Delhi District Court
Cc No.140/19 Cbi vs . Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 1 Of 60 on 14 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE (P C ACT)
(C B I)11, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
CC No.: 140/19 (Old CC No.: 8559/16)
FIR No.: RC DAI 2012A0020CBI/ACB/New Delhi dated 29.06.2012
U/s 120B read with 420, 471 read with 468, 477A IPC &
U/s 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CNR No.: DLCT110006182019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Ravinder Singh (Accused No.1)
S/o Sh. Ameer Singh
R/o Flat No.292, Sector18B,
Shree Awas Apartment (L&T Flat),
Dwarka, New Delhi110074
Permanent address:
H. No.11/89, Nehru Park,
Tehsil Rohtak Road,
Bahadur Garh, Haryana
2. Kapil Walia (Accused No.2)
S/o Sh. R.P. Walia
Proprietor of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
Present and Permanent address: R/o 65/57,
New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 60
Date of FIR : 29.06.2012
Date of filing of chargesheet : 18.12.2015
Arguments concluded on : 09.12.2021
Date of Judgment : 14.12.2021
Appearance
For Prosecution : Sh. Brajesh Kumar Sinha, Ld. Senior P.P. for
the CBI.
For accused persons : Sh.Mohd. Qamar Ali, Ld.Counsel for accused
no.1 Ravinder Singh and Sh. Sudarshan
Rajan, Ld.Counsel for accused no.2 Kapil
Walia.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
1.Both the accused persons namely Ravinder Singh (A1) Junior Engineer (JE), Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Delhi and Kapil Walia (A2) Proprietor of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering have been chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420,468,471,477A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that :
(a) A Contract Agreement (CA) No.70/200809 dated 05.09.2008 vide work order no.92 dated 03.09.2008 was executed between Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Government CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 60 through its Chief Executive Officer who delegated his power in this regard to Executive Engineer (SW)II and Kapil Walia (A2) Proprietor of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering for reboring of two tubewells in near UGR in Rocky Strata in Rajoki Village, Mahipalpur Constituency, New Delhi under South WestII and as per the Contract Agreement, Johnson Pipes were required to be used by M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering. During investigation, out of two tubewells, only one was inspected by the Expert from NGRI.
(b)The work regarding reboring of aforesaid Tubewell was looked after by Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1) and also supervised by Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel and Executive Engineer Sh. Radhey Shyam respectively.
(c) For reboring of the aforesaid Tubewell, Kapil Walia (A2), Proprietor of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering used copy of invoice no. Nil dated 02.09.2008 purportedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. bearing signatures of Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel and A1 and total amount of the aforesaid Contract Agreement was transferred by Delhi Jal Board through EFT No.68 dated 10.10.2008 in CA No. 70/200809 in the name of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering in the account maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank whose authorized signatory is Kapil CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 60 Walia (A2). However, during investigation, the aforesaid invoice was found to be fictitious as Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. produced the office copy of invoices issued on 02.09.2008 and stated that the aforesaid invoice was not issued in favour of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering and the same is forged one because the format of the invoice is different and the invoice neither bears his signature nor the signature of the Director of the Company. The CFSL expert has given positive opinion about specimen writing/signature of Kapil Walia (A
2) on the said invoice.
(d)As per the strata chart, 55 m Johnson pipe was to start after 90 meters to 144 meters in the Tubewell in question and entry regarding the execution of the work of the aforesaid Tubewell was mentioned in Measurement Book (MB) No. 18693 from pages no.11 to 15. However, during investigation, the aforesaid Tubewell was inspected by Expert from NGRI through Borehole Camera who could scan upto 101.8 meters against the recorded depth of 157 meters and as per the Expert's Report, top 49.4 meter is seen with blank pipe followed by well reduction from 200 mm to 150 mm and from 49.4 meter to 97.9 meter, 150 mm MS slotted pipe followed by blank pipe up to 101.8 meter is seen; Present Tubewell depth was only 2/3 of the claimed CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 60 depth and thus, the Report is conclusive regarding nonuse of Johnson pipe.
(e) Executive Engineer Sh. Radhey Shyam and Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel in their respective checking have done only 10% and 50% of the checking which does not include lowering/installation of Johnson Pipes which is subject matter in the present case whereas Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1) has done 100% checking of the work which includes checking of Johnson Pipes and installation of the assembly in the tubewell and hence the culpability lies solely on Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1).
(f) Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1) entered into criminal conspiracy with Kapil Walia (A2) during the year 2008 2009 with the object of facilitating Kapil Walia (A2) in obtaining the wrongful pecuniary advantage and to cheat Delhi Jal Board. In this particular borewell, Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1) conducted 100% checking of work at the time of installation of tubewell and fraudulently and dishonestly made false entries in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc. and showed that the required Johnson Pipes, as per the strata chart, had been used.
(g)In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, Kapil Walia (A2) submitted fake and forged invoice showing the CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 60 purported purchase of Johnson Pipes for the release of the payments and Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh (A1) knowingly falsified the accounts and on the basis of false entries made by him in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc., payments were released to the contractor (A2) causing wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.2,36,712/ approximately and corresponding gain to the accused persons.
2.After completion of the investigation in the present case, charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 120B read with 420,468,471,477A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against both the accused persons was filed before the court on 18.12.2015 and vide order dated 12.04.2016, the court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against both the accused persons.
CHARGE
3.In terms of order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the court, a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 471 read with 468,477A IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against both the accused persons, further for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and under section 471 read with 468 IPC against both the accused persons and for the offences punishable under section 477A IPC and under section 13(1)(d) and punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 60 Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 Ravinder Singh was framed by the court on 27.01.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4.To connect the arraigned accused persons with the offences charged, the prosecution in total has examined sixteen witnesses viz Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board as PW 1, Sh. Vikas Rathi, JE (Civil), Vigilance Department as PW2, Sh. M.C. Joshi, Draftman (GradeII), in the office of Executive Engineer (E&M), W&S, SouthI, Greater Kailash1, New Delhi as PW3, Sh. Neeraj Singh, Proprietor of M/s Neeraj Electricals as PW4, Sh. Amit Sikka, Partner of M/s Hindustan Trading Co. as PW5, Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as PW6, Sh. Varinder Kumar, Proprietor of Bharat Electricals & Electronics as PW7, Ms Veer Jyoti, Inspector CBI, ACB Delhi as PW8, Sh. Shashilov posted as Dy. Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Amba Deep Branch, K.G. Marg, New Delhi as PW9, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) as PW10, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Vigilance) in Delhi Jal Board as PW11, Sh. Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Junior Accountant in the office of Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi as PW12, Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, ACB/CBI, New Delhi as PW13, Sh. D.V. Reddy, Chief Scientist (Retired), National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 60 (M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in HydroGeology) as PW14, Sh. Praveen Koul, Sales Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi (BPCL) as PW15 and Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific OfficercumAssistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi as PW16.
