Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Badrul Islam on 22 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HASAN ANZAR, SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-03, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR NO. DLCT11-0001162/2019
Registration/CC No. 300/2019
RC. No. 12(A)/2016
PS: CBI/ACU-VI/AC-II/New Delhi
U/s : 120B IPC r/w Section 419, 420, 467 & Section 471 IPC r/w
Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
(1) Badrul Islam (Accused No. 1) S/o Late Shri Mohd. Islam
(Since Deceased) - expired on 28.04.2021 and proceedings qua
him stands abated vide order dated 11.08.2021.
(2) Swarn Singh Malhi (Accused No. 2)
S/o Late Sardar Jamar Singh,
R/o H. No. 2925, Ground Floor, Gali No. 1,
Dharmpura, Gandhinagar, Delhi -110031
And Permanent R/o Village Hansawala,
Tehsil Tarantaran, District Amritsar, Punjab.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 1 of 308
(3) Satish Kumar Goyal @ Satish (Accused No. 3)
S/o Late Shri Hemraj,
R/o House No. 4, 3rd Block, Ward No. 16,
Purani Aabadi, Behind Purani Truck Union,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(4) Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal (Accused No. 4),
W/o Satish Kumar Goyal @ Satish,
R/o House No. 4, 3rd Block, Ward No. 16,
Purani Aabadi, Behind Purani Truck Union,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(5) Neeru Kumar Gupta @ N.K. Gupta (Accused No. 5)
Son of Late P.L. Gupta,
R/o G-2/78, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
(6) Pramod Garg @ Munna (Accused No. 6)
Son of Shri Bhani Ram Garg,
R/o 361, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi - 110063
(7) Gundeep Singh Anand @ G.S. Anand (Accused No. 7)
S/o Shri Harvinder Pal Singh Anand,
R/o 14/4C, Gali No. W-14, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm,
New Delhi - 110062.
(Discharged vide order dated 26.07.2018).
Date of institution 30.01.2017
Date on which judgment was reserved 14.12.2023
Date of judgment 22.01.2024
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 2 of 308
Memo of Appearance
Shri Anil Tanwar, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
Shri Anurag Andlay, Ld. Counsel for A-2.
Shri Abhishek Kukkar, Ld. Counsel for A-3 & A-4.
Shri Javed Akhtar, Ld. Counsel for A-5.
Shri Vijay Singh and Shri Himanshu Dubey, Ld. Counsels for A-6.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused persons have been charge sheeted for committing offences under sections 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 419, 420, 467 & Section 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 vide RC No. 12(A)/2016 PS CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi. The proceedings qua A-1 has abated on 11.08.2021 since he expired on 28.04.2021.
THE PROCESS OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND
2. Government of NCT of Delhi launched a Welfare Scheme to allot an alternate piece of land to farmers/agriculturists whose lands had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi subject to fulfillment of conditions and in this respect, a public notice dated 01.04.1989 was issued, inter-alia calling upon the persons to file an application for allotment of piece of land in Delhi.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 3 of 3083. The eligibility criteria for allotment of alternate plot of land are as follows:
(i) The land was notified by the concerned LAC U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act.
(ii) The applicant must be recorded owner in revenue record.
(iii) He must have got the compensation form the concerned LAC and its certificate.
(iv) He should apply to the L &B Department under specified period.
(v) He or his family or his dependent should not have any other plot or residential property out of village Abadi.
(vi) The total land of the farmer should have been acquired and he should not have been left with any other piece of agricultural land.
4. The process for allotment of alternative plots to eligible farmers was that a separate file for each application under the head of "Registered for the year 1989" was to be opened and each file was to be allotted Zone wise/Village wise number. The particulars of file are mentioned as F. Zone Name (village name)/Serial number/year of opening/L&B i.e. Department name/Alt. i.e. branch name. After the file is created, the same is put up before the Branch Head i.e. Dy. Director and In-charge, Alternative Branch by the dealing clerk of the concerned Zone. A letter is used to be sent to ADM/Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) of the concerned Zone to verify the fact that whether the Land against which the alternative plot are sought by the applicant had been acquired or not and whether any notification CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 4 of 308 under sections 4 and 6 have been issued, whether the compensation had been disbursed to the applicant/farmer by the concerned ADM/LAC.
5. After receiving the verification report from the concerned ADM/LAC, the factum of acquisition of the land in question was to be further verified from Land Acquisition Branch (L&A Branch) of L&B Department of Govt of NCT.
6. Report is also obtained from Writ Cell, L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi in respect of the documents submitted by the applicant or the claim made by the applicant. Personal verification is also conducted. After completion of all the formalities, the cases are put before a committee of officers called as "Recommendation Committee" after taking necessary approval from the relevant Authority. A summary/data sheet containing the details i.e. purpose of acquisition of land, date of notification under section 4, award number & date, total land acquired and share of applicant, eligibility and zone, name of recorded owner, LAC report, Revenue record, date of compensation, payment certificate, date of possession etc. were prepared and files of the applicants are placed before the Recommendation Committee, constituted for the purpose of allotment of alternative piece of land by the Head of Alternative Branch. The Head of the Alternative Branch was also one of the Member of the Recommendation Committee. Recommendation Committee considers cases of allotment of alternative CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 5 of 308 piece of land on the basis of the documents and details provided by the Alternative Branch. The cases after consideration and after recommendation by the Recommendation Committee are sent to the dealing assistant. Thereafter, the blank form/recommendation letters are issued to respective dealing clerks who used to type/fill up the details of beneficiary/recommondee/allotee in the said form/letter and the recommendation letter is signed by Dy. Director (Alternative Branch). A copy of the recommendation letter is also dispatched to the Dy. Director (Land), DDA for further action and a copy is also provided to the beneficiary.
7. Draw of lot are held for those persons whose whose names were recommended by the Recommendation Committee for allotment of land and the letters are sent to the successful applicants requiring them to complete formalities for further allotment of land after necessary verification, etc. and after payment of money and the possession of land was handed to such applicants.
8. A lease deed is prepared and if there is any balance amount that is payable to any person the allottee is required to deposit the money in that regard.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 6 of 308CASE OF PROSECUTION
9. The case of the Prosecution is that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, a recommendation letter no. F-32 (21)/50/89-L&BAlt./1276 dated 30.04.2003 vide Ex.PW3/H was sent to DDA for recommendation of allotment of a plot measuring 400 Sq. Yards in the name of accused Satish S/o Hemraj, R/o Karanpur, Ganganagar, Rajasthan, in lieu of his acquired land falling in Khasra bearing No. 607 ad-measuring 23-10 bigha, in which the share of accused Satish Goyal was half i.e. 11-15 bigha and it is stated that the land of accused Satish Goyal was acquired vide Award No. 2059 dated 24.01.1968 of Village Bahapur, South Zone, Delhi and the date of physical possession was 30.05.1972. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the DDA, the recommendation letter Ex.PW3/H was first dealt by Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik, Dealing Officer, Land Sales Branch Residential (DDA). After completing other procedural formalities, DDA allotted a plot bearing No. 38 measuring 259.57 Sq. Meters in Pocket A, Sector 12, Residential Scheme in Dwarka, New Delhi and a lease deed qua the said plot was executed by the DDA on 08.12.2003 in the joint names of accused Satish Goyal (herein after referred as A-3) and accused Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal (hereinafter referred to as A-4) and as per the norms of DDA, if the allottee is married, then plot is to be registered in the joint names of husband and wife i.e. A-3 and A-4.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 7 of 30810. It is further the case of prosecution that no land of Satish Kumar (A-
3) was ever acquired and he is not eligible to apply for allotment of alternative plot and forged and fabricated documents were used as genuine and a fake file was created and which were submitted to the Recommendation Committee by A-1 and A-2 and thereafter, on the basis of recommendation made by Recommending Committee, a recommendation letter No. F-32 (21)/50/89-L&BAlt./1276 vide Ex.PW3/H was issued recommending the allotment of plot to DDA.
11. It is also the case of prosecution that prior to convening the meeting of Recommendation Committee, verification in respect of the documents which determines the eligibility of an applicant, no correspondence was made between L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi and office of ADM/LAC for obtaining/sending verification report in respect of acquisition of land in Khasra No. 607, ad-measuring 23.10 bigha of Village Bahapur, South Zone, Delhi qua the half share of the applicant. It was also found that land of Satish Goyal (A-3) was neither acquired nor any compensation was paid to him. The records of the ADM/LAC office South East District, New Delhi qua Award No. 2059 dated 24.01.1968, containing details of 109 claimants (who claimed compensation of their acquired lands of village Bahapur), was collected and examined which revealed that the compensation against the said land (Khasra No. 607) was claimed by Shri R.B. Sohan Lal, Shanker Das Seth, Jeevan Lal Seth, Advocate and Onkar CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 8 of 308 Nath Seth. The record of Naksha Muntziman of said Award shows that compensation of Rs.2,74,605.05 paise was paid to Shri Rai Sahib Sohan Lal owner of firm Munshi Gulab Singh on 13.08.1968 for his acquired land pertaining to several khasras which included khasra no. 607 and name of A-3 is not mentioned.
12. It is further the case of the prosecution that other accused persons in criminal conspiracy with A-1 and A-2, created a bogus file and processed the file containing forged and bogus documents in the name of A-3 in conspiracy with accused Neeru Kumar Gupta (A-5) and others. A-2 prepared the summary sheet containing the false details in the name of A-3 Satish Goyal and incorrect information in respect of acquisition of land of Khasra No. 607, Village Bahapur, South Zone, Delhi and other details. It is the case of the prosecution that the summary sheet was an indicative of the fact that the bogus file had been created for recommendation of an alternate plot.
13. The said fake/bogus file was put up before the Committee constituted for the recommendation of the plot. The said summary sheet relates to half portion of Khasra No. 607 and other half portion of the said khasra is shown in the name of Smt. Rattan Kaur against whom another RC 3(A)/2015/CBI/ACU-VI was registered by the CBI. (RC No. 3 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 9 of 308 (A)/2015/CBI/ACU-VI was disposed of by the Court vide Judgment dated 30.03.2022 and Sentence of Order dated 05.04.2022.
14. It is further case of the prosecution that summary sheet was certified by A-2 by writing that "certified that the particulars above are found correct as per record" Sd/- (S.S. Malhi)". A meeting of Recommendation Committee comprising S/Shri Prakash Kumar, Secretary L&B Deptt, Chairman; Z.U. Siddiqui, Joint Secretary, L&B Deptt., Member; Subhash Gupta Dy. Legal Advisor, Member and Badrul Islam (A-1) Dy. Director (Alternative), Member took place on 03.12.2002. A-1 was also one of the members of the Recommendation Committee. 29 cases/files were put up before the Recommendation Committee and from which recommendation of allotment of alternate plot was made for 18 cases including the name of accused Satish Goyal (A-3) at serial number 4. It is further the case of prosecution that recommendation on the allotment of alternate plot in favour of A-3 and few other persons were made on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. In considering the case/application of A-3, the Committee referred to the specific page numbers mentioned in the summary sheet in the file bearing no. F.30(Misc)/1/97/L&B/Alt (Vol. III) and the recommendations were made by the Recommendation Committee by relying upon the documents placed in the processing files of each applicant. The summary sheet in respect of the case of A-3 contains the bogus details of acquired land. The file vide Ex.PW63/A contains a note CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 10 of 308 sheet dated 04.02.2003 vide Ex.PW6/B as per which the fair minutes of meeting were added for signature and thereafter in the note sheet dated 07.02.2003, a reference is made to the meeting dated 03.12.2002. Note dated 07.02.2003 notes that it was directed by the Worthy Secretary that a copy of Annexure 'A' may be published in the newspaper and copy of recommendation letter is to be (sic) handed to the applicant personally on appearing in the office.
15. It is further the case of the Prosecution that a recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H, bearing no. F.30(21)/50/89/L&B/Alt/1276 dated 30.04.2003 bearing Sr. No. 001353 was fraudulently issued under the signature of A-1 to the Commissioner (Land), DDA and the same was sent to the Commissioner (Land), DDA, INA Vikas Sadan. It is also the case of the prosecution that details mentioned in recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H having the details such as File No. "F32" indicates that the file pertains to the South Zone. The number within bracket i.e. (21) indicates the name of village and number '21' is allotted for village Bahapur, Delhi which comes under South Zone. Number '50' indicates that this is the fiftieth file, opened for village Bahapur, meaning thereby that 49 files were already opened for village Bahapur. It is also the case of the prosecution that A-2 was the custodian of booklet bearing no. 28 and used to deal with booklet containing blank recommendation letters/forms from serial nos. 001351 to 001400 and one of the form i.e. serial no. 001353 from booklet CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 11 of 308 no. 28 was used for the preparation of the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H for allotment of plot to A-3.
16. It is alleged that a coloured photograph of Satish Kumar (A-3) which is pasted on the Recommendation Letter was attested by PW40 Deepak Chaudhary, Additional Government Standing Counsel, who stated during the investigation that he attested the photograph on the request of Neeru Kumar Gupta.
17. As per prosecution, only four applications i.e. F-32(21)/1/90/94 in the name of Shri Dina Nath, F-32(21/2/91/94, in the name of Kul Bhushan Bhardwaj, F-32(21)/3/92/94 in the name of Chet Ram Sharma and F- 32(21)/4/89/94 in the name of Shri Tirkha Ram were received and opened in the Land & Building Department. It is the case of the prosecution that there was no occasion for creation or the opening of file No. F.32(21)/50/89-L&B/Alt in the name of Satish. It is the specific case of the prosecution that bogus file was created by Swarn Singh Malhi (A-2), Badrul Islam (A-1), containing fake documents from LAC, Revenue Land Acquisition Branch of Land & Building Department etc. It is also the case of the prosecution that contents/pagination of documents were falsely mentioned in the summary sheet by A-2 S.S. Malhi in conspiracy with the accused Badrul Islam and the said file was basically created to satisfy the queries of Committee Members through the summary sheets. It is also the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 12 of 308 case of prosecution that so called file of A-3 Satish Goyal was created and destroyed by the accused persons and A-2 S.S Malhi was the custodian of the file. It is also the case of prosecution that A-2 in order to save himself, on his transfer from Alternative Branch, prepared a bogus report of handing over the files in his custody to his successor Smt. Sheela and Smt. Sheela had denied her signatures on the charge report and the CFSL report vide Ex.PW73/C also confirms the fact that purported signature appearing on charge report vide Ex.PW10/A was not that of Sheela Devi.
18. The recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H for allotment of alternative plot in the name of A-3 was received in the office of Dy. Director (L&A Residential DDA), and Suresh Chand Kaushik, Dealing Assistant, Land Sales Branch, DDA processed the recommendation letter by opening the file bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/LSB(Residential). The draw of lot for allotment of alternative plots in Dwarka, New Delhi was held on 29.05.2003 and A-3 was found successful for allotment of the plot measuring 257 square meter bearing no. 38 Sector 12 Pocket -A under Dwarka residential scheme, Dwarka, Delhi. Necessary approvals and other formalities were undertaken and demand letter was issued vide file bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/LSB (Residential) dated 27.06.2003 to A-3. The said demand letter was shown dispatched in the LSB(R) dispatch register but it was not dispatched through R&I Section of DDA. It was also revealed that the transit register for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2002 to 01.09.2003 through CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 13 of 308 which the dak is sent from LSB (Residential) to R&I Section is missing and the factum of missing of the transit register was reported by Shri Prabhu, then LDC and dispatcher of LSB (Residential) to Dy, Director (Residential) on 03.09.2003 and a circular was issued to trace out the transit register (Outdoor) of LSB (Residential).
