Delhi District Court
(C.B.I. vs . Ziley Singh & Ors.) on 29 May, 2014
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
: IN THE COURT OF :
: SH.KANWAL JEET ARORA :
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P.C.ACT), DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
CBI VS. ZILEY SINGH & ORS.
CC NO.: 45 /11.
Case No.: R.C1(E)/2001/EOWII
/DLI dated 01.03.2001
U/s : 120 B r/w section 420, 467, 471
IPC and 13(2) r/w sec 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988
CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS (C.B.I)
...Through
[Sh.Harish Kr.Gupta,
Ld.Special Public Prosecutor for CBI]
v e r s u s
(i) ZILEY SINGH,
S/o.: Sh.Jaswant Singh Tanwar,
R/o.: 961, Main Road, Near Rajpur
Bus Stand, Chattarpur, New Delhi.
[Through Sh.Aseem Vachhar, Advocate]
(ii) RAKESH KUMAR KOLI,
S/o.: Sh.Hari Ram,
R/o.: G22, Near Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar,
PS Shakarpur, New Delhi.
...[Through Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate]
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.1 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(iii) RAKESH KUMAR RUSTAGI,
S/o.: Sh.Radhey Shyam Rustagi,
R/o.: B270, Vivek Vihar, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
...[Through Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate]
(iv) SUBODH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
S/o.: Sh.Ram Babu,
R/o.: 132/2, Block B4, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi.
...[Through Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate]
(v) RAJU GUSIA,
S/o.: Sh.Khairati Ram,
R/o.: Naya Bans, PS Kotwali,
Distt.Alwar, Rajasthan.
...[Through Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate]
(vi) OM PRAKASH SAROHA,
S/o.: Sh.Ratan Singh,
R/o.: ME35, Pitam Pura,
PS Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.
...[Through Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate]
(vii) TOPAN DAS DODEJA,
S/o.: Late Sh.Tilla Ram,
R/o.:Village & Post Pirthala, PS Palwal,
District Faridabad, Haryana.
[Proceedings qua him abated vide orders dated 17.01.2014]
... ACCUSED PERSONS.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.2 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Date of Institution : 21.11.2002.
Date on which the case was : 13.10.2011.
received on transfer in this court
Date of reserving judgement : 21.04.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2014.
: J U D G E M E N T :
1. The precursor of the present case is a written
complaint dated 07.10.1999 of Sh.S.K.Jain, Additional
Commissioner (Engineering), MCD. On the basis of this
complaint, a preliminary enquiry bearing number
PE1(E)/99/EOWI/DLI was registered with EOWI, Branch of
CBI on 09.11.1999. After conclusion of the preliminary
enquiry, FIR bearing Number RC.1(E)/2001/EOWII/DLI
was registered on 01.03.2001 and investigated.
2. On conclusion of the investigations, CBI had
filed the present charge sheet against accused Ziley Singh,
Proprietor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company, on the
allegations that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.3 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Rakesh Kumar Koli - Assistant Engineer, Rakesh Kumar
Rustogi, Subodh Kumar Shrivastava - Junior Engineers, Raju
Gusia - Executive Engineer, O.P.Saroha - Assistant Chief
Accountant and T.D.Dudeja - Accounts Assistant, all officers
and officials respectively of Project Division, South Zone, New
Delhi of MCD, the object of which was to cheat MCD by getting
the payment released against the work order awarded by MCD
to this firm, on the basis of forged and fake invoices by using
them as genuine and valuable securities, knowing or having
reasons to believe them to be forged ones. It is alleged that the
public servants criminally misconducted themselves and as
members of the conspiracy, had facilitated accused Ziley Singh
to submit false and bogus invoices thereby claiming
procurement of bitumen from approved oil refineries for
execution of the work order thereby inducing MCD to release
payment of Rs.3,91,801/ to the contractor and thus causing
pecuniary advantage to him and corresponding wrongful loss to
MCD.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.4 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
3. Before proceeding further to delve upon the
matter, it is pertinent to have facts interse as emanating from
the charge sheet, which led to registration of FIR and filing of
the charge sheet by CBI in court for trial of the accused
persons. The same are as under:
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. It is alleged that during the year 199899, for
the work of dense carpeting of road from Jatav Panchyat Ghar
to Jamuna Das House in Mehrauli which was to be executed
from the funds sanctioned by Government of Delhi, Work
Order No. EE (Pr)/SZ/TC/86 dated 09.11.1998 was awarded
to M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company.
5. It has been alleged that MCD for awarding of
the work had floated NIT and after getting the bids and
opening them, awarded this work order to M/s Ziley Singh
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.5 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Tanwar and Company vide Work Order No. EE
(Pr)/SZ/TC/86 dated 09.11.1998.
6. It is alleged that after award of the work order
an agreement was entered into between MCD and M/s Ziley
Singh Tanwar and Company through accused Ziley Singh,
whereby Ziley Singh agreed to carry out the said works in
accordance with MCD specifications and Notice Inviting Tender
as well as Work Order Conditions. It is alleged that as per
these conditions, the contractor was required to procure fresh
supply of bulk bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Limited or
Hindustan Petroleum and was required to furnish original
receipts, as a proof for purchase of bitumen. It has further
been alleged that the contractor as per office order no. CE
III(14) EA/87/225 dated 09.06.1987, Notice Inviting Tenders,
Work Order Conditions and Agreement was required to carry
on the work of dense carpeting of roads and was further
required to submit following documents for claiming
payments:
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.6 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
i. Cash receipts indicating the name of work for
which bitumen is being purchased.
ii. Invoices for delivery showing the quantity actually
delivered.
iii.Gate passes of refinery.
iv.Receipts of terminal tax of UP Haryana Border.
7. It is alleged that accused Ziley Singh being
Proprietor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company, had entered
into criminal conspiracy with the officials of MCD Delhi,
namely Rakesh Kumar Koli - Assistant Engineer, Rakesh
Kumar Rustogi, Subodh Kumar Shrivastava - Junior
Engineers, Raju Gusia - Executive Engineer, O.P.Saroha -
Assistant Chief Accountant and T.D.Dudeja - Accounts
Assistant of Project Division, South Zone, during the year 1998
- 99, the object of which was to cheat MCD, by submitting
bogus / fake invoices purportedly issued by Indian Oil
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.7 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Corporation Limited - Mathura & Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited Mathura, thereby claiming to have
procured bitumen to complete the work assigned to Ziley Singh
being Proprietor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company, vide
above mentioned work order and to induce MCD to get the
payment released to the extent of Rs.3,91,801/ and to cause
wrongful loss to it.
8. It is alleged that Hot Mix Plant of the
Contractor was situated in Village Pali Faridabad and Rakesh
Kumar Rustogi, Junior Engineer was posted at plant of the
Contractor for ensuring procurement of fresh bitumen by the
contractor from approved oil agencies, and for receiving the
documents like cash receipts, invoices, gate passes and
terminal tax receipts, as per Notice Inviting Tender Conditions
and also for preparation of "hot mix", test of different material,
dispatch of Hot Mix and also for maintaining proper records. It
is alleged that Rakesh Kumar Rustogi being Junior
Engineer had accepted following five invoices from the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.8 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Contractor in the work order issued in favor of M/s Ziley Singh
Tanwar and Company.
Work Order No: EE (Pr)/SZ/TC/86 dated 09.11.1998
Sl.No. Company Name Invoice No. Date of Invoice
1. IOCL 03719 06.12.1998
2. HPCL 100619 06.12.1998
3. HPCL 100620 06.12.1998
4. HPCL 100811 09.12.1998
5. HPCL 100812 09.12.1998
9. It is alleged that during investigations, it was
revealed that all these invoices submitted by accused Ziley
Singh to MCD were forged and were not issued by Indian Oil
Corporation Limited or Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Mathura.
10. It is alleged that during investigations, it was
revealed that against the serial number of these invoices,
actual invoices were issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.9 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
to some other agencies and in a particular financial year the
serial number of invoices never used to repeated.
11. It is alleged that all the Engineers deliberately
accepted the bogus invoices in conspiracy with each other as
well as the contractor and facilitated accused Ziley Singh to
obtain payment of Rs.3,91,801/ from Project Division, South
Zone, MCD.
12. It is alleged that for release of bitumen from
Indian Oil Corporation, recommendatory letter from Executive
Engineer to IOC is required. It is alleged that in the present
case, no such letter was issued by Executive Engineer and
being part of the conspiracy, Executive Engineer deliberately
overlooked these violations. It is alleged that the vehicles,
registration numbers of which were mentioned in the invoices,
submitted by accused Ziley Singh with MCD, were not used for
transportation of bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Mathura to Hot Mix Plant at Faridabad. It has further been
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.10 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
alleged that contractor was under an obligation to fulfill other
conditions of NIT and was required to submit gate pass,
terminal tax receipts and cash receipts and these conditions
were not adhered to in the present case. It is alleged that
accused Rakesh Kumar Rustogi had prepared Bitumen Issue
Register from the details mentioned in the invoices which were
found to be forged and these entries were signed by him,
contractor as well as other coaccused Subodh Kumar
Shrivastava, Junior Engineer, Rakesh Kumar Koli, Assistant
Engineer and Raju Gusia, Executive Engineer. It is alleged
that these forged invoices were accepted by Rakesh Kumar
Koli, Assistant Engineer, Rakesh Kumar Rustogi, Subodh
Kumar Shrivastava, Junior Engineers and Raju Gusia,
Executive Engineer, which were used by Contractor to obtain
payments. It is alleged that the public servants in furtherance
of the conspiracy had fabricated their records and made false
entries in their registers without there being, execution of any
work by the contractor at site. It is alleged that accused
Subodh Kumar Shrivastava being JE, had also signed the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.11 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Measurement Books, authenticating the receipt of bitumen on
the basis of bogus invoice being part of the larger conspiracy. It
is alleged that the malafide intentions of the contractor were
there, from the beginning, of not complying with the conditions
of NIT for which he colluded with coaccused persons, who
facilitated him in getting his payment released, bills of which
were prepared by Topan Das Dudeja, Account Assistant and
checked by Om Prakash Saroha, Accountant, overlooking the
nonfulfillment of NIT Conditions and on the basis of bogus
invoices, knowing the same to be forged ones.
13. It is alleged that accused Ziley Singh
claimed payment for the work orders through bills amounting
to Rs.3,91,801/ which were certified by Rakesh Kumar Koli,
Assistant Engineer, accused Om Prakash Saroha, the then
Accountant checked the bills and forwarded the same for
payment, which were passed by coaccused Raju Gusia,
Executive Engineer.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.12 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
14. It is alleged that all the accused persons in
order to achieve the object of conspiracy, had performed their
respective roles and the public servants misconducted
themselves, so as to cause pecuniary advantage to accused
Ziley Singh, Proprietor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company
by facilitating it to have the payment released through cheque
bearing no. 864843 dated 08.02.1999 for Rs.13,14,861/
which included the payment of the questioned work
amounting to Rs.3,91,801/. It is alleged that on conclusion of
investigations, the report was submitted to the competent
authority for necessary sanction for prosecution against the
public servants, which was granted.
15. Whereafter, the present charge sheet was filed
in court against all the accused persons for proceeding against
them, as per law.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.13 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE:
16. Pursuant to filing of charge sheet and after
perusal of the same in the light of supporting documents,
Ld.Predecessor of this court took cognizance of offence and
accused persons were accordingly summoned.
17. In compliance with the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C, the accused persons were supplied with the copies
of charge sheet and documents relied upon by the prosecution.
CHARGE:
18. Ld.Predecessor of this Court after hearing
Ld.Defence Counsels for all the accused persons passed orders
on the point of charge on 17.08.2007 forming an opinion that
prima facie case for offences punishable under section 120 B
IPC read with section 420, 471, 467 IPC and section 13
(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.14 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Corruption Act have been culled out against all the accused
persons. As per said order Ld.Predecessor of this Court had
opined that substantive charges for offences u/s 420, 471
read with 467 IPC against accused no.1 and substantive
charge for offence under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)
(d) for Prevention of Corruption Act was also made out
against accused no. 2 to 7, the public servants, on the basis of
material on record.
19. Vide orders dated 27.08.2007, requisite charge
for offence under section 120B IPC r/w section 420, 471, 467
IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused
persons was framed.
20. Separate charge for substantive offence under
section 420, 471 read with 467 IPC was framed against
accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.15 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
21. Separate charge for substantive offence u/s
13(2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act was framed against
accused no. 2 to 7, the public servants.
22. The charges framed against all the accused
persons were read over to them, to which they pleaded not
guilty and all of them claimed trial.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS QUA T.D.DUDEJA :
23. During the pendency of proceedings, accused
T.D.Dudeja had expired on 16.12.2013. After getting the
verification report regarding his death, the proceedings qua
him were abated vide orders dated 17.01.2014.
24. In view thereof, I hereby proceed further
to dispose off the present case qua the other accused
persons.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.16 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
25. Prosecution was called upon to substantiate its
case by examining the witnesses, listed in the list of witnesses,
filed along with the charge sheet. Availing the given
opportunities, CBI had examined 37 witnesses.
26. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution
to substantiate its case can be broadly categorized in Seven
Categories:
27. First Category consists of witnesses from
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) which were material
witnesses, who have deposed about the complaint, the
procedure with respect to Notice Inviting Tender, Work Order
conditions, Agreement, submission of invoices by the
contractor, preparation of the documents i.e. MB Book & other
relevant documents pertaining to execution of work by the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.17 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
concerned engineers of MCD as well as pertaining to the test
checks and lab reports and preparation of bills etc. The
witnesses of this category had further deposed about
submission of these records to the investigating officer during
the course of investigations and regarding identification of
signatures of the accused persons on certain documents having
worked with them. This category comprises of :
(i) PW12 Sh. S.K.Jain, Asstt. Commissioner, MCD, the
complainant ;
(ii) PW8 Sh. P.K.Khandelwal, Junior Engineer (Planning),
MCD ;
(iii) PW9 Sh. Chander Mani Tyagi, Director (Technical), MCD
Laboratory, MCD;
(iv) PW19 Sh. Deepak Mukhopadhya, Engineer in Chief, MCD;
(v) PW23 Sh. Bhramanand, Technical Officer, Technical
Laboratory, MCD ;
(vi) PW27 Sh. O.P.Tanwar, UDC (Project), MCD ;
(vii) PW29 Sh. Harjinder Singh, Junior Engineer, Project
Division, MCD ;
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.18 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
28. Second Category of witnesses examined by
the prosecution, were with respect to the officers of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL) as well as HPCL. This category
comprises of :
(i) PW11 Sh. Ashish Bhatnagar, S & D Division, IOCL,
Mathura ;
(ii) PW13 Sh. Sameer Garg, Manager (Finance), IOCL,
Mathura ;
(iii) PW14 Sh. Devesh Kumar, Operation Officer, S & D
Division, IOCL, Kosikalan ;
(iv) PW17 Sh. Satish Kumar, Manager (Depot), HPCL ;
(v) PW20 Sh. Hira Lal Seth, Dy. Manager, HPCL, Mathura
Refinery, Mathura ;
(vi) PW21 Smt. S.C.Banerjee, Sr. Consumer Manager,
Marketing Division, IOCL ;
(vii) PW22 Sh. P.C. Sahotra, Chief Refinery Coordinator,
IOCL, Mathura ;
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.19 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(viii) PW24 Sh. Dinesh Khanna, Executive Operation Officer,
HPCL, Mathura Refinery ;
(ix) PW25 Sh. V.K.Bhatnagar, Sr, Regional Manager, HPCL ;
29. The witnesses of this category deposed about
the procedure by which bitumen used to be supplied by IOCL
and HPCL and the procedure regarding issuance of invoices.
These witnesses further deposed after going through the
invoices in question ie. Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW17/A to Ex.
PW17/D, that they are forged ones and were never issued by
S & D Division of IOCL / HPCL. Further, they deposed
regarding the genuine invoices issued by IOCL & HPCL
Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW17/E to Ex. PW17/H against those
serial numbers. These witnesses further deposed that
signatures on the forged invoices are not their's. The
witnesses of this category further deposed regarding
issuance of the delivery order on the basis of which bitumen is
released to the contractor or his representative by the
terminals, against invoices. Further, the witnesses of this
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.20 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
category deposed regarding submission of records to CBI
during investigations.
30. Third Category consists of witnesses
examined by the prosecution from Transport Authority as well
as the Transporters, who deposed with respect to the vehicles,
registration numbers of which were mentioned on the invoices
in question, submitted by the contractor with MCD. They are
as follows :
(i) PW2 Sh. Dharam Pal, Clerk, District Transport Office,
Faridabad, Haryana ;
(ii) PW3 Sh. Pushpender Singh, Transporter of M/s Khalifaji
Mini Transport Company ;
(iii) PW4 Sh. Bipun Bihari Srivastava, Sr. Assistant,
Assistant Regional Transport Office, Noida;
(iv) PW5 Sh. Khem Raj, Sr. Assistant, RTO, Mathura ;
(v) PW6 Sh. Achal Singh Chauhan, Transporter /
Consultant ;
(vi) PW16 Sh. Azad Ali, Transporter ;
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.21 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
31. These witnesses deposed that the vehicles
registration numbers of which are mentioned on the forged
invoices are either not capable of transportation of bitumen or
were never engaged by the contractor for transporting bitumen
from IOCL / HPCL to the hot mix plant of contractor.
32. Fourth Category consists of miscellaneous
witnesses who joined investigations at the request of the
Investigating Officer. This category includes :
(i) PW1 Sh. Dharam Pal, Assistant Superintendent, Octroi,
Haryana ;
(ii) PW28 Sh. B.K.Khosa ;
(iii) PW30 Sh. S.K.Gupta ;
(iv)PW31 Sh.H.C.Bhardwaj ;
(v) PW32 Sh. A.K.Arora and
(vi) PW26 Sh. Triloki Nath, Assistant Manager, State Bank of
India
(vii) PW36 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Manager, IIBI, witnesses to
house search of accused Ziley Singh and Subodh Srivastava.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.22 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
33. The witnesses of this category have deposed
regarding abolition of Octroi duty in Haryana. Further,
witnesses of this category have deposed regarding their joining
investigations at request of IO for taking specimen signatures
of accused Rakesh Kumar Rustogi, Ziley Singh, R.K.Koli and
Subodh Kumar Srivastava. Further, witnesses of this category
have deposed regarding joining of investigations, during which
Investigating Officer had taken specimen signatures of one
Hira Lal Sith. Further witnesses under this category have
deposed to have joined investigations with the investigating
agency regarding house search of Ziley Singh and Subodh
Kumar Srivastava.