5.After examining the aforesaid witnesses, on the request of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the prosecution evidence was closed by the court on 19.09.2018.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
6.Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence on record were put to them to which they pleaded their innocence and stated that the entire work was executed as per the contract awarded and the work order and the entire case is false and without merit.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7.A1 opted not to lead any evidence in his defence. However, A2 examined three witnesses in his defence namely Sh. Chandan Singh Tanwar as DW1/A2, Sh. Tikam Chand Jain as DW2/A2 and Sh. Pranav Kumar Mishra as DW3/A2 and after examining these witnesses, vide order dated 25.10.2019, the court closed defence evidence on behalf of A2 on the request of his learned counsel.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 60ARGUMENTS
8.I have heard the arguments as advanced earlier by Sh. Dhan Kishore, learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI and thereafter, by Sh. Brajesh Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI as well as as advanced by Sh. Mohd. Qamar Ali, learned counsel for A1 and Sh. Sudershan Rajan, learned counsel for A2. I have also perused the record including the evidence and also given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
9.Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued that by documentary evidence and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against both the accused persons. He further argued that A1 was the public servant being Junior Engineer with Delhi Jal Board and a valid sanction has been accorded against A1 by the competent authority with due application of mind. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of A1 to check the execution of the work of re boring of the borewell in question awarded to A2 but he has failed to discharge his duties and he had made false entries in the official records i.e. Measurement Book and the completion report in conspiracy with A2 in order to facilitate him to claim the payment on account of using Johnson Pipes whereas no Johnson Pipes have been used by A2 while executing the work order and this fact has been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW14 Sh.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 60D.V. Reddy who being Scientific Expert, had physically inspected the borewell in question by inserting the borehole camera and came to the conclusion that no Johnson Pipes were found installed therein. He further argued that A1 had helped A2 in procuring forged bill for payment and the invoice/bill showing the purchase of the Johnson Pipes by A2 from M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering which was submitted by A2 with Delhi Jal Board for release of payment of the aforesaid work order, is a forged one and this fact has been proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. He further argued that forged bill was in the handwriting of A2 and this fact has been proved on record by the prosecution by examining PW16 Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific Officer cumAssistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi who proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW16/A. He further argued that the conduct of A1 has resulted in wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the government. On these premise, he argued that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts and prayed for the conviction of the accused persons as per the charges framed against them.
10.On the other hand, ld.counsels for both the accused persons argued that on the basis of evidence on record, the charge framed against the accused persons is not substantiated by the prosecution even by the degree of preponderance of probability though the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 6011.Ld. counsel for A1 argued that PW1 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction against A1 as he was not the appointing authority to Junior Engineer in Delhi Jal Board and the sanction was granted mechanically against A1 without application of mind. He further argued that requisite Johnson Pipes were installed in the borewell in question as per the contract agreement, work of which was duly supervised by Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer but PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy has falsely prepared the report Ex. PW14/A after consultation and dictation of CBI as the recording conducted by him was not shown to anyone on the spot and the DVD prepared by him is of no value since as per CFSL, no opinion could be offered as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination. He further argued that the entire work was executed as per the contract awarded and the work order and the bill was processed by the officials of DJB, specially the accounts department, after receiving the completion report. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of the accounts department of DJB to verify the genuineness of the bill/purchase voucher of Johnson Pipes submitted by contractor A 2 which was forwarded to the accounts department with the completion report and test check report and thus, A1 cannot be held guilty of committing any offence much less the offences for which he has been charged with. On these premise, he prayed that A1 be acquitted in the present case.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 6012.In addition to the arguments advanced by ld.counsel for A1, ld.counsel for A2 also supplemented in his arguments that the work has been properly executed as per the work order and Bill of Quantity which was duly checked by A1 and satisfaction thereof was recorded by various officers of Delhi Jal Board. He further argued that A2 has submitted genuine invoice/bill with respect to the purchase of Johnson Pipes with Delhi Jal Board and the bill was processed by the accounts department and Executive Engineer who were fully satisfied with the documents as well as the execution of work qua the use of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question and only thereafter, the payment was released by the accounts department to A2. He further argued that there was savings for a sum of Rs.1,32,741/in the column of Johnson Pipes and the borewell is still functioning and there was no complaint from any corner which clearly shows that the work of reboring of borewell in question has been done as per the work order and the contract agreement. He further argued that as per the contract agreement, there was a defect liability for a period of six months for which a security deposit was made and after the expiry of the same, the security deposit was released to A2 without any complaint. No handwriting of A2 was ever taken by the CBI and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. On these premise, he argued that A2 is not liable to be held guilty and he be acquitted for the charged offences in the present case.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 60APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS AND ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS THEREUPON
13.The present case pertains to the reboring of tubewell situated at Rajokri Village at Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West II, New Delhi. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on two aspects, firstly, whether the work has not been executed as per the work order and requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site and secondly, whether the invoice/bill submitted by the contractor A2, on the basis of which the payment was released to A2, was a forged one.
14.The core question that needs to be seen is as to whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the arraigned accused persons for the charged offences.
15.It is settled law that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the story of the prosecution must stand on its own two feet. The onus of proof cannot be shifted on the accused persons.
16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as R.K. Dey Vs. State of Orrisa AIR 1977 SC 170 has held that: "Three cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely:
(i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 60 prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving this case;
(ii) that in the criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and
(iii) that onus of prosecution never shifts."
17.From the abovesaid case law, it is clear that it is not at all obligatory on the accused persons to produce evidence in support of their defence and that for the purpose of proving their versions, they can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down.
18.Before dealing with the aforesaid two aspects, the court shall deal with the contention raised by Ld.counsel for A1 whether PW1 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution against A1 Ravinder Singh as he was not the appointing authority to Junior Engineer in Delhi Jal Board and that whether the sanction for prosecution of A1 Ravinder Singh has been accorded without application of mind.
19.PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board was the witness who accorded sanction against A1 Ravinder Singh for prosecution and he in his deposition before the court deposed that he is administratively managing entire Delhi Jal CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 60 Board and being competent disciplinary authority, he has accorded sanction for prosecution of A1 Ravinder Singh vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A. The said sanction order Ex. PW1/A was sent to the CBI by Joint Director Sh. Sanjay Gupta vide letter dated 23.11.2015, copy of which has been marked as Mark PW1/A.
20.PW11 Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Vigilance) in Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Vigilance Department, Government of NCT of Delhi deposed that he had forwarded the sanction order already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A issued by competent authority Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board to the CBI vide his letter dated 23.11.2015 exhibited as Ex. PW11/A which was earlier marked as Mark PW1/A.
21.During cross examination of PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, A1 has tried to build up a case that it was Member Administration who was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against him. PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra also admitted during cross examination that as per the circular issued by Delhi Jal Board, the competent disciplinary authority for the post of Junior Engineer is the Member Administration who is competent to remove/dismiss a Junior Engineer from services. However, this part of cross examination of this witness in this regard is of no help to A1 inasmuch as this witness in his examination in chief itself has categorically deposed that though the disciplinary authority with respect to Junior CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 60 Engineer is Member Administration but the present case being a composite case in which senior officers were also involved therefore, he being the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board, was competent to be the disciplinary authority for all the officers involved in this composite case. The cross examination of this witness also reflects that as per section 51 of The Water Board Act, 1998, the Board is the Appointing Authority for the employees of the Delhi Jal Board and Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board is also part of the Board, besides the other members of the Board as mentioned in the cross examination. During cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that he is not competent to accord sanction. Other witness PW11 Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Vigilance) has also denied the suggestion of A1 that PW1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer was not the competent authority to accord sanction against Junior Engineer.