19. It is further the case of prosecution that a corrigendum to demand- cum-allotment letter was again issued vide letter no. F.27(15)/2003/LSB(Residential)/6060 dated 02.07.2003, however, this letter was returned undelivered with remarks "adhura pata hai, pure pate ke liye wapis (ek hi naam pita naam ke do vyakti hai) sd/- (08.07.2003)". A note was put up by concerned dealing clerk in respect of undelivered letter, later on the letter was delivered to accused Satish Goyal.
20. It is further the case of prosecution that A-3 Satish Goyal submitted affidavit, undertaking, specimen signatures, photograph, photocopy of Election Commission of India Voter ID Card No. DL-02/008/105799 in his name along with five DDA Challans and the affidavit and undertaking contain false address of village Chiragh Delhi and the undertaking was witnessed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal and Shri Manoj Kumar, stated to be the employees of A-6 Pramod Garg. The attestation/notarization on the affidavit, undertaking, specimen signatures, photograph, photocopy of Election Commission of India Voter ID Card were denied by Shri R.S. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 14 of 308 Beniwal, Notary Public. DDA had raised total demand of Rs.11,40,325/- prior to handing over the possession of the plot bearing No. 38 measuring 259.57 Sq. Meters in Pocket A, Sector 12, Residential Scheme in Dwarka to A-3 Satish Goyal. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the substantial amount of the said demand was deposited by Pramod Garg (A-
6) through five challans, containing 23 pay orders. It was revealed that out of said 23 pay orders, only one pay order i.e. no. 243379 dated 22.08.2003 for Rs.2,45,000/- was got prepared by Gundeep Singh Anand (A-7) by issuing a cheque from his current account maintained in Punjab and Sind Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi and the said pay order was received by Shri Bajrang Garg, employee of accused Pramod Garg. A-6 has also filled four applications for issuance of four pay orders vide 273594 to 273597 in his own hand-writing by using bogus names despite having Saving Account No. 1555 in the bank. Seven pay orders i.e. bearing nos. 273644, 273649, 273650, all dated 01.09.2003 for 49,000/- each (49000×3 = 1,47,000/-) and Pay order nos. 273660 to 273663 all dated 01.09.2003 for 10,000/- each (10,000/-×4=40,000/-) were got issued from the same bank in different names/writings. Eleven Pay orders were prepared in favour of DDA and deposited through aforementioned five Challans on account of cost of plot in favour of Satish. One pay order No. 506281 dated 03.09.2003 for Rs.21,000/- was got prepared from South India Bank Ltd., Dwarka Branch, New Delhi and ten pay order Nos. 506381 to 506182, both CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 15 of 308 dated 03.09.2003 for Rs.49,000/- each and pay order No. 506267 to 506274, all dated 02.09.2003 for Rs.49,000/- each were got prepared from Bank of Punjab Limited, later merged with Centurion Bank and then merged with HDFC Bank. Thus, out of total of 11,40,325/-, only an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- was made by preparing one Pay order from current account and remaining payment i.e. Rs.8,95,325/- was made to DDA by preparing 22 Pay orders by paying cash. Investigation revealed that Pramod Garg had withdrawn amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and 4,50,000/- through self cheques bearing No. 981991 dated 04.08.2003 and No. 981992 dated 05.08.2003 respectively which were debited from the saving bank account no. 1555 on 05.08.2003, maintained in Punjab & Sindh Bank Extension Counter G.C. Convent, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi. It is also the case of the prosecution that entire transaction was facilitated by A-6 Pramod Garg and A-7 Guneet Anand (Discharged vide order dated 26.07.2018) for getting plot allotted in the name of A3 Satish Goyal.
21. A3 Satish Goyal took possession of the plot bearing No. 38 measuring 259.57 Sq. meters in Pocket-A, Sector 12, Residential Scheme in Dwarka on 29.10.2003 and at the time of handing over the possession of the plot, the photograph and signature of A-3 was matched with Letter No. F.27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 dated 03.10.2003 and the signature of A-3 was obtained on the office copy of possession letter. It is stated that as per DDA conditions, in case the allottee of the plot is married, the lease deed of plot CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 16 of 308 could only be executed in joint names of the allottee and his spouse due to which A3 submitted the affidavits, undertaking signed by him and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal A4 containing false address of which one undertaking was witnessed by Neeru Kumar Gupta (A5), distant relative of A3 and Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal, employee of Pramod Kumar Garg (A6). The affidavit and undertakings were notarized by Shri Lalit Kumar, Notary Public, registered against No. 1061 on 30.10.2003, but Shri Lalit Kumar (PW-61) denied his signature, attestation and the factum of notary attestation. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Lease Deed was executed in joint names of Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj on 08.12.2003. The photocopy of false and bogus Election Commission of India Voter ID Card No. DL/02/008/105799 and DL/02/008/105798 were submitted in name of Satish and Smt. Pankaj Goyal respectively at the time of execution of lease deed. The affidavit and specimen signatures and photographs containing false address were also submitted which were shown notarized through Shri Lalit Kumar who later on denied having notarized the same. At the time of execution of lease deed, A3 and A4 i.e. Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal signed photocopies of their respective Indian Election Voter ID in the presence of DDA staff Shri R. Mohan Lal, Programme Assistant and Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik, Dealing Assistant from DDA who also witnessed the lease deed execution as well in presence of Shri S.N. Gupta, Assistant Director, DDA who was Lease Administration Officer. Both CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 17 of 308 accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj signed each page of lease deed in their presence as well as in presence of two independent witnesses namely Shri Narayan Singh and his wife Shanti Devi. A-3 then received a copy of lease deed by writing "Received Original Lease Deed" and put his signatures as a token of receipt of the same.
22. A-3 is the resident of Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan and the copy of Voter ID card of Satish (A-3) is forged and fabricated. Affidavit and undertaking furnished to DDA were submitted with an intention of getting fraudulent allotment of plot in Delhi with his wife. It is further case of the prosecution that A5 Neeru Kumar Gupta is the distant relative of Satish (A3) who managed the entire affairs by getting the recommendation letter issued in name of Satish Goyal. It is also alleged that accused Neeru Kumar Gupta (A-5) used to frequently visit A-2 S.S. Malhi and during search, number of documents were found which shows link between A-2 and A-5. It is also alleged that office copy of another recommendation letter bearing no. F. 32(50-A)/157/89-L&B/Alt./20461-462 dated 26.03.2003 in name of Shri Rajender Kumar was also found from the house of A5 and ideally same should have been in the custody of A2 S.S. Malhi. A complete office file/application and processing file of Smt. Suman was also recovered and seized during House Search of A5, a copy of "Decree petition for Dissolution of Marriage between Smt. Mamta and Mahesh Kumar (Brother of A-5) was found bearing signature of S.S. Malhi. A copy CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 18 of 308 of fake Ration Card in name of Shri Rajender Kumar S/o Prahlad Kishan was also found and seized. It is further alleged that the file pertaining to the recommendation in favour of A3 Satish was never consigned to Central Record Room and was not available in Alternative Branch of Land & Building Department, and which further establish that fake/bogus file was created and put up before the Recommendation Committee and A-1 Badrul Islam, A-2 S.S. Malhi and A-5 Neeru Kumar Gupta succeeded in getting fraudulent recommendations of alternative plot in favour of A-3 Sh Satish, A-1 fraudulently signed the recommendation letter No. F.32(21/50/89/L&B/Alt/1276 dated 30.04.2003. It is also the case of prosecution that all the accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating by personating, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged documents and criminal misconduct. The plot was allotted at a very low rate as it was a compensatory allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land and if this plot is sold to profit by DDA, and same would have fetched crores of rupees.
23. On the basis of material submitted through charge-sheet, cognizance was taken. After the copies were supplied to accused persons, the matter came up for hearing on the point of charge.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 19 of 30824. Vide order dated 26.07.2018, the charges were directed to be framed against the six accused persons and A-7 Guneet Singh Anand was discharged.
25. A common charge was framed against A-1 to A-6 for committing offence under section 120-B IPC r/w Section 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
26. Accused A-3 Satish Kumar Goyal and A-4 Smt. Pankaj Goyal were also separately charged for the offence under sections 419/420/467 & Section 471 r/w Section 468 IPC.
27. Accused A-1 Badrul Islam and A-2 S.S. Malhi were also separately charged under section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
28. Accused A-5 Neeru Kumar Gupta and A-6 Pramod Garg were also separately charged under sections 419/420/467 & Section 471 r/w Section 468 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
29. During the pendency of the proceedings, A-1 Badrul Islam had expired on 28.04.2021 and therefore, the proceedings qua him was abated vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is pertinent to mention that in all the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 20 of 308 proceedings, the deceased accused i.e. Badrul Islam was referred as A-1 and other accused persons were referred as per the serial numbers which was mentioned in the charge sheet. The cause title was not changed as same would have caused inconvenience as respective accused are being referred as per their specific numbers. Hence, it was deemed appropriate not to change the cause title.
30. Thereafter, the matter was listed for P.E. In order to prove its case, the CBI has examined as many as 73 witnesses.
31. The witnesses examined by the Prosecution can be categorized into the following categories:-
WITNESSES FROM THE OFFICE OF L&B DEPARTMENT & RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE :-
MEMBERS OF THE RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE
32. PW-7 Shri Prakash Kumar, Chairman of Alternate Plot Recommendation Committee stated that in the year 2002 to 2004, he was posted as Secretary, L&B Department, Govt of NCT Delhi and identified his signatures as well as signatures of other members of the Recommendation Committee i.e. Shri Subhash Gupta and Shri Z.U. Siddiqui and Badrul Islam on Ex.PW6/A dated 04.02.2003 in respect of the meeting dated 03.12.2002 and stated that as per the minutes of the meeting, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 21 of 308 18 cases were recommended for the allotment in terms of Annexure-A. Two cases were rejected vide Annexure-B, and 9 cases were ordered to be re-examined vide Annexure-C. PW-7 stated that the applications for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the land acquired by the land owners were moved before the Deputy Director, Alternative Branch and after processing the whole case and after verifying the revenue records and obtaining reports from the LAC and other relevant documents, the processed file is placed before the Committee for consideration by the Deputy Director (Alternative Branch). PW7 further stated that Deputy Director (Alternative) was the custodian of the files and he used to prepare the minutes of the meeting and would get the same signed from the members. PW-7 further identified the note sheet at page no. 4/N in the file bearing no. F32(113)/39/97/2713/ALT (D-10), containing the noting of A-1 Badrul Islam, Mark Q-175 and Q-176 'fair minutes of meeting added for signature please' and identified his signatures are at Point-B vide Ex.PW6/B (D-10). (Minutes available in case RC No. 4(A)/2015, original seen and returned.) PW-7 further stated that the name of accused Satish Kumar S/o Shri Hem Raj is mentioned at Sr. No. 4 in the Annexure- A, annexed with Ex.PW6/A. PW-7 also identified the signature of A-1 on the recommendation letter (Ex.PW3/H) issued to Satish Kumar. PW7 told about the role of Swaran Singh Malhi and Badrul Islam. PW7 stated that Head of the Alternative Branch used to process files and also used to obtain CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 22 of 308 the revenue record and LAC report to verify about the correctness of the averments made by the applicants. PW-7 further stated that there is a provision for personal verification of the records by the Alternative Branch and S.S. Malhi used to be present in the meeting alongwith Badrul Islam being the clerk in the Alternative Branch. PW-7 also stated that he issued an advisory on 10.02.2003 as recommendation for allotment of plot was made in the name of persons who was no more on the date of consideration of the application and the said case was processed by Anti Corruption Branch and he marked the note to Joint Secretary and Dy. Director (LM).
33. PW-6 Shri Subhash Gupta, was another member of the Recommendation Committee for allotment of Alternate Plots and deposed that he was working as Dy. Legal Advisor in L&B Department (Legal Cell) since the year 1989 and in the year 2002-03, he became the member of a Committee for a short duration as one of the Law Officers posted at Head Quarter, ITO was on leave. PW-6 stated that he used to assist the Committee by considering the documents such as affidavits, indemnity bond, relinquishment deeds and various court orders passed, if any, in connection with the cases listed before the Committee. PW6 brought on record the Minutes dated 04.02.2003 vide Ex.PW6/A which were drawn for the meeting held on 03.12.2002. (The original minutes dated 03.12.2002 were filed in the file of RC No. 4(A)/2015. The copy of the minutes filed in the present case were exhibited after summoning the said file during the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 23 of 308 evidence of this witness). PW6 identified his signatures as well as signatures of other members of the Recommendation Committee as he had seen them signing and writing in ordinary course of correspondence.
34. PW6 further stated that as per the Minutes vide Ex.PW6/A (D-10), 18 cases were recommended in terms of Annexure-A, two cases were rejected in terms of Annexure-B and nine cases were ordered to be re- examined in terms of Annexure-C. PW6 also stated that the applications for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the acquisition of the land of the land owners were moved before the Deputy Director (Alternative Branch) and the Alternative Branch used to process the case after verifying it from the revenue record, by obtaining reports from the LAC and other relevant documents. PW6 also stated that processed file alongwith relevant documents are used to be put before the Committee for consideration. PW6 also stated that Alternative Branch is headed by the Deputy Director (Alternative Branch) and he further deposed that after conclusion of the meeting, Deputy Director (Alternative) used to prepare the Minutes of the meeting as he was the custodian of the files and would get the Minutes of the Meeting signed from the Members. PW6 identified the noting of Badrul Islam mark Q-175 and Q-176 'fair minutes of meeting added for signature please' and also his signatures at Point-A vide Ex.PW6/B (D-10), when note sheet page no. 4/N of the file bearing no.
F32(113)/39/97/2713/ALT was shown to him. PW6 deposed that the name CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 24 of 308 of Satish Kumar S/o Shri Hem Raj was recommended for alternative plot as per Annexure-A to the Minutes of Meeting Ex.PW6/A at Sl. No. 4. PW6 also identified the signature of Badrul Islam at Point-A on the recommendation letter already Ex.PW3/H. In response to the court query, PW6 explained the role of Badrul Islam and Swarn Singh Malhi, the then Deputy Director and Dealing Assistant, Alternative in recommending the case of Satish Kumar. PW6 stated that as per rules and practice, Deputy Director (Alternative) was being the Head of the Branch has to process all such files and obtain revenue record and LAC report to verify the correctness of the averments made by the applicants. Personal verification of the record is made by the Alternative Branch. PW6 also stated that he cannot tell in respect of a particular assignment given to S.S. Malhi by Badrul Islam. PW6 also stated that as far as he remembers, S.S. Malhi was also present in the meeting held on 03.12.2002.
