at the relevant time there were about 20 - 25 shops on the ground floor as well as upper floor of the Complex. He claimed that there might have been only 8 - 10 shops. He could not say if there were offices and shops on upper CC No.30/2009 Page70 of 114 floors. He admitted that shopkeepers present there had kept persons for soliciting work from general public. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons had told anyone that they could get work done against payment or that none of the accused persons had solicited work promising to get it done through officials of STA against payment. He expressed ignorance regarding past antecedents of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or had falsely implicated the accused persons. 77 PW-73 Diwan Singh claimed that he had a driving license for a two wheeler and as it had got misplaced, he went to STA, Janakpuri in January, 1998 for getting prepared a new license. He claimed that on reaching there he met Sunil Kumar Sharma. Witness claimed that due to lapse of time he could not identify the said person from amongst the accused present in court. He claimed that he had a talk with the said Sunil Kumar who asked for Rs.400/- to get prepared duplicate license. Witness claimed having handed over to him Rs. 200/- as advance with balance payable after delivery of license. He claimed that Sunil had assured to get the DL prepared from STA office, Janakpuri claiming that he had setting there. It was claimed that Sunil also took his signature on some form. Witness identified his signature on the form Ex. PW-73/1. He claimed that he never visited STA Janakpuri thereafter to receive his DL.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. The accused Sunil Kumar was specifically pointed out to the witness by Ld. PP and he was asked if he could now identify the accused as being Sunil Kumar Sharma who met him in STA. Witness claimed that the person pointed out was not the Sunil Kumar Sharma who had met him at STA, Janakpuri. He claimed that it might be possible that due to increase of size of Sunil CC No.30/2009 Page71 of 114 Kumar, he was not in a position to identify Sunil Kumar.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that the Sunil Kumar who met him had not talked to any STA employee in his presence nor had made him talk to any STA employee. No receipt of Rs.200/- was claimed to have been issued. Witness claimed that he had not gone to any Police Station to lodge a report regarding Rs.200/- paid by him. He denied the suggestion that no one had demanded Rs.400/- from him claiming that he had setting in STA office or could get his DL prepared for the said amount. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 78 PW-74 Rajinder Singh claimed that on 2.2.1998 he had gone to STA, Janakpuri for purchasing some stamp paper as at that time he was doing property business. It was claimed that some police / CBI officials came there and rounded up many people including himself and took all of them to CBI office. After seeing all the accused persons present in Court, witness claimed that none of them had been rounded up and taken to CBI office alongwith him. He claimed that he was let off by CBI officials after some interrogation.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he admitted that out of the persons rounded up by CBI, only some were detained by CBI while others were let off. He claimed that he was not working as an Agent at premises of STA Janakpuri and had not so worked during 1996-98. He denied having so stated during course of his interrogation. Attention of witness was drawn to statement Mark P-74/A where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had started working with his father only after he had been let off by CBI officials. He admitted that during that time his father was doing Transport Business and was not doing any CC No.30/2009 Page72 of 114 property business. He denied the suggestion that he himself was not doing any property business as on 2.2.1998 but claimed that he could not produce any record in that regard. He could not say as to regarding which property he had visited STA Janakpuri for purchasing the Stamp Paper. He claimed having gone there to purchase stamp paper for some rent agreement but could not tell the property No. or name of person. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this regard. He further denied having stated in his statement to CBI officer that while he was working as an Agent in STA Janakpuri, Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Satender Pal, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma, Pradeep Kumar, Baldev Raj, J.S. Sethi, H.S. Dhaliwal, Ravi and Satish Sehgal were also working as agents. His attention was again drawn to his statement Mark P-74/A in that regard. He denied having stated to CBI officer that in order to get prepared documents relating to DL or RC, he used to approach H.S. Dhaliwal and Mukesh Vij to whom he used to hand over filled up forms or that they used to pay him commission of Rs.50/- and retain the balance amount being in conspiracy with officials of RTO and used to pay illegal gratification to them and to Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that he used to collect documents from Mukesh Vij and H.S. Dhaliwal and hand over the same to the party concerned. He denied having mentioned anything to that effect in his statement to CBI official. His attention was again drawn to Mark P-74/A where it was so recorded. He claimed that during course of the raid or even thereafter he never came to know that CBI had raided the premises to apprehend touts in STA, Janakpuri. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being hand in glove with accused persons or had been won over by them. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused persons in Court.
CC No.30/2009 Page73 of 114
79 PW-75 Suresh claimed that in January, 1998 he was
working as Driver with one Rajesh and had met Karamjit Singh in Janakpuri Transport Authority where he had gone for renewal of truck DL. Witness claimed that he met Karamjit and told him the purpose of his visit whereupon Karamjit informed that he could get the DL renewed. He claimed that Karamjit told him that he (witness) need not give anything at that stage and he (Karamjit) would take money after license is renewed. Witness claimed having handed over documents to Karamjit. He claimed that when he returned back to the Authority after about 4 - 5 days he could not find Karamjit there. He claimed that he then left for his native village and after return had himself got the DL renewed. Witness identified his signatures on the documents contained in D-24. While claiming that he was present when documents signed by him were filled in the Transport Authority, witness claimed that he could not say who filled the same.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination witness claimed that he had not been told by Karamjit that money had to be paid to officials in the Transport Authority for getting the work done and only then officials would do the desired work. He claimed that he had not so told to any CBI officer. Attention of witness was drawn to statement Mark P-75/B where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons or had got mixed up with them.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons witness claimed that he had never lodged any complaint with police against Karamjit Singh.
80 PW-76 Shri Babu Lal claimed that he earlier had a Driving License which had expired in 1997 and hence, he went to RTO CC No.30/2009 Page74 of 114 Janakpuri in 1998 for getting it renewed. He claimed that when he went to RTO Office, he met Karam Singh & Dharam Singh and on their asking, he informed them that his License had expired. Witness claimed that he had a talk with them and a sum of Rs.500/- was settled to be given by him to them for renewal of License. He claimed having paid Rs.250/- as advance. Signatures of the witness were claimed to have been obtained on two or three papers and his affidavit was also got prepared. Witness claimed that when he again went to meet them at the appointed time for collection of his License, he could not find them there. He further claimed that he had been assured by them that he would not have to pass any Driving Test for getting the License renewed. Witness identified his signatures and documents as Ex.PW-76/1, 2 & 3 and Mark P-76/A & B. After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he denied the suggestion that Dharam Singh and Karam Singh had informed him that they had contacts in RTO Office and would get his License renewed after paying money to the Officers. He claimed that he had not so stated in his statement to CBI Officer. His attention was drawn to statement Mark P-76/C where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this regard. He further claimed that due to lapse of time, he might not be able to identify Dharam Singh and Karam Singh. When accused Dharam Singh was pointed out to the witness by ld. PP for identification, witness claimed that he might be the same person but on account of lapse of time, he himself was not sure.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness claimed that he was not aware of the fact that no Driving Test is required in case of renewal of a Driving License. He CC No.30/2009 Page75 of 114 admitted that he himself had not lodged any complaint with Police against any person regarding non-receipt of his renewed DL and had not identified any Dharam Singh or Karam Singh before any CBI Officer. He denied the suggestion that he had not entrusted job of renewal of his DL to anyone or had not paid money to anyone. He further denied the suggestion that names Dharam Singh & Karam Singh had been so mentioned by him under pressure of CBI. 81 PW-77 Shri K. Babu claimed that in February, 1998 he was posted as an Inspector with CBI, ACB, Delhi and had joined surprise check conducted by CBI at office of Transport Authority, Janakpuri in February, 1998. He also identified his signature on the Surprise Check Memo Ex.PW-2/A. It was claimed that the Surprise Check Raid had been conducted on basis of information that many Agents were operating around the Authority and were collecting forms and money from general public for getting works done from the Authority. He claimed that it had also been alleged that part of the money was received by them in the name of public servants working in the Authority and used to be passed on to them for getting the work done. He claimed that many persons operating as Agents were found and apprehended by CBI team including one Mukesh Vij and one Sethi. He claimed that he did not remember names of other Agents but their names were duly recorded in the Surprise Check Memo and that documents found in their possession were duly seized. He further stated that members of CBI team and independent witnesses who had joined the surprise raid had duly signed each page of the Memo.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness claimed that he did not know whether any complaint was made or who had made the complaint in respect of information CC No.30/2009 Page76 of 114 received in CBI office qua the surprise check. He claimed that no public person had made any complaint in his presence after they had reached the Transport Authority. Local police of PS Janak Puri was stated to have not been associated in the raid. He claimed that no public person had handed over any document to CBI team in his presence and none made any complaint against Mukesh Vij or Sethi in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that accused persons had been wrongly apprehended and falsely implicated in this case. He claimed that there were queues at various counters in the Transport Authority and the persons standing there were offered to join the raiding party but none agreed. He claimed that names or particulars of those persons had not been ascertained by him. He denied any suggestion to the contrary. 82 PW-78 Shri Vipin Grover claimed that during last week of January, 1998, he had purchased a Zen Car from one Shri Neeraj Chawla. He claimed that thereafter he approached Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting the Car transferred in the name of his Company i.e. Grover Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Witness claimed that he met one Shri Sethi in the Parking Lot who claimed that he would arrange for transfer of the Car and would save his time as he (Sethi) knew some persons in the Authority. Witness claimed that a deal was struck in that regard and he paid Rs.500/- - Rs.600/- for the job to Sethi who assured to hand over the transferred documents during the next week. Witness also claimed having handed over relevant documents to Shri Sethi which were identified as Ex.PW-21/1, 1A , 2, 2A & 3. He claimed that when he again went to collect the documents, he could not find Shri Sethi and came to know that he had been apprehended in a raid. Witness claimed that due to lapse of time and as he had met the said 'Sethi' only once, he might CC No.30/2009 Page77 of 114 not be in a position to identify him.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he had not identified any person in presence of CBI or Police Authorities and had not lodged any complaint with any Authority. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly named 'Sethi' at instance of CBI or had not handed over any documents to any 'Sethi' or any other persons or was deposing falsely.