22.From the deposition of PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board and the material on record, it is evident that he was the highest disciplinary authority in Delhi Jal Board and could remove A1 Ravinder Singh being Junior Engineer from his services. Thus, he was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A1 Ravinder Singh and hence there is no force in the contention of the ld.counsel for A1 Ravinder Singh.
23.The next question is whether the sanction for prosecution of A1 CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 60 Ravinder Singh has been accorded without application of mind.
24.The law relating to accord of sanction is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, 2013 Crl.L.J 3092, wherein it has been held that: "13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:
(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
(d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 60(g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity".
25.PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board categorically deposed in his deposition before the court that his office received the request of CBI to grant sanction for prosecution along with annexures and after going through the CD sent along with the annexures and also after consulting the experts from the department as well as from the organization and the report of National GeoPhysical Research Institute, the prosecution sanction was granted. He has further deposed that he had perused the documents sent by CBI before according sanction for prosecution against A1 Ravinder Singh.
26.In the facts of the matter and from the testimony of the sanctioning authority PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, it is culled out that only after being satisfied that a case for sanction was made out, PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board has accorded the elicited sanction for prosecution vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A against A 1 Ravinder Singh and the same is also apparent from the bare reading of the sanction order Ex. PW1/A that the sanctioning authority PW1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 60 Delhi Jal Board has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the record by going through the statement of witnesses, documents and other material placed before him.
27.The sanction order, on its face, indicates that all relevant material were placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of according of sanction. It is discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority had perused all the material and prima facie reached to the conclusion. In terms of the law laid in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), it is proved on record that the Sanctioning Authority prima facie reached to the satisfaction that the relevant facts constituted the offences in question. Even otherwise, sanction order is not to be construed either in pedantic manner or by any hypertechnical approach to test its validity. Hence, it is proved on record that the sanction order Ex. PW1/A vide which sanction for prosecution was accorded against A1 Ravinder Singh, was valid.
28.Now, the court shall deal with the first aspect i.e. whether the work has not been executed as per the work order as requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site. In order to prove that requisite Johnson Pipes were not installed by contractor A2 at the aforesaid site as per the work order, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the Report of Scientific Expert Dr. D.V. Reddy who has been CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 60 examined before the court as PW14.
29.The main objective of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy in the present case was to find out the depth of the borewell situated at Rajokri Village, Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South WestII, New Delhi and the type of pipes used therein, more particularly whether Johnson Pipes were used or not. PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected the borewell in question on the direction of Director, National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) to whom CBI had requested as he was an Expert in this field. For ascertaining the same, he has used the borehole simple under water camera for the same.
30.Ld.counsels for the accused persons have disputed the very expertise of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy. The profile of this witness as mentioned in his testimony before the court as PW14 clearly shows that he has retired as Chief Scientist from National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) having degree of M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in HydroGeology and at the relevant period i.e. in the year 201314, he was posted as Sr. Principal Scientist in NGRI. The testimony of this witness further shows that in this case, CBI had written a letter to Director, NGRI to investigate the boreholes drilled by Delhi Jal Board at different places in Delhi and as this witness had 'expertise' in the said field, the Director, NGRI deputed him for investigation. The facts mentioned in the report Ex. PW14/A also show his expertise.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 60During cross examination of this witness, it has come on record that he has undergone one year's advance training course in hydro geology and engineering geology (well construction) in Germany. From the testimony of PW14 Dr.D.V. Reddy, qualification as well as the expertise, procedure and experiment of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy, as detailed in the report Ex. PW14/A, it is crystal clear that this witness was expert in this field and thus, there is no substance in the arguments of the ld.counsels for the accused persons in this regard.
31.To ascertain whether Johnson Pipes were used in the borewell situated in Rajokri Village at Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South WestII, New Delhi, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed before the court that he visited the sites of borewells along with CBI Officer as well as officials from Delhi Jal Board. This witness had visited the site of the borewell in question on 24.09.2013 along with Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar, ScientistC, Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi, Sh. B.C. Patel, Executive Engineer (S)IV, PW 2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi PW10 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, PW13 Shitanshu Sharma, Investigating officer and A1 and A2. He further deposed that in this case, he thoroughly inspected the borewell in question by inserting the borehole camera which was lowered in the borehole with the help of a cable connected with the camera and the videography was CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 60 monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in the palmtop for viewing the entire length of the borehole. He proved the Site Inspection Memo dated 24.09.2013 and rough site plan (D11) already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively bearing his signatures at points G. He further deposed that the recorded video from the palmtop was then transferred by him to laptop after leaving the site and after going through the video/pictures, he compared the same with the original strata chart supplied by CBI and thereafter, report was prepared by him and the same was forwarded to CBI and he also prepared two CDs from the laptop containing the videos of respective boreholes inspected by him. He further deposed that one CD was sealed and other was left open for official purpose; the video recording was not played at the site before inspecting team. He proved copy of his report dated 24.02.2014 as Ex. PW14/A (Colly) bearing his signature at point A (original placed in other chargesheet no.1) along with forwarding letter and certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act. He deposed that the envelope already exhibited as Ex. PW7/B in which the CD already exhibited as Ex. PW7/C was kept in sealed condition, was the same CD in which he had transferred the videography of borehole. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
32.In his report, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy has mentioned in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 60 supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage which is as under: Casing details as Lengths Casing Depth Video per diagram details (approx.) Time slot observed 200 mm blank pipe 88.16 200 mm 0.49.4 m 02:52 min m blank pipe 200 mm slotted 6.15 m pipe 150 mm overlap 3.70 m 150 mm 49.497.9 2:526:31 MS slotted m min 150 mm Johnson's 55 m 150 mm 97.86 6:31 pipe blank 101.82 150 mm blank pipe 6.05 m
33.After inspecting the borewell in question, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy made following observations in the report : "The well was scanned using borehole camera on 24.09.2013 and measured the present depth as 101.8 m bgl. Top 49.4 m is seen with blank pipe followed by well reduction from 200 mm to 150 mm. From 49.4 m to 97.9 m 150 mm MS slotted pipe followed by blank pipe up to 101.8 m seen. Present well depth is only 2/3 of the claimed depth.