35. PW-9 Shri Z.U. Siddiqui, a member of the Recommendation Committee, deposed that he joined DANICS in the year 1985 and was Joint Secretary, Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2002-03. Apart from disclosing about the composition of the Recommendation Committee, PW9 stated that accused Badrul Islam, Deputy Director (Alternative) used to process the applications of applicants for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of their acquired land. PW9 also stated that accused Badrul Islam used to process the application and place CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 25 of 308 the file before the Committee and thereafter, decision of the Committee was reduced in writing and the Minutes of the Meeting used to be prepared within a week time and circulated among the members of the Committee for their signatures. PW9 further deposed that being the member of Recommendation Committee, he used to assess the cases placed before the Committee on the basis of records prepared by the Alternative Branch of L&B and the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector. PW9 also stated that Committee used to make the recommendation as per guidelines. PW-9 further deposed that complete reports were used to be placed before the Recommendation Committee for scrutiny. PW9 also identified his signatures as well as signatures of other members of the Recommendation Committee including the accused Badrul Islam and stated that he was conversant with their handwriting and signatures as he had worked with them. PW9 deposed that the Minutes of Meeting were prepared on 04.02.2003 but could not recall as to why the Minutes were put up for signatures after a gap of about two months. PW-9 further stated that the custodian of the file was dealing assistant i.e. A-2 S.S. Malhi. PW9 also identified both the accused persons i.e. A-1 and A-2, present in the court. PW-9 further deposed that the case of Satish (A-3) at serial no. 4 of the Minutes of Meeting was one of the candidates out of 18 recommendations.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 26 of 30836. In his further statement, PW9 deposed that accused Badrul Islam being Deputy Director (Alternate) alongwith dealing assistant viz accused S.S. Malhi used to process the cases and submit report consisting in the form of check list of documents including the report from Legal Department, Internal Revenue Department and concerned Land Acquisition Collector. PW-9 further deposed that the role of the Recommendation Committee starts after the case was made ready by Alternative Branch L&B Department and the file was presented to the Committee. The Committee did not find any anomaly or any doubts regarding the genuineness of the claim of the applicant Satish as the file was complete as reported by the branch and it found that applicant Satish was eligible. PW9 further stated that subsequently he came to know from CBI that the claim of the applicant Satish S/o Hem Raj (A-3) was fake. PW-9 identified the signature of accused Badrul Islam at Point-A on the recommendation letter No. F-32(21)/50/89-L&B/ALT bearing no. 001353 vide Ex.PW3/H, dated 30.04.2003 which was issued in favour of Satish S/o Hem Raj. PW9 also deposed that, an instance regarding recommendation of alternative plot to a person who was no more came to his knowledge through a note of Shri Prakash Kumar Secretary, Land and Building Department. The original note was in file in case RC no. 4A as Ex.PW62/C4 and the photocopy of the same is placed on record and the same is Ex.PW9/A. PW9 identified his signature as well as the signatures of accused Badrul Islam. PW9 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 27 of 308 further deposed that vide this note, Badrul Islam was made aware about the aforesaid instance and implementation of directions of the Secretary, L&B Department. After seeing, 27 summary sheets of different file numbers vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly.), PW9 deposed that the same bears certification by S.S Malhi (A-2) in his own handwriting at portion Mark-X to the effect that the particulars mentioned in the summary are found correct as per record. PW-9 further deposed that only that person can apply for allotment of alternative plot in the L&B Department whose agriculture land has been acquired by issuance of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, and thereafter, followed by announcement of the award by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector after obtaining the approval of the Hon'ble LG of Delhi. PW-9 further deposed that during the enquiry/investigation, he came to know that land of Satish (A-3) was never acquired by Delhi Government. PW-9 further deposed that accused Badrul Islam, Deputy Director (Alt Branch) and S.S Malhi, dealing assistant were responsible for processing the application of Satish and that they were responsible for getting the report regarding acquisition of said land from the revenue branch of the land and building department and payment of compensation certificate from the concerned land acquisition collector. PW9 also deposed that other documents as required under the Rules and after completing the necessary formalities, the file is moved for seeking dates from the Secretary, Land and Building Department to convene the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 28 of 308 meeting of the Recommendation Committee for considering the cases of the individual applicants including Satish (A-3). PW9 also stated that the brief summary of the facts of the cases including payment certificate, date of compensation, LAC report, revenue record are certified to be true as per the record was given by S.S. Malhi and also endorsed by Badrul Islam vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly).
WITNESSES EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATE PLOT OF LAND
37. PW-52 Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Ex-Deputy Secretary (Alternative) L&B Department of Govt. of NCT was examined by the prosecution to explain the policy and procedure for allotment of alternative plots to the farmers whose land were acquired. PW52 stated that she had been the member of the Recommendation Committee of L&B Department and that in the year 2000-2003, the process for recommendation of allotment of alternative plots to the DDA was governed under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961. PW52 further stated that the Govt. of NCT launched the Welfare Scheme to rehabilitate the agriculturist or farmers whose land had been acquired by the Govt. for the planned development of Delhi. PW52 further explained that for allotment of alternate plot to the farmers, the first requirement was that land ought to have been notified by the concerned LAC under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, the applicant must be the recorded CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 29 of 308 owner in the revenue record. Thirdly, he must have received the compensation from the concerned LAC and its certificate. Fourthly, he ought to have applied to the L&B Department within the specified period. Fifthly, he or his family or his dependent should not have any other plot or residential property out of village abadi. Sixthly, the total land of the farmer should have been acquired and he should not have been left with any other piece of agriculture land. If a land was acquired prior to 03.04.1986, then at least 150 sq. yds. land must have been acquired by the Govt. and if the land was acquired after 03.04.1986, then minimum 1 bigha must have been acquired by the Govt. PW52 further deposed that if someone had purchased the land before the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and before 03.04.1986, then his name must have been entered (mutated) in the revenue record and if somebody had purchased the land after 03.04.1986, then land must be purchased 5 years prior to the issuance of notification and the land must have been mutated in his name before notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. If, someone had purchased the land through auction, he should get the certificate from the concerned Ministry in his name, then he will be entitled for compensation and is entitled for alternative plot. In her further deposition, PW52 specified about the categories of the persons who are not entitled for allotment of alternate plots. PW52 further deposed that the category of person who were not covered under the Welfare Scheme or those who were CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 30 of 308 not recorded owner in the revenue record or had not received compensation from the concerned LAC or if they already had a plot or residential premises in his/his family/dependent's name in urban area, if acquired land have built up more than 20% and whose possession was not given to the Govt. agency i.e. DDA, then he will not be eligible for alternate plots, the applicants who had purchased the land after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and had not got mutated his name, the person who had purchased the land in contravention of the provision of Delhi Land Reform Act 1984 or the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act 1962 or any other law in force or the person who does not have documentary evidence of bonafide lawful acquisition of such land and the farmers who had not applied within the specified period as notified through public notice. PW52 has also deposed the procedure for recommendation of size of plots before 03.04.1986 i.e. (i) the applicant will not get any plot if the area of the land acquired was less than 150 sq. yds; (ii) the applicant will get 40 sq. yds, if the area of land acquired was 150 sq. yds. to 1 bigha;
(iii) the applicant will get 250 sq. yds. If, the area of land acquired was 1 bigha to 10 bigha and (iv) 400 sq. yds., if the area of land acquired was more than 10 bighas.
38. PW52 further deposed that after 03.04.1986, the parameters were changed and the same were (i) the applicant will get 40 sq. yds, if the area of land acquired was 1 bigha; (ii) the applicant will get 80 sq. yds., if the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 31 of 308 area of land acquired was 1 to 5 bighas; (iii) the applicant will get 150 sq. yds., if the area of land acquired was 5 to 10 bighas and (iv) the applicant will get 250 sq. yds., if the area of land acquired was above 10 bighas.
39. PW52 deposed that in the year 1988, the Ministry of Home Affairs launched a welfare scheme through public notice for those farmers whose land had been acquired but they had not applied for any alternative plot, as per said scheme the said persons could apply for alternative plots by the cut of date as mentioned in the public notice i.e. 01.04.1989 and in response to this public notice, number of applications were received in the L&B Department. PW52 has also deposed that applications should be in the prescribed format alongwith the khatoni, LAC certificate and three photographs of applicant/farmer and these applications were to be received at the Center R&I Branch of L&B Dept. and were to be diarized by the concerned official from there they were to be sent to the concerned Alternate Branch. The Alternative Branch again diarized the same and give them file number as per the zones. Thereafter, LAC certificates were to be sent to the concerned revenue district for verification. PW52 deposed that after receiving the verification report from the concerned revenue district, they were to be again cross checked by the Patwari/Kanoongo of the Land Acquisition Branch of L&B Deptt., and thereafter, the file was to be sent to Legal Cell of L&B Department for further legal scrutiny of the application by the Deputy Legal Authority. After obtaining the legal opinion, a CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 32 of 308 detailed brief file was to be prepared by the concerned clerk and the said concerned file used to be put up and routed through the Head of the Branch i.e. the Deputy Director to various branches of the revenue/L&B department. After completing all these formalities, files were to be placed before the competent authority of L&B Department to fix date for calling the meeting of Recommendation Committee. PW52 deposed that the Recommendation Committee consisted Principal Secretary, Additional Secretary, Deputy Legal Advisor and Deputy Director of the Alternative Branch and after approval of the date, the notices were issued to the concerned members of the Recommendation Committee for the meeting. In the meeting on the scheduled time and venue the cases were placed before the members where some cases were approved and some were rejected due to some deficiencies. The Minutes of the meetings were issued after the meeting in which all the details of each and every approved and rejected case are mentioned. PW-52 further deposed that after preparation of the Minutes of the Meeting, the deficiency memos were issued to the farmers/applicants to complete their papers and for approved cases, recommended letters in triplicate was issued in triplicate (one for DDA, other for applicant and third one is office copy) and the said triplicate copies were prepared in three colours i.e, green colour letter for the DDA, yellow colour for the applicant and pink for office copy. PW52 deposed that these letters also bear the booklet number and attested photograph of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 33 of 308 the applicant and the letters were to be sent through Central R&I branch of L&B department to DDA and the applicant through post. PW52 deposed that the concerned Dealing Assistant prepare the recommended letter having details of applicant name, village name, khasra no. and total area of acquired land in the prescribed proforma and the same was signed by the Dy. Director of the Alternative Branch, and after recommending the alternative plot and issuing order, the file was consigned to the record room of L&B department.
40. In reference to the present case, PW-52 further deposed that four applications were received from Bahapur Village, Delhi as per the stock register Ex.PW2/J (Colly) (D-35) at page no. 41. PW52 upon seeing Ex.PW3/H(D-19) (Recommendation Letter pertaining to Satish Kumar explained that word 'F-32' denotes the zone no. which is south, '21' denotes to Village Bahapur, '50' denotes Serial no. of the application/file, '89' denotes the year of receiving of the application. The date of issue of the letter is 30.04.2003. PW52 also deposed that the booklet vide serial nos. 001351 to 001400 was issued to S.S. Malhi, the then Dealing Clerk and the serial number of the letter of recommendation vide Ex.PW3/H i.e. 001353 is issued from the same booklet as per the stock register Ex.PW2/G at Point-X (D-39). PW52 further deposed that above said letter had been issued by Badrul Islam as per the stamp affixed on the letter at mark "Q9". PW52 deposed that she had written the letters dated 18.07.2016 Ex.PW2/B CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 34 of 308 (D-33) and Ex.PW51/A, in reply to the request letter dated 30.09.2015 providing the information and certain documents mentioned therein. PW52 further stated that guidelines regarding allotment of alternate plots (Ex.PW2/D) were provided to the investigating officer. PW52 further stated that she had informed the investigating officer vide her letter that file No. 32(21)50/89/L&B/Alt was not created in L&B Department as intimated by Central Record Room vide Ex.PW8/A (D-33) and the aforesaid information was provided by her vide letter dated 26.07.2016 (Ex.PW2/F).
41. PW2 Shri Rakesh Kumar posted in Alternative Branch of L&B Deptt., GNCT of Delhi proved various documents/letters which were seized through different Seizure Memos i.e. dated 19.07.2016 (ExPW-2/A - D-32), letter dated 18.07.2016 (Ex.PW2/B - D-33) of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Alternative), seizure memo dated 25.09.2014 (Ex.PW2/C - D-33), letter dated 09.10.2015 vide Ex.PW2/C, attested copies of allotment of alternative plot guidelines for applicants, Government of NCT of Delhi (D-34 running into 7 pages) vide Ex.PW2/D(D-34), PW2 has also proved production-cum-receipt memo dated 27.07.2016 (Ex.PW2/E (D-37), letter dated 26.07.2016 (Ex.PW2/F (D-38), written by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Dy. Secretary, vide which she had forwarded the required information/documents to CBI, stock register of recommendation letters (relevant 6 pages) Ex.PW2/G (D-39), letter dated CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 35 of 308 26.07.2016 {Ex.PW2/H (D-39)} of the then Deputy Secretary, R&I, L&B Department and deposed that this letter was received in their Section on 26.07.2016 and he marked the same to dealing assistant on the same day, and the said letter pertains to the information as there was no entries maintained award wise in dispatch/diary register in R&I branch (L&B Dept.). PW2 has deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A (D-32), he provided the photocopies of file head register pertaining to South Zone (running into 119 pages) {Ex.PW2/J (Colly)(D-35)}, original register was already seized by the CBI in case RC No. (A)/2014.
42. PW2 Shri Rakesh Kumar who at the relevant time was posted in Alternative Branch of L&B Dept, GNCT of Delhi, was examined to bring on record the documents which were provided by their department by virtue of Ex.PW2/A. PW2 brought on record the production-cum-receipt memo dated 19.07.2016 vide Ex.PW2/A and by virtue of this document, PW2 had handed over six sets of documents to Insp./CBI Sanjay Kumar. PW2 has further brought on record letter dated 18.07.2016 (Ex.PW2/B (D-
33) of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Alternative), vide which the requisite information/ documents were forwarded to Shri Ajay Kumar (SP, CBI). PW2 has brought on record the copy of the seizure memo dated 25.09.2014 in case RC No. 3(A)/2014 which PW2 had provided to CBI along with the letter dated 09.10.2015 vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C (D-
33). PW2 has further brought on record the attested copies of allotment of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 36 of 308 alternative plot guidelines for applicants, Government of NCT of Delhi (D- 34 running into 7 pages) vide Ex.PW2/D - Colly, (D-34). PW2 has proved production-cum-receipt memo dated 27.07.2016 Ex.PW2/E (D-37) and vide this memo, PW2 had provided documents mentioned therein to Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, CBI. PW2 has further deposed that vide letter dated 26.07.2016 Ex.PW2/F (D-38), Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary had forwarded the required information/documents to CBI. PW2 has proved the copy of Stock Register of Recommendation Letters (relevant 6 pages) which is Ex.PW2/G - Colly., (D-39) and deposed that the letter dated 26.07.2016 Ex.PW2/H (D-39) of the then Deputy Secretary, R&I, L&B Department was marked to dealing assistant on 26.07.2016. PW2 deposed that this letter pertains to the information as there was no entries maintained award-wise in dispatch/diary register in R&I branch (L&B Dept.). PW2 has brought on record the photocopies of file head register pertaining to South Zone (running into 119 pages) which were provided to the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A (D-32). The photocopies of file head register are Ex.PW2/J (Colly. - D-35). PW2 deposed that the original register was already seized by the CBI in case RC No. 3(A)/2014.
43. PW-3 Shri Baidyanath Jha, Record Keeper in L&B Department of GNCT Delhi deposed that accused Swaran Singh Malhi and accused Badrul Islam were posted as UDC and Dy. Director respectively in CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 37 of 308 Alternative Branch, L&B Department. PW3 deposed that vide production- cum-seizure memo dated 29.07.2016 {Ex.PW3/A (D-40)}, he had handed over the file bearing no. F32(55)/58/92-94/Alt/L&B pertaining to allotment of alternative plot to S. Jagtar Singh and the said file contains signatures of accused S.S. Malhi (A-2). PW3 identified the signatures of accused Swarn Singh Malhi on the noting dated 08.01.1998, 15.01.1998, 30.01.1998, 14.02.1998, 15.07.1998, 07.01.1999, 15.03.1999, 11.02.2000, 25.09.2000, 19.09.2001, 04.02.2002, 25.10.2002 and 04.02.2003 at different points of different pages of the files. The noting were collectively marked as Ex.PW3/B. PW3 also identified the copy of Minutes from page no. 76/C to 81/C of the correspondence portion held on 03.12.2002. PW3 identified the impression of Badrul Islam and the noting was marked as Ex.PW3/C. PW3 further stated that as per Annexure-A, 18 cases were recommended by the Committee and name of Jagtar is mentioned at Sr. No. 15. PW3 identified signature of accused Badrul Islam at Point-A on Ex.PW3/D. PW3 also identified the signatures of accused Swarn Singh Malhi at Point- A on the noting dated 09.10.2002. 17.10.2002, 09.12.2002, 06.01.2003 at different pages of file no. F-30(Misc)/1/97/L&B/ALT (D-9) and all the noting are Ex.PW3/E. PW3 also identified signatures of Badrul Islam at page no. 2/N, at point-A on page no. 3/N, at point-A1 & A2 at page no. 4/N and at Point-A on page no. 5/N, and the signatures are collectively Ex.PW3/F. PW3 proved the original Minutes of Meeting (draft) as CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 38 of 308 Ex.PW3/G and identified the signature of Badrul Isam at Point-A as well as that of Shri Z.U. Siddiqui at Point-B.