83 PW-79 Shri Dev Raj claimed that in 1997, he had gone to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting his DL prepared. He claimed that he could not understand the Forms required to be filled and had got it filled through a person present there. He claimed that he did not remember his name. It was further claimed that the said man had claimed that Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- were charges for getting prepared the DL. He claimed that as he was not having much money with him at that time, he handed over Rs.200/- as advance and had been asked to come again after a few days to collect his document. As per the witness, he again went after 25 to 30 days and met the same person who again asked for money for completing the document. Witness claimed that as he was not having any money, he did not pay anything. He further claimed having again gone to the Authority after 2 -3 days and having handed over Rs.100/- - Rs.200/- to the said person who claimed that it would take some time for getting the License prepared. Witness claimed that he never went back to the Authority again. Witness claimed having handed over photocopy of his Ration Card to the said person which he identified as Mark P-79/X. He also identified his signatures on documents at points Ex.PW-79/A, B & C. After seeking permission from the Court, witness was CC No.30/2009 Page78 of 114 cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that the Forms bearing his signatures had been filled up by the said person in his presence but he could not say if name of the said person was Karamjit Singh. He claimed that even till date (06.11.2013), he did not have any Driving License. He denied having stated to CBI Officer about having received his DL from Karamjit around November, 1997. His attention was drawn to statement Mark P-79/X-1 where it was so recorded. When receipt Mark P-79/Y was shown to the witness, he denied any knowledge of the same. He admitted that his Medical Certificate had been got prepared by the same person whom he had met. He denied the suggestion of having gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri for getting renewed his DL and not for getting prepared a new DL. He denied the suggestion that the person whom he met had claimed having contacts in RTO Office and would get the work done through his contacts. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accuseds, witness claimed that he had no knowledge if there was Satyam Cinema in Janakpuri at the relevant time. He admitted that he of his own had never lodged any complaint with CBI or police authorities. He claimed that he had not identified any person in presence of police or CBI authorities. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over any document to anyone or was deposing falsely at instance of CBI.
84 PW-80 Dr. Manmohan Bhardwaj claimed that he was a Doctor by profession and in 1998 used to sit outside a shop near Janakpuri Transport Authority and used to issue medical certificates to applicants who used to come for preparation of DL or renewal thereof. After seeing the accused persons, witness claimed that he CC No.30/2009 Page79 of 114 could not identify any of them.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that he had been sitting outside Janakpuri Authority since 1995. He denied the suggestion that he was not qualified or competent to issue medical certificates being only a BAMS. He claimed that he was still having his seat outside the Authority and used to sit there from 8.30 AM to 1.30 PM. He denied the suggestion that there were regular visitors to his seat and claimed that he did not have any acquaintance with officers posted in Transport Authority. He claimed that besides him, Dr. S.K. Gupta, Late Dr. Anil Gupta, Dr. Sunil Taneja and Dr. Manish also used to sit outside the Authority in 1998. He claimed that he used to charge Rs. 30/- for a medical certificate in 1998 and used to issue 10 - 15 certificates per day. He claimed that the applicants primarily used to come to him directly and sometimes through references. He denied the suggestion that any person referred by Satender Pal or Karamjit came to him for issuance of certificate. He denied the suggestion of having been interrogated by CBI or about his statement being recorded by CBI officer on 9.12.1999. He claimed that he had never stated to CBI officer that he knew Rajinder Singh, Dharamsingh, Mukesh Vij, Satender Pal, Karamjit Singh, H.S. Dhaliwal, J.S. Sethi, Baldev Raj, Vinod Chopra, Kamal Buddhiraja, Sunil Sharma, Pradeep Kumar or Satish Sehgal or that they used to come and meet him during working hours of MLO, Janakpuri for preparation of medical certificates of their candidates who wanted to get prepare DL. Attention of the witness was drawn to statement Mark P-80/1 where it was so recorded. He claimed that he had never stated to CBI officer that the said persons were working as Agents / Touts in the Transport CC No.30/2009 Page80 of 114 Authority Complex. The statement Mark P-80/1 in its entirety was read over to the witness who denied having made any such statement to CBI officer. He denied the suggestion that he had been issuing false medical certificates at instance of the named persons or was deposing falsely to save them. When Ex.PW-36/2 (D-27) was shown to the witness, he claimed that the rubber stamp was his but it did not bear his signature. He gave similar reply in respect of Page 157 (Q-397) of Ex. PW-36/2. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
85 PW-81 Satender Pal Sodhi claimed that in February, 1998 he used to work outside STA, Janakpuri by filling up forms on behalf of applicants and was working from near a photocopy shop. He claimed that people used to approach him of their own for getting the forms filled and that he used to remain there from about 10.00 AM to about 11.30 AM/12.00 Noon and had worked there only for 10 - 15 days. He claimed that he used to take Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- for filling up the form and there were many other people who used to similarly fill up the forms. He claimed that none of those persons who used to fill up the forms was present in Court.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that he did not remember the date but admitted that he had been picked up by CBI Officers from outside STA. He could not say if it was so done on 02.02.1998. He claimed that he had been taken to a big building and was let off at night. He further admitted that besides him some other persons had also been picked up and apprehended. He further stated that after he had been picked up, he never again worked in the Authority as he got afraid. He denied the suggestion that he got afraid as he knew that he was CC No.30/2009 Page81 of 114 doing something wrong. Witness claimed that none of the other persons who had been picked up were present in Court and denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the persons who used to fill up Form outside the Transport Authority and had been picked up alongwith him as he had got mixed up with the accused persons and was trying to save them. While claiming that the persons who used to get Forms filled up from him used to take the same from him after paying him, he denied the suggestion that he used to hand over the Forms to one Fauji. He denied the suggestion that he used to approach people claiming that he could fill up the Form and get the work done. He denied the suggestion of having stated to the CBI Officer about his working as Agent at STA Janakpuri or that Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma, Pradeep Kumar, Baldev Raj, J.S. Sethi, H.S. Dhaliwal @ Fauji, Ravi or Satish Sehgal were also working there as Agent. His attention was drawn to statement Mark P-81/1 where it was so recorded. The entire statement was also read over to him but he denied having made any such statement to CBI Officer. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save accused persons having got mixed up with them.