34. Fifth Category of the witnesses examined by
the prosecution are with respect to the officers from the bank,
having account of MCD and the account of contractor Ziley
Singh. This category includes :
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.23 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(i) PW7 Sh. Om Prakash Dadool, Officer, Punjab & Sind
Bank ;
(ii) PW10 Sh. Ramesh Mansharmani, Assistant Manager,
UCO Bank ;
35. The witnesses of this category have deposed
regarding the bank account of MCD, statement of account as
well as the debit entries in the said statement of account
whereby the cheque Ex. PW7/B issued in favour of the
contractor firm was debited from the account of MCD vide
entry at point 'X' on Ex. PW7/A. The witnesses of this category
further deposed regarding the bank account of the firm of
accused Ziley Singh, statement of account of which was proved
as Ex. PW10/A showing the relevant credit entry at point 'X1'
with respect to the cheque issued by MCD in favour of the firm
amounting to Rs.13,14,861/.
36. Sixth Category of the witnesses examined by
the prosecution were those who had given Sanction for
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.24 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
prosecution of the accused public servants. This category
includes :
(i) PW15 Sh V.S.Sharma; Additional Commissioner, MCD:
who had given sanction for prosecution with respect to
accused Rakesh Kumar Koli, Rakesh Kumar Rustogi,
Subodh Kumar Srivastava and T.D.Dudeja i.e. Ex. PW15/A
to Ex. PW15/D respectively ;
(ii) PW18 Sh. Rakesh Mehta, the then Commissioner, MCD,
Delhi, who had given sanction for prosecution with respect
to accused Raju Gusia and O.P.Saroha i.e. Ex. PW18/A &
Ex. PW18/B respectively.
37. Seventh Category of witnesses includes
those who remained associated with the investigations of the
present case in one form or the other, including the scientific
expert and the Investigating officers. This category consists
of :
(i) PW33 Sh.B.A.Vaid, Assistant Government Examiner,
GEQD, Shimla, witnesses to specimen signatures ;
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.25 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(ii) PW34 Sh. Rajpal Singh, ASI, EOWI, CBI ;
(iii) PW35 Sh. S.K.Kashyap, Additional S.P., CBI,
conducted Preliminary Inquiry ;
(iv) PW37 Sh. P.L.Chaurasia, Inspector, CBI, Investigating
Officer.
38. The witnesses of this category have deposed
regarding hand writing examination of the questioned
signatures with the admitted and specimen ones and proved
the reports Ex. PW33/Q1 & Q2 and the reasons thereof as
Ex. PW33/Q3 & Q4. Further, the witnesses of this category
have deposed regarding investigations made at instance of IO
with respect to the type / make and ownership of the vehicles
registration number of which were mentioned on the
questioned invoices and proved the report thereof as Ex.
PW34/A. Witnesses of this category have deposed regarding
the manner in which preliminary inquiry and investigations
were conducted.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.26 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
39. The detail deposition of the witnesses is not
being adverted to, as the same shall be referred hereinafter
while dealing with the necessary ingredients of the offence,
with which accused have been charged, visavis the rival
contentions advanced by Ld.Special PP for CBI, as well as by
Ld.Defence Counsels for the accused persons.
40. All the prosecution witnesses were cross
examined in detail by Sh.Aseem Vachhar and
Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocates, Ld.Counsels for accused no.1
and accused no.2 to 6 respectively. The cross examination of
these witnesses is not being mentioned for the sake of brevity,
but the same and material portion thereof, more particularly,
the one referred to during the course of arguments, shall be
adverted to hereinafter, while appreciating the legal and
factual issues raised on behalf of the accused, alongside
appreciation of evidence in entirety.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.27 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
41. Separate statements of the accused persons
were thereafter recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein
the prosecution evidence against them was put, which they
denied.
42. On being asked, accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar
Koli, accused no.3 Rakesh Kumar Rustagi, accused no.4
Subodh Kumar Srivastava and accused no.5 Raju Gusia wished
to examine witnesses in their defence. They were permitted to
do so.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
43. Availing the given opportunities and on being
armed with permission on an application to examine
themselves under section 315 Cr.P.C, separate statements of
accused no.2 Rakesh Kumar Koli ; accused no.4 Subodh Kumar
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.28 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Srivastava ; accused no.3 Rakesh Kumar Rustagi and accused
no.5 Raju Gusia were recorded as DW1; DW2 ; DW3 and
DW4 respectively.
44. On behalf of these accused persons, four other
witnesses were also examined in their defence. Sh.Manish,
Ahlmad posted in this Court was examined as DW5.
Statement of Ahlmad posted in the court of Sh.Rakesh Syal,
Ld. Special Judge : CBI (P.C.Act) Dwarka, namely Sh.Ram
Dass was recorded as DW6.
45. Sh.S.K.Yadav, Director (Personnel) North
MCD, Civic Centre appeared and was examined as DW7.
Sh.Surender Dev, Beldar, MCD appeared in the witness box
and his statement was recorded as DW8.
46. Other accused persons i.e. Ziley Singh and
O.P.Saroha despite grant of opportunity, did not wish to
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.29 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
examine any witness in their defence. Thus, defence evidence
qua them was closed.
47. Accused Rakesh Kumar Koli appeared in the
witness box as DW1. He deposed that during the year 1998,
he was posted as Assistant Engineer in Division Project, South
Zone and dense carpeting work was executed by Ziley Singh
Contractor. He deposed that as there was no complaint
regarding execution of the work, therefore payment was
released to the contractor. He deposed that as bitumen was
brought by the contractor along with the invoices, therefore
authenticity was attached to it and there was no reason with
them to doubt the genuineness of the same. He deposed that
sanction to prosecute him was not granted by the competent
authority. He further deposed that during the course of
investigations, his residential premises was got raided by the
Investigating agency but this fact deliberately was not
mentioned in the chargesheet. He deposed that a false case has
been made out against him.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.30 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
48. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW1 Rakesh Kumar Koli, admitted the
fact that in the present case, besides general conditions of NIT,
additional conditions Ex. DW1/X were also imposed. He
further admitted that vide Clause 30 of Ex. DW1/X, it was
mandatory for the bidders to follow the four conditions
mentioned therein. DW1, however denied the fact that
conditions as mentioned in Ex. DW1/X are applicable for
making payment to the contractor. He denied the suggestion
that he had deliberately not verified the invoices submitted by
the contractor or had signed the same just to facilitate the
contractor to get payment from MCD knowing that terms and
conditions of NIT were not fulfilled and the work was not
executed as per specifications.
49. Accused Subodh Kumar Srivastava who
was posted as Junior Engineer appeared in the witness box and
examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW2. He deposed that he
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.31 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
was working as JE (Site) in Division Project, South Zone, MCD.
He deposed that the work was executed in his supervision by
Ziley Singh Contractor. He deposed that required test checks
were done under his supervision and there was no complaint
regarding execution of work. He deposed that they did not
have any mechanism to check the genuineness of the invoices.
He deposed that sanction for prosecution was not granted by
the competent authority. He also deposed that during the
course of investigations, his residential premises was got raided
by the Investigating agency but this fact deliberately was not
mentioned in the chargesheet. He deposed that a false case has
been made out against him.
50. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW2 Subodh Kumar Srivastava, admitted
the fact that in the present case, besides general NIT
conditions, other additional conditions Ex. DW1/X were also
imposed. He further admitted that vide Clause 30 of Ex.
DW1/X, it was mandatory for the bidders to follow the four
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.32 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
conditions mentioned therein. DW2, however denied the fact
that conditions as mentioned in Ex. DW1/X are applicable for
making payment to the contractor. Accused Subodh Kumar
Srivastava admitted in his cross examination that he had
signed the invoices at plant acknowledging the receipt of
bitumen on Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D. He
also admitted that he had signed the bills which were prepared
on MB. He further admitted that he had signed on Ex.
PW33/E, Ex. PW33/I, Ex. PW33/H, Ex. PW33/F, Ex.
PW33/G & Ex. PW33/D. He denied the suggestion that he
had deliberately not verified the invoices submitted by the
contractor or had signed the same just to facilitate the
contractor to get payment from MCD knowing that terms and
conditions of NIT were not fulfilled and the work was not
executed as per specifications.
51. Accused Rakesh Kumar Rustogi who was
posted as Junior Engineer appeared in the witness box and
examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW3. He deposed that he
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.33 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
was working as JE (Plant) in Division Project, South Zone,
MCD. He deposed that the work was executed in his
supervision by Ziley Singh Contractor. He deposed that
required test checks were done under his supervision and there
was no complaint regarding execution of work. He deposed
that they do not have any mechanism to check the genuineness
of the invoices. He deposed that sanction for prosecution was
not granted by the competent authority. He also deposed that
during the course of investigations, his residential premises
was got raided by the Investigating agency but this fact
deliberately was not mentioned in the chargesheet. He deposed
that a false case has been made out against him.
52. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW3 Rakesh Kumar Rustogi, admitted the
fact that in the present case, besides general NIT conditions,
additional conditions Ex. DW1/X were also imposed. He
further admitted that vide Clause 30 of Ex. DW1/X, it was
mandatory for the bidders to follow the four conditions
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.34 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
mentioned therein. DW3, however denied the fact that
conditions as mentioned in Ex. DW1/X are applicable for
making payment to the contractor. He admitted that no office
order was passed by MCD for waiving off these conditions for
the purpose of execution of the work. He deposed that as per
his duty and responsibility as JE (Plant), he is to check the
quality and quantity of the bitumen as per invoice and to have
the mix prepared and the bitumen brought by the contractor
should be from the approved refineries and should be fresh. He
admitted that invoice Ex. PW11/A was submitted by the
contractor alongwith the bitumen. He deposed that he had
seen the invoices Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D which were
submitted by the contractor alongwith the bitumen. He
admitted that he had signed Ex. PW33/E & Ex. PW33/D. He
denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not verified the
invoices submitted by the contractor or had signed the same
just to facilitate the contractor to get payment from MCD
knowing that terms and conditions of NIT were not fulfilled
and the work was not executed as per specifications.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.35 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
53. Accused Raju Gusia who was posted as
Executive Engineer appeared in the witness box and examined
himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW4. He deposed that he was
working as Executive Engineer in Division Project, South Zone,
MCD. He deposed that the work was executed in his
supervision by Ziley Singh Contractor. He deposed that road
laying work was done under his supervision and there was no
complaint regarding execution of work. He deposed that they
do not have any mechanism to check the authenticity of the
invoices. He deposed that sanction for prosecution was not
granted by the competent authority. He deposed that a false
case has been made out against him.
54. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW4 Raju Gusia, admitted the fact that in
the present case, besides general NIT conditions, additional
conditions Ex. DW1/X were also imposed which bears his
signatures. He further admitted that vide Clause 30 of Ex.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.36 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
DW1/X, it was mandatory for the bidders to follow the four
conditions mentioned therein. DW4, however denied the fact
that conditions as mentioned in Ex. DW1/X are applicable for
making payment to the contractor. He admitted that no office
order was passed by MCD for waiving off these conditions for
the purpose of execution of the work. He admitted that
running bill Ex. PW35/C bears his signatures. He admitted
that he had also signed Ex. PW33/E. He denied the suggestion
that he had deliberately not verified the invoices submitted by
the contractor or had signed the same just to facilitate the
contractor to get payment from MCD knowing that terms and
conditions of NIT were not fulfilled and the work was not
executed as per specifications. He denied the suggestion that
the conditions of NIT as well as those mentioned in Ex. DW1/X
remain applicable till the final payment is released to the
contractor.
55. Sh. Manish, Ahlmad posted in this Court was
examined as DW5. This witness proved the summoned record
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.37 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
i.e. Court file pertaining to Case bearing C.C. No. 58/11 titled
as CBI Vs. Vijay Pal Shokeen. He proved on record the
certified copy of deposition of PW5 Sh. Deepak Mukhopadhaya
as well as documents as Ex. DW5/A.
56. Sh. Ram Dass, Ahlmad posted in the Court of
Sh. Rakesh Syal, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Dwarka, was
examined as DW6. This witness proved the summoned record
i.e. Court file pertaining to Case bearing C.C. No. 11/12 titled
as CBI Vs. Satya Pal Gupta & Ors. He proved on record the
certified copy of statement of PW27 Sh. Rakesh Mehta as Ex.
DW6/A.
57. Dr.S.K.Yadav, Director (Personnel),
North, MCD appeared in the witness box as DW7. This
witness deposed that Executive Engineer, MCD falls under 'A'
Category post whereas Assistant Engineer falls under Group
'B'. He deposed that Category or Group is one and the same
thing and there is no difference in it and Junior Engineer falls
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.38 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
under Category 'B' post. He further deposed that for the
officers falling under Group 'A' post, the competent authority to
remove them from services is the Commissioner and with
respect to the employees falling under Group 'B' & 'C' posts the
authority which is competent to remove them is also the
Commissioner. This witness deposed that Category 'A' is
divided into two parts, one part consist of those posts which are
appointed under Section 89 of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi Act and with respect to those posts the competent
authority is the Corporation, whereas for the rest posts falling
in Category 'A' the competent authority is the Commissioner.
He further deposed that Executive Engineer does not fall
under Section 89 of MCD Act and with respect to him
Commissioner is the competent authority to remove him from
services. He deposed that competent authority with respect to
Executive Engineer remains the Commissioner as Executive
Engineer does not fall under the post mention in Section 89 of
MCD Act for which Corporation was made the competent
authority. He proved on record this fact by note of Chief Law
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.39 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Officer (CLO) dated 18.12.2013 which has the approval of
Commissioner i.e. Ex. DW7/A. He further deposed that
Powers of the Commissioner is always delegated to Additional
Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner and there are written
orders to this effect. He deposed that Executive Engineer can
be removed by the Commissioner and not only by Corporation.
He further deposed that Sh.Rakesh Mehta was Commissioner,
MCD in the year 2002.
58. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW7 deposed that Commissioner is the
competent authority to remove the Executive Engineer and
with respect to Executive Engineer matter never goes to the
Corporation. During cross examination he deposed that
Commissioner, delegates all his powers to Additional
Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner with respect to all the
powers, which he has for the purposes of exercising the
authority by them under his overall supervision.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.40 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
59. Sh. Surender Dev, Beldar in MCD appeared
in the witness box as DW8. This witness deposed that during
the year 1998 he was posted as Beldar in MCD and was
attached to Subodh Kumar Srivastava, Junior Engineer. He
admitted that work of dense carpeting of road in Mehraulli was
awarded and executed by M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and
Company.
60. On being cross examined by Ld. Public
Prosecutor for CBI, DW8 denied the suggestion that no work of
dense carpeting had taken place at the spot.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CBI:
61. It is contended by Ld.Special PP for CBI
relying upon the deposition of the witnesses examined by them
during the course of trial, that prosecution has been able to
establish its case against the accused persons.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.41 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
62. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that
accused public servants had abused their official position and
thus criminally misconducted themselves, so as to cause
pecuniary advantage to the contractor and corresponding
wrongful loss to MCD. He further contended that the accused
public servants by abusing their official position had entered
into a criminal conspiracy with the contractor and facilitated
him to submit forged invoices as genuine ones, knowing or
having reasons to believe the same to be forged ones. He
contended that all the accused persons be accordingly convicted
under relevant provisions of law.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS :
63. To defend the accused persons, Sh.Aseem
Vachhar and Sh. S.P.Aggarwal, Advocates, Ld.Defence
Counsels had led three dimensional attack to the
prosecution case.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.42 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
64. Ld.Defence Counsels opened their arguments
raising certain legal contentions in an attempt to demolish
the prosecution case. Second dimensional attack was based on
mixed questions of law and facts. Whereas, the third
dimension of their arguments, revolved around the factual
aspects as has come up on record, on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence, during the course of trial.
65. Ld.Defence Counsels had raised following
contentions on LEGAL ISSUES :
(i) Wrong invocation of Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act : As
there are no allegations of payment of any illegal gratification
by the contractor to public servants, therefore, the provisions
of Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be
invoked.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.43 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(ii) Lack of Jurisdiction of CBI : As Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act 1957 is a complete Code in itself, therefore,
CBI did not have any jurisdiction to investigate the present
case, therefore, the proceedings should be stopped at this stage
itself, and the evidence on record be discarded.
(iii) Wrong registration of preliminary inquiry : On the
basis of the Initial Complaint of Sh.S.K.Jain, Preliminary
Inquiry could not have been registered by CBI. Registration of
preliminary inquiry, vitiates the whole proceedings.
(iv) Noncompliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C : Provisions of
Section 157 Cr.P.C were not complied with by the investigating
agency, therefore, all the accused persons should be
exonerated.
66. Second dimensional attack of Ld.Defence
Counsels was on mixed questions of "Law and Facts". The
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.44 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
same was with respect to the sanction for prosecution granted
against the public servants. The arguments advanced on this
aspect were twofold i.e. :
(i) Incompetence of Sanctioning Authority: The authority
which had passed the sanction orders qua the public servants
was not competent to pass the same, therefore, the sanction
orders are bad in law.
(ii) Nonapplication of mind : Even if it is assumed that the
sanctioning authority was competent to pass the sanction
orders, the same were passed in a mechanical manner and
without application of mind as it depicts factually incorrect
statements.
67. It is contended that as the sanction orders
were bad in law, therefore, the whole proceedings have become
nonest.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.45 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
68. Third dimensional attack on the prosecution
case raised by Ld.Defence Counsels was on factual aspects, vis
avis the necessary ingredients of the offences with which
accused persons were charged.
69. These contentions raised by Ld.Defence
Counsels are divided in 2 categories. The first one being on
behalf of the accused PUBLIC SERVANTS, which are as
under :
(i) No meeting of minds : That, there is no evidence brought
on record by the prosecution depicting any meeting of mind,
amongst the accused public servant on one hand and the
contractor on the other hand, therefore, there is no question of
any conspiracy whatsoever between these two set of accused.
(ii) No overt act on the part of public servants : That, the
accused public servants had not done anything, in order to
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.46 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
achieve the socalled object of conspiracy as they were not party
to any such conspiracy / offence.
(iii) Official discharge of duties: That, the accused public
servants did, what was their official duty and had prepared the
documents which were required as per CPWD Manual.
(iv) No knowledge about forgery: That, the accused public
servants did not have any knowledge that the invoices so
tendered with them, by the contractor were forged ones. It is
submitted that it was duty of the contractor to submit genuine
invoices.