44. PW3 proved the letter of recommendation (copy for DDA, green colour) at page no. 1/C of the file bearing serial no. 001353 pertaining to Satish Kumar S/o Hem Raj vide Ex.PW3/H (D-199) and identified the signatures of Badrul Islam at Point-A. PW3 further proved the stock register already Ex.PW2/G (D-39) at page no. 2 and deposed that the entry at Portion-X to X1 which reflects the issuance of above said recommendation letter from book no. 28 bears the initial of S.S. Malhi encircled in red colour at Point-A. PW3 has brought on record the photocopy of the register vide Ex.PW-3/J wherein the entry related to the issuance of recommendation letter in the name of A-3 have been made and entry bearing No. 338 vide ( Mark X-XI) at page 46 dated 28.4.2003 pertaining to Satish Kumar for issuance of abovesaid recommendation letter is in the handwriting of Swarn Singh Malhi.
45. PW3 proved 27 summary sheets vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly.), original summary sheets are in RC no.4(A)/2015 which was seen and returned at the time of recording of evidence. PW3 identified the noting and signature at the foot of the sheets as that of accused S.S. Malhi encircled in red at Point-X "certified that the particulars above are found correct as per record.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 39 of 30846. In cross-examination, PW3 deposed that he remained Record Keeper since 2000 to 2014 in L&B Dept and he further stated that there are 19 branches whose files are consigned in central record room. PW3 further deposed that at the time of consigning the file, two lists are brought by the concerned person who obtain signature on one list from the record keeper and one list is left with the record keeper. The contents of the said list are noted down in a register and also stated that practice had been started 5-7 years ago again said w.e.f. 2006 and prior to 2006, the list was kept in folders zone wise. In further cross-examination, PW3 stated that files pertaining to the year 1952 are with the L&B Centralized Record Room. PW-3 after seeing the handwriting encircled Mark-Y at page no. 39 Ex.PW3/K (Colly.), stated that handwriting at Mark-Y is different from the portion Mark-X at page no. 39. After seeing signature encircled 'C' (D-40) at Page 23/N, PW-3 was unable to identify the same. PW-3 identified only the signature of S.S. Malhi in all the note sheet pages from page no. 12/N to page no. 24/N. PW-3 further stated that one Shri Dinesh Kumar was suspended but he did not know if he was suspended due to missing of nine files of Alternative Branch. The list containing the details of the files for consignment was shown to his immediate officers i.e. Superintendent and Deputy Secretary during the course of work. Shri Anil Kaushal, Deputy Secretary had asked him to search the files when he was posted in Evacuee Property Cell in the year 2015-16. PW3 admitted that there might be about CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 40 of 308 four lakhs files in the Centralized Record Room though correct figure is not known to him during the time when he was posted. In his further cross- examination, PW3 stated that he searched for the missing files for about two weeks. PW-3 denied the suggestion that first time, the application for alternative plot was received in the Centralized Record Room. PW-3 further stated in the cross-examination that the register where applications are received for the first is kept in Receive and Issue (R&I) Branch. PW3 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely under the influence of CBI. PW3 was unable to identify the signature of Shri Subhash Gupta who is one of the member of recommendation committee. A careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 would reflect that his statement to the effect that he is able to identify the signature of accused S.S. Malhi and accused Badrul Islam could not be shaken up despite cross-examination. It was not even suggested to the witness that he had never seen the writings and handwritings of accused Badrul Islam and S.S. Malhi. Various noting and the identification of the handwriting and signature of S.S. Malhi and Badrul Islam would reflect that accused Badrul Islam was working as dealing clerk since the year 1998 in the Alternative Branch and it appears that he is very well conversant with the functioning of Alternative Branch. The presence of his signatures and noting on various documents further shows that he enjoys the confidence of his superior i.e. Shri Badrul Islam and it further establishes that S.S. Malhi is involved in the process of allotment of land CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 41 of 308 for a good length of time. No suggestion or any cross-examination was conducted to the effect that accused S.S. Malhi was not attending his office or that some other person was looking after the work of process of allotment of land in Alternative Branch.
47. PW-10 Smt. Sheela Devi, LDC in L&B Department of Govt of NCT, Delhi was examined by the prosecution in order to establish that the charge of the files of alternative branch was not given to her. The said files also includes the file pertaining to the case of A-3. PW3 succeeded the accused S.S. Malhi. PW10 denied her signature on the charge report dated 30.06.2003 vide Ex.PW10/A (Colly). She stated that her initials were forged on all 18 pages of the charge report. PW-10 further stated that she used to sign her full name as Sheela Devi. PW10 further stated that accused Badrul Islam had asked her to take over the charge of large number of files from S.S. Malhi, however, she requested Badrul Islam A-1, now deceased) to hand over the charge to some other official as it was not possible for her to deal the files in English as she does not understand English. She also stated that despite her request, A-1 had asked her to take charge of the files and further told her that the files would be handled by some other official. PW10 also stated that she was constrained to sign documents i.e. handing over or taking over report without checking the individual files as she was not able to understand the contents of the files in English. She also stated that the files were kept in a cupboard and lock CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 42 of 308 and key. She also stated that only key was handed over to her by S.S. Malhi and thereafter she handed over the charge to Satbir Singh, LDC by giving the keys.
48. PW-51 Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta was working as UDC in L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2015 and he deposed that at that time Shri Dinesh Singh was Section Officer/Office Superintendent in L&B Department of Government of NCT of Delhi in March 2016. PW51 identified the signature of Shri Dinesh Singh on seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi on letters dated 18.07.2016 Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW8/A. PW-51 has proved letter 07.10.2015, bearing signature of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi at Point-X as Ex.PW51/A. PW51 has also proved production cum receipt memo dated 14.10.2015 Ex.PW51/B, bearing signature of Shri Dinesh Singh at Point-X.
49. PW-63 Shri Brindaban Gupta was examined by the prosecution to identify the handwriting and signatures of accused S.S. Malhi and members of the Recommendation team as well as the acquaintance of accused S.S. Malhi with accused N.K. Gupta.
50. PW63 deposed that during the year 2002-2004, he was posted as Research Officer in PWD Department and had also worked in Alternative Branch of L&B Department from the year 1997 to December 1998 as CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 43 of 308 Superintendent. He also stated that L&B Department and PWD had a common Secretary.
51. PW-63 was shown notings in the file titled as title "Constitution of Committee for Alternative Plot" bearing file no. F30(Misc)/1/97/ L&B/Alt. (D-10) and he identified the writings of S.S. Malhi at page 1/N on the noting portion dated 09.10.2002 of the file and the said noting was marked as "X". Similarly, PW-63 also identified the writings of S.S. Malhi at page no. 2/N dated 17.10.2002 which is marked as "X-1". Similarly, witness also identified the writings of S.S. Malhi at page no. 3/N dated 09.12.2002 which is marked as "X-2". PW-63 also identified the writings of S.S. Malhi at page no. 5/N dated 07.02.2003 which was marked as "X-3". The above said sheets are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW63/A. PW63 was further shown the minutes of the meeting (Ex.PW6/A) of Recommendation Committee held on 03.12.2002 and drawn on 04.02.2003 and PW63 identified the signatures of all members of the Recommendation Committee in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.02.2003 vide Ex.PW6/A. PW63 also identified the signature of Shri Prakash Kumar and PW63 also identified the handwriting of accused S.S. Malhi on the summary sheet vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly). PW63 also identified the photo on the pocket diary vide Ex.PW63/B (original seen and returned).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 44 of 30852. PW-63 further deposed that he has heard the name of N.K. Gupta as he used to visit S.S. Malhi in the office and PW63 also identified accused N.K. Gupta.
53. PW63 further deposed that S.S. Malhi was working as Head UDC in Alternative Branch and he further deposed that a single room was given to the Alternative Branch and further stated that he as a Superintendent and Dealing Assistant S.S. Malhi used to sit in that room where S.S. Malhi used to work as UDC. S.S. Malhi was assigned perhaps South Zone.
54. PW-63 in his examination-in-chief stated about the nature of work performed at Alternative Branch and his deposition in respect of the nature of work performed at Alternative Branch was not seriously challenged by accused persons.
55. PW-64 Shri Javed Alam Khan is the concerned officer of L&B Department from whom the relevant information about the present case were sought during the period of 2016-17, as he was posted as Deputy Secretary in General Branch of L&B Department. PW-64 deposed that for sometime he was also holding Additional charge of Alternate Branch and Recommendation Committee recommends the alternate plots for the farmers whose land has been acquired. PW-64 deposed that after recommendation, the recommendation letters are sent to DDA for land CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 45 of 308 allotment. During investigation, CBI had sought certain documents and in response to the same he wrote the letter dated 16.12.2016 (D-240) Ex.PW64/A and vide aforesaid letter, PW64 had provided the information regarding the file pertaining to Bahadur Sohan Lal, Shri Shanker Dass Seth, Shri Jeewan Lal Seth and Shri Omkar Nath Seth.
56. PW64 also stated that he received a letter dated 09.12.2016 (D-241) Ex.PW64/B which was marked to him by D. Secretary (Admn) and he made a noting at Point-X to Deputy Secretary (Record) on same day and thereafter the concerned record keeper made a noting that files were not available or traceable in the Record Room. PW64 also deposed that he directed his Office Superintendent vide his noting at X-1 and thereupon LDC Rajesh Kumar made a note that files were not found as per the charge list and he identified the noting of Shri Rajesh at Point-X2 on Ex.PW64/B.
57. PW64 was shown the attested photocopy of report of Central Record Room pertaining to file No. F32(21)/50/89/L&B (D-242) and he identified his signature as well as signature of Shri Rajesh, LDC on the said noting, thus, the same has been brought on record as Ex.PW64/C. PW64 deposed that as per report the above said file "has not been consigned in the Central Record Room from the Alternative Branch of this Department". He was further shown the page no. 74 and 75 of the Dispatch Register for the period 01.01.2003 to 07.09.2003 (Ex.PW64/D) and PW 64 stated that there CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 46 of 308 is an entry at Sl. No. 1276 and 1277 point X1 and X2 and the said entry pertains to the recommendation letter (pertaining to F.32(21)/50/89/L&B/Alt) issued to Commissioner (Land) and to Shri Satish S/o Shri Hem Raj. PW64 was further shown the production-cum-seizure memo (D-239) which he brought on record as Ex.PW 64/E in regard to this document PW64 vide this memo Rajesh Kumar handed over the letter Ex.PW64/A, report Ex. PW64/B and Ex.PW64/C to CBI on his directions.
58. PW-67 Shri Alok Sharma was working as Secretary, L&B Department, Government of NCT Delhi and also had additional charge as Deputy Secretary (Alternative Branch) in the year 2016. He deposed that his nature of duties as Deputy Secretary, Land Acquisition Branch included issuance of notifications of under section 4 and 6 and under section 17 of LA Act. PW67 stated about the procedure for recommendation of allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired. PW67 also submitted certain documents to the IO through PW57. PW67 deposed that vide letter dated 20.12.2016 Ex.PW57/A (D-235), he had forwarded the documents to Shri Sanjay Kumar, IO of the case through his Kanungo, LA Branch, L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi. PW67 proved the detail of file movement register of LA Branch, w.e.f 02.08.1999 to 21.01.2004 except 28.12.2000 to 24.04.2001 (Ex.PW67/A - part of D-235), submitted by Shri P.C. Tiwari, UDC, LA Branch. PW67 has further brought on record the photocopy of file status report dated 15.12.2013 from Central Record Room, L&B CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 47 of 308 Department pertaining to the file movement register of LA Branch, 1989 to 2003 as Mark 66/X. He has further brought on record the relevant extract of Land Record Register of Jasola and Bahapur (D-236) as Ex.PW57/C and the attested notification dated 13.11.1959 (D-237, 9 pages) as Ex.PW57/C. He has Further brought on record the attested photocopies of notification dated 16.05.1966 (D-238) as Ex.PW57/C. (Land Record Register of Jasola and Bahapur Vide Ex.PW-57/C).
59. PW-8 Shri Hardyal Singh Kaim was a Head Clerk in L&B Department and simultaneously, he was looking after the work of Central Record Room as its Record Keeper. During his evidence, he was shown the letter dated 06.07.2016 of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary (Alt. Branch) (Part of D-33) and after seeing this letter, he deposed that the said letter was marked to him by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi for providing the requisite information. PW-8 deposed that file no. 32(21)/50/89/L&B Alternate Branch was never consigned to CRR from the Alternative Branch and a noting was made by him on letter Ex.PW8/A. He also stated that vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 19.10.2016 (D-42) Ex.PW-8/B, bearing his signature at Point-A, he handed over the documents mentioned in ExPW-8/B to Insp. CBI Shri Sanjay Kumar. PW-8 identified his signature at Point-A on the letter vide Ex.PW-8/C. PW8 provided the list of certified copy of documents consigned to Central Record Room vide CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 48 of 308 Ex.PW8/D. PW8 further reiterated that the list vide Ex.PW8/D does not mention file no. 32(21)/50/89/L&B Alt.
60. PW-12 Shri Surinder Singh is the Deputy Secretary (EP Cell) and was also holding over the additional charge of Central Record Room 59 (L&B). PW12 stated that letter dated 06.07.2016 (Ex.PW8/A (D-33) of Smt. Usha Chaturvedi vide which she has asked about file no. 32(21)/50/89/L&B/ALT was put before him by Head Clerk on 08.07.2016 and he marked the file to Deputy Secretary (Alternative Branch). PW12 further deposed that it was informed to Smt. Usha that the said file was never consigned to Central Record Room.
61. PW-38 Shri A. Krishna Kumar was posted as Deputy Legal Advisor in Writ Cell L&B Headquarter, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi during the period from 2003 to 2017 and he stated that during investigation, a letter dated 15.12.2016 Ex.PW38/A was written to Deputy Insp. General/ HOB, CBI, ACU. VI, AC-II, New Delhi in reference to the letter dated 08.12.2016 and information in respect of the relevant files were provided. PW38 deposed that he had provided the relevant register to Shri Kiran Pal, LDC of Writ Cell and has brought on record the seizure memo dated 15.12.2016 by virtue of which the original letter as well as file movement registers of Writ Cell were seized vide Ex.PW38/B (D-232).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 49 of 30862. PW38 further deposed that as per the file/record of the Writ Cell bearing F1/38/Misc./2016/L&B/WC/10154 for the period from 2002-2003, against the dates referred, i.e. (i) 01.01.2002 to 17.07.2002, (ii) 22.07.2002 to 06.05.2003, (iii) 07.05.2003 to 31.10.2003, (iv) 3.11.2003 to 19.11.2003 and (v) 20.11.2003 to 20.04.2004, no file pertaining to the case of Satish Kumar s/o Shri Hem Raj bearing file no. F32(21)/50/89/L&B/Alt. was received for legal opinion and he never dealt with any such file as Deputy Legal Advisor (Writ Cell). Meaning thereby that as per the record of Writ Cell, the file pertaining to Satish Kumar son of Hemraj was not received in the Writ Cell for legal opinion.