86 PW-82 Shri B.K. Pradhan claimed that on 02.02.1998, he was posted as an Inspector with CBI. He claimed that on receipt of information regarding Touts working at STA Janakpuri, it was decided in CBI to conduct a surprise check at Transport Office premises and he too was a Member of the Surprise Check Team. He claimed that the Surprise Check Team raided the Authority premises and all proceedings conducted there were reduced into writing vide Memo Ex.PW-2/A. He claimed that at the spot, Touts were found collecting money from general public with promises of getting prepared License, CC No.30/2009 Page82 of 114 RC, etc. He further stated that as per information received, the money was being collected by them for being shared with STA Officials for getting the work done.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accuseds, witness claimed that the information regarding Touts was not personally received by him but the Team was informed about it by the Team Leader Inspector P.K. Sharma. While claiming he did see exchange of money, witness claimed that he did not remember whether or not the Giver was examined or interrogated. He admitted that he did not specifically point out any particular Giver or Taker of money to his Team Leader. Witness claimed that as he did not remember, he could not say if Office of Transport Authority, Sub Registrar and also some Shops existed on Ground Floor of the visited premises. He also did not remember if nearly hundred Advocates and their staff were present in the Compound between Offices of the Transport Authority and Office of Sub Registrar. He also did not remember if Stamp Vendors were also found sitting in the said Compound. He denied the suggestion that he was not saying anything regarding the same as infact he had not gone there on 02.02.1998. After seeing the records, witness admitted that there was no mention regarding "received amount" having been seized from the Receivers. He further admitted that no one was deputed to act as a decoy customer and no photography or videography was done. While claiming that he did not have any talk with the MLO, witness claimed that the Team did meet the MLO but he did not remember as to what talks took place with the MLO. He claimed that his statement had not been recorded by the I.O. but denied the suggestion that it was so as infact he had never gone to Transport Authority on that day. He could not tell number of Storeys in the building where Office of Transport CC No.30/2009 Page83 of 114 Authority was situated and could not say if it was a 4 - 5 storeyed building having Offices of Lawyers, Shops, Property Consultant Offices and Stamp Vending Outlets. He could not say if people legally exchanged money for typing work and Stamp vending work. He admitted that he had not seen any of the apprehended people having gone inside the STA Office and having talked to any Official there. He denied the suggestion that no tout was found operating in the premises or that it was for this reason that no decoy was sent. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that persons were wrongly apprehended and falsely implicated. 87 PW-83 Shri Nitin Diwan claimed that in 1998, he had learnt driving from Dhaliwal Motors but could not say who the owner thereof was. He claimed having paid Rs.1500/- in that regard and claimed that it was only for learning driving and nothing else. He claimed that he himself had filled up Form for preparing of Learner's License and had applied at STA Ashok Vihar for the same. He identified the Form Ex.PW-81/1. He claimed that no one from Dhaliwal Motors was present in Court.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that the words "C/o H.S. Dhaliwal" on Ex.PW-83/1 was not in his handwriting. He further denied the suggestion that anyone from Dhaliwal Motors had accompanied him to STA Ashok Vihar for preparation of the License. Rather, he claimed that he had only been asked to go there and stand in the queue. Witness claimed that in the Driving School, he had been asked to go to STA Ashok Vihar where one of their persons would meet him and direct him to the queue. Witness claimed having met that person outside STA Ashok Vihar and the person told him about the process CC No.30/2009 Page84 of 114 and that his Driving Test would also be taken. He claimed that after submitting his Form, he took the Driving Test and went back home. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in Court. He further claimed that as he had been informed that charges for teaching driving would be Rs.1500/-, he did not know if the said amount included Rs.650/- for preparation of the Licenses. He claimed that representative of Dhaliwal Motors who met him outside STA was not present in Court. He admitted that he did not deposit any fee or money in STA. He identified his Learner's License Ex.PW-83/2 and also copies of his Ration Card and DOB Certificate. He denied the suggestion that his Form and documents had not been deposited by him in STA or that he had gone there alongwith H.S. Dhaliwal and had deposited the same with his help. When the accused H.S. Dhaliwal was pointed out to the witness, he refused to identify him. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally avoiding to identify him. He further denied the suggestion that sum of Rs.1500/- was paid by him to accused Dhaliwal. He admitted that his permanent Driving License was never got prepared by Dhaliwal. He further denied the suggestion that while he was learning Driving, he had been promised by Dhaliwal that he would get prepared Learner License and permanent License of the witness for which he had taken Rs.650/-. He further denied the suggestion that Dhaliwal had told him about having good relations with Officials of Ashok Vihar Transport Authority or that after passing of money to them i.e. besides the legal fee, they would help in preparing his Licenses. Witness had claimed that he had not mentioned any of the aforesaid fact to CBI Officer and his attention was duly drawn to statement Mark P-83/A where these facts were inter-alia mentioned. He claimed that no document had been shown to him in CBI Office but he had only been told about his documents CC No.30/2009 Page85 of 114 having been recovered from possession of Dhaliwal. Witness claimed having told CBI Officers that he had no idea how the documents came into Dhaliwal's possession. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely fearing his being implicated in the matter alongwith Dhaliwal.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed having undergone 15 days Driving Training of 30 minutes each. He admitted that he had never paid Petrol charges for the training Vehicle and also had not paid anything extra to the Trainer.
88 PW-84 Dr. Ashok Gupta was given up by the Prosecution. 89 No other witness was examined by the Prosecution and after Prosecution evidence was closed, statements of accused persons were recorded. All the accused persons denied allegations of prosecution against them.
90 Accused Dharam Singh claimed having gone to STA Janakpuri for getting DL prepared. He claimed that he was picked by CBI Officials and falsely implicated, and that he had never worked as a Tout/Agent.
Accused Vinod Chopra claimed that he was running Chopra Motor Driving Training School since 1997 and used to visit Office of STA in connection with his Business. He claimed that on 02.02.1998, he had gone to STA Janakpuri in connection with his Official work when he was picked up by CBI Officials due to some wrong perception and was falsely implicated. He claimed that he never worked as a Tout. He claimed that he would be leading defence evidence.
Accused Pardeep Kumar claimed that he was a Property Dealer and used to visit Office of Sub Registrar Janakpuri for CC No.30/2009 Page86 of 114 business related work. He claimed that he used to pay money to Clerks of Lawyers for purchasing Stamp Papers and for getting prepared documents from Typists for being submitted in Office of Sub Registrar. He claimed that Shri Madan Mohan Wadhawan was his Partner. He claimed that he would be leading defence evidence.