(v) No mechanism to check the genuineness of invoice:
That, there was no mechanism with the accused public
servants to compare the invoices so submitted by the contractor
with the specimen format, so as to verify about their
genuineness.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.47 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(vi) No duty of the public servants for verification of
invoices: That, even otherwise, it was not the duty of accused
public servants to verify the genuineness of the invoice.
Further, they had no reason to doubt the genuineness of invoice
as the work was being executed by the contractor.
70. Second category of the contentions advanced
by Sh.Aseem Vachhar, Advocate, Ld.Defence Counsel on
factual aspects, were with respect to the contractor visavis the
necessary ingredients of the offences, with which ACCUSED
NO.1 was charged. The same are as under:
(i) Nonavailability of mechanism with Accused No. 1,
the Contractor : That, as contractor had no mechanism to
check that he is or is not being given genuine invoices by
IOCL / HPCL, therefore, he cannot be made liable for
submitting them with MCD by imputing that he submitted
them, knowing the same to be forged ones.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.48 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(ii) No circular to authorize any officer of IOCL / HPCL
to sign and issue the invoice : That, no documentary
evidence has been established on record by the prosecution to
state that any particular officer of IOCL & HPCL was
authorized to issue the invoices. As any one in the IOCL was
having access to stationary, therefore, he can generate and
issue the invoices.
(iii) No wrongful loss caused to MCD: That, as the
payment was to be made to the contractor for the work which
was properly conducted by him as per the specifications,
therefore no wrongful loss was caused to the MCD.
(iv) Filing of invoice was ritual : That, as the payment was
to be made to the contractor for work in any case, and filing of
invoices by him with MCD would not have made any difference
as it was a mere ritual, therefore it cannot be said that
contractor had induced MCD to act to its detriment, so as to
cause any pecuniary advantage to him.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.49 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(v) Unfair Investigations : That, the investigations have not
been conducted by the investigating agency in a fair manner.
The Investigating agency have failed to get any expert opinion
on the stationary used for genuine invoices and the invoices in
question. That the accused has been wrongly and falsely
implicated, therefore he be acquitted of the charge.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
71. Before adverting to appreciate the prosecution
as well as defence evidence which has come up on record visa
vis the charges against the accused persons, as well as the
arguments advanced on the mixed questions of facts and law, I
deem it appropriate to deal with those contentions first which
have been raised by Ld.Defence Counsels, on purely legal
aspects, in their quest to demolish the prosecution case at the
threshold.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.50 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
72. The opening contention of Ld.Defence Counsels
was that, there is no averment or allegation in the entire
charge sheet of extension of any illegal gratification on the
part of contractor to the accused public servants, therefore by
no stretch of imagination, the provisions of Section 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, could have been invoked. It is
contended that on this ground itself, the case cannot proceed
and accused persons should be acquitted.
73. In order to deal with this contention of
Ld.Defence Counsels, it is pertinent to make a mention of the
relevant provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. The same is as follows :
Section 13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant :
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,
(a) . . .
(b) . . .
(c) . . .
(d) if he,
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.51 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or
(ii)by abusing his positioning as a public
servant, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage ; or
(iii)while holding office as a public
servant, obtains for any person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest ; or
(e) . . .
74. The phrases namely "corrupt , illegal means"
and "by abusing his position as public servants" are different
categories of corrupt practices, which are conjuncted by the
words "or" and not by the conjunction "and". This in itself
indicates that these three different categories are alternate
misconduct on the part of public servant and either of these
three practices, if done by public servant then the same can
constitute an offence under this Section.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.52 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
75. The phraseology "By abusing his official
position as Public Servant" covers the acts done by the public
servant otherwise than by corrupt or illegal means. The gist of
the offence under this clause is, that a public officer abusing
his position as "public servant" obtains for himself or for
other person, any valuable thing. The word "abuse" used by
the Legislature means "misuse", ie. using his position for
something which is not intended. That abuse of the position
may be by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those
means". In view thereof, the Legislature never intended that
there has to be an express evidence of illegal gratification
before invocation of this section. In case, there are instances
and allegations that a person has abused his position as a
public servant, in order to cause advantage to anyone, that in
itself is sufficient for invocation of this Section.
76. Meaning thereby, that in absence of any
allegations by the prosecution on the part of public servant of
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.53 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for showing any
favor to a private individual, the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act cannot be invoked, as urged by Ld.Defence
Counsels, to my mind is farfetched and devoid of merits. As
there are allegation of abuse of official position by the public
servants in order to cause pecuniary advantage to their co
accused, this clause of P.C.Act very much comes into play.
77. In view thereof, the contention advanced by
Ld.Defence Counsels that in the present case there are no
allegations on record that any of the public servants, who are
accused herein had adopted any corrupt or illegal means or
have obtained any pecuniary advantage for themselves, thus
section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act cannot be invoked, is rejected.
However, the prosecution has to establish the necessary
ingredients of the offences, with which the accused persons
have been charged, on the basis of the evidence which has come
up on record, with which I shall be dealing hereinafter.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.54 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
78. This has brought me down to the next legal
contention urged by Sh.Aseem Vachhar, Advocate, on behalf
of accused Ziley Singh, the Contractor, that the present case
cannot proceed further, as CBI did not have the jurisdiction to
register the present FIR and to investigate the same, in view of
the fact that it lacks the jurisdiction to try the cases involving
violation of the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957.
79. To substantiate his contention, Ld.Defence
Counsel have relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case titled "CBI vs. State of Rajasthan" reported as
(1996) 9 SCC 735 and in another case titled "R.S.Gahlot vs.
CBI" bearing Crl.M.C.No.3800/11 decided by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi on 22.11.2013.
80. It is alleged by Ld.Defence Counsel that as per
the allegations levelled against the contractor and the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.55 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Engineers and Account Officials of MCD, there have been
violations of the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
It is submitted that Delhi Municipal Corporation is a complete
Code in itself and the Act bars any other agency or Court, from
taking cognizance of violation of its provisions. It is submitted
that CBI can exercise jurisdiction with respect to the offences
notified by Central Government in the official gazette, as per
Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. It is
submitted that the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act, have not been notified by Central Government under
Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, therefore
CBI lacks jurisdiction to investigate the same.
81. I have considered the submissions advanced
and have perused the allegations on the basis of which the
present case was registered, investigated and filed. I have also
gone through the relevant provisions of Law and the precedents
relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel, in support of their
contentions.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.56 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
82. It is apparent on perusal of Section 2 of Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, that it empowers the Central
Government for constitution of Special Police Establishment. It
reads as under:
SECTION 2 : CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF SPECIAL
POLICE ESTABLISHMENT -
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act,
1861 (5 of 1861), the Central Government may
constitute a special police force to be called the
Delhi Special Police Establishment for the
investigation [in any (Union Territory)] of
offences notified under section 3.
(2) Subject to any orders which the Central
Government may make in this behalf,members of
the said police establishment shall have
throughout [Union Territory]] in relation to the
investigation of such offences and arrest of
persons concerned in such offences, all the
powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which
police officers of [that Union territory] have in
connection with the investigation of offences
committed therein.
(3) Any member of the said police establishment
of or above the rank of SubInspector may,
subject to any orders which the Central
Government may make in this behalf, exercise in
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.57 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
[any [Union Territory]] any of the powers of the
officer in charge of a police station in the area in
which he is for the time being and when so
exercising such powers shall, subject to any such
orders as aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer in
charge of a police station discharging the
functions of such an officer within the limits of
his station.
83. Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) being
one such establishment which has been constituted in terms of
Section 2 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
84. Further, Section 3 of the Act prescribes the
category of offences, which the Special Police so established,
under section 2 can investigate. The same reads as under:
SECTION 3 : OFFENCES TO BE INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT
The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette,
specify the offences or classes of offences
which are to be investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.58 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
85. In view of the joint reading of both these
sections, it is absolutely clear that CBI which is a creation of
Central Government under this special Statute, can only
investigate the offences, which has been notified by Central
Government by virtue of the powers granted to it by
Legislature, in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Consequently,
CBI cannot travel beyond that or assume jurisdiction over the
offences, which have not been so notified by Central
Government.
86. I am fortified to arrive at this proposition of
law taking support from the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in CBI vs. State of Rajasthan's Case (supra), relied
upon by Ld.Defence Counsel.
87. Admittedly, for the offences under Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Act, no notification has been issued by
Central Government under section 3 of Delhi Special Police
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.59 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Establishment Act, authorizing CBI to investigate any violation
thereof, which discloses violations of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act.
88. However to consider the contentions of
Ld.Defence Counsel, it is to be seen as to whether the offences
alleged to have been committed by the accused persons, falls in
the contours of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The answer
to my mind is "NO".
89. Perusal of the present complaint makes it clear
that the allegations against the accused persons are for
commission of offences of entering into criminal conspiracy
with each other for the purposes of cheating and forgery, as
well as using forged documents as genuine, besides the offences
under section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act of
"Criminal Misconduct" by the Public Servants (subject offcourse
of proving the same against the accused persons by the prosecution,
which I shall advertto hereinafter). These offences which are
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.60 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
alleged to have been committed by the accused persons does not
fall in the purview and domain of Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act,1957.
90. The offences under Indian Penal Code as well
as Prevention of Corruption Act, have been duly notified by
Central Government under section 3 of Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act Act, wherein CBI did have the jurisdiction
to investigate.
91. In view thereof, I do not find any merits in
these contentions of Ld.Defence Counsel that the present case
should be rejected at the threshold itself, on the grounds that
CBI lacks jurisdiction to register and investigate the same.
92. The precedent of R.S.Gahlot Vs. CBI (supra)
relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel in support of his contention,
does not come to the rescue of the accused persons, as facts of
said case differs from the facts of the present case. Hon'ble
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.61 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
High Court of Delhi, in said case had observed on the basis of
its peculiar facts that the same pertains to raising of
unauthorized construction and thus fall within the ambit of
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, whereas the facts of the
present case differs as stated by me hereinabove.
93. In view thereof, this contention of Ld.Defence
Counsel that this case should be rejected at the threshold itself
for lack of jurisdiction on the part of CBI, stands rejected.
94. Another attempt to blow the case of
prosecution at the initial stage itself was made by
Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, Ld.Defence Counsel. He
contended relying upon the cross examination conducted by
him of PW35 S.K.Kashyap, who conducted the preliminary
enquiry as well as of PW37 P.L.Chaurasia the investigating
officer, that there was no occasion with CBI to register
preliminary enquiry in this case. His contentions were that on
the complaint of Sh.S.K.Jain, there was no occasion with CBI to
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.62 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
register preliminary enquiry before the registration of FIR. He
placed reliance on the precedent / law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled "Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP &
Ors." reported as 2014 (1) JCC 1.
95. I have considered the submissions advanced by
Ld.Defence Counsel and have also gone through the precedent
relied upon by him in support of his contention. I have also
gone through the cross examination of PW35 Sh.S.K.Kashyap
as well as that PW37 P.L.Chaurasia. Although, this objection
was not taken up by Ld. Defence Counsel during the course of
trial as no question whatsoever on this aspect was put to
PW35 S.K.Kashyap, who conducted the preliminary inquiry or
to PW37 P.L.Chaurasia, the Investigating Officer. However,
considering the contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel at
this stage, the same needs to be addressed.
96. It is the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that
as the complaint discloses Commission of cognizable offences,
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.63 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
therefore, straight away FIR should have been registered and
there were no grounds for registration of any preliminary
inquiry. No doubt, in the present case, CBI had registered a
preliminary inquiry, but that ipsofacto cannot be a ground for
throwing overboard, the material which has come up on record
during the course of trial, in the form of documentary and oral
evidence through the deposition of prosecution witnesses.
Based on these substantive pieces of evidence, it is to be seen,
as to whether the charges for which the accused persons have
been facing trial, stands proved or not. The substantial
evidence cannot be discarded or brushed aside merely because
PW35 and PW37 could not give any specific grounds enabling
CBI to register a preliminary inquiry first, before registration
of FIR.
97. Even the precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence
Counsel does not support their case and contention. Hon'ble
Apex Court while laying stress on the investigating agency
regarding mandate of legislature to register FIR as per Section
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.64 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
154 Cr.P.C has given leeway to CBI to register a preliminary
enquiry in certain cases.
98. It is pertinent to make mention of the
operative part of the precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence
Counsel in Lalita Kumari's Case (Supra), which reads as
under :
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of
the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) . . .
(iv) . . .
(v) . . .
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under :
(a) Matrimonial disputes / family disputes.
(b) Commercial offences.
(c) Medical negligence cases.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.65 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
(d) Corruption Cases.
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay /
laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example over 3 months delay in reporting the
matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
...(emphasis supplied)
(vii) . . .
(viii) . . .
99. In Lalita Kumari's Case (supra), Hon'ble
Apex Court while referring to Sections 4(2) and 5 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, visavis powers of CBI, has held that :
"These special provisions contained in the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act relating to the
powers of CBI, are protected also by Section 5 of
the Code".
"In view of above specific provisions in the Code,
the powers of CBI under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act cannot be equated with the
regular police under the Code."
100. It is further pertinent to make mention that
subject of preliminary enquiry is contained in Chapter 9 of
Crime Manual of CBI. The factum regarding adherence to the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.66 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
CBI Manual and its basis, was considered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case titled "Vineet Narayan and Ors. vs. Union of
India & Anr." reported as AIR 1998 SC 889 ; wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court to prevent the erosion of Rule of Law,
issued number of directions to various authorities. The
relevant part of the directions issued to CBI is as under :
"59(12). The CBI Manual based on statutory
provisions of the CrPC provides essential
guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is
imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously to
the provisions in the Manual in relation to its
investigative functions, like raids, seizure and
arrests. Any deviation from the established
procedure should be viewed seriously and severe
disciplinary action taken against the officials
concerned."
"...Thus from the above, it is evident that the CBI
manual, being based on statutory provisions of the
Cr.P.C., provides for guidelines which require
strict compliance".
101. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and considering that CBI is constituted under
the specific provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.67 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
Act, I am of the opinion that its powers cannot be equated with
the regular State Police acting and working as per Code of
Criminal Procedure. Thus CBI can register a preliminary
enquiry before registration of FIR, more particularly while
dealing with Corruption Cases, as has been held by Hon'ble
Apex Court in above mentioned cases.
102. In view thereof, I do not find merits in this
contention of Ld.Defence Counsel. The same stands rejected.
103. The next legal contention urged on behalf of
the accused persons by Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, is that the
names of accused O.P.Saroha and Raju Gusia, does not appear
in the "First Information Report". He contended that the
accused persons have been wrongly and falsely implicated by
CBI. It is submitted that as the accused persons were not
named in FIR, therefore the proceedings qua them should be
dropped, at this stage itself.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.68 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
104. I do not find any merits in this arguments
advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel in view of the fact that FIR by
its name suggests that it is the "First Information Report"
received by the investigating agency, who is then called upon to
investigate the allegations levelled therein, so as to unearth the
wrong, if any, falling within the definition of the term "offence"
and if so, to find out as to who has committed the same.
105. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Kirender
Sarkar and Ors. vs. State of Assam", reported as 2009,
Crl.L.J.3727, has held that :
"6. The law is fairly well settled that FIR is not
supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire events and
cannot contain the minute details of the events. When
essentially, material facts are disclosed in the FIR, that
is sufficient. FIR is not substantive evidence and
cannot be used for contradicting testimony of the eye
witnesses except that may be used for the purpose of
contradicting maker of the report. Though the
importance of naming the accused persons in the FIR
cannot be ignored, but names of the accused persons
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.69 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
have to be named at the earliest possible opportunity.
The question is whether a person was impleaded by
way of afterthought or not, must be judged having
regard to the entire factual scenario in each case.
Therefore, non naming of one or few of the
accused persons in the FIR is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of crucial witnesses ".
(emphasis supplied)
106. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, this contention of Ld.Defence Counsel stands rejected.
107. Extending his above mentioned contention
Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, further contended that provisions
of Section 157 Cr.P.C which are of mandatory nature were
not complied with by the investigating agency, therefore, the
proceedings against the accused person should be dropped.
108. In support of his contentions, he submitted
that the prosecution is required to establish on record as to
when the FIR was sent to Ld. Special Judge, as the same is
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.70 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
required to be sent immediately after its registration.
Ld.Defence Counsel relying upon the precedents on this aspect
of Hon'ble High Court titled "Devender @ Kalu vs. State"
reported as 2011 (2) JCC 1453 DB (DLI) ; and case titled
"Rajesh Kumar vs. State" reported as 2011 (4) JCC 2522
(DB) DLI ; and that of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled
"Ratti Ram & Ors. vs. State of M.P.Tr. Inspector of
Police" reported as 2013 [3] JCC 1572 ; had contended that
the proceedings against the accused persons should be dropped,
on this count itself.
109. I have considered the submissions advanced
by Ld.Defence Counsels. I have also perused the relevant cross
examination of the investigating officer PW37 P.L.Chaurasia
on this aspect and have perused the precedents relied upon.
110. Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the
procedure which is required to be adopted by the Courts in its
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.71 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
pursuit of "Administration of Criminal Justice System".
It has been held in a catena of judgements by Hon'ble Apex
Court that procedure has to be interpreted in such a manner so
as to augment the substantive justice and not to thwart the
same. Consequently, the procedural lapses, if any on the
part of prosecution should not be made as 'impediments' in
the process of unearthing the truth. The sole question which is
required to be answered is as to whether such procedural lapse
can be a ground to throw overboard the substantive pieces of
evidence, which has come up on record.
111. The answer to this question lies in the
observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ratti Ram & Ors.
Case (supra), relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel, the relevant
portion of which is reproduced as under:
We may hasten to add that when there is
delayed despatch of the FIR, it is necessary on
the part of the prosecution to give an
explanation for the delay. We may further
state that the purpose behind sending a copy
of the FIR to the concerned magistrate is to
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.72 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
avoid any kind of suspicion being attached to
the FIR. Such a suspicion may compel the
court to record a finding that there was
possibility of the FIR being antetimed or
antedated. The court may draw adverse
inferences against the prosecution. However,
if the court is convinced as regards to the
truthfulness of the prosecution version and
trustworthiness of the witnesses, the same
may not be regarded as detrimental to the
prosecution case. It would depend on the
facts and circumstances of the case. In the
case at hand, on a detailed scrutiny of the
evidence upon bestowing our anxious
consideration, we find that the evidence
cannot be thrown overboard as the version of
the witnesses deserves credence as analysed
before. Thus, this colossal complaint made by
Mr. Khan pales into insignificance and the
submission is repelled.