63. PW-57 Shri Kishan Lal was posted as Kanoongo in Acquisition Branch of L&B Department, Delhi from 2013 till retirement in April 2018. He deposed that department notified the land under sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 in regard to the land which was to be acquired and that the files of Alternative Branch for the purpose of verification used to be received by L.A. Branch. He further stated that the LA Branch does not maintain any record pertaining to ownership of land and Khasra Number etc. as same is maintained by Halqa Patwari. PW57 deposed that LA branch does not keep the documents with them for cross checking the details of acquired land and compensation to owners with verification report from LAC.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 50 of 30864. PW57 brought into record the copy of notification issued under section 4 & 6 of Land & Acquisition Act which gives details the land to be acquired at village Bahapur vide Ex.PW57/C as well as the register in which reference is made to the khasra no. 607-23-10. PW57 also brought into record the file movement register from 02.08.1999 to 29.01.2004 except 28.12.2000 to 24.04.2001. PW57 also brought into record the letter vide Ex.PW57/A written by Shri Alok Sharma, Dy. Secretary, L&B Branch in which the status of khasra no. 607 of village Bahapur was shown and all these documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW57/B. He deposed that no entry regarding file movement file No. F32(21)/50/89/L&B/ALT is found in the record of LA Branch.
WITNESSES FROM DDA:-
65. PW-14 Shri Vinod Kumar was posted as LDC/Diarist, L&B Department from 2002-2005. He was shown the file no. F- 27(15)/2003/L&B (R) (D-7) and after going through the file, he stated that the letters dated 27.06.2003 Ex.PW14/A, at page no. 9/C, letter dated 02.07.2003 vide Ex.PW14/B at page no. 10/C and letter dated 02.07.2003 Ex.PW14/C at page no. 12/C as well as the letter dated 03.10.2003 vide Ex.PW14/D were dispatched by Shri Prabhu, LDC from the office. PW14 further stated that letters vide Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F at page no. 44/C CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 51 of 308 and 53/C were handed over to a person by the name of Satish Kumar and the signature of the person is mentioned at Point Q-49 and Q-65.
66. PW-14 deposed that the directions to hand over the letters by hand to the party can be given by Deputy Director/Director and the dispatcher/dealing assistance has no power to hand over the letters to the individual/addressee personally. He further deposed that letter Ex.PW14/G at page 65/C was dispatched vide dispatch number 9432 by him. He identified his signature at Point-A on dispatch register vide Ex.PW14/H (D-
64). He identified his writing on the certified extract copy of Transit Register vide Ex.PW14/I (D-64). He further deposed that the letter vide Ex.PW14/G is not mentioned in the said Transit Register meaning thereby that the same was handed over to the addressee. He deposed that letter vide Ex.PW14/J and letter vide Ex.PW14/K vide dispatch numbers 7059 and 11358 respectively bear his signatures. PW14 has also been shown the certified extract copy of dispatch register Ex.PW14/L (D-65) on which he identified his writing encircled 'A'. He identified his writing on the certified extract copy of Transit Register vide Ex.PW14/M and deposed that as per the register, the letter was sent through post. PW14 has also been shown the certified extract copy of dispatch register Ex.PW14/N (D-66) on which he identified his writing encircled A and deposed that as per the register, the letter was dispatched through post. PW14 has also been shown the certified extract copy of Transit register Ex.PW14/0 (D-66). He CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 52 of 308 deposed that as per transit register, a letter was sent through post and the letter Ex.PW14/K was returned back unserved as addressee was not residing at the given address. PW14 further deposed about the procedure of dispatch of the letters and stated that dealing assistant put up the letter to the officer concerned for his signature and thereafter, the file containing signed letter directly goes to the dispatcher of the branch for dispatching the same to the addressee concerned. After dispatching the letter, the file containing the office copy of the letter is sent back to the concerned dealing assistant.
67. PW15 Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik was working as Dealing Assistant/UDC in the Land Sales Branch (Residential) and was attached with Programme Assistant, Land Sales Branch (Residential), DDA, Vikas Sadan and he deposed that recommendation letter (Ex.PW3/H) bearing No. F.32(21)/50/89-L&B/Alt. 1276 dated 30.04.2003 was received in DDA on 01.05.2003 vide diary no. 11823 (Mark-B). Thereafter, the letter was received in office of Commissioner (Land/CLD office) vide diary no. 4588 dated 02.05.2003 (Mark-C) and then it was received in office of Director (Residential Land) vide diary no. 1658 dated 05.05.2003 (Mark-D). He stated that the letter was received in his office on 06.05.2003 vide diary no. 22-R (Mark-E) and was endorsed to Program Assistant, K.K. Sharma on 07.05.2003. He had put up the letter on 09.05.2003 against noting dated 09.05.2003 and opened the file pertaining to allotment of alternative plot to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 53 of 308 Satish Kumar S/o Shri Hem Raj. PW-15 identified his signatures on his noting in file Ex.PW15/A (D-7). PW15 further deposed that the letter was for allotment of alternate plot under scheme of large Scale Acquisition and Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961, requesting for allotment of alternative plot measuring 400 sq. yds to Satish Kumar S/o Shri Hem Raj, R/o Village Karanpura, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan in lieu of acquired land bearing Khasra no. 607 total measuring 23.10 bigha in which the share was half i.e. 11.15 bigha which was acquired vide Award No. 2059 dated 24.01.1968 of village Bahapur, Delhi in South Zone (date of physical possession 30.05.1972). PW15 was shown the document (D-7, Ex.PW15/A) at page 2/C (noting portion), draw list/result vide program no. LSE(R)D00034 vide which Shri Satish Kumar S/o Shri Hem Raj was allotted a plot no. 38 in Pocket-A Block, Sector-12, measuring area 257 sq. mtrs., in Dwarka Residential Scheme vide list Ex.PW15/B.
68. PW15 after referring to page no. 2/N of the noting portion of file vide Ex.PW7/A(D-9) stated that draw of the lot for allotment of alternative residential plots of Dwarka, Rohini and Narela was held on 29.05.2003 in the presence of two judges outside DDA and result was confirmed by VC/DDA in file no. F. 1(4)/2003/LSB(R). He further stated that after approval of the same from VC/DDA, the file was sent to System Department of DDA to generate the allotment letters of the successful recommendee. The Demand/allotment no. F.27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/5798 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 54 of 308 dated 27.06.2003 already Ex.PW14/A (at page no. 8C and 9C of the file D-
7) regarding allotment of plot no. 38 in pocket-A Sector-12, measuring area 257 sq. mt. in Dwarka Residential Scheme was put up for signature of Dy. Director, by PW15 against noting dated 27.06.2003 and PW15 identified his signature at point-A beneath his noting at page no. 2/N of the file Ex.PW15/A. PW-15 also identified signature of Shri K.K. Sharma, Program Asst./DA at Point-B. PW-15 further deposed that the file was marked to Asst. Director on 27.06.2003. The office copy of the demand letter was exhibited as Ex.PW14/A as the file was marked to Programme Assistant on 27.06.2003 who marked the file to Deputy Director (Residential) to send the demand cum allotment letter and Dy. Director (Residential) sent the file to dispatch the demand letter. PW15 further deposed that the above demand letter was entered in property register at serial no. 559 page no. 130 in the respective property register and in the meantime, a corrigendum letter bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/6060 dated 02.07.2003 Ex.PW14/B (at page 10/C of the file D-7) was also received from System Department regarding Provisional Rates which was put up by PW15 on 30.06.2003 vide his noting at Portion-X and his signature at Point-C on page no. 2/N of the noting portion of the file D-7 (Ex.PW15/A). He further deposed that the copy of the said demand letter (Ex.PW14/A) was endorsed to Joint Secretary, L&B Department and Account Officer (Residential Land), DDA. The said letter was dispatched CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 55 of 308 at the given address of Satish Kumar s/o Shri Hem Raj R/o Karanpura, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan through registered post, however, the said letter was returned back with the remark "ADHURA PATA HAI PURE PATA KE LIYE VAPIS. EK HI NAAM PITA NAAM KE DO VYAKTI HAI" on 08.07.2003. The undelivered envelop is Ex.PW15/C (D-7, page 11/C). The office copy of the said letter is Ex.PW14/B. PW15 further deposed that after the letter is received back from the postal authorities, the same was put before Shri K.K. Sharma on 07.08.2003 and Shri K.K. Sharma, Programme Assistant/Dealing Assistant made a noting at page no.3/N of the file Ex.PW15/A (whole file) and the noting asked for procuring the complete address of allottee Satish Kumar. PW15 explained the reason for putting up the file for further noting as corrigendum letter dated 07.08.2003 issued to Satish Kumar (A-2) had also remained undelivered, whereas the allotment letter issued on the same address had not been received back. The noting was made that "May kindly see for order and also contact allotee to intimate whether the demand cum allotment letter received by him or not because the same has not been received back". PW15 further stated that Shri S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Director after perusing the noting, forwarded the file to Dy. Director Shri K.D. Reddy, who accorded his approval to the noting dated 14.08.2003 and the file was returned to AD(R) and thereafter it was further marked to Programme Asst./DA. PW15 further deposed that Shri K.K. Sharma, Programme Assistant put up CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 56 of 308 a note vide Mark-X at page no. 3/N on 26.09.2003 mentioning that the file may be sent to the Joint Director, Survey for deputing the field staff to hand over the undelivered letter to the allottee and a report be filed by enquiring from the allottee whether he has received the demand letter. PW15 further stated that Shri S.N. Gupta, AD also made a remark "please speak". PW15 further stated that Asstt. Director had told that since address of allottee is of outside of Delhi, hence wait for the reference from allottee. PW15 identified the signatures of Shri S.N. Gupta at Point "E" beneath the said noting.
69. PW15 further stated that the allottee Satish Kumar (A-3) submitted the documents i.e. affidavits (Ex. PW11/A and Ex.11/E), undertaking (Ex PW11/B). Original five bank challans (Ex. PW15/E (colly.)) (page no. 13/C to 17/C), his photo and signatures duly attested by notary (Ex.PW11/D), voter-ID card (Ex.PW15/F) and specimen of thumb impression (Ex.PW11/C) (page no. 13/C to 24/C), on 08.09.2003 (wrongly typed as 08.09.2009) vide letter Ex.PW15/D (Page no. 24/C) addressed to Deputy Director. PW15 further deposed that the letter i.e. Ex.PW15/D was marked by Deputy Director (LA) and Assistant Director (LA) on 08.09.2003 and was put up by PW15 on 10.09.2003 vide noting Ex.PW15/N (page no. 3/N and 4/N, portion X1). The file was marked to Program Assistant and Assistant Director (R) who sent this file to AAO (billing-1) on 11.09.2003. The Account Officer (billing) issued certificate regarding encashment of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 57 of 308 the amount deposited vide five challans (Ex.PW15/E (colly)) as per noting dated 18.09.2003 of AO (billing) at page 5/N (D-7). After receipt of the NOC from accounts branch, PW15 put up a possession letter on 26.09.2003 (Ex.PW15/H) at page 6/N (D-7). This file was sent to Program Assistant, Assistant Director (LA), Deputy Director (LA) and Director (RL) who had accorded the approval for issuing the possession letter to the allottee on 01.10.2003. PW15 identified the signatures of officials on the file and he further stated that after approval from the Director (RL), the possession letter no. F-27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 dated 03.10.2003 (Ex.PW14/D) at page no. 25/C (D-7) was issued to the allottee Satish and thereafter the letter Ex.PW14/D was sent to Satish S/o Hem Raj, Village Chirag Delhi and the copy of the letter was also endorsed to the Director (Planning), Dwarka, Joint Director (Survey) Dwarka for handing over the possession of the above said plot and Assessor & Collector of Assessment and Collection Department, MCD. PW15 deposed that vide letter dated 30.10.2003 (Ex.PW15/J) at page 29/C of D-7, Satish Kumar (A-3) had submitted the affidavits (Ex.PW15/K1 and Ex.PW15/K2) available at page no. 28 of the file regarding his legal wedding with Smt. Smt. Pankaj (A-4) and also submitted an undertaking (Ex.PW15/K3) to the effect to pay the difference of charges on account of finalization of PDR. PW15 further deposed that the Joint Director (Survey), vide his letter dated 04.11.2003 (Ex.PW15/L-1) at page no. 37/C had forwarded the possession slip (Ex.PW15/L-2) in CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 58 of 308 respect of plot no. 38, Pocket-A, Sector-12, Dwarka vide which the allottee Satish S/o Shri Hem Raj had taken over the possession of the abovesaid plot on 29.10.2003 (page no. 36/C and 37/C). PW15 further stated that the total area which was handed over was 259.57 sq. mt. instead of 257 sq. mt. and a note dated 07.11.2003 at page 8/N of the file D-7 was submitted by him on 07.11.2003 to the effect to regularize the excess area of 257 sq. mt. as per policy and the noting was approved by Commissioner (LD) Shri Dharmender on 17.11.2003. PW15 further deposed that letter (Ex.PW15/M) was also submitted by Satish Kumar (A-3) along with the challan which is at page 31/C of the file D-7 and the file was sent to Accounts Branch on 19.11.2003 for encashment of the amount (i.e. draft/pay order) deposited by the allottee for excess area and thereafter the Account Officer (RL) issued the NOC vide order dated 24.11.2003 (at page no. 10/N of the file D-7). PW15 further deposed that the lease paper was issued to Satish Kumar vide letter dated 02.12.2003 (PW14/E) at page no. 44/C (D-7) and the allottee had submitted his lease deed paper duly stamped by the Collector of Stamps vide letter dated 04.12.2003 (Ex.PW15/N) at page no. 45/C of file D-7. PW15 deposed that a letter dated 05.12.2003 (Ex.PW14/F) was issued to Satish Kumar and Smt. Smt. Pankaj for call of execution of lease deed in their favour and on 08.12.2003, the perpetual lease (Ex.PW15/0) from page 46/C to 52/C in favour of Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj was executed. PW15 has further CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 59 of 308 deposed that Satish Kumar (A-3) and Smt. Smt. Pankaj (A-4) were present on 08.12.2003 for execution of the Perpetual Lease in their favour and PW15 identified his signature on the perpetual lease deed at Point-A. PW15 further deposed that the original Lease Deed was handed over to Satish Kumar by Daftry on 15.12.2003 vide noting at page no. 14/N, D-7 and thereafter, the file was sent to AAO LSA-3 (Account Branch) for noting down the particulars of the registered Lease deed on 19.12.2003. PW15 further deposed that the final per determined rates (PDR) for the year 2003-04 was finalized and a letter (Ex.PW14/G) (at page no. 65/C, D-
7) to this effect was issued to Satish Kumar on 02.09.2004 and thereafter, PW15 was transferred and the charge was handed over to Shri V.K. Chitkara Assistant.
70. PW-16 Shri Mohan Lal was working as Programm Assistant in DDA, Land Sales Branch (Residential) and he deposed more or less on the similar lines of testimony of PW15.