Accused H.S. Dhaliwal while denying allegations of the prosecution claimed that he used to run a Motor Driving Training College under the name of Dhaliwal Motor Driving College in Rohini and used to visit STA, Janakpuri and offices of other Transport Authorities in connection with his business. He claimed that neither he had worked as a tout/agent nor had he authorized anyone to collect money on his behalf nor he himself collected money from any public person for getting work done in STA, Janakpuri. He claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
Accused J.S. Sethi claimed that since around 1989 he had been working as Authorized Agent for National Insurance Company and used to receive documents and money from vehicle owners for getting their vehicles insured. He claimed that he had never worked as a tout / agent. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
Accused Sunil Sharma claimed that he was running a property dealing business under the name of Sharma Property with one Harish Sharma and used to visit office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri for business purposes. He claimed that he used to pay money to stamp vendors, lawyers, clerks, typists and photocopy people sitting in the premises for getting done his work relating to property dealing and also used to accept money from his customers in that regard. He claimed that he had never worked as a tout / agent and had never demanded or accepted money from any person for getting done any work at STA, Janakpuri or any other STA. He CC No.30/2009 Page87 of 114 claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
Accused Baldev Raj claimed that he was running a milk dairy at Dabari Mor since 1974 and used to supply milk to shops and also to tea vendors who had their shops in the complex where office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri as well as STA, Janakpuri were situated. He claimed that he used to go there to collect payments during day time and did not accept money from anyone for getting done work at STA. Accused claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
Accused Satish Sehgal claimed that he was doing legal business as partner of a Motor Driving School since 1992 and had never worked as a tout/agent. He claimed that people approached him for guidance and to get forms filled. He specifically claimed that he had never accepted any money from any person on promise of getting prepared his license. He claimed having visited STA premises in connection with his business. While claiming that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated he claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
Accused Mukesh Vij claimed that his father had a Photocopy Shop in premises where Office of STA Janakpuri was situated and he used to help his father to collect documents from Lawyers and other persons for getting the same photocopied and also used to take money from them. He claimed that in 1997, he had applied for Driving Training School License which he got in the year 2000 but did not get it renewed after 2005. He claimed that he had never worked as a Tout or Agent. He claimed that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
91 The accused persons examined nine witnesses in defence.
CC No.30/2009 Page88 of 114
92 DW-1 Shri Rameshwar Sharma claimed that as per
record, License had been issued on 06.11.1992 for establishment of Sehgal Motor Driving Training School. Copy of License was proved as Ex.DW-1/1. He claimed that the License was subsequently renewed from 28.11.1997 to 27.11.2002 vide document Ex.DW-1/2 and was last renewed in 2013 and was valid till 02.01.2018. He claimed that copy of Partnership Deed between Satish Kumar Sehgal and Dina Nath Sehgal was on record as Mark D-1/A. During cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness admitted that Motor Driving Training Schools are not authorized to issue Learner or Permanent Driving License and their employees are not authorized to participate in any procedure regarding issuance of the same. He further claimed that employees and owners of Motor Driving Training Schools do not frequently visit Office of Transport Authority. It was claimed that License for the Training Schools used to be issued from the Head Quarter at Rajpur Road. Witness could not identify signature of the Authority which issued the License. He however claimed that photocopy thereof was also on Office record produced by him. He denied the suggestion that he could not say if the original License had been genuinely issued from the Headquarter. He further claimed that as per record, no application of Sehgal Motor Driving Training School was pending as on 02.02.1998. To a Court Question witness claimed that the Partnership Deed on record had been executed on 07.10.1985 while the License was first issued on 06.11.1992.
92 A DW-2 Dr. Y. Kumar proved Possession Letter Ex.DW-2/1 regarding handing over of possession of Dairy Plot to Shri Baldevraj. Same was proved as Ex.DW-2/1. Physical possession thereof was claimed to have been handed over to Baldev Raj vide letter dated CC No.30/2009 Page89 of 114 28.03.2011. Letter dated 02.07.2009 to Shri Baldev Raj for indicating willingness for acceptance of allotment of Plot was proved as Ex.DW-2/2 and the demand cum allotment letter dated 17.09.2010 as Ex.DW-2/3.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that there was nothing on record regarding Baldevraj having submitted any document regarding his running Dairy since 1998 and that he could not say if there had been any verification from his Department to the effect that Baldevraj was running the Dairy since 1998 or since 1992-93 or prior thereto.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was re- examined by ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he claimed that the verification procedure had been commenced after 2004 and that Office of North DMC was created around 2011.
During cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that the record produced by him contained documents from the year 2004 onwards.
93 DW-3 Shri Sunil claimed that as per record, physical possession of Dairy Plot had been handed over to Shri Baldevraj in pursuance to allotment letter dated 25.10.2010. Physical possession letter dated 28.03.2011 in that regard was proved as Ex.DW-3/1.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that he was J.E. and was only required to hand over physical possession in pursuance to the allotment letter issued and was not concerned with the aspect if the Dairy was being run from the alloted plot after its allotment. He claimed that the person to whom possession is handed over is physically present at the spot at the time of handing over of possession.
CC No.30/2009 Page90 of 114
94 DW-4 Smt. Reena Thakkar claimed that accused Mukesh
Vij was her real brother. She claimed that he was running Driving School in Janakpuri and also used to help their father at the Photocopy Shop as their father was a Kidney patient. She claimed that even after 1999, her brother used to help in the Shop off and on as he was also running his Driving School. She claimed that her father expired in 2002 and thereafter Shop was let out to someone else.
During cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that she did not remember name of the landlord nor of the person from whom the shop was purchased. She denied the suggestion of having deposed falsely about the Shop having been taken on rent around 1997 as accused was her brother. She claimed that there were many buildings in District Center, Janakpuri and that their Shop was on First Floor of the building where Office of STA was situated. She denied the suggestion that their Shop was not situated in that building or that she was deposing falsely.
95 PW-5 Shri Sant Ram claimed that despite best efforts, summoned records regarding Licenses in favour of Chopra Motor Driving Training School and Best Motor Driving Training School were not traceable in Office of Janakpuri STA.
96 DW-6 Shri Manish Khatri produced photocopy of License dated 28.05.1999 as Mark D-6/A and claimed that original was not traceable in the Office. He claimed that as per record the License appeared to have been issued to Dhaliwal Motor Driving College and valid from 28.05.1999 to 27.05.2004 and renewed from 28.05.2004 to 27.05.2009 and thereafter from 28.05.2009 to 27.05.2014.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that the License Mark D-6/A appeared to be the first License CC No.30/2009 Page91 of 114 issued to Dhaliwal Motor Driving College. He further claimed that a written requisition is sent whenever representative of a Motor Driving College is required to attend Office of STA and there was no record of any such communication of the year 1998 in the Office File brought by him.
97 DW-7 Shri Sudarshan Goswami claimed that he had not brought the summoned record as the same was not available in Office of National Insurance Company at Karampura. He identified accused J.S. Sethi as being one of the authorized Agents of the Insurance Company and claimed that he was authorized to act as such around 1988. He claimed that copy of License Mark P-7/DA had been filled in his handwriting.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that License to act as an Insurance Agent is issued for a period of three years. He claimed that J.S. Sethi was still authorized Agent of the Insurance Company. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he had earlier interacted with J.S. Sethi being a Development Officer.
98 DW-8 Shri Sant Ram (earlier examined as DW-5) claimed that he was appearing in pursuance to summon issued to MLO/ Record Clerk STA Head Office Civil Line, Delhi, which summon had been marked from there to STA Janakpuri to produce the original records of License in respect of Chopra Motor Driving Training School and Best Motor Driving Training School. He claimed that the records were not traceable. Photocopies of Licenses dated 05.01.1999, 22.05.2000 & 28.05.1999 for establishment of Motor Driving School were shown to the witness by ld. Counsel for defence and he claimed that he could not say anything regarding the photocopies Mark P-8/DA, DB & DC.
CC No.30/2009 Page92 of 114 During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that the Proprietors/ Operators of such Schools/Colleges do not visit Office of STA on regular basis and only come to submit Reports. He further admitted that all communications and works concerning these Schools are done in writing in Office of STA and there is no oral communication. He claimed that normally no acknowledgment / receipt is issued to the Driving Schools in respect of documents submitted in STA.