112. In view of this observation of Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as on perusal of the other two judgements of
Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that merely on this ground, the
evidence which has come up on record during the entire trial,
cannot be thrown overboard. Facts of each case has to be
looked into, so as to see whether any miscarriage of justice, has
resulted due to this lapse.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.73 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
113. Perusal of the cross examination of PW37
makes it evident that no specific question was asked from the
Investigating officer during his cross examination on the aspect
of sending the FIR to Ld. Special Judge. I have perused the
records of the present case which makes it apparent that the
present FIR was registered on 01.03.2001 at 1500 Hrs. and a
copy thereof was marked to Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari,
and there is an endorsement on this FIR of its receipt in Court
on the following day i.e. 02.03.2001. In view of this fact it is
apparent that this provision was properly complied with and
FIR was received by Ld. Special Judge, on the following day of
its registration. In view thereof, to my mind, it cannot be a
ground to throttle the entire prosecution case and to throw
overboard the substantive evidence, which has come up on
record.
114. Though I do agree with Ld.Defence Counsel
that this is an important provision of Law, which the
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.74 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.)
th
Dated : 29 May 2014.
investigating agency is supposed to religiously follow, but
considering the present facts and circumstances, much
material bearing cannot be attached to the same as the FIR
was sent to the Court of Ld. Special Judge and was received on
the following day. The same therefore, cannot be made
detrimental to the prosecution case. In view thereof, this
contention of Ld.Defence Counsel is turned down.
115. Having dealt with the contentions urged by
Ld.Defence Counsels on behalf of the accused persons on purely
legal grounds, I shall now delve upon to consider the
arguments raised involving mixed question of "Law and
Facts".
116. Leading a twopronged attack on the prosecution case, Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, Ld.Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the public servants, contended that the provisions of Section 19 of Prevention of C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.75 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Corruption Act is a mandatory provision and the Court does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance when the "sanction" under this provision is granted in mechanical manner and without application of mind and that too, by an authority which was not competent to grant the same.
117. Justifying the attack on sanction at the fag end of the trial, Ld.Defence Counsel relying upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. vs. State of Punjab" reported as (2007) 1 SCC Page 1 ; contended that the question of absence of sanction can be raised at the inception or threshold, whereas in cases, where sanction order exists but its legality and validity is put in question, then such issue can be raised in the course of trial. It is submitted that as the validity of sanction order is assailed on diverse grounds, like incompetence of the sanctioning authority to grant sanction and non application of mind, therefore the same is being raised at this stage.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.76 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
118. Ld.Defence Counsel contended that the sanction order passed by PW18 Rakesh Mehta against accused no. 5 Raju Gusia and accused no. 6 O.P.Saroha Ex.PW. 18/A & Ex. PW18/B and by PW15 Sh. V.S.Sharma, Additional Commissioner with respect to the other accused public servants Ex.PW.15/A to Ex.PW.15/D; are bad in law on two grounds. Firstly, because neither PW18 Rakesh Mehta, nor PW15 V.S.Sharma were the competent authorities to pass the sanction orders, therefore on that count itself, the matter should not proceed further against the accused public servants. Ld. Defence Counsel relying upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal" reported as 2014 Crl.L.J.930 ; had contended that for grant of sanction Commissioner cannot delegate his powers to Additional Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.77 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
119. Second contention raised by Ld.Defence Counsel assailing the sanction orders passed by the sanctioning authorities, is that the same are invalid and bad in law as the same have been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. It is contended that the sanction orders on the face of it, reveals factually incorrect statements which leads to the inference of nonapplication of mind, on the part of the sanctioning authorities.
120. I have considered the submissions advanced on this aspect and have considered the relevant provisions of law in the light of the precedents relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel to substantiate their contentions..
121. For administration of Criminal Justice System, an onerous duty is cast on the Courts, to effectively tackle and control the endemic of offences, so as to prevent the society from drifting towards savage society. A balanced approach is required to be adopted by the courts giving strict C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.78 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
interpretation to the Clauses of the Penal Provisions and simultaneously being mindful of the inviolable Constitutional Rights granted to the accused, so as to ensure fair trial.
122. Subjecting any individual to undergo "criminal trial" is an encroachment / restriction on his fundamental right to "life and liberty". As per the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of India, granted to each and every citizen of the country, no one can be deprived of his right to life and liberty, except by the due "process of law". Thus, if anyone accused of any offence, is to be subjected to criminal trial, then the same has to be in conformity to the procedures established by law. As whenever a particular procedure is prescribed by law, then all other procedures to do the same are proscribed.
123. Public servants in whatever capacities they are holding their offices, are supposed to give effect to the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.79 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
objects for which their organization is functioning, so that the benefits arising out of their actions, should benefit their country in general and their organization in particular. To achieve the object, for which the policies and plans of the organization are put in place, all the public servants are expected to discharge their functions with utmost propriety and all fairness. Experience however has revealed that many public servants, instead of using their good offices for the public good, misuse the same for their personal benefits by indulging into corrupt and improper practices.
124. Legislature in its wisdom in order to curb such corrupt and improper practices had brought "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988" on the Statute Book for not only, punishing those who had violated the very oath of honesty and sincerity with which they had assumed their office and indulged in 'corrupt practices', but also to deter the others from treading the path of dishonesty.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.80 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
125. Being aware of the fact that some of the honest public servants may be dragged into vexatious and uncalled for prosecution, the Legislature had in Section19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, incorporated a "saviour clause" so as to protect them and to encourage them to continue with the good work. But for this clause, the government process would become 'static' as public servants would hesitate to take even the most honest, bonafide and genuine decisions fearing harassment from frivolous and uncalled for allegations.
126. To balance these two conflicting interests, one of which is to give effect to the very object for which Prevention of Corruption Act was brought on the Statute Book to deal with the guilty sternly and on the other hand, to give effect to the shield provided by the Legislature to protect honest and diligent public servants from vexatious and uncalled for prosecution, the onerous duty has been placed on the Courts, which are an important cog in the wheels of Administration of Justice. The courts are obligated to strike balance between C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.81 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
these two conflicting interests in such a manner, so that majesty of "Rule of Law" is neither undermined nor defeated.
127. Before proceeding to advert upon the submissions advanced, it is pertinent to make mention of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is reproduced as under: SECTION 19 : PREVIOUS SANCTION NECESSARY FOR PROSECUTION :
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government ;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government ;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.82 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under subsection (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) :
(a) No finding, sentence or order passed by a Special judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under subsection (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby ;
(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice;
(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.83 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(4) In determining under subsection (3) whether the absence thereof, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation - For the purposes of this Section,
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction ;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.
128. The object and character of this provision is evidently emanating from the words used in the Section by the Legislature : "No Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with the previous sanction". Use of words "No" and "shall" makes it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the Court to take cognizance of an offence is absolute and complete. As per Black's Law Dictionary, the word "cognizance" means jurisdiction or the exercise of jurisdiction. In common parlance, it means "taking notice of". C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.84 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
In view thereof, in absence of the sanction, the court is precluded from even taking notice of the offence or exercising its jurisdiction, in respect of a public servant.
129. Thus, the provision has been imparted a mandatory character and has been held so by various authoritative pronouncements by Hon'ble Apex Court. While holding grant of sanction to be a prerequisite or sinequanon for taking cognizance, regard is to be had to the fact that it can be a shield to discourage vexatious prosecution of innocent public servant, but it should not be permitted to be used as a weapon against the prosecution by the guilty.
130. The protection given by the Legislature is to be extended to the extent provided therein and it cannot and should not be stretched elastically to cover those, who are not intended by the Legislature to be under the protective umbrella. As to my mind the Legislature by enacting any provision in the Act, which prohibits the taking of cognizance of C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.85 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
offence by a Court, unless certain conditions are complied with, did not purport to condone the offence. Thus, such provision is to be construed on the basis of words used therein, without importing the words, which are not there.
131. In the backdrop of above, I shall consider the arguments advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel raised by him to challenge the authenticity of the sanction order Ex.PW.18/A & Ex. PW18/B passed by Sh.Rakesh Mehta, the then Commissioner MCD with respect to accused no.5 Raju Gusia and accused no. 6 O.P.Saroha and sanction orders Ex.PW.15/A to Ex.PW.15/C passed by Sh.V.S.Sharma, the then Additional Commissioner, MCD with respect to the other accused public servants namely Rakesh Kumar Koli, Rakesh Kumar Rustogi and Subodh Kumar Srivastava.
132. Firstly, I shall consider the arguments advanced on the aspect of "competence of the sanctioning authority" to pass the sanction orders.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.86 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
133. The first contention urged by Ld.Defence Counsel was that the post of "Executive Engineer" ie. of accused Raju Gusia is "Category A" Post, whereas post of other public servants falls under "Category B" and "Category C" posts, wherein the competent authority to grant sanction is the Corporation and Commissioner respectively, therefore the sanction could have been granted by the Corporation or by the Commissioner, but in the present case it has been granted by Commissioner and Additional Commissioner respectively, who were not competent to pass the sanction orders, therefore the sanction orders itself being invalid, would make the proceeding nonest, as no cognizance could have been taken at the first place against the accused persons.
134. The question of competence of the "appointing / sanctioning authority" came up for consideration before Hon'ble C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.87 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Supreme Court in case titled "Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh", reported as AIR 1979 SC 677, wherein it was held that :
"... The Legislature advisedly conferred power on the Authorities competent to remove the public servant from office to grant sanction for the obvious reason that the said Authority alone would be competent when facts and evidence are placed before him to judge whether a serious offence is committed or the prosecution is either frivolous or speculative. That Authority alone would be competent to judge whether on the facts alleged, there has been abuse or misuse of office held by the public servant. That authority would be in a position to know what are the powers conferred on the office which the public servant holds, how that power could be abused for corrupt motives or whether prima facie it has been so done. That Competent Authority alone would know the nature and functions discharged by the public servant holding the office and whether the same has been abused or misused. It is the vertical hierarchy between the Authority competent to remove the public servant from that office and nature of the office held by the public servant against whom sanction is sought, which would indicate a hierarchy and which would, therefore, permit inference of knowledge about the functions and duties of office and its misuse or abuse by the public servant. That is why the Legislature clearly C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.88 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
provided that the authority which would be competent to grant sanction is the authority which is entitled to remove from service the public servant against whom sanction is sought".
135. It is admitted position on record that the Post of Executive Engineer ie. of accused no.5 Raju Gusia, is a Category 'A' Post, whereas the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and the Officers from the Accounts Department ie. the remaining accused public servants, are Category 'B' and Category 'C' Posts.
136. Ld.Defence Counsel relying upon Regulation 7 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 and the Schedule thereunder, which was notified had contended that for Category 'A' Post, the competent authority to remove him from services is the Corporation whereas, for Category 'B' & 'C' posts, it is the Commissioner. It is the argument of Ld.Defence Counsel that with respect to Category 'A' Post, instead of Corporation, the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.89 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
sanction order Ex.PW.18/A was passed by the Commissioner, whereas for Category 'B' & 'C' Posts, instead of the Commissioner, the sanction orders Ex. PW.15/A to Ex.PW.15/C were passed by Additional Commissioner.
137. I have perused the relevant Regulation 7 along with the Schedule thereunder, relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel. I have also perused the witness examined by the accused persons in this regard in their defence i.e. DW7 Dr.S.K.Yadav, Director (Personnel), North, MCD.
138. It is apparent on perusal on the deposition of the witness examined by the accused in their defence as well as the regulation, that the same was passed, promulgated and notified under the relevant provisions of DMC Act 1957, prior to the year 1993. With effect from 01.10.1993, DMC Act was amended with respect to the powers of appointment of different officers as well as with respect to the disciplinary authority. In C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.90 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
view thereof, the changes / amendments made in the Statute by Legislature are required to be considered for the purposes of appreciating the arguments advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel in this regard.
139. In terms of Section 19(1) (c) of the Act, the sanction for prosecution has to be granted by an authority competent to remove the person from his office. Article 311(1) of Constitution of India, in no uncertain terms prescribes that the authority competent to remove a person from his office cannot be subordinate in rank, to the appointing authority.
140. In order to find out the appointing authority of the accused public servants, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 2 of CCS CCA Rules, which is reproduced as under : RULE 2 OF CCS CCA RULES : "Appointing authority", in relation to a Government Servant, means C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.91 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(i) . . .
(ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the time being holds ;
(iii) . . .
(iv) . . .
141. In terms of these Rules and to ascertain the appointing authority with respect to the accused public servants, more particularly with respect to the Post of Executive Engineer, a "Category A" Post, I have perused the relevant provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 as amended in 1993.
142. By virtue of Section 89 of DMC Act 1957 as amended in 1993, the Corporation was made "appointing authority" of certain officers mentioned therein, which is reproduced as under : C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.92 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
SECTION 89 : APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS : (1) A Corporation shall appoint suitable persons to be respectively the Municipal Engineer, the Municipal Health Officer, the Education Officer, the Municipal Chief Accountant, the Municipal Secretary and the Municipal Chief Auditor and may appoint one or more Deputy Commissioners and such other officer or officers of a status equivalent to or higher than the status of any of the officers specified earlier in this subsection as Corporation may deem fit on such monthly salaries and such allowances, if any, as may be fixed by a Corporation.
(2) . . .
143. Further, the Commissioner was empowered to make appointment with respect to Municipal Officers by virtue of Section 92 of DMC Act, 1957 with effect from 01.10.1993.
The same reads as under :
SECTION 92 : POWER TO MAKE
APPOINTMENTS :
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 89, the power of the appointing municipal officers C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.93 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
and other municipal employees whether temporary or permanent shall vest in the Commissioner :
(2) . . .
144. Bare perusal of Section 92 makes it apparent that the same is subject to the provision of Section 89 of the Act. Section 89 empowers the Corporation to appoint Municipal Engineer and other officers and also, Deputy Commissioner and also such other officers of a status equivalent to, or higher than that status. Whereas, as per the Section 92, a Commissioner is empowered to appoint Municipal Officers and other municipal employees. Both Municipal Engineer, Deputy Commissioner and other officers equivalent to the rank of Deputy Commissioner, whose appointing authority is the Corporation by virtue of Section 89 of the Act, and Municipal Officer whose appointing authority as per section 92, is the Commissioner are "Category A" post as per the Schedule of Establishment of the Corporation. Meaning thereby that after the amendment of 1993, the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.94 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
appointing authority with respect to different posts in Category A, were different ie. for Deputy Commissioner and Municipal Engineer which as per the Schedule of Establishment is EngineerinChief, was the Corporation and for Municipal Officers which includes the post of Executive Engineer, the appointing authority, is the Commissioner.
145. Further, Section 59 of DMC Act 1957, more particularly subclause (d) thereof, which has been inserted by way of the amendment act w.e.f 01.10.1993, makes the Commissioner disciplinary authority in relation to the municipal officers. The same reads as under : SECTION 59 :
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER Save as otherwise provided in this Act, entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act and of any other Act for the time being in force which confers, any power or imposes any duty on a Corporation shall vest in the Commissioner who shall also C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.95 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(a) exercise all the powers and perform all the duties specifically conferred or imposed upon him by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force;
(b) . . .
(c) . . .
(d) Subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf, be the disciplinary authority in relation to all municipal officers and other municipal employees.
(emphasis supplied)
146. It is apparent on bare perusal of Section 59 (d) that Commissioner has been made disciplinary authority, with respect to all Municipal Officers. This section when is read along with Section 92, makes it apparent that Legislature has made the Commissioner disciplinary authority with respect to the Municipal Officers, of which he has been made the appointing authority.
147. It is clear on joint reading of the provisions of Section 89, Section 92 and Section 59(d), that after the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.96 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
amendment in the Act w.e.f 01.10.1993, the appointing authority with respect to the officers of the rank of Deputy Commissioner and above, as well as Municipal Engineer which is Chief Engineer, is the Corporation, whereas appointing authority with respect to Municipal Officers which includes Executive Engineer is the Commissioner.
That being the situation, Legislature has made Commissioner disciplinary authority with respect to Municipal Officers by virtue of Section 59 (d) inserted in the Act with effect from 01.10.1993. Legislature has deliberately used the words "Municipal Officers" in section 59 (d) and not "Municipal Engineers" in view of the fact that for Municipal Engineer, Corporation was made the appointing authority by virtue of Section 89 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
148. This has also been deposed so by the witness examined by accused themselves in their defence, i.e. DW7 Dr. S.K.Yadav, that after the amendment in 1993 the Category 'A' C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.97 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
post were divided in two sub categories. He contended that for one category the disciplinary authority was the Corporation and with respect to other sub category in which post of Executive Engineer falls, the disciplinary authority is the Commissioner.
149. It is contended by Ld.Defence Counsel that Section 59 (d) is subject to Regulation 7 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld.Defence Counsels, in view of the clear wordings of Section 59 (d). The same states "subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf" (emphasis supplied). The words used ie. "may be made" makes it explicit that the Legislature intends to give it a prospective effect. By no stretch of imagination, these words can be interpreted to make this power given to the Commissioner , subject to any previous regulation.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.98 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
150. Having regards to these facts and circumstances and considering the fact that no regulation in this regard has been made after 01.10.1993 ; I am of the considered opinion that the Commissioner being the "appointing authority" with respect to the Executive Engineer, is also the disciplinary authority and thus, was competent to grant sanction.
151. Second facet of this argument was with respect to Category 'B' and 'C' Post. It was contended by Ld.Defence Counsel that with respect to these two categories, the competent authority was the commissioner, therefore the additional commissioner could not have passed the sanction order as the powers cannot be delegated to him.
152. Section 491 of DMC Act 1957 which reads as under, empowers the commissioner to delegate his powers: C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.99 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
SECTION 491 : POWER TO DELEGATE FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSIONER : The Commissioner may by order direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on him by or under this Act shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, be exercised and performed also by any municipal officer or other municipal employee specified in the order.
153. Exercising his powers under section 491 of DMC Act, the then Commissioner MCD vide office order no. F.14(3)/CED(II)/86/193/22769840 dated 16.11.1992 ; relied upon by Ld.Public Prosecutor, had delegated his powers on Sh.V.S.Sharma. The same reads as under : "In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 491 of DMC Act, I hereby direct that all the powers conferred on me under various sections of the said Act, shall, subject to my over all supervision, control and review, be also exercised by C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.100 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Sh.V.S.Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi w.e.f. 01.11.1992."
154. In view thereof, Sh.V.S.Sharma, empowered by virtue of this office order passed under section 491 of DMC Act, became competent to grant the sanction orders Ex.PW.15/A to Ex.PW.15/C.
155. Consequently, the argument advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel that he was not empowered to grant the sanction order or the powers could not have been delegated to him, stands rejected.