34.It is settled law that an expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 60 his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific expert's evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
35.As per the observation made by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his report Ex. PW14/A, he could measure the depth of present borewell by scanning it through his borehole camera and found its present depth as 101.8 m bgl. on seeing the video images on his palmtop however, this witness did not make any specific observation or comment about the nonuse of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question in the present case in his report Ex.PW14/A for which he was engaged for. Though Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation has pointed out that in the report Ex. PW14/A, it has been mentioned that under present RC 20(A)/2012, Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected total fourteen wells in two time schedules i.e. between February 2013 and September 2013 and no Johnson type screen was seen in any of the borewells upto the investigated depth however this argument of the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation is not tenable for the reason that it appears to be a general observation made by Dr. D.V. Reddy inasmuch as in his report Ex. PW14/A while CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 60 mentioning in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage qua the borewell in question in the present case, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not specifically make any observation that no Johnson Pipe was found in the borewell in question in the present case and the same is completely silent in this regard and also there is no explanation offered for the same. Even at the time of inspection of the borewell in question, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not reveal or discuss his observations to any person accompanying him and this fact has been admitted by PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy during his cross examination by categorically admitting that during recording, he had not mentioned or told anybody that Johnson Pipes were not found in the borehole which also finds support from the cross examination of PW2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department of Delhi Jal Board who deposed that Dr. D.V. Reddy never indicated absence of use of Johnson pipes and PW10 Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board who deposed that Dr. Reddy did not disclose during inspection that there was no Johnson Pipes found in the borewell. Even during cross examination, it has been admitted by PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy that he did not take any opinion from any official of CGWB during inspection or thereafter at the time of preparing his report Ex. PW14/A. IO PW13 Shitanshu Sharma has also not taken any separate opinion from Sh. N. Jyoti Kumar CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 60 regarding the absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question nor he asked for a separate opinion from Sh. N. Jyoti Kumar and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. PW 14 Dr.D.V. Reddy should have made comments about the existence of pipes or strata or their nature at the spot itself while he was noticing the same but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case. The report Ex. PW14/A and the deposition of Dr. D.V. Reddy before the court as PW14 reflect that in the Inspection Team, he acted as one man army and took all the decisions of his own without taking any opinion, worth the name, from other scientific expert Sh. N. Jyoti Kumar who was accompanying him at the time of inspection of the borewell in question thereby defeating the very purpose of including Sh. N. Jyoti Kumar in the Inspection Team and made him not less than a mute spectator. It is pertinent to mention that Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar, ScientistC, Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi was not cited as prosecution witness nor he was examined before the court and also no explanation has been offered by the CBI in this regard. Even the Investigating Officer did not record any statement of Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. Thus, the very purpose of joining Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar as witness during investigation of the borewell in question stands defeated.
36.Neither PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy nor any of the prosecution CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 60 witnesses in their respective deposition before the court gave any particular characteristics or specification of Johnson Pipes nor they disclosed how the Johnson Pipes are different from slotted, plain or any other pipes. PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy did not anywhere state that he was aware about the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipe or that before inspecting the site, he ever tried to know about the same from the Johnson Company and this witness admitted during cross examination that neither he visited Johnson Company nor he met with any of their officials. Even Investigating Officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma did not seize or take any article/document/literature pertaining to Johnson pipes from PW 14 Dr. D.V. Reddy or Sh. N. Jyoti Kumar as has been admitted by him during cross examination. Some competent officers from Johnson Pipes Company should have been asked by the Investigating Officer to join the inspection team at the time of inspecting the present borewell to throw light on the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipes but no such person was made to join the Inspection Team and this fact has been admitted by Investigating officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination that he did not call any person from the company manufacturing Johnson Pipes at the time of inspection which has been duly supported by the cross examination of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy who deposed that nobody from Johnson Pipes was present at the inspection site during inspection conducted by him.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 60The report of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy nowhere clearly spelt out that no Johnson Pipes were used in the present borewell and in his report, Dr. D.V. Reddy failed to support and substantiate his findings with due reasons.
37.It is interesting fact that Dr. D.V. Reddy has conducted the inspection after a lapse of more than five years after the completion of the work order. PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that Johnson Pipes are metallic pipes and that the metallic pipes are subject to faster corrosion as compared to PVC Pipes. It has come in the cross examination of this witness that metals buried underground are subject to corrosion due to soil, water and metal and it also depends upon solidity of water, acidity of water and the pollution of the soil but in the present case, he had not tested the quality of water in the area. He admitted during cross examination that he has not done any course in study of metals buried underground and none of his publications are in the field of metals buried underground. The other witness PW10 Radhey Shyam also deposed during cross examination that he got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board and further deposed that Johnson Pipe is metallic pipe and the water in South Delhi is hard water. He categorically admitted during cross examination that there is faster moss formation and corrosion in hard water in metallic pipes due to the same, the shape and the holes in the Johnson Pipes would also be changed and blocked CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 60 within certain period. Dr.D.V. Reddy did not state either in his report or in his testimony before the court that due to rust, dust, corrosion or mud etc. he could not ascertain the make of the pipes which were found by him in the borewell in question during inspection or that there was no equipment to clean the said pipes in order to ascertain their makes. The Investigating Officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma also admitted during cross examination that they had not tried to remove the pipes to ascertain the nature of the pipes in the borewell and also did not try to clean the pipes in borehole by using compressor. Also there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary proof to show what is the minimum and maximum life span of buried underground Johnson Pipes when they got disposed off during the course of time in worse to worse conditions as well as in normal conditions. The cross examination of PW10 Radhey Shyam, who got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board, reflects that the life of borewell in SouthWest Delhi is normally 45 years. There is no clause either in the agreement or in the work order to show as to till what time period contractor/A2 was liable for the work done in the borewell in question as the agreement and the work order are silent in this regard. In these circumstances, without there being any proof of nonuse of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question, no liability qua nonuse of Johnson Pipes can be fasten upon the contractor/A2 who had executed the work order in question more CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 60 particularly in view of the report and testimony of scientific expert PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy which are completely silent about the make of the pipes which were found by him in the borewell in question during inspection.
38.PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination did not recollect as to what was the status of the site when they reached the site whether the pumping assembly was being removed by the officials present there or the same was already removed immediately before they reached the spot. Other witness PW2 Sh. Vikas Rathi had given different versions in this regard in his cross examination before the court inasmuch as somewhere he admitted that on the day of inspection, the tubewell was found in running condition before removing the pumping assembly and somewhere he did not recollect whether the assembly had been removed before their reaching at the spot. The cross examination of Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma reflects that on the day of inspection i.e. 24.09.2013, the borewell was in working condition.
39.I have perused the site inspection memo dated 24.09.2013 Ex. PW2/A. Perusal of the same shows that at the time of inspection, the borewell in question was opened and pumping assembly was taken out with the help of E&M staff of Delhi Jal Board and the proceedings were concluded. Thus, it is evident from the site inspection memo Ex. PW2/A that the work of opening and removing the pumping assembly in the borewell in question was CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 60 started in the presence of Inspection Team after their reaching at the spot.