99 DW-9 Shri Ravi Jain claimed that as per original Office record, Agent License No. 4101890540 stood in the name of Jagpal Singh Sethi and had been issued on 03.04.2012 and was valid upto 23.05.2015. Computer print out copy thereof was produced as Mark P-9/DA & DB. Copy of License No. NAJ-7800946 in the name of Jagpal Singh Sethi to act as an Insurance Agent on behalf of National Insurance Company Ltd. was proved as Ex.DW-9/1 and was claimed to be valid for a period of three years w.e.f. 24.05.1998. He also produced TDS Certificate dated 24.05.1990 in respect of Jagpal Singh Sethi which was proved as Ex.DW-9/2. The renewed License for the period 24.05.1991 to 23.05.1994 was proved as Ex.DW-9/3. He claimed that Insurance Agents do visit Office of the Company for depositing premiums in respect of cover notes issued by them. He identified accused Jagpal Singh Sethi and claimed to know him since 1998. He claimed that he could not say whether or not he (Jagpal Singh) was still an Insurance Agent.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness admitted that Agent License is originally issued for a period of three years and renewals thereof are also for period of three years. He claimed that for renewal of Agency License, the Agent must have generated business by way of premium of atleast Rs.7500/- annually CC No.30/2009 Page93 of 114 for the preceding three years and that an Agent who is unable to do so would not have his License renewed. He admitted that Ex.DW-9/1 was valid for a period of three years w.e.f. 1988 (due to typographical error, 1998 came to be mentioned in place of 1988 during course of examination-in-chief of the witness). He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to help Jagpal Singh Sethi who was known to him. He further admitted that from the documents shown to him, it could not be said that there was renewal of Agency License of Jagpal Singh for the period 1994-2000 and documents did not depict his having worked as Insurance Agent during that period. 100 No other witness was examined by the defence.
101 During course of his submissions, it was submitted by ld. PP that Prosecution had duly proved its case against the accused persons. It was submitted by ld. PP that proceedings in this case started on basis of a source information on basis of which a Surprise Check Team was constituted and a surprise raid was conducted at STA Janakpuri where some Touts were found soliciting work from public persons on promise of getting their work done by paying money to Govt. Officials of STA or by exerting their influence on them having "Setting" with them. It was claimed that on basis of the Surprise Check Memo, six of the accused persons were apprehended at the spot alongwith incriminating documents, were taken to CBI Office, while remaining four accused persons came to be subsequently apprehended on basis of the Disclosure Statements of their co- accused persons. As per ld. PP, the documents seized from the accused persons as well as from STA Office were compared by GEQD with the specimen writings of the accused persons and as per the opinion received, the writings matched. It was claimed that it showed that the accused persons had filled up the Forms for CC No.30/2009 Page94 of 114 obtaining of Licenses / change of ownership on behalf of public persons and this had been done by them on assurance of getting the work done. As per ld. PP, Prosecution had duly discharged its onus while it was for the accused persons to show as to how their writing came on the seized documents, but accused persons have failed to do so. It was further claimed by ld. PP that the accused persons had inter-alia been charged with for having committed offences punishable U/s. 8 & 9 of PC Act which did not require active involvement of any public servant and that receipt of gratification as motive / reward to influence public servant by itself was sufficient. It was further submitted that it was clear from evidence on record that fees payable were Rs.15/- / Rs.20/- but still the accused had charged Rs.300/- to Rs.800/- from public persons without giving any explanation in that regard. As regards the witnesses turning hostile, it was claimed that the bribe givers had turned hostile out of fear and had in a way tried to help the accused persons. Presence of accused persons at the spot, it was submitted showed there culpability . Ld. PP drew specific attention of this Court towards testimonies of PWs -8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 27, 28, 30, 37, 44, 46, 47, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 69, 72, 73, 76 & 78 to fortify his arguments that the accused persons had been duly named and involved by the witnesses as accuseds in this case.
102 Ld. Counsel for accused persons on the other hand while rebutting the stand of Ld. PP submitted that Prosecution had miserably failed to show on record any conspiracy between any two accused persons much less between all the accused persons for which they had been charged with and were tried in this case. It was claimed that there was no evidence of any conspiracy between the accused persons nor it had been disclosed by the Prosecution as to CC No.30/2009 Page95 of 114 when, where or why the conspiracy was hatched. It was claimed that the acts allegedly done by accused persons were their individual acts and that none of the witnesses even spoke about any conspiracy between the accused persons. While referring to facts of the case, it was submitted that the accused persons appeared to be competitors rather than conspirators in this case. As per ld. Counsel, joint trial of the accused persons in this case was illegal and held without any jurisdiction. While taking this Court through evidence of witnesses, it was sought to be submitted that there was nothing on record to show as to what had transpired between any of the accused persons and the public persons regarding the accused having communicated anything which might be covered within purview of Section 8 or 9 of PC Act. Ld. Counsel also took this Court through the testimony of PW-46 in detail. On basis of his testimony, it was submitted that the Investigating Agency had tried to hide factum of a Tape Recorder having been handed over to PW-46 on 02.02.1998 i.e. at the time of surprise check. It was submitted by ld. Counsel that as the recorded conversation did not suit case of the Investigating Agency, the cassette containing the recording was hidden from the Court and as such, a material evidence had been withheld. It was also pointed out that the Investigating Team did not depute any decoy witness in this case to unearth the alleged conspiracy and as such only a vague complaint had been put forward without any fair investigation of the matter. Ld. Counsel further submitted that none of the witnesses examined by Prosecution had claimed having paid any amount of money to any particular accused for getting work done in STA Janakpuri by way of passing on of money to any public servant. It was claimed that no judicial TIP of accused persons had been got done and that nearly 99 % of witnesses had failed to identify accused CC No.30/2009 Page96 of 114 persons in Court. It was further submitted that only vague allegations had been made against the accused persons which could not be substantiated during course of trial. During course of his submissions, ld. Counsel placed reliance on Vasudev Vs. State [(2) Crimes 599, 1984 (&) DRJ 248, 1984 RLR 689] ; Ghanshyam Mishra Vs. State of Bihar (2010 CRL.L.J. 2502) ; P. Satyanarayan Murty Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl. Appeal No. 636 of 1990).
103 In his reply arguments, ld. PP placed reliance on Hazari Lal Vs. State (AIR 1980 SC 873) ; Parmod Kumar Vs. State (AIR 2013 SC 3344) ; State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah [1998 SCC (Cri) 456] ; Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2003 CRI. L.J. 3876] ; Gian Chand & Others Vs. State of Haryana [2013(6) LRC 33 (SC)]. It was further submitted by ld. PP that there can never be direct evidence in respect of conspiracy. It was claimed that the fact that the accused persons were acting together in STA and had all been named in the Surprise Check Memo and were doing the same work with same objective, meeting of their minds in pursuance to the conspiracy becomes evident. As regards the Tape Recorder being not produced, it was submitted that the said fact had been introduced by PW-46 only during course of his cross-examination and that it was never case of the Prosecution that any Tape Recorder had been used. Regarding majority of witnesses turning hostile, it was claimed that most of them were the "Bribe Givers" who apparently turned hostile to save their skin. It was further pointed out that the accused persons had failed to explain their handwritings on the application forms recovered from their possession and from Office of STA, while report of GEQD duly connected them with the documents in question. Presence of accused persons at the spot without any justified reason was submitted to be pointing out towards their culpability.