156. The precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel in "CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal" (supra), does not come to their rescue, as the facts of said case were materially different from the present case. In the said case, the competent authority was Hon'ble Minister and the matter C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.101 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
which was before Hon'ble Apex Court was that whether Hon'ble Minister on the basis of satisfaction of some other authority for grant of sanction, could grant sanction or not. Further, in the said case it was conceded before Hon'ble Apex Court that CBI, had only sent the SP's Report along with "list of witnesses" and "list of evidence" without the complete records.
157. Whereas, in the present case, the powers were delegated to Sh.V.S.Sharma, by the then Commissioner, by virtue of a Statutory Provision, under section 491 of DMC Act and it was he, who on the basis of the documents submitted to him along with report of CBI, had passed the sanction order after applying his own mind and not on the basis of satisfaction of any other authority subordinate to him.
158. Having turned down the first contentions of Ld.Defence Counsel regarding noncompetence of the Sanctioning Authority as claimed by them, I shall now advert to decide the second facet of their contention,challenging the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.102 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
sanction order, which as per them was passed without application of mind.
159. It is contended by Ld.Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the public servants that the sanctioning authorities ie. PW15 V.S.Sharma and PW18 Rakesh Mehta, had got the draft sanction orders typed and signed the same which in itself shows nonapplication of mind. It is contended by Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Ld.Advocate that the orders passed by both the sanctioning authorities, as well as the draft sanction orders are, verbetim word by word. It is contended by Ld.Defence Counsel that there was no material available with the sanctioning authority, to state the facts which have been stated in the sanction order as during the course of their cross examination on being asked about the documents submitted to them and referred by them, they gave evasive replies.
160. It is submitted by Ld.Defence Counsel that, had the sanctioning authority perused and considered the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.103 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
statements of PW8 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal and PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhyay, recorded by IO under section 161 Cr.P.C, then they would not have passed the sanction order. It is contended that despite this, the sanction orders were passed which in itself reveals nonapplication of mind. It is contended that the sanction order be held as "bad in law" and the proceedings be dropped. To substantiate their contentions, Ld.Defence Counsel had relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's Case (supra).
161. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced and have perused the relevant provisions of law, in the light of the interpretations given to it by Hon'ble Superior Courts.
162. There is no doubt that this provision has been brought on the Statute Book, by the legislature to protect the honest public servants from any vexatious prosecution. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.104 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
However, this protection by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as a shield for those who indulge in illegal activities.
163. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court time and again that the Court where the question of validity of sanction is raised, has to see as to whether the sanctioning authority did consider all the evidence collected by the investigating agency ie. oral as well as documentary.
164. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case titled "State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G.Jain" reported as Criminal Appeal no.2345 of 2009 decided on 28.05.2013 had aptly summed up the principles and guidelines which are required to be followed to decide the question which inundates the Trial Court, challenging the sanction order.
165. Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgement had considered all the previous laws laid down by it, including the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.105 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
cases referred to and relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel mentioned hereinabove.
166. Hon'ble Apex Court after appreciating the earlier precedents on the subject, had culled out the guiding principles in Para 13 of its Judgement, which are reproduced as under :
(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that valid sanction has been granted by 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.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.106 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(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 material placed before him and some of them have not been proved, that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
(g) The order of sanction is a pre requisite, as it is intended to provide a safeguard to the 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 hyper technical approach to test its validity.
..... (emphasis supplied).
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.107 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
167. In view of these guiding principles, more particularly the principle mentioned at Point (d) (e) (f) and
(g) above, the adequacy of the material placed before the Sanctioning authority is not required to be gone into, as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the sanction order.
168. The discretion whether to grant or not to grant the sanction order lies with the sanctioning authority and it is the subjective opinion of the said administrative authority, which it has to arrive, on the basis of material placed before it.
169. The sanctioning authority was under an obligation to see the material placed before it by CBI, collected during the course of investigations and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the same is sufficient and requires grant of sanction for prosecution of accused persons or not.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.108 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
170. In view thereof, it is to be seen as to whether the complete record of the investigations, including oral and documentary evidence collected was or was not placed before the sanctioning authority.
171. It is apparent on bare perusal of the examination in chief of PW15 V.S.Sharma and PW18 Rakesh Mehta that the complete record was placed before them which included the oral and documentary evidence collected during the course of investigations. Merely, because these witnesses during the course of their cross examination had stated that they do not remember to have seen and perused the documents, including the statement of witnesses or had called for the records from MCD (Vigilance Branch) regarding accused persons before passing the sanction orders, cannot lead to any such inference that these documents were never produced before them or were not seen by them. Noone is expected to remember all the documents gone through by him after lapse of a decade's time.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.109 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
172. The precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's Case (supra), does not come to their rescue, as in said case, the sanctioning authority by way of an affidavit, had stated that only the SP's Report along with list of documents and list of witnesses was submitted before it. That is not the situation in the case in hand, where the sanctioning authorities in their deposition have categorically stated to have perused all the material collected by the investigating agency which was put up before them.
173. So far as wording of sanction order is concerned, as per the settled propositions of law, laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions and reiterated in above referred decision of Mahesh G.Jain (supra), that there is no prescribed format or language for the sanctioning authority to pass the sanction order. It solely is the discretion of the sanctioning authority how to word the sanction order. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.110 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Submission of draft sanction order by the investigating agency with the competent authority was never held as "improper". It is only for the sanctioning authority first to apply its mind and if satisfied for granting the sanction, it can take help and assistance from the draft sanction order.
174. Even otherwise, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case titled "Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported as 1992 Cr.L.J. 1144(Bombay), that the procedure adopted by the investigating agency in forwarding a draft sanction order to the sanctioning authority after summarising all evidence and requesting him to examine the record and to accord sanction if satisfied, is not improper.
175. Further, in another case titled "K.Nachimuthu Vs. State" reported as 1994 Cr.L.J 2760, Hon'ble High Court of Madras had held that a sanction order C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.111 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
cannot be assailed for nonapplication of mind when the sanctioning authority had adopted the draft sent to them by the investigating agency, only after through scrutiny of the facts constituting the offence and then signing it.
176. The other contention of Ld.Defence Counsel that had the sanctioning authority considered statements of PW8 P.K.Khandelwal and PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhaya recorded by the investigating agency under section 161 Cr.P.C, then it would not have granted the sanction, to my mind is also devoid of any merits. As the sanctioning authority is not supposed to judge and adjudicate the entire evidence on the touchstone of its evidentiary values and other aspects of law. The sanctioning authority on the basis of available material before it, is required to satisfy itself for grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution, which in this case the sanctioning authority did, exercise and after satisfying itself opined that material is sufficient for grant of sanction for prosecution. Hence the sanction orders.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.112 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
177. Even otherwise, the Legislature in order to stop unjustified claims raised on behalf of public servants to derive undue advantage of requirement of sanction have incorporated Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act which if read with section 465 of Cr.P.C, makes it clear that any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent Court, unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has been occasioned.
178. Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case titled "State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Rajmangal Ram" in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2014, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8013 of 2012, decided on 31.03.2014 ; has held that the Sanction Order cannot be held to be invalid and proceedings cannot be interdicted without giving any finding to the effect that a failure of justice as a result thereof, has occasioned. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.113 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
179. Merely because any error or irregularity has occurred in the sanction order, the same is not to be considered fatal, unless it results in failure of justice.
180. In the present case, as we are at the fagend of the trial and accused public servants have already undergone the trial, further I have not found any error or omission in the sanction orders passed qua them by the sanctioning authorities resulting in any failure of justice.
181. Thus, I do not find any merits in the contentions advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel to challenge the authenticity of the sanction orders ie. Ex.PW.15/A to Ex.PW. 15/C and Ex.PW.18/A & Ex. PW18/B, which to my mind have been passed by the sanctioning authority with due & proper application of mind.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.114 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
182. Having held that the sanction for prosecution granted against the public servants was valid, I shall now delve upon the contentions of Ld.Defence Counsels on factual aspects, visavis the necessary ingredients of the offences, with which the accused persons were charged.
183. This has brought me to the most pivotal part of the prosecution case ie. Conspiracy, which is the primary charge against the accused persons, being axis around which revolves the other charges. As per the case of prosecution, the officers of MCD being public servants, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Contractor, object of which was to cheat MCD. It is contended by Ld.Prosecutor that the public servants knowing or having reasons to believe the invoices to be forged ones, have facilitated the submission of same by the contractor to them, on the basis of which they made relevant entries in their records, which ultimately led to release of payment by MCD to the contractor and thus they have caused C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.115 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
pecuniary advantage to him and corresponding wrongful loss to MCD.
184. Ld.Special Public Prosecutor made an endeavour to invoke Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act. He, in order to buttress his arguments that all the conspirators are to be made constructively liable for the substantive offences committed, pursuant to the conspiracy on the basis of the "Principle of Agency". He contended that all the public servants had entered into a conspiracy with the contractor, therefore the acts done by the contractor, pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, committed by each one of them, therefore all of them should be held responsible and liable for the same.
185. I have considered the submissions advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor. In order to appreciate the same, it is pertinent to make mention of Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under : C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.116 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
SECTION 10 THINGS SAID OR DONE BY CONSPIRATOR IN REFERENCE TO COMMON DESIGN - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
186. Bare perusal of this Section makes it evident that there is no such deeming provision in it, as has been contended by Ld.Prosecutor. No doubt, Section 10 rests on the 'Principle of Agency', but it lays down only a rule of relevancy. As per the provisions of this Section, anything done or said by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention becomes "relevant fact" as against each of the conspirators, to prove two things :
(i) Existence of the conspiracy ; and
(ii) That, they were party to this conspiracy. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.117 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
187. This has been held so by Privy Counsel in case titled "Mirza Akbar vs. King Emperor" reported as AIR 1940 PC 176. This interpretation has been followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.
188. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jagannath Shetty had analyzed this Section in case titled "Kehar Singh & Ors. v/s State (Delhi Administration)" reported as 1988 (3) SCC 609, as under : "From an analysis of the section, it will be seen that Section 10 will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence. There should be, in other words, a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his coconspirator. One such prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was first C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.118 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
entertained, is relevant against the others. It is relevant not only for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy, but also for proving that the other person was a party to it."
189. In view thereof, distinction was made between the conspiracy and offence committed, pursuant to the conspiracy. It is only in order to prove the existence of conspiracy and parties to the conspiracy that this rule of evidence, can be put in service.
"Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct offence to which individual offenders are liable to punishment, independent of the conspiracy."
190. In view thereof, I do not find any merits in the contentions advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor as the "Theory of Agency" cannot be extended thus far, that is to say, to hold C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.119 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
all the conspirators guilty of actual offences committed in execution of common design, if such offences were committed by one of them, without participation of others.
191. Whether or not, conspirators will be liable for substantive offences other than the conspiracy and if so, to what extent, has to be proved on record by the prosecution on the basis of evidence which, I shall be adverting to hereinafter.
192. However, before going that far, I would hasten to add that prosecution has first to establish that all the accused persons facing trial, were in fact party to the alleged conspiracy with which they have been charged.
193. In an attempt to demolish the prosecution case, Sh.Aseem Vachhar and Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocates vociferously contended during the course of arguments, that there is nothing on record brought by the prosecution during C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.120 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
the course of evidence, from which it can be inferred that there was any meeting of mind between the public servants and the contractor. It is further submitted by Ld.Defence Counsels of all the accused persons that as the conspiracy can only be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances proved should be such that they must form a chain of events, leading to an irrepressible conclusion about guilt of the accused.
194. In support of their contentions, Ld.Defence Counsels had relied upon the law laid down in cases titled as under : (i )"Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. State" (supra) ;
(ii) "K.R.Purushotnaman vs. State of Kerala"
reported as 2005 (3) JCC (SC) 1847 ;
(iii) "Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab";
reported as 2009 (3) SCC (CRI.) 66.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.121 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
195. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the precedents relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsels. There is no denying the fact that Hon'ble Apex Court while holding that the offence of conspiracy is committed in secrecy and can be proved only by circumstantial evidence has held that these circumstances should be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the guilt of the accused.
196. Section 120A IPC defines "criminal conspiracy". Accordingly to this section when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal, by illegal means such an agreement is designated as "criminal conspiracy".
197. In view of this definition, the gist of the offence is "an agreement to break the law". Parties to such an agreement are guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.122 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
act agreed upon by them to be done, has not or could not be done. It is not necessary that all the parties to such an agreement should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise of commission of a number of acts. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy.
198. Conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Its existence and objects can only be deduced from circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused, who are party to such conspiracy.
199. As Conspiracy has to be and can only be inferred from the physical manifestation of conduct of the conspirators / accused. Thus, to deduce actual meeting of minds amongst the accused person to find out transmission of thoughts, the actual words used by them during communication, are to be considered.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.123 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
200. The conduct of the conspirators / accused are to be deciphered not only from the actual words spoken by them but also from their body language, mannerism and behaviour by which they intervene in the conversation taking place between the complainant and coaccused, as their state of mind has to be inferred on the basis of their conduct.
201. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "V.C.Shukla vs. State" reported as 1980 (2) SCC ; had held that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of the crime, but conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irrepressible inference of an agreement between two or more persons, committing an offence.
202. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Noor Mohd. Yusuf Momin vs. State of Maharashtra" reported C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.124 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
as AIR 1971 SC 885, has held : "...in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material."
203. For the purposes of considering the conduct of the accused persons so as to deduce about his complicity with the conspiracy, a "rule of caution" has been laid down by Privy Counsel in case reported as AIR 1954 PC 140 that : "In a joint trial care must be taken to separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against others".
204. In case titled "Alvin Krumlewitch v. United States of America" reported as (93 L.Ed. 790) ; it has been held by Justice Jackson that : "codefendant in a conspiracy trial occupies an uneasy seat" and "it is difficult for the individual to make his own case stand on its C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.125 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
own merits in the minds of jurors who are ready to believe that birds of a feather are flocked together."
205. These words of caution were reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa in case titled "State vs. Nalini" reported as 1999 (5) SCC 253 ; that : "There is a need to guard against prejudice being caused to the accused on account of the joint trial with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed that "there is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy".
"It has been further held that criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy".
206. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P." reported as 2004 (11) SCC 585 has C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.126 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
held as under;
"A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. The circumstances before, during and after the occurrence can be proved to decide about the complicity of the accused".
207. Being aware of the fact that for the purposes of appreciating the evidence on record with respect to the allegations of conspiracy, the circumstances in which the accused acted, their actions and mannerism are required to be considered, which I shall look into, mindful of the words of caution laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred precedents.
208. Before adverting to the evidence on record and considering that the accused public servants are also charged with "criminal misconduct" under section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, I am of the opinion that the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.127 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
evidence cannot be appreciated in isolation qua the charge of conspiracy. As the alleged allegations of "criminal misconduct" are also flowing out of inextricably woven facts leading to the allegations of conspiracy, I deem it appropriate to consider this contention raised on behalf of prosecution and defence, alongside the arguments with respect to conspiracy.
209. It is contended by Ld.Public Prosecutor that the actions and inactions on the part of public servants in accepting the invoices from the contractor, knowing the same to be forged one and making their records, pursuant to those invoices goes on to establish that the same amounts to "criminal misconduct". This contention of Ld.Public Prosecutor was sought to be countered by Ld.Defence Counsels stating that public servants acted in discharge of their official duties as they were supposed to receive the invoice only for the purposes of checking the quality and quantity of bitumen brought by the contractor at the plant and it was neither their duty to verify the genuineness of the invoice nor they had any means to C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.128 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
verify the same, therefore by no stretch of imagination their conduct can be termed as "criminal misconduct".
210. I have considered the submissions advanced on this aspect of Ld.Public Prosecutor as well as Ld.Defence Counsels.
211. The word "misconduct" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, which reads as under: "The transgression of some established rule of action, dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, improper or wrong behaviour".
212. The term "misconduct" implies wrong intention and not a mere error of judgement. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or Statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.129 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.
213. Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not make any negligence or a plain and simple misconduct on the part of any public servant, a punishable offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgement while interpreting the provisions of this Act has laid down that a blatant carelessness or gross negligence on the part of any public servant, does not ipsofacto, comes within the domain of this Section. The alleged misconduct on the part of public servant has to be actuated with criminal intent. The abuse of his position as a public servant in order to come within the mischief of the section must necessarily be dishonest intention on the part of said officer qua the alleged act.
214. The burden to prove affirmatively that accused by abusing his official position had obtained any pecuniary C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.130 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
advantage either for himself or for any other person, lies on the prosecution. The prosecution on the basis of evidence led by it on record, has to satisfy the principal that all inculpatory facts, established on record must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of his guilt.
215. In the backdrop of above, the evidence led on record by the prosecution during the course of trial is required to be analyzed, so as to find out as to whether the officers of MCD, the public servants, had conspired or entered into any agreement with the private person ie. accused no.1 Ziley Singh, for doing an illegal act or doing an act which though is legal by illegal means and if so, whether this act, conduct, action or inaction on the part of public servants was such, which can be termed as "misconduct" and whether the same traverse in the contours of "criminal misconduct" as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.131 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
216. In order to ascertain the same, it is pertinent to have a grasp on the duties, which these public servants, being Junior Engineer (Plant) and Junior Engineer (Site), Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Accounts Clerk and Accountant, were required to fulfill and whether they had performed their duties, as was expected from them or whether the actions and omissions of theirs were laden with any dishonest intention, in order to cause any pecuniary advantage to their coaccused.
217. PW8 Sh.P.K.Khandelwal posted as Executive Engineer with MCD, who was subsequently promoted to Superintendent Engineer and thus a responsible officer, during the course of his deposition had deposed that the Work order Ex. PW8/H in this case was awarded to accused no. 1, the Contractor for which agreement Ex. PW8/I was signed by him. He deposed that it was duty of the contractor to have fresh bitumen purchased from approved oil agencies and was C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.132 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
required to submit the documents to Junior Engineer (Plant).