71. PW-24 Shri V.P. Ahuja, Assistant Director, DDA deposed that on the instruction of Shri Bindesh Kumar, Dy. Director, he handed over certain documents on 12.10.2015 and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW24/A. PW24 further deposed that vide letter Ex.PW24/B, he had also handed over notice under section 91 Cr.PC (PW24/C).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 60 of 30872. PW-26 Shri Prabhu was working as LDC (dispatcher) with Land Sales Branch of DDA w.e.f. 2002 till 2003 and his job was to make dispatch entry in the dispatch register. PW26 had been shown the file (Ex.PW15/A) (D-7) as well as the letter dated 27.06.2003 (Ex.PW14/A) and he deposed that he had made this entry at Point-A in his handwriting. He further deposed that the letter was sent at the address mentioned, by registered post, speed post and by ordinary post. PW26 further deposed that letter could be handed over personally if the Deputy Director/LA DDA desires by calling up the files etc or he could direct the dispatcher to hand over the letter to addressee against proper signatures by making entry in the dispatch register. PW26 further stated that the letters used to be sent to Central Receipt and Dispatch Section through TR (Transit Register). PW26 identified the relevant entries at Mark-X-1 in the dispatch register, bearing no. 74 for the period 14.05.2003 to 09.07.2003 (D-61) and stated that at Sr. No. 5798 dispatching the letter bearing file no. F-27 (15)/2003/LSB (R)/5798 dated 27.06.2003, which is in his handwriting vide the relevant page is Ex.PW 26/A. PW26 further deposed that the mode of sending the letter is not mentioned or there is no TR entry qua this letter and since TR register was missing for the period 01.11.2002 to 03.09.2003, he had made a report/letter vide Ex.PW26/B (part of D-61) on the basis of which Deputy Director got issued a circular Ex.PW26/C (part of D-61). PW26 after perusing the letter dated 02.07.2003 (file F27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/6060) CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 61 of 308 already Ex.PW14/B (page 10/C of 5 Ex.PW15/A (D-7), stated that he had dispatched the same and pointed out towards dispatch number at Point-X. PW26 also stated that letter was sent to Satish S/o Shri Hem Raj, R/o Karanpura, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and the corresponding entry in the dispatch register bearing no. 74 was made. After going through the entry, PW26 stated that the entries (Mark X to X1) regarding the above said letter dated 02.07.2003 bearing Sl. no. 6060 is in his handwriting and the same is Ex.PW26/D (part of D-61). PW26 stated that the said letter was sent through speed post vide envelope Ex.PW15/C, however, it was received back undelivered with endorsement (Mark X) "incomplete address". PW26 after seeing the letter no. F27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/ 9251 vide Ex.PW14/D (at page 25/C of file Ex.PW15/D) deposed that he had dispatched the letter to the addressee Satish S/o Hem Raj, R/o Village- Chirag Delhi, New Delhi. PW26 stated that the corresponding entry of dispatch of this letter was made in dispatch register no. 77 for the period 15.09.2003 to 21.11.2003 and the attested copy of the relevant page of the said entry is on record. After going through the entry, PW26 stated that the entry (Mark X to X1) at Sl. no. 9251 dated 03.10.2003 is in his handwriting and the same is Mark-X to X1 and the same is Ex.PW-26/E (part of D-62). PW26 further explained that there is no entry in TR register because the file was directly summoned by the then Director Shri Jagdish Chand and after seeing the attested relevant page of TR no. 79, dated from 02.09.2003 to 19.08.2004 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 62 of 308 (Ex.PW26/F) (part of D-62), he deposed that there is no corresponding entry in respect of the dispatch of the said letter and PW26 also stated that letter cannot be handed over to any addressee personally, unless there is a specific order on the file by Deputy Director or Director.
73. PW-27 Shri Kamal Kumar Sharma was working as Programme Assistant in DDA, Land Sales Branch (Residential) and he deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Programme Asstt., in Land Sales Branch (Residential), DDA, New Delhi and Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik was posted as Assistant, while Mr. S.N. Gupta was posted as Asstt. Director and Shri K.D. Reddy was posted as Dy. Director. His deposition is on the similar lines with that of PW15 and PW16 regarding file vide Ex.PW15/A (D-7). He deposed that the Shri S.C. Kaushik (PW15), put up note in his handwriting at page 1/N of the file Ex.PW15/A. The said noting is Ex.PW27/A which was submitted before PW27 on 09.05.2003 and he forwarded this note to AD (R). He has further deposed the version of PW15 regarding computerized Draw of plots held through programme no. LSB(R)D00034 and allotment of Plot of Sh Satish (A-3). PW27 deposed that a proposal was put up by Shri S.C. Kaushik, on which PW27 made endorsement on 27.06.2003 and after obtaining approval, it was sent to Dy. Director, Asst. Director and Dispatcher. PW27 further deposed that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 27.06.2003 bearing No. (15)/2003/LSB (R)/5798 (Ex.PW14/A) F-27 was sent at the address of Satish Kumar at CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 63 of 308 Karan Pur, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. PW27 stated that on 07.08.2003, a note was put up by him at page No.3/N before Asstt. Director and Dy. Director regarding receiving back of corrigendum letter and requested for permission to write to L&B Department, NCT, Delhi to intimate about full address of the allottee and for calling the allottee, to intimate whether the demand-cum-allotment letter is received by him or not since the same was not received back from the postal authorities. PW-27 identified his handwriting and signature on his note (Ex.PW27/B) at Point-X. PW27 deposed the proposal was approved and the file was again marked to him and he submitted the note to Assistant Director Shri S.N. Gupta on 26.09.2003 with a request to peruse the approval of the competent authority and to depute the field staff to handover the undelivered letter and to also take copy of voter card. PW27 identified his writing and signatures at Points-X and D1 on the noting Ex.PW27/C. PW27 further deposed on the lines of PW15 regarding return of file by Shri S.N. Gupta AD(R) and sending file to Accounts Branch, AAO (Billing) for verification of challans and that he forwarded the file to AD(R) who further sent the file to AO (Billing-I) for verification of the challan. PW-27 brought on record the challan Ex.PW27/D at page 13/C to 16/C alongwith certain documents, submitted by the applicant Satish Kumar in the office of the Dy. Director vide diary No. 182/C dated 08.09.2003. PW27 deposed on the similar line to the version of PW15 regarding the documents i.e. challans, affidavits, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 64 of 308 Voter ID Card, specimen signatures alongwith photograph, undertaking, submitted by Satish (A-2). PW27 further deposed that the verification from Billing Section was received in office of then Dy. Director namely Shri Sanjeev Kumar on 24.09.2003 about the receipt of the payment and then, he marked the file to Shri S.N. Gupta, who then marked the file to Programme Assistant. A perusal of his testimony would indicate that his testimony is on the similar lines with the version of PW15 regarding the proposal (Ex.PW15/H) put by Shri S.C. Kaushik (PW15) on 26.09.2003 to take approval of the competent authority i.e. Director (RL) before issuing the possession letter to Shri Satish Kumar (A-2) and that the approval was received and after necessary process, PW15 Shri S.C. Kaushik put up the possession letter with the remark that "Director (RL) vide his letter dated 01.10.2003 has accorded approval for issuance of possession letter in respect of plot no. 38, Pocket-A, Sector-12, Dwarka. PW27 further stated that the said note (Ex.PW27/E) of Shri S.C. Kaushik is Mark-X and deposed that Shri Sanjeev Kumar, the competent authority, Dy. Director signed the possession letter and returned the file to Shri S.N. Gupta, who then, sent the file to Dispatch Section for dispatching the possession letter and the Dispatcher dispatched the letter bearing No. F27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 dated 03.10.2003 already Ex.PW14/D (at page 25/C of file Ex.PW15/D). PW27 further deposed that as per the procedure, one copy of specimen signature of the allottee and one photograph of the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 65 of 308 allottee is removed from the file and pasted on the letter of possession before dispatch by the Asstt. Director, who also attests the same. PW27 after seeing the possession letter sent to allottee Satish Kumar (A-2) stated that the photograph and the signatures at Points-X and Y are pasted as per procedure and PW27 identified the signatures of Shri S.N. Gupta at Point- X and that of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Dy. Director at Point-Y. PW27 has brought on record the possession letter Ex.PW27/F and deposed that thereafter, he was transferred to some other place and Shri R. Mohan Lal joined the LSB (Residential) in his place.
74. PW-32 Shri Sat Narain Gupta was posted as Asstt. Director in DDA during the period of 2002 to 2004 and PW32 was looking after the Lease Administration Branch and allotment of alternative plots and deposed that the file Ex.PW15/A containing recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H was forwarded by the office of Shri K.D. Reddy, Deputy Director (LA) and after receiving the same, he made an endorsement qua Ex.PW3/H and marked the same to Programme Assistant. PW32 explained about the processing of recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H. PW32 further deposed that file Ex.PW15/A was processed by Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik, Dealing Assistant, after receiving a recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H from L&B Department of Delhi Administration, recommending allotment of plot of 400 sq. yards to Satish S/o Shri Hemraj R/o Karanpur, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. PW32 also identified the file containing CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 66 of 308 recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H (at page no. 1/C of file) and he also identified the noting of Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik at page no. 1/N in respect of the file regarding receiving of this recommendation letter Ex.PW27/A. PW32 also identified the noting made by Shri K.K. Sharma as well as his signatures. PW32 also stated that the note of Shri K.K. Sharma was seen by him as well as by Shri K.D. Reddy, DD (LA) on 12.08.2003 and 14.08.2003 vide Ex.PW27/B. PW32 also stated that the undelivered letter was sent again in view of the note dated 26.08.2023 in which Shri K.K. Sharma had proposed that letter may be sent through field staff and copy of voter identity card may be obtained and the note in that regard was exhibited as Ex.PW27/C. PW32 further deposed that the allottee Satish Kumar (A-3) has also demanded possession by personally submitting a letter vide (Ex.PW15/D) dated nil addressed to DDA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi and A-3 enclosed his affidavits, undertaking, payment challan, photographs, specimen signatures, photocopy of voter election card (ID card). PW32 further deposed that Shri Suresh Chand Kaushik, Dealing Asst., put up a note (Ex.PW15/G) on 10.09.2003 to Shri K. K. Sharma and PW32 brought on record the verification report (PW32/A) dated 19.09.2003 about the confirmation that Shri Satish had deposited the requisite amount. He further deposed that after receipt verification report, the file was received back to Lease Administration Branch and on 25.09.2003 vide noting made by Sh S.C. Kaushik and Shri K.K. Sharma CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 67 of 308 put up a note to accord approval of Director (RL) for issuance of possession letter. This note was seen by PW32 on 29.09.2003 and was put up for approval to the Deputy Director Shri Sanjeev Kumar and thereafter he forwarded the same to Director (RL) for obtaining approval and the possession letter was issued on 03.10.2003 in favour of Shri Satish s/o Shri Hem Raj. Further, PW32 has identified letter dated 03.11.2003 (Ex.PW15/M) (at page 31/C) which was received from Shri Satish allottee of plot no. 38, pocket-A, sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi and had submitted affidavits, undertaking and bank challans. PW32 has also identified letter dated 04.11.2003 bearing no. F12(1386)/2003/ Dwk/Plg/845 at page 37/C in the file (Ex.PW15/A) addressed to Deputy Director (LA-Residential), DDA and this letter was written in response to the DDA's letter no. F-27 (15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 informing about the correct dimension being 259.57 sq. mtrs., in place of 257 sq. mtrs., and also about handing over the possession by Joint Director, Survey, Dwarka Shri C.P. Sharma. PW32 identified his signatures at Point-A on the letter Ex.PW15/L-1. The office copy of the Letter is Ex.PW31/H, in which it was stated that possession of aforesaid was handed over to Satish Kumar on 29.10.2003. At the time of handing over the possession, the field office has mentioned that area ad- measuring 2.57 sq. mtr was in excess for which the allottee may be charged and a note dated 07.11.2003 vide Ex.PW32/B was put up by Shri S.C. Kaushik, Dealing Asstt. for obtaining approval for regularizing the excess CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 68 of 308 area of plot i.e. 2.57 sq. mtr. PW32 further deposed that as per policy, the variation in plot was put up for approval which he forwarded against his noting Ex.PW32/C to Deputy Director (LA). PW32 after seeing a noting dated 28.11.2003 at page 11/N of Shri S.C. Kaushik, Dealing Asst., deposed that the note was prepared for preparation of five copies of Lease Deed/Supplementary Lease Deed and to issue the same to the allottee and identified the signatures of Shri S.C. Kaushik at Point-A on the noting Ex.PW32/D. PW32 deposed that this note was submitted to DD (LA)/Res. Shri Sanjeev Kumar on 02.12.2003 and he identified the signatures of Shri Sanjeev Kumar at Point-B. PW32 deposed that after getting approval on 02.12.2003, a letter dated 02.12.2003 (Ex.PW14/E) (at page 44 of file Ex.PW15/A) was issued to allottees Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj, R/o Village Chirag Delhi, New Delhi for stamping of perpetual lease and he identified the signature of Shri Sanjeev Kumar on the said letter at Point-A. PW32 has brought on record the letter dated 'Nil' of Satish S/o Shri Hem Raj which is Ex.PW15/N (at page 45/C of file Ex.PW15/A). Vide this letter, Satish Kumar (A-3) had submitted two affidavits (legally wedded), affidavit regarding non-sale, three copies of lease deed (with site plan in original) for the purposes of adding the name of Smt. Smt. Pankaj and declaring about their marriage vide Ex.PW15/K and 15/K2. PW32 has further deposed that on receipt of lease deed papers, duly stamped from the Collector of Stamps, Sh S.C. Kaushik put up a note dated 05.12.2003 to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 69 of 308 PW32 through Shri R. Mohan Lal, Program Asst. alongwith fair letter for execution of sale deed and thereafter letter dated 05.12.2003 bearing no. F- 27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/11311 (Ex.PW14/F) was issued to Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj, R/o Village Chirag Delhi for execution of Lease Deed and vide this letter, the allottee was asked by DDA office on 08.12.2003 for execution of lease deed and accordingly, the lease deed (Ex.PW32/F) was executed on 08.12.2003.
75. PW-31 Shri Ram Swaroop Pawa is the Asstt. Director, Surveyor who was assigned with the duty of supervising the demarcation of the DDA land for residential purposes under the scheme launched by DDA deposed that Shri C.P. Sharma was his superior. PW31 after seeing letter no. F- 27(15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 dated 03.10.2003 of DDA (Ex.PW27/F) pertaining to possession of plot no. 38, pocket-A, Sector-12 measuring 257 sq. mtrs., in Dwarka favouring Satish S/o Shri Hem Raj, R/o Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, stated that the said letter was received in his and it was marked to him by the Joint Director Shri C.P. Sharma and on the same day he had called feasibility report from Shri Rajbir Vashist. The endorsement of PW31 is Ex.PW31/A and that of Shri C.P. Sharma is Ex.PW31/B. PW31 further deposed that the feasibility report was received on 21.10.2003 and after verifying and checking dimensions, he counter signed at Point-X and noting dated 21.10.2003 vide Ex.PW31/C. PW31 further deposed that the survey report for site verification for possession of plot was submitted by CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 70 of 308 Shri Rajbir Vashist, Surveyor, DDA who found the area of plot as 259.57 sq. mtrs., instead of 257 sq. mtrs. PW31 deposed that the noting Ex.PW31/D was made by Shri Trilochan Singh, Capital AD (Planning), Dwarka and identified his signatures at Point-X. PW-31 identified his signature at Point-A on the site verification report (Ex.PW31/E) for possession of said residential plot at page no. 4/C to 6/C. PW31 has further deposed that the allottee Satish Kumar had written a letter dated 'nil' asking for handing over the possession on 28.10.2003 and the possession of the plot was handed over to him (Satish Kumar) on 29.10.2003 by matching the ID proof and the photograph and attested signatures. PW31 identified signatures of Satish in token of handing over possession, on letter no. F12(1386)/2003/Dwk/Plg, dated 28.10.2003. PW31 stated that he also signed the possession letter Ex.PW15/L2 at Point-X. PW31 further deposed that after handing over the possession, a lease plan had been prepared Shri B.D. Paliwal, Planning Draftsman, Dwarka which was put up before PW31 on 30.10.2003 and PW31 as well as Shri B.D. Paliwal had signed the said lease plan vide Ex.PW31/F. PW31 deposed that he prepared a note dated 31.10.2003 (Ex.PW31/G) along with handing over report to the Joint Director, Survey. PW31 further deposed that the possession of the plot is never handed over without matching the photograph/signatures of the allottee. PW31 after seeing the letter dated 04.11.2003 bearing no. F12(1386)/2003/Dwk/Plg/845 addressed to Dy. Director (LA- Residential) CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 71 of 308 at page 11/C in the file D-85 deposed that vide DDA's letter no. F-27 (15)/2003/LSB(R)/9251 (Ex.PW31/H), the correct dimension being 259.57 sq. Mtrs. in place of 257 sq. Mtrs as well as about handing over the possession by Joint Director, Survey, Dwarka Shri C.P. Sharma.