40.As per the site inspection memo dated 24.09.2013 Ex. PW2/A, the Inspection Team visited the site in question at 05:45 PM and the proceedings were concluded at 06:00 PM. Dr. D.V. Reddy also admitted during cross examination that the entire inspection was carried out between 05:45 to 06:00 PM. Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that upon removal of pumping assembly, there is a lot of suspended solids in the water inside the borehole and it takes more than 45 hours for the suspended solids to settle down after the removal of the pumping assembly. PW10 Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that when the borewell assembly is removed, mud falls into the holes and water inside would get dirty. Sh. D.V. Reddy had started the inspection immediately after removal of the pumping assembly as has been deposed by IO PW13 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination. It is pertinent to mention that in his report, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the video time slot till 97.86 m as 6:31 min but thereafter, he did not give the video time slot for the remaining depth which he allegedly found till 101.82. Why the same has been left, the prosecution has not been able to explain the same. The cross examination of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that there was suspended solids inside the borewell in question at the time of its inspection which took approximately CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 60 fourfive hours to settle down and keeping in view that 15 minutes were taken by Dr. D. V. Reddy in inspecting the borewell in question as per the site inspection memo Ex.PW2/A and also admitted by him in his cross examination, it is quite possible that since the suspended solids inside the borewell could not be settled down during inspection, the same may be the reason that Dr. D.V. Reddy had not mentioned the make of any of the pipes used in the borewell in question and that is why his report as well as deposition is silent in this regard.
41.Moreover, for the inspection of the borewell in question, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy has used the borehole simple under water camera. The camera of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy does not have the capacity to measure the thickness and dia of the pipe inside the borewell as has been admitted by him during cross examination. PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination admitted that Johnson Pipe is a metallic pipe and there are many methods of identifying metals buried underground like geophysical methods which includes ground penetrating radar method, electromagnetic conductivity etc. but in the present case, none of the above methods were used by him. There is also nothing on record to shows which method was more appropriate than that which has been adopted in the present case by Dr. D.V. Reddy. Even during cross examination the Investigating Officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma deposed that no suggestion was taken from anybody from Delhi Jal Board in CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 60 respect of the methods available to detect presence or absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell.
42.As per the deposition of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy, after lowering the borehole camera in the borewell in question, videography was monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in the palmtop in order to view the entire length of the borehole and thereafter the video was transferred by him to his laptop after leaving the site and after going through the video/pictures, he compared the same with the original strata chart supplied by the CBI and thereafter, prepared the report Ex. PW14/A. He further deposed that on the instruction of the CBI, he prepared two video CDs from the laptop of the respective boreholes inspected by him. The video CD has been exhibited as Ex. PW7/C which has been accompanied with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
43.Ld.counsel for the accused persons raised objection with respect to the noncompliance of the requirement in the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy and cross examined him in this regard. During cross examination, this witness admitted that his signatures on certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are not his official signatures and voluntarily deposed that he had not signed the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act but the name appearing above the stamp, is in his handwriting. He further deposed that on certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 60 Act his stamp is used as it is not in his letter head. This witness denied the suggestion that the said certificate was not issued by him. Though during cross examination an issue has been raised with respect to the signature of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy on the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act however, looking into the overall language of the certificate and more particularly once the witness appeared before the court in person and has categorically deposed in his cross examination that his name on the same is in his handwriting which also bearing his stamp and further denied the suggestion of the ld.counsel for the accused persons that the said certificate was not issued by him, the court is of the opinion that the requirement of certificate under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act stands complied with. Thus, the contention of the ld.counsels for the accused persons is without any base and the same does not hold water.
44.Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, the CBI has sent CD Ex. PW7/C to Computer Forensic Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for video CD examination regarding whether the CD has been tampered with or not however, as per report no. CFSL2015/G345 dated 30.12.2015 Ex.PW13/D regarding result of examination, the opinion could not be offered by Scientific Expert as the DVD do not have the required video quality for video examination in the existing system available with CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 60 the laboratory at that time. Since Dr. D.V. Reddy did not make any specific observation or comment in his report Ex. PW14/A about nonuse of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question and the make of the other pipes used therein, the DVD was the best evidence before the court which could have rendered some help to facilitate the court to view as to what was the nature of pipes installed in the borehole in question but even the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion in this regard, for the reasons stated above. The conduct of the Investigating Officer clearly reflects his lackadaisical and callous approach in investigating the present matter which is apparent from the record that at the spot, the Investigating Officer did not insist Dr. D.V. Reddy to transfer the recording from palmtop to laptop in the presence of inspecting team and also the video recording was not played before the Inspecting Team nor the DVD was prepared at the spot. The conduct of the Investigating Officer is also apparent from his cross examination wherein he deposed that he orally instructed Dr. D.V. Reddy to preserve the recordings in its original form as the same may be required during trial.
45.During cross examination also, he deposed that he did not replay the recording to show that the same was properly recorded at the spot. PW2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board who was the member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that after CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 60 inspection, the recording was not replayed to show that the recording had been properly saved. The cross examination of PW 14 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that he saved the files in Mp4 format and was aware that the name of the file can be changed. Despite the same, he prepared the CD in his office at NGRI, Hyderabad and not at the spot. The borewell in question was inspected by Dr. D.V. Reddy on 24.09.2013 however, he prepared his report Ex. PW14/A on 24.02.2014. There is no explanation offered by Dr. D.V. Reddy why he took such a long time in preparing the report. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother for five months to enquire about the report from Dr. D.V. Reddy in this regard. The conduct of PW14 Dr.D.V. Reddy shows that he conducted the inspection of the borewell in question and prepared his report in a very casual manner. Thus, the DVD has failed to connect the accused persons in the commission of the alleged offences.
46.Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI though argued that even the Sanctioning Authority has gone through the DVD supplied to them and after going through the same, the Sanctioning Authority was also of the opinion that the depth of the borewell in question was 101.8 meters and thus, it stands proved on record that Dr. D.V. Reddy has correctly measured the depth of the borewell in question in his report Ex. PW14/A. This argument of the ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI is also of no help to the case of the prosecution inasmuch as it was the duty of the prosecution to prove CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 60 on record before the court by playing the DVD that Dr. D.V. Reddy has correctly and exactly measured the depth of the borewell in question which the prosecution has failed and also in terms of the law laid down in a case titled as State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), the Sanctioning Authority has prima facie reached to the conclusion that the relevant facts constituted the offences in question after perusing all the material. However, before the court, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the charged offences against the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
47.The palmtop and camera were also not seized by the CBI and this fact has been admitted by PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy in his cross examination before the court. PW2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that Investigating Officer had not seized the camera, palmtop or any other equipment or recording device after the inspection. Investigating Officer Shitanshu Sharma has also admitted during cross examination that they did not seize any camera, palmtop, wires and other equipments used by Dr. D.V. Reddy at the time of inspection of the borewell. The Investigating Officer even admitted during cross examination that since Dr. D.V. Reddy has already submitted his report, he did not ask Dr. D.V. Reddy whether he has preserved the recordings of the borewell. Dr. D.V. CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 37 of 60 Reddy ought to have kept the recording in his palmtop for a considerable period of time as the palmtop was the original source but he erased the same from his palmtop after allegedly transferring the recording from it to the laptop and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. Thus, the testimony of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy regarding nonuse of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question does not find support from his own equipments which he used at the time of inspection of the borewell in question and also from the testimony of any other prosecution witnesses who were accompanying him at the time of inspection of the borewell in question. Moreover, since the original source i.e. palmtop was not seized by the Investigating officer coupled with the fact that now the palmtop does not have the recording of the borewell in question as the same has already been erased by PW 14 Dr.D.V. Reddy from his palmtop, the report made on the basis of it as well as the DVD prepared thereof on which no opinion could be offered by CFSL, do not have any sanctity in the eyes of law as the same have lost their significance without their contents available in the original source. All necessary precautions were neither taken at the end of the investigating officer nor made vivid in his deposition in the court thereby bringing the authenticity/genuineness/accuracy of the contents of the data recorded by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his palmtop under the cloud of doubt. In this fact of the case, the tainted video CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 38 of 60 recording in the palmtop which was subsequently allegedly transferred to laptop and from laptop, DVDs were prepared, cannot be looked into.