He deposed that at that time R.K.Rustogi was posted as JE (Plant). During the course of his cross examination, this witness stated that bitumen comes at the plant in night hours and the representative of the contractor or the truck driver as the case may be unloads the said bitumen in the bitumen storage tank and use to hand over the documents / invoices to who so ever is present at the plant at that time. He further deposed that on the basis of invoices delivered JE (Plant) on the following morning use to measure bitumen from the bitumen storage tank. He also admitted that Toll Tax receipt and cash receipts were not used to be issued. He further deposed that on the basis of the invoices delivered to engineers on the following day, JE (Plant) used to make entries with respect to quantum of bitumen brought. He deposed that as no specimen format from any approved refineries were received, therefore, it was difficult for JE and Technical staff including Accounts Department in absence of any mechanism to check the authenticity and genuineness of the invoices.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.133 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
218. PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhyay, Retired as Engineer in Chief from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), during the course of his deposition had also stated similar duties of the Engineering Staff. During the course of his cross examination, PW19 deposed that contractor or his representative at the time of offloading the bitumen during night hours, used to hand over the invoice to whosoever is present at the plant and JE (Plant) on the following morning was supposed to check the material. He went on to state that it is the duty of the contractor to procure genuine product against the genuine invoice. He stated that the engineer at site is not required to verify the genuineness of the invoice and is required to make entries with respect to the quantum of bitumen brought at the plant.
219. This deposition of prosecution witnesses regarding the duties of public servants ie. the officers of MCD involved with dense carpeting of roads is not challenged or C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.134 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
disputed on behalf of the accused persons. The accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Koli, Subodh Kumar Srivastava, Rakesh Kumar Rustogi and Raju Gusia had examined themselves under section 315 Cr.PC as DW1 to DW4, thereby rendering themselves to cross examination. They also during the course of their deposition had stated about their respective duties. They deposed that it is the duty of the contractor to purchase bitumen from approved oil agencies. They further deposed that bitumen used to arrive at plant during night hours. They deposed that they did not have any mechanism to check the authenticity or the genuineness of the invoice.
220. It is pertinent to mention here that this deposition of prosecution witnesses as well as that of the accused persons who appeared in the witness box under section 315 Cr.PC as DW1 to DW4, is also in consonance to the duties of the Engineering Staff mentioned in CPWD Manual, more particularly, under the head Execution of Works in Clause 5.11.1 of CPWD Manual which reads as under : C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.135 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
CLAUSE 5.11.1 It is incumbent upon various officers concerned with the work, i.e., Senior Architect / Architect, Ses/EEs (Civil and Elec.), AE and JE to inspect the works frequently to ensure that the works are being executed in general according to design and specifications laid down for the purpose. Primarily an Officer who records / testchecks the measurements for an item of work will be responsible for the quality, quantity and dimensional accuracy of the work he has measured / test - checked.
221. Further under clause 7.33.2 of CPWD Manual, the duties and responsibilities of the Engineering Staff is laid as under : CLAUSE 7.33.2 Test-check of the Executive Engineers shall also include atleast 10% test - check of the measurements of RCC items so as to ensure structural safety of building.
RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS RECORDING / TEST - CHECKING MEASUREMENTS The officer who records / test - checks the measurements for an item of work will be responsible for the Quality, Quantity and Dimensional accuracy of the work he has measured / testchecked.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.136 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
222. In the light of prosecution and defence evidence on record in the form of PW8, PW19 & DW1 to DW4, it is established that :
(a) Contractor is required to execute the work as per NIT Conditions and Work Order specifications ;
(b) Contractor is required to procure bitumen from approved oil companies and to produce the invoices as a proof thereof.
(c) JEs (Plant) on the basis of invoices so delivered by the contractor are supposed to make relevant entries in their records, measurement books etc.
(d) JEs (Plant) are required to conduct the test checks with respect to the mix prepared at the plant by contractor and only after finding it to be as per specifications, to let it go to the site.
(e) JEs (Site) are responsible for the quality, quantity and dimensional accuracy of the work to be executed at site by the contractor and to make necessary test checks and record entries in their registers.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.137 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
(f) JE(s) then on the basis of recorded entries prepare the bills alongwith the supporting documents.
(g) Assistant Engineers make the overall supervision of work and the entries so recorded by the Junior Engineers.
(h) Bill is then sent to the Accounts Branch for processing along with the invoices and supporting documents.
(i) It is prepared and processed in the Accounts Branch whereafter it is put up before Executive Engineer, who passes the same.
(j) Only thereafter, the payment is released to the contractor.
223. Prosecution on the basis of deposition of PW8 P.K.Khandelwal and PW27 Sh. O.P.Tanwar has been able to establish on record that a sum of Rs.95,00,000/ were sanctioned for development of Narela, Najafgarh and Mehraulli for the year 199899 vide note Ex. PW8/C and Technical sanction with respect to the work order Ex. PW8/H as Ex. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.138 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
PW27/A. On the basis of deposition of PW8 P.K.Khandelwal and PW27 Sh. O.P.Tanwar , it has come up on record that for the work order Ex. PW8/H awarded by MCD to contractor Ziley Singh, he had submitted 05 invoices ie. Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D which were forged ones (as held by me hereinafter in para 308 (infra).
224. Through deposition of PW8 P.K.Khandelwal and PW27 O.P.Tanwar, prosecution established that, as an acknowledgment of receipt of these invoices, Junior Engineer Subodh Kumar Shrivastava had signed them, whereafter he and other accused public servants namely R.K.Rustogi, R.K.Koli and Raju Gusia had made relevant entries in the Measurement Books Ex. PW8/B and other registers namely Tack Coat Register, Bitumen Issue Register Ex. PW8/D, Test Register Ex. PW8/E Level Book Ex. PW8/F, Calculation sheet Ex. PW8/G etc. which bears their signatures.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.139 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
225. That, thereafter the first running bill Ex. PW27/B with respect to this work order was prepared by accused Topan Das Dudeja, Account Assistant (since expired) and was checked by Om Prakash Saroha, Assistant Chief Accountant and was passed by Raju Gusia, Executive Engineer.
226. The sole question which requires consideration is, as to whether the public servants had accepted these invoices with the knowledge that the same are forged ones or they did accept the same unaware of its genuineness. And whether they made their records influenced by any motive or they did it in plain and simple discharge of their duties.
227. Before proceeding further, to find out answer to this question, it is pertinent to mention here that although during the course of evidence and cross examination of prosecution witnesses, the signatures of these accused persons were not disputed by Ld.Defence Counsels. However, prosecution to discharge its onus had examined witnesses to C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.140 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
prove signatures of accused persons on the documents, i.e. invoices so received, M.B.Book, Bills etc. From the deposition of the investigating officer coupled with the statement of independent witnesses ie. PW28 Sh. B.K.Khosa, PW30 Sh.
S.K.Gupta, PW31 Sh.H.C.Bhardwaj, PW32 Sh. A.K.Arora, PW26 Sh. Triloki Nath and PW36 Sh. Pradeep Kumar, it is apparent that during the course of investigations, the specimen signatures of the accused persons taken by the Investigating Officer, were sent for comparison to CFSL with the questioned documents. Besides specimen signatures admitted signatures of accused persons on documents Ex. PW29/B1 to Ex.
PW29/B7 were identified by PW29 Harjinder Singh having worked with the accused public servants were also sent.
228. Prosecution through the deposition of PW33 Sh.B.A.Vaid and his report Ex.PW.33/Q1 & Q2 has also proved on record that the questioned documents ie. Measurement Book, the registers as well as the running bills were signed by the accused public persons. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.141 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
229. Even otherwise their signatures on these documents were identified by PW27 O.P.Tanwar. No doubt PW27 O.P.Tanwar was cross examined by Sh. S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, but nothing material emanated out of it to disbelieve the same.
230. Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate, during the course of arguments had raised objection that the specimen signatures of these accused persons could not have been taken as per Law and the prescribed procedure, as no permission from the Court was taken by the IO, therefore, the report received from CFSL should not be relied upon. Ld.Defence Counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the law laid down in case titled "Sapan Haldar & Ors. Vs. State", decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing Criminal Appeal no. 804/01 on 25.05.2012.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.142 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
231. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused public servants as well as cross examination of independent witnesses i.e. PW28, PW30, PW31, PW32 & PW26 in whose presence specimen signatures were taken. I have also perused the precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel. In my considered opinion, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India" , reported as 2011 (2) SCC 490.
232. Moreover, the signatures as well as the entries in these registers were not disputed during the course of arguments by Ld. Defence Counsel, rather the stand taken on behalf of accused persons in their defence was that all these entries were made by the public servants in discharge of their official duties. Accused public servants C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.143 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
during their deposition under section 315 Cr.PC as DW1 to DW4 had admitted their signatures and entries on all the relevant documents and also on the invoices in question Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D.
233. In view of above, it is apparent that the entries in the relevant documents and registers, as well as bills were made by the public servants on the basis of the invoices submitted by the contractor with them purportedly issued from the oil companies i.e. IOCL & HPCL which were forged ones. It is required to be seen as to whether the public servants had received these invoices in furtherance of any conspiracy, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged ones or they had accepted the same as part of their duties with no reasons to doubt about the genuineness of the same. As it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 96 SC 1744, that to establish the charge of conspiracy, "knowledge" about indulgence in either an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is necessary.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.144 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
234. In view of above, everything has boiled down to the knowledge on the part of public servants regarding the invoice in question. It is to be seen as to whether prosecution on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial, has been able to establish that the public servants did have the requisite knowledge that the invoices in question were forged ones and despite having this knowledge, they went on to make requisite entries in their records, so as to ultimately facilitate the release of payment to their coaccused Ziley Singh.
235. To bring home the aspect of knowledge on the part of public servants, it has been contended by Ld.PP that JE (Plant) who is supposed to remain present at the plant of contractor, could have very well ascertained about these forged invoices, as the registration number of the vehicle ie. tanker mentioned on these forged invoices were of such vehicles which were incapable of transportation of the bitumen or were never engaged for transportation of the bitumen. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.145 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
236. Second contention urged by Ld.Public Prosecutor was that as per the NIT conditions and work order conditions, contractor was supposed to submit cash receipts, terminal tax receipts, gate passes and invoices with MCD. However the public servants for reasons best known to them, did not press for submission of cash receipts, gate passes and terminal tax receipts and only on the basis of the invoices which were forged ones, had made the relevant entries and facilitated the contractor to have his payment released, thereby causing wrongful loss to MCD.
237. Third contention raised by Ld.Public Prosecutor was that no work was executed at the site, but public servants in furtherance of the conspiracy had made the entries in their documents, which facilitated the release of payment.
238. Last contention urged by Ld.Public Prosecutor regarding knowledge of the public servants was that C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.146 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
the invoices, so submitted with them by the contractor were forged ones and that the public servants on the basis of their experience with the department could have very well distinguished between a genuine invoice and the forged ones, but they failed to do so, for obvious reasons.
239. All these contentions of Ld.Public Prosecutor were countered by Ld.Defence Counsel Sh.Aseem Vachher and Sh.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocates.
240. I will deal with these contentions on the basis of evidence which has come up on record. The first contention of Ld.PP to impute the knowledge on the part of public servants regarding the invoices that the same were forged ones, was that JE (Plant) at the time of arrival of bitumen, could have very well checked from the registration number of the tankers of bitumen, if any, brought by the contractor at plant and comparing it with the registration number mentioned on the invoices, in question.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.147 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
241. Prosecution in order to prove that the vehicles, registration number of which were mentioned on these forged invoices were never engaged in transportation of bitumen from Mathura to the plant of the contractor, had examined PW2 Sh. Dharam Pal, PW3 Sh. Pushpender Singh, PW4 Sh. Bipun Bihari Srivastava, PW5 Sh. Khem Raj, PW6 Sh. Achal Singh Chauhan, PW16 Sh. Azad Ali.
242. I have perused the deposition of all these witnesses and also the cross examination of these witnesses conducted by Ld.Defence Counsels. I have also considered the deposition of PW34 Raj Pal and his report Ex. PW34/A, given by him to IO. On perusal of deposition of these witnesses, it is apparent that so far as PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW16 are concerned, their deposition appears to be cogent and trustworthy and they have been able to bring out on record that the vehicles bearing registration numbers HR38BG2245 ; C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.148 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
UP85 B9661 ; UP14 C 6712 ; UP85A 9015 ; UP14C 6712 ;
were either incapable of transportation of bitumen due to the body and type of vehicle and the same were never engaged for transportation of bitumen from Mathura to the plant of contractor M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company.
243. These witnesses during their deposition did state that they responded to the inquiry made from them by Investigating Officer PW37 P.L.Chaurasia, which fact also stand corroborated from deposition of IO. Nothing material emanated out of their cross examination to discredit the cogent version of theirs. So I have no reasons not to believe their deposition.
244. Although, Ld.Defence Counsel relying on the testimony of investigating officer, stated that he himself had neither seen these vehicles nor taken these vehicles in possession, to be produced in court, so as to ascertain, whether the same were capable of transporting bitumen or not. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.149 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
However, I do not find any substance in this contention of Ld.Defence Counsel, in view of the fact that PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW16, being either the registered owners of these vehicles or having domain over these vehicles, at the relevant point of time have categorically deposed that their vehicles are either not capable of transporting bitumen and that their vehicles were not engaged for transporting bitumen from IOCL Mathura to the plant of accused no.1.
245. From the deposition of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW16, prosecution has been able to establish that the vehicles HR38BG2245 ; UP85 B9661 ; UP14 C 6712 ; UP85A 9015 ; UP14C 6712 ; registration numbers of which were mentioned on the invoices in question, were not used for carrying bitumen at the plant of the contractor.
246. Meaning thereby that anyone who has received the bitumen at the plant along with the invoices, barely on checking the registration number of the vehicle mentioned in C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.150 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
the invoices and comparing it with the vehicle, can ascertain regarding the genuineness of the invoice.
247. It is submitted by Ld.Public Prosecutor that JE (Plant) is supposed to remain present at plant of contractor to receive bitumen and he on bare comparison of the registration number of vehicles mentioned on the invoices with the ones by which bitumen if any brought by the contractor would have known that invoices are not genuine. But he failed to do so.
248. To appreciate this contention of Ld.Public Prosecutor, it is required to be seen from the material on record, as to whether the bitumen was or was not received at the plant, in presence of JE (Plant).
249. To ascertain the same, it is required to peruse the deposition of prosecution witnesses. It is apparent from the deposition of PW8 P.K.Khandelwal and PW19 Deepak C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.151 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Mukhopadhyay ; both of whom were the prominent witnesses of MCD, that they have categorically deposed during the course of their examination in chief as well as cross examination that bitumen used to arrive at the plant of the contractor during "night hours" and JE (Plant) is not supposed to remain present at the plant during odd hours. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that JE (Plant) on receipt of invoice, which used to be handed over to him on the following morning by representative of the contractor at the plant, used to check the quantity of the bitumen brought.
250. These prosecution witnesses on the aspect of this deposition of theirs, that JE (Plant) is not supposed to be present at plant in night hours and bitumen generally arrives at the plant during odd hours, were not cross examined by Ld.Public Prosecutor. Further, DW1 to DW4 i.e. accused persons also deposed under section 315 Cr.PC that bitumen used to arrive during night hours and it is not the duty of JE (Plant) to remain present at the plant during night hours as C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.152 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
well. Nothing emanated from their cross examination conducted by Ld.Prosecutor so as to disbelieve them as well on this aspect, more particularly when the witnesses of the prosecution also deposed on same lines.
251. None of these witnesses have stated that the vehicle cannot be off loaded at the plant till arrival of JE (Plant).
252. In view of this prosecution evidence on record, it is apparent that it was not the duty of JE (Plant) to remain present during night hours when bitumen used to arrive. Therefore, this contention of Ld. P.P. that on bare comparison of the vehicle which has brought the bitumen at the plant and the number of vehicle mentioned on the invoice, it could have been ascertained by JE (Plant) that the invoices are forged ones, does not hold any merits. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.153 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
253. Prosecution evidence falls short of proving the fact that bitumen against the invoices Ex.PW.11/A, Ex.PW. 17/A to Ex.PW.17/D arrived at the plant, in presence of any of the accused persons. Therefore, no knowledge of these invoices being forged ones, can be imputed on the public servants on this count, as they never had the chance of comparing the registration number of the vehicle mentioned on the invoice with the registration number of the vehicle which brought the bitumen at plant.
254. This has led me to the second argument advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor, for inferring the "knowledge" on the part of public servants that the invoices were forged ones. This contention being that as per the work order and NIT Conditions, the accused public servants failed to insist the contractor to file cash receipts, gate passes and terminal tax receipts and went on to make entries in their records to facilitate the release of payment. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.154 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
255. In the present case, prosecution through the deposition of its witnesses, PW8 P.K.Khandelwal Executive Engineer, has been able to establish that the NIT was issued by MCD pursuant to which Work Order No. EE (Pr)/SZ/TC/86 dated 09.11.1998 Ex.PW.8/H was issued in favor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company. Agreement Ex. PW8/I was entered into. On bare perusal of these NIT Conditions and Work Order conditions including Mark X itself, it is apparent that the same prescribes that a contractor is required to file Cash Receipts, Terminal Tax Receipts, Gate Passes and Invoices.
256. However, PW8 Sh.P.K.Khandelwal and PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhyay, during the course of their examination in chief itself, categorically deposed that the cash receipts, gate passes and terminal tax receipts were not being filed by the Contractors with MCD. The reasons of not filing of these documents were also stated by these prosecution witnesses. They went on to depose that cash receipts were not being issued by the Oil Companies, as a consolidated payment C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.155 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
used to be deposited with the oil companies, against which they used to release the bitumen and for every release, neither the separate payment used to be made nor any receipts used to be issued, therefore the same was not being filed by the contractor. These witnesses further stated that Gate Passes were not being handed over by the oil companies to the Contractor or his representative as they used to take back the same, at their gate itself. Therefore, the contractor was not submitting gate passes with MCD. So far as terminal tax receipts are concerned, all these witnesses stated during the course of their deposition, that Terminal Tax was abolished, therefore there was no reason or occasion with the contractor to file terminal tax receipts.
257. This version of both these witnesses, was also endorsed by the Investigating Officer during the course of his deposition. Further, no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by the prosecution, through deposition of any witness or by producing the record of any other work order to C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.156 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
prove that all these four conditions or anyone apart from submission of invoices, was being fulfilled.
258. Although prosecution had examined PW1 Dharam Pal, Retired Superintendent, Octroi, Haryana, to bring on record that Octroi was abolished w.e.f. 01.11.1999 and prior to that it used to levied on goods entering Haryana. However, this witness failed to substantiate his deposition through any circular or notification either of abolition of Octroi or to prove that it used to be levied prior to 01.11.1999. In view thereof, his deposition is of no use or consequence.
259. In absence of any such evidence on record, I do not find any merits in the contentions urged by Ld.Public Prosecutor that public servants had failed to ask the contractor for filing of cash receipts, gate passes and terminal tax receipts ; for the purposes of inferring that they were party to the conspiracy with the contractor.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.157 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
260. Their having not insisted the contractor to file cash receipt, gate passes and terminal tax receipts, is and cannot be inferred as a deviation from normal / established practice with MCD. Rather, noninsistence of theirs to have these documents being filed by the contractor is in consonance to the regular practice prevalent with MCD as has been deposed by the witnesses of the prosecution themselves.