CC No.30/2009 Page97 of 114
104 As per case of prosecution, upon receipt of reliable
information to the effect that several private persons were acting as agents in and around offices of Transport Authorities of West and South West Zone of Janakpuri and were collecting money from public for getting their DL made, transfer of registration of vehicles done etc. by making them believe that they will get the job done by inducing officials of STA by corrupt or illegal means, a surprise check team was constituted on 2.2.1998 under leadership of Inspector P.K. Sharma. The said team reportedly raided premises alongwith four independent persons and whatever was observed by the team was recorded into a Surprise Check Memo (Ex. PW-2/A). Thereafter, it was on basis of the said Memo that Inspector P.K. Sharma lodged his complaint with the SP and on basis of said complaint (Ex.PW-68/2) FIR (Ex.PW-68/1) came to be recorded. All this goes well as a serialized end story. However, what has remained unexplained in the story is as to who directed constitution of the Surprise Check Team, who selected its members and who authorized it to conduct raid at STA, Janakpuri premises. In absence of anything to that effect it appears that Inspector P.K. Sharma himself chose to be the Investigating Officer to conduct the surprise check without any instructions in that regard and rather without even having informed senior officers in this regard. There also is no explanation regarding requisitioning of 4 independent witnesses. This is more so because neither the Surprise Check Memo nor the complaint mentioned anything to that regard.
105 Let us now have a look at the proceedings conducted by the surprise check team. It consisted of so-called four independent witnesses and many CBI officers who as per the Memo Ex.PW-2/A observed that outside the STA office some people were collecting CC No.30/2009 Page98 of 114 forms from public persons and alongwith every form they were accepting money ranging from Rs.300/- to Rs.800/- depending upon nature of work. Memo further mentions that the independent witnesses were directed to over-hear conversation and see transactions taking place outside STA and they thereafter informed them that whenever there was a bargain regarding amount being charged by the agents, the agents mentioned that they will get the work done speedily and have to pass on portion of money to officials of authority. It was claimed that on basis of said observations the agents found doing illegal acts were apprehended and subsequently brought to CBI office.
106 Now, the big question that arises in this case is that although the surprise check team had seen the culprits taking mioney from public persons, no such amount of money had reportedly been seized from them nor made a case property in this case. Even the persons who reportedly had handed over money / forms to the so- called agents were not interrogated nor were they made to join the proceedings. Needless to mention that 2 - 3 such like persons who were subsequently joined in the investigation did not support case of the prosecution.
107 What has surprised this Court is that in a raid of such a vast magnitude wherein trap team wanted to unearth nexus between touts and STA officials, no decoy witness had been employed by the CBI team. Perhaps fact of the case would have been different in case CBI had employed a decoy witness who might have approached the culprits with offer to get his work done on payment of money and would have subsequently supported case of the prosecution. It was not a case where CBI officials had suddenly laid a trap in as much as they already had secured services of four independent witnesses. It CC No.30/2009 Page99 of 114 is further surprising as to why no attempt was made by the trap team to photograph/videograph or tape record any conversation. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that PW-46 during course of his testimony had claimed that a tape recorder had been given to him for recording of conversation by CBI officials and that after using the same, he had handed it over to CBI officials on the same day. Surprisingly none of the CBI officials have deposed a word about the said tape recorder nor has it seen light of the day during course of trial. In absence of production of the said tape recording in court, it is apparent that attempt has been made to with-hold a material piece of evidence from this Court and adverse inference in that regard ought to be drawn against the investigating agency to the effect that in case the said tape recording was produced in Court, it would have belied claim of the prosecution as is being put-forth before this Court. 108 Before proceeding further, let us have a brief look at the roles played by witnesses qua their implicating accused persons as had been detailed by Ld. PP during course of his submission. 109 PW-8 Pardeep Kumr during course of his examination in chief had specifically claimed that he could not identify the person who helped him in filling up form. It was only during his cross examination by Ld. PP that the witness while pointing out towards Pardeep Kumar claimed that perhaps he was the person who helped him in filling the form. Needless to mention that besides allegation against Pardeep Kumar regarding his having helped the witness in filling up the form, there was no other allegation levied against him by this witness. Surely helping someone to fill up an application form is no offence.
PW-12 during course of his examination in chief had claimed that he knew accused J.S. Sethi who was busy in Insurance CC No.30/2009 Page100 of 114 business and that Sethi told them about complete procedure regarding transfer of RC and also told them that a sum of Rs.300/- or Rs.350/- would be payable in office. Witness claimed that Sethi told them to meet him on next day but he could never be found. During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness admitted that accused Sethi had told them that fee of Rs.350/- shall be payable inside STA office and when he requested Sethi to take reasonable amount, Sethi told that rough expenses would be between Rs.300/- to Rs.350/-. Here too the witness has not stated a word about accused having assured to get his work done on payment or through contacts with the STA officials.
PW-15 Ravi Kumar claimed that accused Sunil Sharma was known to him and had helped in filling up his papers for getting a duplicate DL. He further claimed that Sunil had told him that he would fill up his papers and thereafter witness should stand in the queue. During course of cross examination by Ld. PP, witness specifically denied the suggestion that he had been told by Sunil Sharma that he had good relation with STA office or would get his work done at the earliest. He further denied the suggestion regarding Sharma having told him that he would take money after getting the work done. That being the position, even this witness had not stated anything incriminating against Sunil Sharma regarding taking money for getting work done.
PW-18 Salabh Kaushik claimed that he had given his documents to his friend Jasbir Singh and did not know how Jasbir dealt with the documents. All he stated was that Jasbir told him that he would hand over documents to some Shri Sethi and sum of Rs. 300/- had to be paid as sarkari fees. Besides this, this witmness has nothing to say regarding any other person and had not even named CC No.30/2009 Page101 of 114 accused J.S. Sethi.
PW-19 Harpreet Singh was projected by the prosecution as being one of the victims in this transaction. He claimed that in December 1997 he had gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri where he met one Baldev Raj and for getting DL prepared Baldev Raj told him that he would have to pay sum of Rs.800/- which he paid. As per witness when he went to the authority again after a week for obtaining license, he could not find Baldev Raj there. Now although this witness has identified Baldev Raj and has claimed having given sum of Rs. 800/- to him for getting the DL prepared (which fact is disputed by the accused), fact remains that there no allegation to the effect that Baldev Raj while taking the money had assured to get the work done through his contacts in the authority or by exercising influence over any Government Servant. Moreover, the witness mentioned the date of incident as being December, 1997 while case of prosecution is in respect of 2.2.1998.
PW-23 Gurjeet Singh claimed having met a person at Transport Authority, Janakpuri regarding change of name in the RC and claimed having paid Rs.250/- to the said person who claimed to get the work done. He could not identify any of the accused persons present in Court as being that person. During cross examination by Ld. PP he specifically denied the suggestion that the said person was accused J.S. Sethi.
PW-26 Anil Kumar claimed that he had learnt driving from Dhaliwal Motor Driving Training School and possessed a DL got prepared by personnel of the said school. He claimed having paid Rs. 1,500/- to them for the said job. Witness however claimed that he did not remember name of the said person and could not identify if he was present in Court or not. During cross examination by Ld. PP, CC No.30/2009 Page102 of 114 witness specifically claimed that he could not identify the said H.S. Dhaliwal from amongst the accused persons in Court.
PW-27 Kailash Chand claimed that in 1997 he went to Transport Authority, Janakpuri for renewal of license where he was told to contact one Mr. Sunil. He claimed that Mr. Sunil initially demanded Rs.1200/- and after depositing the fee amount further demanded Rs.1500/- for renewal of license claiming that money would have to be paid to staff of the Transport Department. Witness further claimed that he could not identify the said Sunil Kumar. During his cross examination he had admitted that he did not lodge any complaint with the police and that no document was recovered in his presence from any accused.
PW Deepak was again numbered as PW-27. He mentioned about one Vij having demanded Rs.800/- from him for getting issued permanent license by getting work done from inside the office. He claimed that Mr. Vij took him to office of Dhaliwal where some papers were filled in and he had paid Rs.800/- at the time of receiving permanent license. Witness neither identify Mr. Vij nor Mr. Dhaliwal.
PW-28 Sukhpal claimed that he purchased a car in the name of his wife Seema Chauhan and wanted change of registration of the ownership and had gone to office of Mr. Dhaliwal who assured to get the work done. He claimed that he could not identify the said Dhaliwal nor did he remember exact money demanded by him. During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness specifically denied the suggestion that Mr. Dhaliwal told him that he would get the work done after paying money to inside officials in STA.