48.Moreover, in the report Ex. PW14/A, PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the depth of the borewell in question in meters. The said report was prepared by him by seeing the video as admitted by him during his deposition before the court. This witness also admitted during cross examination that he had recorded his voice in respect of the depth in feet but in his report, the depth is given in meters as when he prepared the report, everything was converted to meters as a standard format. He further admitted during cross examination that voice recording was available in the camera and it was used to indicate as to till what depth the camera was inserted in the borehole. Though PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed during cross examination that they had two cameras, one was graduated in feet and the another was in meters however, this witness did not remember as to which camera was used in the present case. Which camera PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy had used at the time of inspection of the borewell in question or otherwise whether he had correctly and exactly converted the depth of the borewell in question from feet to meter could have been ascertained by the court by listening the voice of Dr. D.V. Reddy qua depth of the borewell in question as recorded in the DVD but no such DVD was played before the court in the present case and as discussed above, even the said CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 39 of 60 DVD was of poor video quality and therefore the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion on the same. Dr.D.V. Reddy did not explain as to what was the need for him to convert the depth of the borewell in question from feet to meter and why he did not mention the depth of the borewell in question in feet. Even the conduct of PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy also reflects that though the CBI had provided the strata chart in the form of figure but he had mentioned the same as diagram in his report and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination, without explaining the reasons for mentioning so in this regard. Perusal of the site inspection memo Ex. PW2/A shows that make of the camera, length of the wires, details of other equipments used by Dr. D.V. Reddy, whether Johnson Pipes were available in the borewell in question or not and how much depth the camera was lowered in the borewell in question, are not mentioned on it and the Investigating Officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma has also admitted these facts during cross examination.
49.Cumulative effect of elicited aforesaid facts bring into fore that the procedure adopted by PW14 Dr. D.V. Reddy during inspection of the borewell in question and his findings on it, cannot be terms as conclusive and clinching evidence. Thus, it would not be safe to absolutely rely upon his report.
50.It is pertinent to mention that work of the borewell in question was completed on 11.09.2008 as per the Strata Chart and the CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 40 of 60 completion report. The inspection of the borewell in question was got carried out during investigation through Scientific Expert Dr.D.V. Reddy on 24.09.2013. In between, there was a considerable gap of five years. PW10 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer from Delhi Jal Board who was also having responsibility of 10% in checking the proper execution of work order in the present case, admitted during cross examination that after the installation of borewell in complete and the borewell is functional, the site is handed over to the E&M (Electrical and Mechanical) Wing of Delhi Jal Board and once the borewell is handed over to the E&M Wing, the Zonal Engineer and the Junior Engineer do not have any control over the borewell. During cross examination, he further deposed that he does not know if any repair was carried out by the E&M Department including replacement of pipes in the borewell after handing over the same to the E&M department. He further admitted during cross examination that it is the responsibility of E&M department for day to day maintenance and repairs of the borewell. The other witness from Delhi Jal Board PW2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil) in Vigilance Department also admitted that after the completion of the borewell work, the site is handed over to the E&M department of Delhi Jal Board and remained in their custody and maintained by them. The cross examinations of these witnesses who are responsible persons of Delhi Jal Board clearly show that it was E&M department who CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 41 of 60 was looking after the day to day maintenance and repair of the borewell in question during that period of five years. However, witness from E&M department of Delhi Jal Board has neither been cited nor produced nor examined by the prosecution and also no record has been produced before this court to show that after handing over the borewell in question to E&M Department, no maintenance or repair work was carried out by E&M Department in the borewell in question. PW2 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Branch, Delhi Jal Board admitted during cross examination that investigating officer had not recorded the statement of any person from E&M Department in regard to whether any tampering was done/repairing was done in the said borewell after the installation of the same and before its inspection in the present case. He further admitted during cross examination that after the boring is completed, the civil department puts a cap on the bore and the same is removed for installation of the motor in the bore by the E&M Wing and further the E&M Wing maintains a register wherein entries are made qua the work allotted to them for removing the assembly. There is no investigation in this regard. The investigating officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma admitted during cross examination that he did not enquire or record statement of any official of Delhi Jal Board with regard to the taking out of any pipe/any repair work from the said borewell after taking the possession of the site/borewell and till the date of inspection and CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 42 of 60 also did not seize any register from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board. The witness from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board could have facilitated the court in adjudicating the matter in this regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that witness from E&M Department was not traceable or could not be found. By not citing, producing and examining the witness from E&M Department, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused persons. In these circumstances, since the borewell in question was under the care of E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board for such a long period of time and also there is nothing on record to show that no repair or maintenance work was done in the borewell in question, therefore, no responsibility can be fastened upon Ravinder Singh A1 and it cannot be said that Johnson Pipes were not used in the borewell in question at the time of execution of work order in the present case, especially when PW10 Sh. Radhey Shyam admitted during cross examination that the use of Johnson Pipes has been test checked by the Zonal Engineer which is reflected in Ex. PW10/4 i.e. Test Check Report bearing signature of PW10 Radhey Shyam and Zonal Engineer. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that Johnson Pipes were not used in the borewell in question.
51.Now coming to the second aspect of alleged forged invoice/bill Ex.PW10/6. The issue before this court is whether alleged invoice CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 43 of 60 exhibited as Ex. PW10/6 allegedly submitted by contractor/A2 with Delhi Jal Board is a forged and fabricated document or not.
52.Before adverting further, it is worthwhile to mention that the prosecution has alleged that alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 bears the handwriting and signature of contractor A2 Kapil Walia. During investigation, the Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma had obtained the specimen signatures and writings of A2 in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sh. Praveen Koul and Sh. R.P. Singh out of which Sh. Praveen Koul has been examined before the court as PW15 and the questioned document i.e. alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 along with specimen writings and signatures of A2 were sent by the Investigating Officer to CFSL, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for scientific examination which were examined by PW16 Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific OfficercumAssistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi who had submitted his report Ex.PW16/A (colly).
53.The independent witness Sh. Praveen Koul, in whose presence, it is alleged by the prosecution that the proceedings of taking specimen handwritings and signatures of A2 Kapil Walia were carried out by the Investigating Officer during investigation, when examined before the court as PW15, did not support the case of the prosecution which is apparent from his examination in chief wherein he categorically deposed that he along with his colleague CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 44 of 60 were only sitting in the CBI office and no proceedings were conducted by CBI Office in their presence and even details of the case and proceedings were not revealed to him despite his asking to CBI. Since this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. In his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution this witness though admitted that in his and his colleague Sh. R.P. Walia's presence, the specimen handwriting and signatures of one person were taken on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E bearing his signatures at points B and that of his Sh. R.P. Singh at points C but he could not identify the person before the court whose specimen signatures and handwritings were obtained in his presence. The cross examination of this witness on behalf of A2 also reflects that the Investigating Officer did not inform him the details of the proceedings or what type of proceedings were taking place; he did not know what was being written and further he was merely told that he had to witness the papers Ex. PW13/E.