76. PW-66 Shri Chahatarpal was working as Assistant Director Land Sales Branch (residential), DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi and he deposed that in the year 2016, he had handed over the requisite documents to the IO of the CBI. PW 66 has been examined in order to bring on record the document provided by him to the CBI during investigation. PW-66 deposed that he brought on record the production-cum-receipt memo dated 03.08.2016 vide Ex. PW66/A and brought the following documents on records:-
(i) the relevant attested photocopies of the dispatch register of land and sales branch @ w.e.f 14.05.2003 to 09.07.2003 as Ex.26/D (D-61).
(ii) The attested photocopy of note-sheet as Ex.PW26/B.
(iii) The attested photocopy of circular as Ex. PW26/C.
(iv) The Relevant attested photocopies of the dispatch register of land and sales branch w.e.f 05.09.2003 to 21.11.2003 as Ex. PW28/E (the correct exhibit number of this document is Ex. PW26/E and it seems that due to typographical mentioned as Ex. PW28/E).
(v) The photocopies of relevant pages of transit register nos.
79 dated from 02.09.2003 to 19.08.2004 Ex.PW26/F (D-62) (3 pages).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 72 of 308(vi) The photocopies of relevant pages of dispatch register from the date 21.11.2003 to 31.12.2003 as Ex. PW66/B (D- 63, 4 pages)
(vii) The photocopies of relevant pages of transit register nos. 79 dated from 02.09.2003 to 19.08.2004 as Ex.PW66/C, D- 63 (8 pages).
(viii) The photocopies of relevant pages of dispatch register from the date 30.08.2004 to 09.11.2004 as Ex. PW14/H (D- 64, 1 page).
(ix) The photocopies of relevant pages of transit register nos.111 dated from 23.08.2004 to 28.02.2007 Ex. PW14/1 (2 pages).
(x) The another photocopies of relevant pages of dispatch register from the date 02.05.2005 to 25.07.2005 as Ex. PW14/L (D-65, (4 pages).
(xi) The photocopies of relevant pages of transit register nos.111 dated from 23.08.2004 to 28.02.2007 as Ex.
PW14/M (1 page, part of D-65).
(xii) The another photocopies of relevant pages of dispatch register from the date 27.09.2005 to 30.11.2005 as Ex. PW14/N(D-66, (4 pages).
(xiii) The photocopies of relevant pages of transit register nos.111 dated from 23.08.2004 to 28.02.2007 as Ex. PW14/0 (1 page, part of D-65).
(xiv) The report dated 25.07.2016 (D-67) pertaining to dispatch of letter no. 7059 dated 18.07.2005 and letter no. 11358 dated 11.11.2005, called by PW66 on 22.07.2016 vide his noting at Point X as Ex.PW66/D (part of D-67). In this regard PW 66 also deposed that he had marked this noting to Assistant Direct (R&D), Land and in return he has submitted the report intimating that the above said two letters were dispatched by registered post vide serial no. 972 dated CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 73 of 308 20.07.2016 and serial no. 216 dated 14.11.2005 of the branch diary register.
(xv) The two pages of branch diary register containing the entry pertaining to above two letters which are extract of original register which is attested by Assistant Director (R&D) (Land), DDA as Ex.PW66/E (part of D-67).
(xvi)The another photocopies of relevant pages of dispatch register from the date 10.01.2007 to 11.05.2007 (D-68, 5 pages) as Ex.PW66F.
(xvii) The relevant pages of transit register nos.111 dated from 23.08.2004 to 28.02.2007 as Ex. PW66/G (1 page, part of D- 68).
(xviii) The production-cum-receipt memo dated 14.09.2016 as Ex.PW66/H (D-70). Vide this memo he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Inspector Shri Sanjay Kumar.
(xix) The production-cum-receipt memo dated 24.10.2016 as Ex.PW66/I (D-71). Vide this memo he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Inspector Shri Sanjay Kumar.
WITNESSES IN RELATION TO THE SPECIMEN SIGNATURES/THUMB IMPRESSIONS/FINGER PRINTS.
77. PW-1 Pratul Kumar Mishra, clerk Bank of India, deposed that on 05.07.2016 he visited the office of CBI wherein signatures/initials of Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Kumar Goyal were taken on blank white paper sheets vide Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. PW1 also stated that rolled print of right hand and palm prints of the accused Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal alongwith hand fingers of these CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 74 of 308 accused persons vide Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. PW1 also stated that Shri Yogendra Officer Scale-II, CGO Complex Branch, Bank of India was also present. PW1 further deposed that he had put his signatures on all the sheets and identified his signatures appended at Point-A on the said sheets. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels.
78. PW-4 Shri Mukesh Rawat, clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi deposed that on the directions of AGM Shri Bhojwani, he visited the CBI office on 22.07.2016 where the specimen signatures of A-1 Badrul Islam was taken vide Mark S-1 to S-8 Ex.PW4/A (colly.). PW4 also identified the specimen signature of initials/writings Mark S-9 to S-18 Ex.PW4/B of accused Swarn Singh Malhi taken in his presence. PW4 further identified the specimen signature of initials/writings Mark S-39 to S-51 Ex.PW4/C of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta, which were taken his presence. In Cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember how many people were there when he went to CBI office. The specimen signatures of accused persons were taken by calling them one by one. He does not remember the name of the Inspector who had obtained the specimen signatures. Orally, he remembers the name of Badrul Islam present in court whose specimen signatures were taken in his presence. He is not able to recollect the name of the other persons. He also stated that he was orally directed by the Bank Manager to join the investigation with CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 75 of 308 CBI. CBI officer has not shown him any permission for obtaining signatures of those persons. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that specimen signatures of the accused were not obtained in his presence or that at the instance of the CBI, he has deposed falsely in the present case.
79. PW5 Sh Yogender Kumar Gautam, Asstt. Manager, Bank of India deposed that on 05.07.2016, on the directions of AGM Shri M.L. Bhojwani, he visited the CBI office where he witnessed the obtainment of signatures/initials/writings of certain persons on the paper sheets. PW-5 witnessed the specimen of hand fingers and palm prints of those persons on format and identified the specimen signature/initials/writings Mark S-52 to S-59 and S-60 to S-69 Ex.PW1/A (colly.) and Ex.PW1/B (colly) and Ex.PW1/C (colly.) of accused Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal respectively. PW-5 witnessed the rolled print of right hand and palm print of accused Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal and hand fingers of accused Satish Kumar Goyal. The rolled finger prints of accused Smt. Pankaj is Ex.PW1/D (Colly.) and hand finger/palm prints of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal is Ex.PW1/E. The rolled prints of right hand of Satish Kumar Goyal is Ex.PW1/F (Colly). The hand finger/palm prints of Satish Kumar Goyal is Ex.PW1/G (colly). PW-5 deposed that at the time of taking specimen signatures/initials/writing of Shri Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal, Mr. Pratul Kumar Mishra, Clerk, Bank of India, Khan CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 76 of 308 Market, New Delhi was also present and had signed all the sheets. In cross examination, he has deposed that the specimen signatures were obtained in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he has not joined the investigation or has not witnessed the obtaining of specimen signatures.
80. PW-20 Shri Sunil Ranjan Kumar is the witness to the specimen signatures of persons namely Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar Goel and he deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted at Corporate Office of BSNL, Janpath, New Delhi as UDC and he was given written directions by his department for visiting the CBI office on 05.09.2016. PW20 deposed that he and his colleague Bhupesh Seth (PW25) witnessed the signatures of Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar Goel and PW20 identified the relevant documents i.e. S-19 to S-28 (10 Pages) bearing signatures of Manoj Kumar Mallick vide Ex.PW20/A (Colly.) and S-29 to S-39 (10 pages) bearing signatures of Rajesh Kumar Goel vide Ex.PW20/B (Colly.). PW20 identified his signatures at Point-A on each page of the said document at point A and his colleague Bhupesh Seth at point B.
81. PW-21 Shri Ashok Kumar, Sr. Executive, M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. deposed that on the instructions of his superior, he went to the CBI office on 31.08.2016 where specimen handwriting of Guneep Singh Anand (Discharged accused) vide (mark S-95 to S-104) had CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 77 of 308 been witnessed by him and he identified his signatures at Point-A on all the sheets which are Ex.PW21/A (Colly.)
82. PW-25 Shri Bhupesh Seth is the witness from BSNL and he deposed that on the written directions from his department, he visited CBI office on 05.09.2016 where he witnessed the signatures/initials/writing of Manoj Kumar Mallick (mark S-19 to S-38) (D-212). PW25 identified his signatures at Point-B on all the sheets (Ex.PW20/A-colly.) and deposed that alongwith him, his colleague Sunil Ranjan, UDC, BSNL also signed at Point-A on all the sheets. PW25 further deposed that he had also witnessed the writing of Rajesh Kumar Goel (mark S-29 to S-38) (10 pages) which are Ex.PW20/B (colly), bearing his signatures at Point-B on each page. PW-25 also witnessed the signatures/initials/writing of accused Pramod Garg on paper sheets (mark S-105 to S-163), which bears his signatures at Point-A and that of Shri Sunil Ranjan at Point-B on all the sheets which are Ex.PW25/A (Colly-58 pages).
MISCELLANEOUS WITNESSES (GENERAL PUBLIC).
83. PW-37 Shri Bajrang Garg deposed that accused Pramod Garg is his mama by distant relation, whereas Subhash Gupta is his real maternal uncle. He also stated that Subhash Gupta is jija of accused Pramod Garg and Subhash Gupta was working as a property dealer. PW37 deposed that CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 78 of 308 in the year 2002, on the instruction of Subhash Gupta, he started working under Pramod Garg as he was running his business under the name of Pramod Garg & Associates from House no. 6, Pocket A/2, Sector-17, Dwarka, Delhi. PW37 further deposed that he used to bring and deliver the papers, cheques etc. from the office and also used to drop the same at the required place. He further deposed that he worked with Pramod Garg from 2002 to 2005. PW37 identified his writing and endorsement in respect of receipt of the four pay orders which were issued in favour of DDA i.e. pay order bearing No. 243376 of Rs.3,27,000/-, Pay order No. 243377 of Rs.2,50,000/-, Pay Order No. 243378 of Rs.3,27,000/- and Pay Order No. 243379 of Rs. 3,27,000/-, all dated 22.08.2003 which was received by him from Shri Bhagwan Das vide Ex.PW37/A. PW37 also brought on record the specimen signatures/initials/writing furnished by him in the CBI office from mark S-84 to S-94 in Hindi vide Ex.PW37/B (Colly. Total 11 pages).
84. PW-46 Shri Manoj Kumar Mallick deposed that he had worked as Field Assistant in Gupta Properties, run by accused Pramod Garg from 2001 to 2005 and he left the said job and joined Subash Gupta (jija of accused Pramod Garg). He used to show the properties for the purpose of sale. He did not identify the photograph or the person at point D on recommendation letter Ex.PW3/H (page 1/C of file Ex.PW15/A) and stated that he had never met this person. PW46 was shown document/undertaking Ex.PW11/B (page no. 22/C of file Ex.PW15/A) and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 79 of 308 he identified his signatures at point Q18 encircled in red pencil. He deposed that the said undertaking was also witnessed by Shri Rajesh Goyal (his co- employee). PW-46 also identified the signature of Rajesh Goel on the undertaking vide Ex.PW15/K3 (page no.26/C of file Ex.PW15/A). PW46 does not know Neeru Kumar Gupta, who has signed as witness at Q-25. PW-46 was cross-examined by the Ld. PP for CBI and he stated that he knew N.K. Gupta as he used to visit the office of accused Pramod Garg. PW46 denied that he told the IO that N.K. Gupta had purchased many properties in past several years from Pramod Garg or that N.K. Gupta is a good friend of accused Pramod Garg. PW46 denied that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that at that time he had seen N.K. Gupta signing in several documents relating to the property and therefore he can identify signature of N.K. Gupta. PW46 denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that IO introduced him with a person and he identified the said person as Neeru Kumar Gupta. PW46 denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the signature of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta on the undertaking Ex.PW15/K3 as he has been won over by the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta.
85. PW-56 Shri Narayan Singh Yadav is the person who alongwith his wife stood witness alongwith his wife to the perpetual lease deed vide Ex.PW56/A, and identified his signatures on the perpetual lease deed at Point-A, which was executed by the DDA in favour of accused Satish CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 80 of 308 Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Kumar Goyal. PW56 was unable to identify the photograph appearing on the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H (D7, Page No. 1/C). In order to elicit response from the witness, certain questions were put to the witness by the Court. PW56 stated in response to the court question that he appended his signatures and thumb impression on the lease deed at the instance of accused Pramod Garg and Pramod Garg was present at the time of execution of lease deed. PW56 after seeing the photograph of Satish Kumar stated that he came to know that he is the same person on whose name the perpetual lease deed was being made. PW56 also stated that accused Pramod Garg was physically present at the time of execution of the perpetual lease deed. PW56 also stated that his wife Smt. Shanti Devi also appended her signature on perpetual lease deed and had provided her self attested (thumb impression), copy of Election ID Card, and PW56 had identified the thumb impression of Shanti Devi at point 'C' on the perpetual lease deed Ex.PW56/A. PW56 also brought on record copy of election ID Card of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi vide Ex.PW54/B as well as his election voter card vide Ex.PW56/C. PW56 deposed that he had his land at Village Bharthal which was acquired by the DDA and in lieu of the same he was issued a letter for allotment of alternative plot measuring 60-70 Sq. yards and he had paid Rs.5,000 towards the amount of the said plot to the DDA. PW56 stated that he required money and therefore, he gave (sold) his plot CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 81 of 308 to Pramod Garg against amount of Rupees 4.5 lakh which was paid in two installments. PW56 stated that he was asked by Pramod Gard to visit along with his wife for appending their signatures on the perpetual lease deed. PW56 initially stated that he did not give any document to the IO, however, upon seeing the production-cum-receipt memo dated 12.10.2016, PW56 identified his signature and the said seizure memo is exhibited as Ex.PW56/D, as per which self attested copy of Khatauni (Ex.PW56/E) {mode of proof objected to} pertaining to his land, at village Bharthal, HadBast-2017, Tehsil Mehrauli, District Delhi. PW56 also identified the self attested copy of Clearance Certificate dated 12.11.1986 from the office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Mehrauli and same was exhibited as Ex.PW-56/F (mode of proof objected to being photocopy). PW56 Further identified the copy of the cheque dated 25.11.1986 Ex.PW56/G which was received by him towards compensation against his acquired land (mode of proof objected to being photocopy). PW56 was further shown letters dated 25.06.1993 24.12.1999 and 19.03.2002 which were issued to him by the Deputy Director (LA) DDA, Land Sales Branch (Residential) and after seeing the same, PW56 identified these letters as the same which were handed over to CBI, and thus these letters are exhibited as Ex.PW56/H, Ex.PW56/I and Ex.PW56/J. PW56 was further shown the Notice dated 07.12.2001, sent under Section F-10(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after seeing the same, PW56 stated that he had received the same and he CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 82 of 308 handed over this notice to CBI and this notice is exhibited as Ex.PW56/K. PW56 was further shown the copy of the Certificate dated 03.04.2003 issued by the Office of the Land Acquisition Collector (South West) Kapashera New Delhi and after seeing the same, he stated that he had received and handed over it to CBI and the said document is exhibited as Ex.PW56/L. (mode of proof objected to being photocopy). PW56 also identified the copies of his Aadhar Card and voter card as well as copies of Aadhar card and voter card of his wife as Ex.PW56/M and Ex.PW56/N respectively. PW56 stated that he is able to identify the thumb impressions of his wife as she had affixed her thumb impressions in his presence on Ex.PW56/M and Ex. PW56/N and also identified his photograph as well as photograph of his wife on the perpetual lease deed vide Ex.PW56/O. PW56 further deposed that firstly, the perpetual lease deed (Ex.PW56/O) was executed in his name and in the name of his wife by DDA and thereafter, the perpetual lease deed Ex-56/A was executed in the name of Satish. PW56 stated that aforementioned acts were performed by him at the instance of Pramod Garg.