261. Thus, on this aspect as well, neither any knowledge that the invoices submitted to them by contractor were fake can be imputed on public servants, nor from their conduct any criminality or dishonest intention can be inferred.
262. This has brought me to the next contention urged by Ld.Public Prosecutor. It is contended that no work was executed by the contractor but the public servants made C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.158 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
false entries in the Measurement Books, Test Checks Registers as well as in the Running Bills, for facilitating the release of payment in favor of the contractor.
263. This contention of Ld.Public Prosecutor to my mind, does not find support from the prosecution evidence which has come up on record. It has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses namely PW8 Sh.P.K.Khandelwal, PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhyay, PW12 S.K.Jain, PW18 Rakesh Mehta, PW35 S.K.Kashyap and PW37 Investigating Officer P.L.Chaurasia, that no complaint regarding execution of work was received from any quarter. Further from the deposition of PW23 Brahmanand and PW19 Deepak Mukhopadhyay, who deposed about the preparation of job mix and ready mix, it is apparent that the work was done.
264. PW23 Brahmanand is the witness of the prosecution and this witness during his deposition had deposed that he was posted as Technical officer with MCD in the year C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.159 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
1998. He deposed that sample of concrete mix was received in lab and he proved his report as Ex. PW23/A. He also proved the job mix formula and formula of asphaltic concrete mix pertaining to M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company as Ex.
PW23/B and Ex. PW23/C. This deposition of the witness of the prosecution counters the case of prosecution itself which has alleged that no work was executed by the contractor.
265. Further, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the work was either retendered or any complaint was received of nonexecution of work. Prosecution witnesses themselves have deposed that work was executed. Even, the investigating officer did not depose or brought on record any fact unearthed by him to the effect that work was not executed by the contractor.
266. In view of this deposition on record and also considering the fact that although in the charge sheet, prosecution has raised this fact that work was never executed, C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.160 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
but the same has not been backed by any evidence. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld.Prosecutor, which to my mind has been raised just as an afterthought.
Further, it is apparent from the record that there is no evidence to the effect that this work was either retendered by MCD or any action was taken against the contractor. Secondly, this contention of Ld.PP is not supported by any cogent & convincing evidence, for me to infer any knowledge on the part of public servants about their complicity with the contractor.
267. Ld.Public Prosecutor in order to impute complicity on the part of the public servants with the contractor had contended that for getting delivery of bitumen from approved oil agencies, the contractor requires a recommendatory letter from Executive Engineer. He contended that it is on the basis of this letter that a delivery order is issued by the Divisional Office of IOCL / HPCL. He submitted that as no such recommendatory letter was issued in C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.161 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
this case, which fact was in the knowledge of public servants, therefore, arrival of bitumen at the plant should have the effect of ringing bells on public servants and they should have checked the genuineness of invoices which they failed to do.
268. This contention of Ld.Public Prosecutor is countered by Ld.Defence Counsels taking support from the cross examination of PW21 Ms. S.C.Banerjee and also from deposition of PW25 V.K.Bhatnagar. It is urged by them that in view of her deposition, recommendatory letter is not a pre requisite for getting the bitumen from IOCL / HPCL, as the same can be released on the basis of work order itself.
269. I have considered the rival contentions in the light of deposition of PW21 Ms. S.C.Banerjee, PW24 Dinesh Khanna and PW25 V.K.Bhatnagar. These witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove on record the procedure by which Divisional Office of IOCL / HPCL issues a delivery order, pursuant to which the bitumen is released from the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.162 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
terminals ie. Mathura or Panipat. Apart from PW21 Ms. S.C.Banerjee, prosecution had examined PW24 Dinesh Khanna and PW25 V.K.Bhatnagar from HPCL. I have also considered the letters of these witnesses Ex. PW21/A to Ex.
PW21/C, Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW25/A. Perusal of cross examination of these witnesses makes it evidently clear that a recommendatory letter, from Executive Engineer though is required for issuance of delivery order, but the same is not sine quanon as the delivery order can be issued on the basis of work order, in favor of the person who approaches the Divisional Office of IOCL / HPCL for getting the delivery order for supply of bitumen.
270. Having regards to this deposition of the witnesses of the prosecution, against which no other evidence either in oral or documentary form has been produced on record by the prosecution, to establish that without recommendatory letter, bitumen could not be released by approved oil agencies, nothing adverse by any stretch of imagination can be held C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.163 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
against public servants while accepting the invoices in question.
271. Consequently, the argument advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor to impute knowledge on the public servants that the invoices being submitted with them by the contractor were not genuine, does not hold ground.
272. This has brought me down to the last contention urged by Ld.Public Prosecutor to bring home the "factum of knowledge" on the part of public servants regarding their being coconspirators and having the knowledge that the invoices submitted by the contractor were forged ones. It is contended that the public servants on the basis of their experience with the department could have distinguished between the genuine invoice and the forged ones.
273. This contention of Ld.PP has been vociferously C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.164 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
countered by Ld.Defence Counsels who submitted that the public servants neither had any experience, nor any mechanism to distinguish between the forged invoices and the genuine ones. It is further contended that apart from that, it was not the duty of the public servants to verify regarding genuineness of the invoice and it is contended that it was for the contractor to procure genuine bitumen, against genuine invoice from the approved oil companies.
274. I have considered the submissions advanced in the light of evidence which has come up on record. It is apparent on perusal of deposition of the witnesses from Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Mathura i.e. PW11 Sh. Ashish Bhatnagar ; PW13 Sh. Sameer Garg ; PW14 Sh. Devesh Kumar and the witnesses from HPCL i.e. PW17 Satish Kumar and PW20 Hira Lal Seth, that they were the ones, who were actually dealing with the invoices and issuance thereof being posted with S & D Division of IOCL / HPCL Mathura. Even these witnesses during the course of their C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.165 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
deposition had stated that it is difficult for any layman to distinguish between the forged invoice and the genuine invoice.
It is deposed by them that they can distinguish between the forged invoices Ex. PW.11/A and Ex.PW.17/A to Ex.PW.17/D only after comparing them with the original invoices Ex.PW.
13/B and Ex.PW.17/E to Ex. PW.17/H.
275. These witnesses during the course of their deposition had stated that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) / HPCL had never sent any specimen format of the invoices or the specimen signatures of the authorized signatories to Municipal Corporation of Delhi nor these specimen were published anywhere. Even the prosecution witnesses produced from MCD i.e PW8 and PW19 have deposed that there was no mechanism for the accused public servants to compare the invoices so submitted with them by the Contractor with the original ones or with the specimen formats to find out and verify its genuineness. The prosecution witnesses from MCD during the course of their deposition had C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.166 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
also deposed that no training of any sort was imparted to the public servants ie. the Engineering Staff or the Accounts people for enabling them to verify regarding genuineness of the invoice.
276. The investigating officer ie PW37 P.L.Chaurasia, during the course of his cross examination had stated that he had not investigated regarding the experience of the accused persons in their having dealt with such sort of invoices, prior to the present case.
277. Having regards to this evidence on record on the part of prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that the accused public servants did not have the requisite or any expertise or mechanism available with them, to verify about the genuineness of the invoices. Further, prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence regarding the experience of the accused public servants in dealing with such sorts of invoices which would have enabled them to distinguish C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.167 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
between the genuine and forged invoices. More particularly, in view of the deposition of prosecution witnesses from IOCL / HPCL that at first glance it is not possible to know about the genuineness of invoices and for a layman it is difficult to ascertain without comparing it with the original or specimen format.
278. Apart from above, to my mind submission of the invoices by the contractor to the public servants, coupled with the fact that the work was performed, did not give rise to any reason, for these public servants to doubt regarding genuineness of the invoice.
279. Further, prosecution has failed to bring on record through any documentary or oral evidence that it was part of the duty of these public servants which have been arrayed as accused persons, to verify regarding genuineness of invoice. In absence of such an evidence regarding duty and responsibility of the public servants, to ascertain genuineness C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.168 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
of invoices, to my mind imposition of any criminal liability on them for their having failed to do something which they were not obliged in discharge of their duties, would be asking for too much from them.
280. Thus, as per the evidence which has come up on record, the accused public servants had collected the invoices so submitted by the contractor without having any reasons to doubt about its genuineness and without knowing the same to be forged ones, they went ahead to perform their part of official obligations and did the prescribed test check and made entries in their records.
281. There is no evidence on record to show that these public servants have committed any forgery of the documents or the record which could have been used as a valuable security. No evidence has been brought on record to show that accused public servants had the knowledge that the invoice so submitted with them by the contractor were forged C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.169 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
ones, therefore to my mind, no dishonest or criminal intent in accepting the same can be imputed on these public servants.
282. To arrive at this conclusion, I am fortified by the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled "L.Chandriah vs. State of A.P." reported as (2003) 42 SCC 670 , relevant portion of which is reproduced as under : So far as the evidence relating to the offence under Section 467 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the appellants before us forged the documents which purported to be a valuable security. The evidence is only to the effect that they had negligently put their signatures on those vouchers while passing the vouchers for payment. There is no evidence to show that the appellants had knowledge of the fact that the vouchers were forged vouchers. The trial court has found in clear terms that A1, A2 and A3 were not acting pursuant to a conspiracy and,therefore, acquitted them of that charge. Such being the position, before recording a conviction, the court should have insisted on evidence which would have proved that A1 to A3 passed the vouchers with the knowledge that the vouchers were forged and fabricated. It appears that no such evidence is available on record. So far C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.170 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
as the offence under Section 409 IPC is concerned, it must be proved that a person entrusted with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity as public servant commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, as defined in Section 405 IPC, meaning thereby that he dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. The crucial word used in Section 405 IPC is "dishonestly" and, therefore, it implies the existence of mens rea, that is to say, a guilty mind. If there is no evidence to show that the appellants had knowledge that the vouchers were fabricated by A3, it cannot be said that they acted with a criminal intent.
283. Apart from that, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was seized off a similar situation, in case titled "Rita Handa v/s CBI" reported as 2008 (105) DRI 331, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under : C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.171 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
The petitioner is being put in the dock on the ground that the impossibly of delivery to far off places in Tamil Nadu within a span of two days should have raised her suspicion. In my considered view, this is stretching the duty of care on the part of the petitioner too far. If the converse was to be taken as true, even then the statement of PW 70 clarifies that coordination with the consignees did not mean independent verification of receipt of materials by them against the supply contracts for the reason that there were about 500 consignees in this case. Individual verification therefore would have been substantial work. If this was to be intended, it would have been included in the items under logistic support of JPO (Joint procedure Order). The JPO did not lay down independent verification of receipts by the consignees as one of the items. Be that as it may the same by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the petitioner having a dishonest intention / mens rea. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence so as to prove the same as also that the petitioner in abuse of her official capacity as a public servant got any pecuniary advantage for herself or the supplier. I find myself in full agreement with the view taken in Anil Bose's case (Supra) wherein it can be said that there has been an administrative lapse (if at all) on the part of the petitioner in performance of her duty. The worst that can be imputed to the petitioner is an error of judgment and that cannot give rise to a criminal liability. Thus even after painting the worst scenario as set up by the respondent for the petitioner, there is no criminal culpability made out.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.172 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
284. In the backdrop of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in L.Chandriah's Case (supra) and of Hon'ble High Court in Rita Handa's Case (supra), coupled with the prosecution and defence evidence which has come up on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that it was either the duty of the accused public servants to verify the invoices or they had the requisite mechanism or expertise to distinguish between genuine and forged invoices.
285. The evidence on record falls short of proving or even inferring any knowledge on the part of public servants that the invoices in question were forged ones. Neither from the acts, actions or conduct of the public servants nor from any physical manifestations, it can be inferred that there was any meeting of minds between them on one hand and contractor on the other. Prosecution has failed to establish that the public servants accepted the invoices, pursuant to any nexus C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.173 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
between them and the contractor so as to bind them under any conspiracy.
286. As per the evidence which has come up on record, the accused public servants had accepted the invoices, so submitted with them by the contractor, believing the same to be genuine ones and they proceeded on this assumption and carried on the rest of their duties which they were supposed to perform as per CPWD Manual.
287. In view thereof, no conduct on the part of public servants was such, as per evidence on record which can bind them with nexus of any sort with contractor so as to fall within the four corners of the definition of "criminal misconduct" under section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, with which they were charged.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.174 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
288. Having held so, that there was no meeting of minds between the contractor and the public servants as well as, that the public servants have not abused their official position, so as to cause any pecuniary advantage to any one, has brought me down to deal with the case of prosecution qua accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
289. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that accused Ziley Singh was also charged along with coaccused persons for offence under section 120 B IPC, ie.
conspiracy. However having held by me, hereinabove that, as prosecution has failed to bring home any evidence of meeting of minds between accused no.1 on one hand and public servants on the other, so as to establish on record the offence of criminal conspiracy with which all accused were charged, I would straightaway delve upon the substantive charges qua accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.175 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
290. Defending the accused contractor Ziley Singh, it is submitted by Sh.Aseem Vachher, Ld. Defence Counsel, that although the invoices Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW17/A to Ex.
PW17/D were submitted with MCD by accused Ziley Singh, but he had no reasons to believe the same to be forged ones. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused had procured the bitumen as was required as per the NIT conditions from approved oil agencies and these invoices were given to him by IOCL / HPCL itself, at the time of delivery of bitumen, therefore, he had no reason to doubt about the genuineness of the same. He further submitted that there was no mechanism with the contractor to check the genuineness of the invoice.
291. He relying upon the deposition of PW11, PW13 & PW14 contended that these three witnesses, who were posted with S & D Division of Indian Oil Corporation and PW17 & PW20 who were posted with HPCL, were the ones, who day in and day out were dealing with the issuance of the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.176 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
invoices and even they did state during the course of their deposition, that a lay man cannot distinguish between the forged and genuine invoices. He further contended that these witnesses also could decipher between the forged and genuine invoices only after having the forged ones compared with the genuine ones. He contended that as no specimen format was publicized or put up on the notice board of IOCL, therefore, contractor or his representative have no mechanism to check that the invoice so given to them against the supply of bitumen were not genuine.
292. I have perused the evidence which has come up on record. Admittedly PW11, PW13 & PW14 were the authorized persons from the organization of IOCL, who appeared in the witness box. PW17 & PW20 were their counter parts from HPCL. All these witnesses during the course of their cross examination had admitted that it is difficult for a lay man to distinguish between the forged invoice and genuine invoice. PW13, PW14 & PW17 during the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.177 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
course of his cross examination admitted the similarity of the colour combination in the two set of invoices. These witnesses further deposed that even the stationary also seems to be genuine. It has further been stated by PW11, PW13, PW14 as well as PW17 that no specimen format of the invoice or the specimen signatures of the authorized signatories used to be publicized or used to be put up on the notice board. It is further evident from the cross examination of PW14 & PW17 conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel that suggestion regarding pilferage of stationary used for issuances of invoices was given to them which was denied.
293. On the basis of this deposition of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly of PW11, PW13, PW14, PW17 & PW20 which has come up on record, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that these invoices which have been found to be forged ones, were given by IOCL / HPCL either to accused or to his representative against the genuine supply of bitumen. These witnesses during their C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.178 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
deposition have stated that no bitumen could have been supplied by IOCL / HPCL against the invoices Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D.
294. The witnesses from IOCL / HPCL during the course of their deposition have categorically deposed that the invoices Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D were never issued in favor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company from S & D Division of IOCL / HPCL. These witnesses as well as PW22 P.C.Sahotra further deposed that against these very serial numbers, genuine invoices Ex.PW. 13/B, Ex. PW.17/E to Ex.PW.17/H were issued by IOCL / HPCL to other organizations. They further deposed that no bitumen was supplied by IOCL / HPCL to anyone against these invoices which are forged ones. It further emanated from their deposition that on the genuine invoices the words "Indian Oil Corporation Limited" used to printed whereas, on these invoices it is computer typed. Further, logo of oil company is not there which used to be preprinted on the genuine invoices. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.179 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
295. There is no reason with me to doubt this deposition of PW11, PW13, PW14, PW17 & PW20, as they were the ones who being posted with IOCL / HPCL at relevant point of time were issuing the invoices and thus, were the material witnesses. In view of their deposition, coupled with my observation made while dealing with deposition of the transporters and the officials from transport authority i.e. PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW16, that the bitumen against these invoices was not transported through the vehicle mentioned therein, I am of the considered opinion that these invoices are forged ones, being not issued from IOCL / HPCL.
296. Further, as per the deposition of PW21 Smt. S.C.Banerjee, PW24 Dinesh Khanna and PW25 V.K.Bhatnagar, who had deposed about the procedure of supply of bitumen, it is evident that an advance amount in the form of Demand Draft or Pay Order is required to be submitted by a C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.180 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
person desirous of purchasing bitumen from IOCL / HPCL, on the basis of work orders issued in his favour by MCD, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that bitumen used to be supplied by IOCL / HPCL against cash payment to anyone. Had that been the situation, then cash receipt should have been issued by IOCL. But that was not to be. As there is no evidence on record to that effect. That being the situation there was no occasion with any of the official of IOCL / HPCL to have supplied bitumen either to accused Ziley Singh or to any of his representative against the forged invoices as claimed by him.
297. If a person is purchasing bitumen from the authorized sources i.e. Oil companies, then he is not required to be aware of the specimen format, being used by IOCL for issuance of invoice. If one has purchased bitumen from authorized source, he is supposed to get genuine invoice against the same, more particularly when there is no evidence to this effect that bitumen could have been supplied by way of C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.181 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
pilferage by the officials of IOCL / HPCL, against cash payment.
298. Sh. Aseem Vachher, Ld. Defence Counsel to put across the aspect of innocence of accused Ziley Singh, has raised a frail argument in a vociferous manner that accused did make the payment of bitumen through Demand Draft to oil companies.
299. I do not find any merits in this contention in absence of any evidence. Even if, it is assumed that the demand drafts were made in favour of IOCL / HPCL and also deposited with them on behalf of this firm, then in that situation by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the invoice in question as claimed by the accused, which have been found to be forged ones would have been issued by IOCL / HPCL against genuine supply of bitumen. As in that eventuality, there would have been no reason for officials of IOCL / HPCL to give forged invoices, there being no personal C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.182 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
gain of those officials. In view thereof, I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel. The same stands rejected.