54.From the deposition of PW15 Praveen Koul, it is clear that not only there is inconsistency in the deposition of this witness due to which his testimony is not reliable and worthy of credence but this witness also did not identify A2 before the court as the same person whose specimen handwritings and signatures were taken by the CBI in his presence. It is worth mentioning that the alleged specimen handwritings and signatures of A2 were taken by the CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 45 of 60 CBI also in the presence of one other independent witness Sh. R.P. Singh which is apparent from the documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E itself and the deposition of PW15 Praveen Koul but the said independent witness Sh. R.P. Singh who was a material witness has neither been cited as prosecution witness nor produced nor examined by the prosecution before the court. The evidence this witness could have facilitated the court in adjudicating the matter. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said person was not traceable or could not be find out. There is no explanation put forth by the prosecution why Sh. R.P. Singh has not been cited as prosecution witness in the present case. By not citing, producing and examining the said witness, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused. Thus, the very purpose of joining Sh. R.P. Singh as independent witness to the alleged proceedings of taking specimen handwritings and signatures of A2 stands defeated. Even despite the fact that independent witness PW15 Sh. Praveen Koul did not support the case of the prosecution and even did not identify A2 before the court, no efforts were made by the prosecution to examine or produce other independent witness Sh. R.P. Singh before the court to prove that A2 was the same person whose specimen handwritings and signatures were taken by the CBI on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E in his presence.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 46 of 6055.Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that A2 was the such person whose specimen handwritings and signatures were taken by the CBI on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E in the presence of any independent witness much less in the presence of independent witnesses PW15 Praveen Koul or Sh. R.P. Singh.
56.The alleged specimen handwritings and signatures of A2 Kapil Walia on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E and the cross examination of the Investigating Officer PW13 Shitanshu Sharma show that A2 Kapil Walia has allegedly given his specimen handwritings and signatures voluntarily. It is highly unbelievable that a person if he knows fully well that he uses to forge the documents by way of his own handwritings on them, would voluntarily agree to give his specimen handwritings to any person but to say to the police officials and that too to CBI. In the present case, the voluntariness of Kapil Walia, being accused A2, in giving his specimen handwritings and signatures to the Investigating Officer does not seem to be probable more particularly when the prosecution has failed to prove on record that A2 Kapil Walia was the same person whose specimen handwritings and signatures were taken by the Investigation Officer on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E. A2 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or in the cross examination of PW13 Investigating Officer did not admit to have given his specimen signatures. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 47 of 60 as to on what basis the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the alleged invoice Ex. PW10/6 was in the handwriting of A2.
57.The prosecution has examined PW16 Sh. Vijay Verma, Senior Scientific OfficercumAssistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi to prove on record that alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 was in the handwriting of A2 Kapil Walia. Though the handwritings and signatures on the alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 and the specimen documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E might be similar and of the same person but once the prosecution has failed to prove on record that A2 Kapil Walia was the such person whose specimen handwritings and signatures were taken by the Investigation Officer on documents S1 to S25 Ex. PW13/E, the report Ex. PW16/A (colly) on the alleged handwriting of A2 Kapil Walia on alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 has lost its significance and resultantly the deposition of this witness before the court is of no help to the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that A2 was the such person who had forged the alleged invoice Ex. PW10/6 in his handwriting.
58.In order to prove forgery, the prosecution has examined PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, owner/authorized signatory of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who deposed that in terms of letter Ex. PW6/1, he handed over the documents to the CBI viz carbon CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 48 of 60 copies of six invoices bearing no. 470 to 475 Ex. PW6/2 (colly) bearing his signatures at point A (All bear book No.10 and dated 02.09.2008) and except these bills, his company did not issue any bill to anyone. He further deposed that vide productioncumreceipt memo dated 16.02.2012 Ex. PW6/3, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI including copy of the certificate dated 16.02.2012 Ex. PW6/4. This witness categorically deposed before the court that bill dated 02.09.2008 bearing Book No.812 and invoice No.nil mentioning the name of his company on the top and issued in favour of M/s Home Decorators (Subsequently exhibited as Ex. PW10/6), is a completely different bill from the bills which have been used by his company in regular course of business and the signatures mentioned in this bill are not of his or any of his employees. This witness has further categorically deposed before the court that bill Ex. PW10/6 is printed in a different style and also not bearing the address of his registered office, the name of the printer is also not mentioned, font is different from the original bills which were used by his company and there is no mention of his company's phone number on it. This witness has further categorically deposed before the court that till date he and his company never dealt with Home Decorators or Johnson Pipes. This witness was cross examined at length on behalf of A2 however, during entire cross examination, nothing material could be elicited from the mouth of this witness to CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 49 of 60 demolish and impeach the veracity and credibility of the testimony of this witness. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence. Though in order to impeach the credibility of the testimony of PW 6 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, A2 has examined three witnesses in his defence viz DW1/A2 Sh. Chandan Singh Tanwar, DW2/A2 Sh. Tikam Chand Jain and DW3/A2 Sh. Pranav Kumar Mishra to prove that A2 used to buy Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in cash in order to get more rebate on the material purchased from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and the M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to issue different invoices for the cash purchase and cheque purchases and in order to evade sales tax M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. does not reflect the cash dealings, however, the cross examination of these aforesaid defence witnesses clearly reflects that their testimony is oral in nature and not supported by any documentary evidence which were very well available and within the reach of A2 which is apparent from the cross examination of defence witnesses and as such, A2 has failed to demolish the credibility of the testimony of PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon. It is a cardinal rule of evidence that where written documents exist, they shall be produced as being the best evidence of their own contents and oral proof cannot be substituted for the written evidence. Oral evidence is excluded equally when a document does exist and when the law requires the matter to be reduced to be form of a document. The testimony of the aforesaid CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 50 of 60 defence witnesses are oral in nature and thus, the same cannot be looked into.
59.From the testimony of PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, owner/authorized signatory of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., it is crystal clear that alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 was not issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and it has been proved on record that alleged invoice Ex. PW10/6 was forged and not a genuine document.
60.Section 420 IPCCheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertyThe offence of cheating to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. To put it different, the ingredients of the offence are that the person deceived to deliver to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been decieved by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the person. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transaction itself.
61.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are that at the time the accused made out the representation, the same was false in his knowledge, and he made that with the intention to deceive. This intention has to be gathered from the facts on record.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 51 of 60A guilty intention is essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In other word 'mens rea' on the part of the accused must be established before he can be convicted of offence of cheating. In order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to cheat should be in existence at the time when the inducement was done.