PW-30 Jitender Sharma claimed having gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri in January, 1998 where one Sethi met CC No.30/2009 Page103 of 114 him and told to get the work done for Rs.300/- which needed to be spent on stamping, insurance etc. During cross examination by Ld. PP witness denied the suggestion that part of the sum of Rs.300/- had to be paid to officials of Transport Authority, Janakpuri. During his cross examination he claimed that insurance in respect of the scooter was got done by him from J.S. Sethi who also helped him in getting the form attested from the Notary and also in preparation of the affidavit. He admitted having paid Rs.50/- to Sethi for the said work. So even this witness does not claim having paid any money to Sethi on Sethi's claim of getting the work done by forwarding part of the money to some STA officials.
PW-36 Rakesh Kumar claimed that in September, 1997 he had gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri for issuance of permanent driving license alongwith his friend. He claimed that they did not meet anyone. During cross examination by Ld. PP witness denied the suggestion that when they went to the authority they met Baldev Raj who made enquiries from them regarding purpose of visit. He further denied that Baldev Raj claimed that he would charge Rs. 1000/- for issuance of DL and out of said amount would pay something to staff as bribe for getting the work done. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that nobody demanded any money from him.
PW-37 Mangal Singh claimed that in March, 1997 he had gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri for renewal of DL and after getting his form forwarded, deposited Rs.50/- and relevant papers. He claimed that he did not meet any agent for his work nor any agent contacted him. During cross examination by Ld. PP he denied the suggestion of having got his form filled up from an agent. He however admitted having got his forms filled up from some person and claimed CC No.30/2009 Page104 of 114 that he could neither deny nor affirm that name of the said person was Pardeep Kumar. He specifically denied that the said Pardeep Kumar had told him that he would charge money and after paying some money to the inside staff would get the work done. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness admitted that the documents had been handed over by him to the person sitting across counter in the Transport Authority.
PW-42 Pulam Singh claimed that in 1998 he went to Transport Authority where he went to a person for getting his form filled up. He claimed that he did not know name of that person nor could identify him. During cross examination by Ld. PP witness claimed having disclosed tothe IO that name of the person was Dharam Singh. He claimed that this name had been suggested by the IO to him. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel witness claimed that he never himself told the name Dharam Singh to CBI officer as he did not know him and his name.
PW-44 Nirmal Singh claimed that in 1998 he went to STA Janakpuri where he got application form filled up from one Dharam Singh whom he could not now identify. During cross examination by Ld. PP witness denied the suggestion that the said Dharam Singh had told him about having relations with officials of Transport Department and that he would get the work done after paying money to them.
PW-46 Surender Singh who was one of the member of the surprise check team was referred to by Ld. PP as being the star witness who duly identified all the accused persons and deposed about what happened at the spot. Witness had claimed that on 2.2.1998 he was directed by his senior officer to attend CBI office when they went to Janakpuri STA where he heard conversations between agents and public persons. He claimed that agents were CC No.30/2009 Page105 of 114 telling the public persons that they would get their DL's and other related documents issued with the help of inside officials of Janakpuri Transport Authority by paying money to them and for that purpose were taking huge payments from public persons. It was claimed that CBI officials arrested those agents and seized documents from them. Witness claimed Mukesh Vij, Karamjit Singh, Dharam Singh, Rajender Singh, Satender Pal, Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma and Pardeep Kumar as being the agents apprehended. During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel witness claimed that he himself did not ask any agent or any other person for getting the work done on payment of money nor in his presence any other independent witness had done so. He claimed that CBI officials did not give any camera for taking photographs of activities of any person but tape recorder was given to him by CBI officials which was used by him and after using the same he handed it over to CBI officials on the same day. He claimed that he did not go inside office of the Regional Transport Authority to enquire about identity of those persons. He claimed that he did not see number of storeyes in the building and could neither affirm nor deny that the building was 5 - 6 storeyes. He could neither deny nor affirm that in the said building there was offices of different departments and of lawyers on different floors and could neither deny nor affirm that there were offices of 100 or more lawyers there. He could neither deny nor affirm that shops of coffee, cold drink and eatries and other items were situated in the said building. He however subsequently claimed that there were seats of some lawyers and various offices there. He claimed that it might be possible that during the period of 1 - 2 hours thousands of people must have visited the compound for getting their work done in different offices. He claimed that he could not identify anyone of those persons and had not heard CC No.30/2009 Page106 of 114 the talks which the said persons had with others. He claimed that in his presence CBI officials did not do any writing work either inside the aforesaid building nor outside it and his signatures were not obtained on any paper by the CBI officials at that time. He claimed that his signatures were obtained after returning back to CBI office. He further admitted that during his stay in the complex of Transport Authority he did not come to know names of the arrested persons and also did not come to know their names during course of journey from the said complex to CBI office. He further admitted that he could not identify the said arrested persons. He could not say as to which public person gave how much money to a particular person and for what purpose. As per witness, his signatures were obtained by CBI officials about 3 - 4 hours after reaching the CBI office. He specifically claimed that he did not know the accused persons nor could identify them individually.
PW-47 Kamal Dev had claimed having purchased auto- rickshaw in 1997 and having gone to Transport Authority, Janakpuri where he met Dharam Singh and Karam Singh, two Dalals. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel witness specifically claimed that he could not identify Dharam Singh or Karam Singh.
PW-53 had deposed about having handed over his documents alongwith application to an agent for renewal of DL but did not remember name of the agent who had demanded Rs.300/- or Rs. 400/- for renewal of license which amount was to be paid after renewal of license. During cross examination by Ld. PP he claimed that he did not remember if he had told the CBI officials about having handed over documents to one Shri Sunil Sharma. He admitted that Sunil had demanded Rs.300/- from him for getting the work done and had given Rs.100/- as advance and balance Rs.200/- was to be paid CC No.30/2009 Page107 of 114 after completion of the said job. Apparently, in view of wavering stand taken by this witness no reliance can be placed on his testimony.
PW-55 Gurbir Singh claimed that in December, 1997-98 he went to Janakpuri Transport Authority for getting DL renewed and contacted an agent sitting outside. Witness neither remember his name nor was able to identify him. He claimed that he did not even recollect if the agent was a Sikh gentleman or a clean shaven person. During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness claimed that it was possible that the agent was Dharam Singh. He denied the suggestion that Dharam Singh was present in Court or that he was intentionally not identifying him.
PW-64 Neena Makhija claimed having learnt driving from Dhaliwal Motor Driving School, Rohini and stated that she was unable to identify its Proprietor from amongst the accused persons. During cross examination by Ld. PP witness claimed that she had appeared for oral test before learner DL and had also given driving test before permanent license was issued. When accused H.S. Dhaliwal was pointed out to witness, she claimed that most probably he was Mr. Dhaliwal, Proprietor of M/s Dhaliwal Motor Driving School but further stated that some other person used to sit in the office with whom she had talks regarding her license. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel witness claimed that she could not tell name of the person with whom she had talks regarding learner DL.
PW-66 Rakesh Kumar claimed having gone to RTO with his friend and stated that the person who filled the form had a talk with his friend and he himself paid Rs.1000/- in that regard. He could not tell name of the person who had filled his form but claimed it was one Sehgal and he rightly identified Satish Sehgal in that regard. Significantly, the witness had nothing to say against Satish Sehgal CC No.30/2009 Page108 of 114 except his having filled up the application form.
PW-73 Diwan Singh claimed having met Sunil Kumar Sharma in STA, Janakpuri but claimed that he could not identify him from amongst the accused persons present in Court. When accused was specifically pointed out to witness, he claimed that he was not Sunil Kumar Sharma who met him at STA.