300. Further as has been observed by me, here in above that the vehicle numbers which were mentioned on these forged invoices submitted by accused Ziley Singh with MCD, were never engaged for transportation of bitumen from Mathura to his plant, that goes on to establish on record that accused who had submitted these invoices with MCD, knew that the same are forged ones.
301. Ld. Defence Counsel in his attempt to have accused exonerated, has tried to dent the prosecution case contending that no qualitative investigations were carried out by the investigating agency as the stationary of the genuine and forged invoices were not got compared from any scientific expert. He contended that even the complaint of Sh.S.K.Jain, through which present proceedings initiated states that the stationary used for the forged invoices, was genuine. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.183 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
302. To my mind, the same was not required, as through the deposition of PW11, PW13, PW14, PW17 & PW20, who were the concerned persons at the relevant point of time posted with IOCL / HPCL for issuance of invoice, prosecution has proved that the signatures on these invoices are not their's and against the serial numbers of these forged invoices, genuine invoices Ex. PW13/B, PW17/E to Ex. PW17/H were issued by IOCL / HPCL in favour of other organizations.
303. Ld. Defence Counsel in an attempt to demolish the version of these prosecution witnesses, cross examined them at length with respect to the aspects of how the invoices are issued, who issues them, the manner in which the records are kept including the stationary used for issuance of invoices, the printers used for generating the same. No doubt during this cross examination some deviations in the manner of handling the stationary used for invoices came to C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.184 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
fore, but that was too trivial to be given too much importance to disbelieve these witnesses. As material portion of their deposition which pertains to the invoices in question i.e. Ex.
PW11/A purportedly of IOCL and Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D purportedly issued from HPCL, goes on to establish that these were never issued by the oil companies in favour of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company. Further, this deposition of PW11, PW13, PW14, PW17 & PW18 finds support from deposition of PW22 P.C.Sahotra to the affect that M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company was not authorized dealer with IOCL. Further, their version is in consonance with that of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW17, who proved that the vehicles, registration number of which were there on these invoices were never engaged for transportation of bitumen.
304. Sh. Aseem Vachhar, Ld. Advocate, during the course of arguments had brought my attention to the cross examination of PW20 Sh. Hira Lal Seth and PW17 Sh. Satish Kumar and contended that there was no circular issued by the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.185 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
concerned authority of HPCL, thereby authorizing any particular officer to handle and issue the invoices. He contended that any one had access to the stationary at HPCL and was in a position to generate invoices, therefore, no criminal liability can be affixed on Ziley Singh, who had obtained bitumen from HPCL without knowing that the invoices Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D were not genuine.
305. I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of my observations and discussions hereinabove more particularly with respect to the deposition of PW21 Ms. S.C.Baneerjee, PW24 Dinesh Khanna and PW25 V.K.Bhatnagar as well as their replies to the inquiries made from them by the Investigating officer. Vide Ex. PW21/A, Ex. PW24/A & Ex. PW25/A coupled with deposition of these witnesses, it is apparent that bitumen never used to be supplied from the terminal without any delivery order or against cash payment. In such a scenario it is highly improbable that against genuine supply of bitumen any official C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.186 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
posted at HPCL or IOCL, as the case may be, would issue a fake invoice.
306. Further, from the prosecution evidence which has come up on record, it is evidently clear that no bitumen against these invoices was issued by the oil companies. Further, prosecution through deposition of PW11, PW13, PW14, PW17 & PW20 has been able to establish that genuine invoices against these very serial numbers Ex. PW13/B, Ex. PW17/E to Ex. PW17/H were issued from IOCL and HPCL in favour of other organizations. On these genuine invoices bitumen was supplied.
307. In view thereof, I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that in absence of any circular authorizing any particular officer of IOCL or HPCL to handle stationary and issuance of invoices, no liability can be fixed on accused Ziley Singh.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.187 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
308. Having regards to these facts and circumstances, it has been established on record, that the invoices Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D were forged invoices as the same were never issued by IOCL / HPCL in favour of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company.
309. Admittedly, these invoices were used and submitted by accused Ziley Singh with MCD, as the same bears his signatures and he had submitted the same claiming them to be genuine, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged ones.
310. This has brought me down to the next contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel, who stated that as the work was properly executed by the contractor and the payment was to be made to the contractor for the work done and not for bitumen, therefore, no wrongful loss was caused to MCD.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.188 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
311. It is contended by Ld.Defence Counsel relying upon the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, that it is not the case of the prosecution that work for which work orders were awarded to the contractor, was not executed. He contended that the prosecution witnesses during the course of their deposition, had categorically stated that the payment was to be made by MCD to the contractor for the work and not for the raw material required for execution of work. He contended that as the work was duly executed and it was on the basis of work that bills were prepared and processed by the concerned Engineers as well as by the Accounts Department and was ultimately passed by the Executive Engineer on the basis of which the amount was released in favor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company, therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that "wrongful loss" was caused to MCD. He contended that for release of payment, filing of invoice by the contractor was not necessary and that was a mere ritual. He in support of his contention had relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.189 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
"Dr.Vimla vs. Delhi Administration" reported as AIR 1963 SC 1572.
312. I have considered the submissions advanced on this aspect and have also gone through the precedent relied upon by Ld.Defence Counsel.
313. No doubt, the prosecution witnesses ie. PW8, PW9, PW12, PW19, the complainant as well as IO deposed that payment was to be made to the contractor for the work done. But that deposition of prosecution witnesses is not to be considered in isolation. These witnesses went on to depose that contractor was supposed to execute the work as per specifications and if not executed, then wrongful loss has resulted to MCD.
314. As per the evidence on record and as per NIT Conditions and agreement, it was duty of contractor to procure C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.190 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
fresh bitumen from approved oil agencies and to file invoices as proof of the same.
315. Meaning thereby that after executing the work, for getting the payment released, invoices of purchase of bitumen were necessary documents.
316. Had it been the work only which would have made the contractor entitle for release of payment, then he would not have been under any obligation to submit the invoices, which he did.
317. It is thus required to be looked into as to what forced the contractor to submit the invoices, if only "execution of work" was the criterion for release of the payment. Further, as to whether the invoices which were found to be forged ones, were fraudulently submitted by the contractor with dishonest intention so as to induce the C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.191 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
officers of MCD, to act thereon for releasing the payment, is also required to be looked into.
318. The word "Dishonestly" has been defined by Section 4 of the Penal Code as under: "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to other person, is said to do that thing dishonestly"
319. The word "Fraudulently" is defined in Section 25 of the Penal Code as under: "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise".
320. Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment of Dr.Vimla's Case (supra) had aptly summarized the expression "defraud" as well as the "intent to defraud" in following words: To summarize : the expression "defraud"
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.192 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
involves two elements, namely deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, m ind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a noneconomic or nonpecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases, where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.
"The expression, "intent to defraud" implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive and thereby to injure ; in other words, "defraud" involves two conceptions, namely deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is, infringement of some legal right possessed by him, but not necessarily deprivation of property".
321. It is evidently evident from the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court that "defraud" involves two conceptions ie. infringement of some legal right possessed by him. Ld.Defence Counsel had contended that as per C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.193 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
Dr.Vimla's Case (supra), there should be an infringement of some legal right possessed by the person deceived. He urged that MCD was not deceived to have any of its legal rights infringed as it had to make payment in any case.
322. I have considered these submissions in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, however, the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ratio of said case does not support the case of accused Ziley Singh, as the facts of the said case were distinctly different to the facts of the case in hand as it has been observed in the case of Dr.Vimla (supra) by Hon'ble Apex Court that in the said case, the entire transaction was made by Dr.Vimla herself but in the name of her minor daughter, which in the ultimate eventuality would not have made any difference to the Insurance Company, as Insurance Company has not incurred loss in any sense of the term. However, in the present case, it is to be seen as to whether without filing of the invoice, which as per evidence on record were forged ones, was MCD under any contractual C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.194 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
obligation to release the payment in favor of the contractor or whether contractor had induced the Corporation to release the payment.
323. As per the evidence on record, it was one of the terms of NIT as well as the agreement entered into between MCD and the Contractor that for execution of work, fresh bitumen was required to be purchased from the approved oil refineries and contractor was required to submit invoice as a proof thereof, with the MCD.
324. Merely because of the test checks which were done at plant level as well as at the site by the concerned engineers and no complaint against the quality and quantity of the bitumen used for preparation of mix and laying of road was received either from the lab tests or from any other quarter, does not, to my mind absolves the contractor of his duties to fulfill his obligations. As per the NIT conditions and the agreement entered into by contractor with MCD, he was under C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.195 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
a contractual obligation to procure fresh bitumen from approved oil agencies. He was further required to submit invoices as proof thereof. Meaning thereby that filing of invoices was mandatory on the part of contractor as it has come up through deposition of prosecution witnesses.
325. Had that been a mere ritual, as has been contended by Ld.Defence Counsel, then the said ritual also to my mind should have been performed by the contractor, in a sacrosanct and sacred manner. But that was not to be. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that contractor can be permitted to furnish on record forged and fabricated invoices in the name of ritual.
326. As per the evidence on record, the bills of the contractor were processed only when the other documentary evidence regarding execution of work was duly supported with the invoices. Meaning thereby that for preparation of these C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.196 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
bills and its processing, the invoices were an essential and integral part of the documents, which the contractor was required to place on record to get his payment released.
Consequently, by placing on record these forged invoices, contractor had induced the Engineers as well as the officials working in the Accounts Department and also the Executive Engineer to prepare, process and pass the bills on the basis of which the amount was released to him.
327. Had he not placed on record these invoices, then the officials of MCD would not have prepared, processed and passed the bill. Thus, it is apparent from the material on record that these invoices were submitted by the contractor with an intent to defraud and induce the officials of MCD to release payments in his favor, which was ultimately released on such misrepresentation and inducement and that has resulted in causing a wrongful loss to MCD and infringement of its legal rights and corresponding wrongful advantage / gain to the contractor. Release of the payment of Rs.13,14,861/ by C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.197 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
MCD in favour of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company has been proved on record by prosecution through deposition of PW7, Om Prakash Dadool, a witness from Punjab & Sind Bank where MCD was maintaining their bank account.
Further prosecution had examined PW10 Sh. Ramesh Mansharamani, witness from UCO Bank, Saket where accused Ziley Singh had account of his firm. Both these witnesses proved that payment of Rs.13,14,861/ was released from account of MCD and was credited in account of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar and Company. This amount included the amount of Rs.3,91,801/ pertaining to present work order Ex.
PW8/H.
328. Next contention urged by Sh.Aseem Vachher, Advocate on behalf of accused Ziley Singh, was that bitumen as per deposition of the prosecution witnesses was only one of the ingredients for the work of dense carpeting of road. Ld.Defence Counsel contended that the investigating and prosecuting agency have failed to take this aspect into account and C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.198 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
prosecuted the accused for causing wrongful loss to MCD to the extent of whole of the contractual amount for which work was awarded. He contended that on this count itself, accused should be acquitted, as wrongful loss to that extent was not caused to MCD.
329. I do find some force, in this contention of Ld.Defence Counsel that bitumen was not the only, but one of the ingredients of the mix. Admittedly, in the light of evidence which has come up on record through deposition of prosecution witnesses as well as through deposition of DW1 and DW2, bitumen was one of the ingredients of the "mix", required for dense carpeting of road. Further, considering the fact that contractor has procured other raw material and also got the work executed, thereby incurring expense thereon. Meaning thereby, he by no stretch of imagination could have caused wrongful loss to MCD for the whole contractual value of the work orders.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.199 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
330. No doubt, the investigating officer did not investigate to verify and calculate the exact amount for which wrongful loss was caused to MCD by the contractor by not procuring bitumen from approved oil companies against genuine invoices. But that in itself, is no ground to exonerate accused Ziley Singh of his criminal liability, of having filed forged invoices with intent to cheat MCD knowing them to be forged ones.
331. Section 420 of IPC makes cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC as punishable offence.
332. Section 415 IPC reads as under : SECTION 415 CHEATING - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.200 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
333. Bare perusal of the definition of cheating reveals that offence stands established even when the person so deceived, suffers any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. Meaning thereby that even if the person so deceived suffers any intangible loss or the loss which cannot be quantified in terms of money, due to any inducement on the part of offender, the offence stands established.
334. In view thereof, it was not necessary for the investigating agency to have the exact amount of bitumen separated from the total contractual value of the work orders before filing of the charge sheet, or by the prosecuting agency during trial.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.201 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
335. Consequently, this contention of Ld.Defence Counsel is also turned down being devoid of merits.
336. This has brought me to the last limb of the arguments advanced by Ld.Public Prosecutor and by Ld.Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of contractor. Sh.Aseem Vachher, Advocate, contended that although his client was also charged with the offence under section 467 IPC, however, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution either by oral or documentary evidence to show that it was his client, who had forged the invoices.
337. Countering these contentions, it is submitted by Ld.Public Prosecutor that as it was accused Ziley Singh who had submitted these forged invoices with MCD, so as to induce it for having his payment released, thus, he being the beneficiary must have forged the same himself, therefore he be convicted on this count as well.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.202 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
338. I do not find any merits in the contentions of Ld.Public Prosecutor. The onus to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence with which accused is charged, always rests on the prosecution. This onus has to be discharged on the basis of substantial evidence and not on the basis of any assumptions or presumptions.
339. It is evident on perusal of cross examination of PW37 Sh. P.L.Chaurasia that no investigations were conducted on the aspect of the forgery so as to find out who had forged these 05 invoices Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW17/A to Ex. PW17/D. As nothing was collected on this aspect by IO during the course of investigations, therefore nothing propped up to propel the contentions of Ld.Public Prosecutor during the course of prosecution evidence, to prove the charge under section 467 IPC against accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.203 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
340. Summary culled out from the evidence adduced on record, had deduced following propositions which stands proved : i. That, Work order Ex.PW.8/H was awarded by MCD in favor of M/s Ziley Singh Tanwar & Company, for which agreement Ex.PW.8/I, was executed and signed by accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
ii. That, as per this agreement and work order conditions, contractor Ziley Singh was required to procure fresh bitumen from approved oil agencies and was required to submit invoices as a proof thereof.
iii. That, accused Ziley Singh had submitted invoices Ex.PW.11/A, Ex.PW.17/A to Ex.PW. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.204 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
17/D, with MCD, thereby claiming to have purchased bitumen from IOCL / HPCL against these invoices.
iv. That, the invoices so submitted by contractor ie. accused no.1 Ziley Singh with MCD were found to be forged ones, as genuine invoices against those very serial numbers were issued by IOCL / HPCL in favor of other organizations being invoices Ex.PW.13/B, Ex.PW.17/E to Ex.PW.17/H. v. That, the vehicles, registration number of which were mentioned on the forged invoices, were either not capable of transportation of bitumen or were never engaged for transportation of the same from IOCL / HPCL to the plant of the contractor.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.205 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
vi. That, the accused "public servants" in discharge of their official duties had accepted the invoices so submitted with them without any reason to doubt the genuineness of the same.
vii. That, even otherwise the accused "public servants" who came across these invoices did not have any mechanism to check the authenticity and genuineness of the invoices in question, which even otherwise, they were not duty bound.
viii. That, the accused "Public Servants" did not have any meeting of mind or any agreement of any sort, with accused no.1 Ziley Singh to do any illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.206 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
ix. That, the accused "Public Servants" prepared their records on the basis of invoices in question, submitted by accused no.1, believing the same to be genuine and also on the basis of other works conducted at plant and site, in execution of the work orders and in preparation, processing & passing of the bills, as was required from them in discharge of their official functions.
x. That, the conduct of the accused "Public Servants" as per evidence on record, did not fall within the contours of "criminal misconduct" as per Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
xi. That, accused no.1 Ziley Singh had submitted these forged invoices, as genuine with MCD, C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.207 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged ones.
xii. That, accused no.1 Ziley Singh had thus induced MCD through the accused "Public Servants" to act on these forged invoices and cheated MCD.
xiii. That, MCD through the the accused "Public Servants" on misrepresentation and inducement of accused no.1 Ziley Singh and believing the invoices in question to be genuine ones, prepared, processed and passed the bills against the work order Ex. PW.8/H, which resulted in release of payment in favor of the contractor, to the extent of Rs.
3,91,801/.C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.208 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
xiv. That, the same resulted in causing wrongful loss to MCD and corresponding wrongful gain to the contractor.
341. The cumulative effect of these facts established on record by the prosecution, are inconsistent with the innocence of accused Ziley Singh and are incapable of any explanation on any hypothesis other than the guilt of accused no.1 Ziley Singh, so far as offences of cheating and submission of forged invoices as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged ones, with MCD are concerned. The defence evidence led on record also failed to put forth any explanation to contradict the inevitable conclusion where prosecution evidence on record, has led me to, with respect to offences under section 420 and 471 IPC qua this accused.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.209 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
342. Prosecution however has failed to establish on record the necessary ingredients of offences under section 120B IPC r/w section 420, 471 read with section 467 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; against all the accused persons including accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
343. Prosecution has further failed to establish on record the necessary ingredients of substantive offence under section 467 IPC against accused no.1 Ziley Singh.
344. Prosecution has also failed to establish on record the necessary ingredients of substantive offence under section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, against Accused no.2 R.K.Koli ; Accused no. 3 Rakesh Kumar Rustogi, Accused no. 4 Subodh Kumar Shrivastav, Accused no.5 Raju Gusia & accused no. 6 O.P.Saroha. C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.210 of 212
Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
FINAL VERDICT:
345. Having regards to the facts and circumstances and the discussions as delineated hereinabove :
(a) All the accused persons are acquitted of the charge under section 120B IPC r/w section 420, 471 read with section 467 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(b) Accused no.1 Ziley Singh is acquitted of the charge under section 467 IPC.
(c) Accused no. 2 R.K.Koli ; Accused no. 3 Rakesh Kumar Rustogi, Accused no. 4 Subodh Kumar Shrivastav, Accused no.5 Raju Gusia & accused no. 6 O.P.Saroha ; are acquitted of the charge under C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.211 of 212 Judgement in the matter of:-
CC No. 45 / 11.
(C.B.I. Vs. ZILEY SINGH & Ors.) th Dated : 29 May 2014.
section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(d) Accused no.1 Ziley Singh is convicted for the substantive offences under section 420 and 471 IPC.
346. Let convict Ziley Singh be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court th On the 29 Day of May, 2014.
(KANWALJEET ARORA) SPECIAL JUDGE : C.B.I. (P.C.ACT) DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.C.No: 45 / 2011 Page No.212 of 212