62.Section 471 IPC deals with using a forged document as genuine. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown that accused either knew or has reason to believe that the documents were forged. What this Section requires is the use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be forged document. The language of Section 471 IPC most obviously suggests that this provision is expressly directed against some persons other than the forger himself. The reason for the presence of Section 471 IPC on the Statute Book in the somewhat unusual language, which is employed therein, is in order to provide useful alternative charge in case where there is uncertainty as to whether the person on trial is himself the forger of the document, or has merely use it as genuine, knowing it to be forged and fabricated. Using a document as genuine when the document is known to be forged document is the gravamen of the offence under Section 471 IPC. The accused persons when knew that they were using forged documents as genuine and they use it for dishonest or fraudulent purpose, they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 52 of 6063.The important ingredients of Section 471 IPC are that a document although not genuine, and a person knowing it not to be genuine or having reasons to believe that it is not a genuine but a forged document, uses it and that also fraudulently and dishonestly, and then it came within the mischief of Section 471 IPC. The Section does not lay down as to what would be the punishable for it, but it only lays down that the accused shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document and although the Section does not specify the punishment but it clearly lays down that the punishment shall be just like a punishable for forgery.
64.The evidence collected as a whole inspires confidence which have supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as by way of submission of forged invoice Ex.PW10/6 by A2 with Delhi Jal Board, it is clear that A2 had clear intention to cheat Delhi Jal Board from the very beginning. It has been clearly established on record by the prosecution that on the basis of the documents submitted by A1 with Delhi Jal Board including forged invoice Ex. PW10/6, the total amount of contract agreement bearing No.70/200809 dated 05.09.2008 was transferred by Delhi Jal Board through EFT No.68 dated 10.10.2008 in the name of M/s Home Decorator Builder & Engineering in the account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank whose authorized signatory is A2 Kapil Walia which also shows that A2 had intention to cheat Delhi Jal Board from the very beginning. Further, A2 knew that invoice CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 53 of 60 Ex. PW10/6 was a forged document and he dishonestly used the same as genuine and he was the ultimate beneficiary. A2 has thus apparently used the forged invoice Ex. PW10/6 fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine knowing fully well that the same was a forged document. Thus, A2 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 420/471 IPC and accordingly, he is held guilty for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420/471 IPC.
65.Besides other offences, A1 has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 477A IPC. Section 477A IPC defines and punishes the offence of 'falsification of accounts'. The evidence so led by the prosecution does not prove on record that A1 has misused his official position being Junior Engineer or that he destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the records in any manner whatsoever. Even the cross examination of prosecution witness PW10 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer from Delhi Jal Board reflects that A1 Junior Engineer, after the completion of the work, gives the certificate and senior officer i.e. Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer also endorse that work has been done as per work order and in the present case, the certificate was issued which is at page no.15 of measurement book Ex. PW2/F bearing his signatures at point B wherein it has been mentioned from point A to A that 'Work has been done as per work order'. The Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma has also CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 54 of 60 deposed same facts about the same in his cross examination. Moreover, perusal of page no.15 of measurement book Ex. PW2/F shows that work has been done as per work order. Accordingly, no offence under Section 477A IPC is made out against A1 Ravinder Singh.
66.The prosecution has alleged conspiracy of A1 in showing favour to A2 in the installation of Johnson pipes in the borewell in question as well as in submission of the forged invoice Ex. PW10/6. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 55 of 60 be express or implied or partly express or partly implied. Even Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the coconspirators.
67.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) Crimes 191 (SC) has held that: "To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means was primary condition and mere knowledge, even discussion, of plan by an accused would not perse constitute conspiracy. It was also held that although, the agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication, the inference can only be drawn on the parameters in the manner of proved facts, in the nature of circumstantial evidence and whatever be the incriminating circumstance, it must be clearly established by reliable evidence and they must form the full chain whereby a conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.
68.As regards the alleged conspiracy in the installation of the Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question, the court has already discussed above that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that Johnson Pipes had not been installed in the borewell in question.
69.As far as the alleged conspiracy qua the forged invoice Ex. PW10/6, the said invoice Ex. PW10/6 bears the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer (A1) and Sh. B.C. Patel, CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 56 of 60 Zonal Engineer but the main responsibility lies with the contractor/A2 to submit the same. PW10 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer in his cross examination before the court admitted that it is not the duty of the Zonal Engineer/Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher. This witness further admitted during cross examination that it was the duty of the accounts department to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher and if any discrepancy is found by the account department in the file and the final bill with annexures, the accounts department sent the same with objection to him but in the present case, the account department put the file before him without any objection. He further admitted that the accounts department used to verify the purchase vouchers from its vendors telephonically and in case the telephone number is not mentioned in the purchase voucher, the accounts department can verify the same by sending a person to the vendor and thereafter only, the payment to be made to the contractor and that there is no role of the Junior Engineer in release of the payments.
70.PW12 Vinay Kumar Tyagi who was Junior Accountant in the year 2008 from Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that in case any objection raised by accounts section, the file is sent back to the Executive Engineer but in the present case, the file was not sent back to Executive Engineer as there was no objection CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 57 of 60 raised by the accounts department before recommending the process of payment.
71.From the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that Ravinder Singh A1 who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time, was not required to personally verify the correctness and genuineness of the bill submitted by A2/contractor. There is no material evidence on record to suggest that A1 contributed to the submission of alleged forged bill or he verified or certified the same as genuine in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. Even there is nothing on record which suggests that Junior Engineer was duty bound to verify the genuineness of the invoices/bills. Therefore, for the submission of alleged forged bill Ex. PW10/6, no liability can be fastened upon Junior Engineer Ravinder Singh A1.
72.From the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the opinion that since it was the duty of the Accounts Department of Delhi Jal Board to verify the genuineness of alleged forged invoice Ex. PW10/6, A1 Ravinder Singh, Junior Engineer who has personally supervised the material and work as well as issued the satisfaction certificate qua installation of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question which have also been signed, checked and cross checked by the senior officers of Delhi Jal Board, cannot be held criminally liable for the commission of alleged act of criminal conspiracy in the present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 58 of 60 reasonable doubt the charge of conspiracy against both the accused persons.
73.In view of my discussion hereinabove, it is apparent that no substantive evidence has come on the record to show that A1 Ravinder Singh have committed the charged offences. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against A1 Ravinder Singh beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.
I accordingly, acquit A1 Ravinder Singh for all the charged offences punishable under sections 120B read with 420, 471 read with 468, 477A IPC and offence specified under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
I accordingly, acquit A1 Ravinder Singh for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
I accordingly, acquit A1 Ravinder Singh for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 468 IPC.
I also accordingly, acquit A1 Ravinder Singh for the offences punishable under Section 477A IPC.
I also accordingly, acquit A1 Ravinder Singh for the specified under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
I convict A2 Kapil Walia for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 59 of 60 471 IPC. I however, acquit A2 Kapil Walia for rest of the charged offences.
74.In compliance of the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C. and on the direction of this court, both the accused persons have submitted their respective personal bond and surety bond which have been accepted.
75.Let A2 Kapil Walia be heard on the point of quantum of sentence. (Announced in the open court today i.e. 14.12.2021) (ANURAG SAIN) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)11, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi CC No.140/19 CBI Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. Page 60 of 60