PW-74 Rajinder Singh claimed that on 2.2.1998 CBI officials came and rounded up many people including himself and took them to office of CGO Complex. On seeing the accused persons he claimed that no one of them had been rounded up and taken to CBI office in his presence.
PW-76 stated about Karam Singh and Dharam Singh having helped him in STA but denied the suggestion that they had informed him about their having contacts in RTO office or that they would get license renewed after paying money to officials. He was not sure about identity of Dharam Singh.
PW-77 K. Babu who was one of the Inspectors in the surprise check team deposed about apprehension of agents including Mukesh Vij and one Sethi having been apprehended at the spot itself. Surprisingly, Sethi had never been arrested at the spot.
Besides these witnesses which were relied upon by the prosecution as being the witnesses who implicated the accused persons, testimonies of PW-72 P.K. Sharma makes an interesting reading. During course of examination in chief he had echoed case of prosecution. However, during his cross examination he admitted that no one was deputed to act as a decoy witness in this case. He claimed that he did see some touts going inside the office of Transport Authority but name of any such person nor this fact was mentioned by him in his Memo or the complaint. He further admitted CC No.30/2009 Page109 of 114 that he had not chase any of those persons who had gone inside office of STA. He further admitted that employees working in office of STA were not visible from the main gate where he was standing and that there was no queue outside window of STA office as work had not yet started. Witness further went on to say that names of specific persons who paid /received money or purpose thereof had not been specifically mentioned by him in his complaint. Significantly, those details are missing from the Search Memo also. He further admitted that name of none of the independent witnesses had been mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW-68/2.
110 So much discussion regarding the witnesses relied upon by ld. PP in order to prove case of the Prosecution. 111 On a bare perusal of Prosecution story, it appears that omnibus and vague allegations have made by Prosecution witnesses in this case. Such like allegations commenced from the very beginning of the case, wherein the proceedings are alleged to have been initiated on basis of an information which straightaway leads to forming of a Surprise Check Team. There is no ocular or documentary evidence regarding constitution of the said Team nor is there any material on record as to how, when or by whom the four independent witnesses were requisitioned to be part of the Check Team. As already mentioned, it is also not clear as to who gave necessary orders of constitution of the said Team or gave directions to the Team to take steps which it eventually took. None of the participants of the said Surprise Check Team could pin point as to what amount of money was received by any particular accused and from whom and under what promise. Only vague and omnibus allegations appear to have been made in this regard. Once again, this Court expresses surprise & astonishment on the fact that in a raid of this magnitude, no CC No.30/2009 Page110 of 114 decoy witness had been appointed nor services of any recording instruments were utilized to pin point the transaction which might have taken place at the spot. The Investigation Team members merely thought it fit to rely on their instincts and on the hearing and seeing capacity of its Team members without any supportive evidence to corroborate the same. During course of his submissions, much reliance was placed by Ld. PP on testimonies of CBI Officials and while relying upon "Hazari Lal's case" (Supra), it was submitted that where evidence of trap Police Officials was found trustworthy, there was no requirement of any further corroboration. The judicial pronouncement is not disputed. However, the big question in this case is to, as to whether testimonies of Police Officials are over-board. PW-82 Shri B.K. Pradhan was one of the members of the Surprise Check Team that raided the spot. During course of his testimony, he simply claimed that on reaching the spot, they did find some touts operating there. During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that he did see exchange of money taking place at spot but did not remember as to whether or not the Giver was examined or interrogated by CBI Officials. He specifically claimed that he had not specifically pointed out to his Team Leader any particular Giver or Taker of money. He could not even remember if Office of Transport Authority, Sub Registrar and some Shops existed on the Ground Floor of the visited premises or if about 100 Advocates and their staff were also present in the Compound. After seeing the Surprise Check Memo, he conceeded that there was no mention therein regarding the received amount having been seized. Witness claimed that although he did not have any talk with the MLO. Team did meet the MLO. This facts was disputed by other CBI Team members. Witness further claimed that he had not seen any of the apprehended people having CC No.30/2009 Page111 of 114 gone inside the STA Office and having talked to anyone there. Some of the other CBI team members who came to depose in the matter also did not support each other in entirety. PW-77 Shri K. Babu during course of his testimony had claimed that J.S. Sethi too had been arrested at the spot. Infact his this claim runs contrary to basic claim of the Prosecution whereunder J.S. Sethi was never arrested at the spot. While PW-72 Shri P.K. Sharma had claimed that there was no queue outside windows of STA Office as work had not yet started, PW-77 claimed that there were queues at various Counters in the Transport Authority and that persons standing in the queue were offered to join the raiding party but none agreed. 112 During course of his submissions, Ld. Public Prosecutor had laid great stress on the fact that documents recovered from possession of accused persons and from Office of STA had been got compared vis-a-vis specimen writings of the accused persons by GEQD, Shimla and the writings matched. Attention of this Court in this regard had been specifically drawn to Report of GEQD in respect of Vinod Chopra, Sunil Sharma, Pradeep Kumar and J.S. Sethi. It was sought to be argued as these persons had filled up application forms in respect of victims, they were hand in glove with each other and despite their having not been identified by the witnesses, their culpability stood prove on record.
113 Opinion of Handwriting Expert is not conclusive and no conviction can be based merely on basis of opinion of Handwriting Expert. There have to be independent circumstances to which opinion of Hand Writing Expert can only lead some support. This is not the case herein. Moreover, Prosecution has come up with a story that merely facilitating someone to fill up his application form is an offence. MLO (PW-48) examined by the Prosecution had specifically claimed CC No.30/2009 Page112 of 114 that an illiterate person who cannot fill up his Form can get the same filled up by any other persons. That being the position, even if some of the accused persons had helped other to fill up their Forms/ prepare Affidavits/ helped them in getting the same attested, it cannot be said that they had helped those persons by making them believe that they would help in preparation of their Licenses/RC by influencing Officials of STA Department. No concrete evidence in this regard had been brought forth by Prosecution.
114 This Court finds itself in agreement with submission made by ld. Counsel for accused persons that nothing has been brought forth by the Prosecution to show that the accused persons acted in unison or with the sole objective or had acted in furtherance of a common object.
115 In considered opinion of this Court, the slipshod manner in which the matter had been investigated from the very beginning leaves much to be desired regarding investigation of the matter by CBI, often referred to as the primary Investigation Agency of the Country. No attempt whatsoever was made at the initial investigation stage to take services of decoy customer or a shadow witness nor any attempt was made to record likely conversation which might have taken place between the "Giver" & " Taker" of bribe which was supposed to be passed on to a public servant. It may be mentioned herein that as many as 6 accused persons were claimed to have been arrested at the spot with allegation that they had lured public persons to part with money on promise of getting their work done by influencing public servants in Office of STA. Neither names of those public persons nor the amounts nor names of public servants likely to be influence have seen light of the day. On the same footing, the Investigating Agency had miserably failed to connect the CC No.30/2009 Page113 of 114 subsequently apprehended persons i.e. Baldev, Satish, Sethi and Dhaliwal being connected in any manner whatsoever to the earlier apprehended persons. It is not surprising that in a case of this magnitude where as many as 86 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution to support its case, nearly 56 witnesses had to be cross- examined by Ld. Prosecutor himself. Apparently, the Investigating Agency had not duly done its work in this case.
116 It would be pertinent to mention on record that testimonies of witnesses who had deposed against accused Karamjeet Singh (Karam Singh) have not been discussed hereinabove as the said accused had expired & proceedings against him stood abated w.e.f. 03.02.2003.
117 Upshot of the aforesaid analysis is that on account of slipshod investigation, Prosecution witnesses not supporting case of Prosecution during course of trial and other facts & circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Court has no option but to order acquittal of all the accused persons facing trial in this case. 118 All accused persons are accordingly ordered to be acquitted.
Announced in the open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 28.07.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No.30/2009 Page114 of 114