86. PW-59 Shri Megh Raj Verma @ Manish is the employee of accused Pramod Garg. PW59 identified the signature of Shri Bajrang Garg on Ex.PW37/A (Part of D-181). PW59 also explained the relationship between Pramod Garg and Bajrang Garg. PW59 in his evidence was shown applications for preparation of demand drafts/pay orders, dated CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 83 of 308 22.08.2003 and 01.09.2003 but he was unable to identify the handwritings and signature of the person who wrote and signed on the application for preparation of demand drafts/pay orders. PW59 was cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP and he was confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC (Ex.PW59/PX) to the effect that he had identified the handwritings on the said four applications (for issuance of pay orders) which were written in the name of Prem Lata, Himani, Gopal and Sonia. During his evidence, he stated that accused Pramod Garg is the relative of Bajrang Garg and Subhash Gupta as Subhash Gupta is the Brother-in-law (Saala) of Pramod Garg and Bajrang Garg is the Bhanjha (Nephew) of Subhash Gupta.
87. PW-60 Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal, is another employee of accused Pramod Garg. This witness was also examined for identification of the handwriting and signature of accused Pramod Garg on the applications (Ex.PW28/B Colly.) which were submitted for issuance of Pay Orders. That apart PW60 was examined as he had witnessed the undertaking vide Ex. PW15/K3 (undertaking given by the accused Satish to pay differential charges). PW60 deposed that he was working with Pramod Garg in his office at Gupta Properties, situated at Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi and he used to look after the field work i.e. to collect the documents relating to sale and purchase of the properties and also get prepared the documents from Deed Writers in relation to the sale/purchase of the properties. PW60 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 84 of 308 was unable to identify the photograph of accused Satish Kumar pasted on the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H as he has not met him. PW60 identified his signatures on the undertakings vide Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW15/K3 as well as his signatures on the perpetual lease vide Ex.PW56/O. PW60 deposed that he stood a witness to the execution of the said documents i.e. perpetual lease deed and undertakings on the asking of his employer Shri Pramod Garg. PW60 stated that he knew Bajrang Garg as he was relative of Pramod Garg. PW60 further deposed that he also knows Subhash Gupta as he is Brother-in-law (Jeeja) of Pramod Garg. PW60 stated that he does not know Neeru Kumar Gupta. Since this witness did not support his previous statement given during investigation thus, this witness was cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP and during his cross examination his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was brought on record as Ex.PW60/PX but he reiterated his statement made during his examination in chief. PW60 identified accused N.K. Gupta @ Neeru Kumar Gupta, however stated that he does not know the full name of N.K. Gupta. He also stated that he knew Neeru Kumar Gupta through Pramod Garg. PW60 was unable to identify the signatures of accused N.K. Gupta on Ex.PW15/K3.
88. PW-55 Smt. Sunita Suneja is the second purchaser of the plot in question, and she deposed that accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj Goyal had transferred the plot in question to her by virtue of GPA (Ex.PW54/B), SPA CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 85 of 308 (Ex.PW54/C) and agreement to sell (Ex.PW54/C) and thereafter, she had further transferred the plot in question to Mr. Vikram Narang (PW48). PW55 has brought on record the GPA and Agreement to Sell executed by her on 18.05.2005 in favour of Vikram Narang as Ex.PW54/E and Ex.PW54/F. During her evidence, PW55 stated that she is not aware about the person from whom the plot was purchased as she was taken there only for the purpose of executing and signing the documents and she was shown the GPA, SPA and Agreement to Sell (executed by accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Pankaj in her favour and which had already brought on record by PW55 as Ex. PW54/B, Ex.PW54/C and Ex.PW54/D. PW55 deposed that she was only taken for the purposes of execution and signing of the title deeds by her husband Shri Ajay Suneja and she was not allowed to meet anyone. PW55 deposed that she does not know who transferred the property in her favour. PW55 further deposed that she did not make any payment against the plot and she also does not know who made the payment on her behalf. PW55 stated that she does not know who received the payment at the time of execution of sale deed and her husband might be aware of the factum of receiving of the cheque. PW55 stated that she went to the office of Sub Registrar on the instructions of her husband Shri Ajay Suneja. PW55 identified her photograph on Ex.PW54/B and Ex.PW54/D but was unable to identify the photograph of accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Pankaj on Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW54/B. She also CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 86 of 308 deposed that the documents pertain to plot no. 38, Section 12A, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka. There is no cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsels.
89. PW-58 Shri Ajay Suneja, is the husband of PW55 Sunita Suneja to whom the alternate plot was initially transferred by A-3 and A-4 and he deposed that he was attached with Virender Kumar Pardesi @ Raju Pardesi for learning the property business. Raju Pardesi and Mr. Pramod Garg, the owners of Gupta Property, were known to each other as they were in the property business and used to engage in property dealings, however, he did not meet Pramod Garg personally. PW58 further stated that he was present at the time of execution of GPA Ex.PW54/B and SPA Ex.PW54/C at office of Sub Registrar, Kapashera alongwith his wife Sunita. PW58 deposed that Raju Pardesi was instrumental in the said deal and the said documents were executed in favour of a male person. PW58 had involved his wife for executing the said documents for reducing the liability of stamp duty and he had done the same at the instruction of Raju Pardesi. PW58 deposed that there was no money transaction and no amount was paid to his wife Sunita and that the amount for purchase of property in question in the name of his wife was paid by Raju Pardesi. PW58 identified signature of his wife as well as his signature on the agreement to sell Ex.PW54/D. PW58 stated that Vikram Narang had given two self cheques which were encashed by him from the Bank CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 87 of 308 Branch situated at DAV School, Pitampura. PW58 withdrew and handed over the cash amount to Raju Pardesi. PW58 had also identified the photograph of his wife on Ex.PW54/E and Ex.PW53/F. (Ex.PW53/F should have been written as Ex.PW54/F).
90. PW-48 Shri Vikram Narang is the third purchaser of plot no. 38, Sector-12, Pocket A, Dwarka which was alloted and handed over to accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Smt. Pankaj. PW48 stated that he had purchased the said plot from Smt. Sunita Suneja, w/o Shri Ajay Suneja vide Agreement to Sale deed Ex.PW48/B dated 18.05.2005 and PW48 had paid the consideration of Rs.13,25,000/- through four cheques from his bank account i.e. OBC Bank, Pitampura, New Delhi. PW48 also brought on record the relevant entries of his passbook qua encashment of the said cheques vide Ex.PW48/A and deposed that he had taken the original conveyance deed in his name from the DDA on 08.06.2007. PW48 stated that he had sold the said plot for a consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- to Mr. Umed Singh Rana vide sale deed Ex.PW45/A and PW48 had handed over copies of the relevant entries of his original passbook of his OBC bank account, photocopies of both the said sale deeds as well as conveyance deed to the IO which were received vide production-cum-receipt memo Ex.PW48/C. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 88 of 308
91. PW-45 Shri Umed Singh Rana deposed that sale deed in respect of plot no. 38, Sector-12A, Pocket A, Dwarka was executed in his favour on 22.06.2004 by Shri Vikram Narang. PW45 identified his signature and photograph on the sale deed and deposed that in consideration of the plot, he had given him i.e. Vikram Narang, one of his plot at Rohini and an amount of Rs.20 lakhs through cheques bearing no. 760540 for Rs.10.00 lac, cheque no.475060 for Rs.6,50,000/-. PW45 further deposed that the said plot at Rohini was further sold but he does not know the sale consideration. The photocopy of the said deed dated 22.06.2007 is Ex.PW45/A (OSR) (part of D-98). In response to the Court Question, PW45 replied that he has stated an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs from his memory and the amount mentioned in the sale deed is the total sale amount payable by him.
92. PW-49 Shri Vinay Kumar is the son of Shri Bhagwan Singh. His deposition is only relevant for the purposes that his father Shri Bhagwan Singh used to work with one Anand. PW49 identified the handwritings and signature of his father Shri Bhagwan Singh on Ex.PW36/B (D-137) (i.e. application form for preparing of demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/-). PW49 also identified the handwritings of his father Shri Bhagwan Singh on the cheque vide Ex.PW36/A. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 89 of 308
93. PW-11 Shri Mohinder Singh is a practicing Advocate at Tis Hazari Courts. He took the Notary Licence in the year 2000 with registration no. 1783 and deposed that the notary stamp on D-7 bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/L&B(R) (containing page 23/C) is not his Notary stamp. PW11 deposed that he never attested the signature of Satish Kumar (A-2) which are appended at Mark Q-20 and Q-21 vide Ex.PW11/A. Similarly, PW11 deposed about D-7 (containing page 22/C) and stated that he never attested the signature of Satish Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar at Mark Q-17, Q-19 and Q-18 vide Ex.PW11/B. PW11 has further deposed that he had never attested the signatures of Satish Kumar Mark Q-15 and Q-16 in file D-7 which is Ex.PW11/C bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/L&B. PW11 has further deposed that he had never attested the signatures of Satish Kumar Mark at Q-12 and Q-13 and Q-14 in file D-7 which is Ex.PW11/D bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/L&B at page 20/C. PW11 has further deposed that he had never attested the signatures of Satish Kumar Mark at Q-10 and Q-11 in file D-7 which is Ex.PW11/E bearing no. F.27(15)/2003/L&B and bearing page no. 18/C. PW11 has further deposed that he had handed over the document (D-251) vide production cum seizure memo dated 19.12.2015 which is Ex.PW11/F. PW11 has further deposed that the notary register Ex.PW11/G (D-254) for the year 2003 to 2006 from serial no.2510 to 2680 bears his signature at point A. PW11 had also provided the self attested copy of Identity card of Delhi Bar Association, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 90 of 308 copy of which is Ex.PW11/I (D-252) and the copy of Pitampura Bar Association is Ex.PW11/J (D-253). PW11 further deposed that he does not know Satish Kumar and also the witnesses namely Rakesh Kumar and Manoj mentioned in Ex.PW11/B. PW11 further deposed that he never attested the photographs affixed on Ex.PW11/D. PW11 has further deposed about the notary seal after comparing seal on the exhibited documents with the specimen rubber seal. PW11 stated that the word "ATTESTED" on documents is different as he used to write as "A T T E S T E D."
94. PW-40 Shri Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate had attested the coloured photograph of accused Satish (A-3) affixed on the recommendation letter (Ex.PW3/H) issued by DDA. PW40 deposed that in the year 2003, he was practicing as Additional Standing Counsel, Government of India at Tis Hazari Court and he knew Neeru Kumar Gupta who was also a practicing Advocate. PW-40 further stated that he did have official transaction with accused Neeru Kumar Gupta except that he was also an advocate, practicing at Tis Hazari Court. PW40 was shown the recommendation letter bearing No. 001353 (Ex.PW3/H) (part of D-7) pertaining to Satish on which photograph of Satish has been affixed at point X and PW40 identified his signature along with his official seal of Additional Standing Counsel at point D. PW40 deposed that he attested the said photograph on the asking of N.K. Gupta and he further stated that N. K. Gupta had CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 91 of 308 brought only a coloured photograph and told him that he is a poor man and this attested photograph is to be used in pension formalities and he believed him as he was known to him and was an advocate. PW40 further stated that he did not see any credentials of Satish and attested the photograph as an Additional Standing Counsel but not as a gazetted officer. PW40 further stated that Neeru Kumar Gupta, Advocate had come along with a clerk namely Hari. PW40 stated that he cannot recognize or identify Neeru Kumar Gupta due to lapse of time. Thus, on the point of identification of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta, PW40 was cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP. His attention was drawn to portion A to A of his statement Ex.PW40/PX recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW40 deposed that he cannot identify accused Neeru Kumar Gupta even if he was physically present in the court. The witness was asked to look around and identify the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta looked around but refused to identify the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta who was present in the accused gallery.
95. PW-61 Shri Lalit Kumar Mallick @ Lalit Kumar is a Notary Public who has been examined to bring on record the status of the signatures and stamp of notary public appended on certain documents i.e. Ex.PW15/K-2 and Ex.PW15/K-3 which are part of Ex.PW15/A (Ex.PW15/A is the complete file related to the allotment of plot in question}. After seeing the above referred documents, PW61 stated that neither the impression of stamp of notary public belongs to him nor these documents bear his CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 92 of 308 signatures. PW61 was also shown the documents i.e. Page No. 55C to 57C exhibited in evidence as Ex.PW61/A1 to Ex.PW61/A3 and he stated that these documents do not bear his signatures. Regarding the rubber stamp seal, he said that he cannot identify as the same is old. {The said documents are different kinds of undertakings which were allegedly submitted by accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goel with the DDA after they were alloted the alternate plot}. During investigation the register used to be maintained by a Notary public was seized and in this regard, a memo was also prepared. PW61 brought on record the said register as Ex.PW61/A4 and the seizure memo vide which the register was seized as Ex.PW61/B. PW61 also identified the impression of his notary public rubber stamp as well as his signatures which were appended by him in the said register during his regular course of his working. PW61 was shown all the entries made in the said register and he stated that there is no entry in the name of Satish Goyal, Smt. Pankaj Goyal in the said register. He was also shown the photograph of accused Satish Kumar affixed on Ex.PW3/H to which he stated that the said person neither appeared before him for the purposes of attestation nor he knows him.
96. PW-17 Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal is the relative of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta and Satish Kumar and this witness was examined to establish that accused Neeru Kumar Gupta and accused Satish Kumar (A-3) are known to each other and he gave the detailed account of the relationship of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 93 of 308 accused Neeru Kumar and Satish. PW17 deposed that the financial condition of Shri Satish Kumar was good during the year 2002-04.
97. PW18 Amit Naggi proved the death certificate of Ashok Naggi vide Ex.PW18/B which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. PW18 deposed that his father Sh Ashok Kumar Naggi had passed away on 16.01.2008. He stated that his father was a property dealer but he does not know accused Neeru Kumar Gupta and S.S. Malhi.
WITNESSES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT/ BANK/POST OFFICE ETC.
98. PW-19 Shri Jagdish Kumar is the concerned postman who was entrusted with the delivery of letter vide Ex.PW15/A. He deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted at Post office Malviya Nagar Delivery Office as a Postman and he used to distribute the letters in the area of Chirag Delhi. The letter as referred was sent in a white envelope was received back undelivered due to incomplete address. The envelope of the letter vide Ex.PW15/A was exhibited as Ex.PW19/A and he made his endorsement on the envelope which is encircled Point-X in his own handwriting and bearing his signatures at Point-X1.
99. PW-20 Shri Sunil Ranjan Kumar is the witness to the specimen signatures of persons namely Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 94 of 308 Goel. He deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted at Corporate Office of BSNL, Janpath, New Delhi as UDC and he was given written directions by his department for visiting the CBI office on 05.09.2016. During his evidence, PW20 went through all the relevant documents and deposed that he and his colleague Bhupesh Seth (PW25) witnessed the signatures of Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar Goel and he identified the relevant documents i.e. S-19 to S-28 (10 Pages) bearing signatures of Manoj Kumar Mallick Ex.PW20/A (Colly.) and S-29 to S-39 (10 pages) bearing signatures of Rajesh Kumar Goel Ex.PW20/B (Colly.). He identified his signatures which are appended at Point-A on each page of the said document and his colleague Bhupesh Seth at point B.
100. PW-28 Shri Mohan Pal Singh was posted as Manager with Punjab & Sind Bank, G.S. Convent School Branch Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that the account opening form (vide Ex.P-13) relating to account no. 1555 stands in the name Pramod Garg R/o 427, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He identified the photograph of Pramod Garg pasted at Point-X on the said form. He deposed that Shri Naresh, an account holder in the branch had introduced the applicant (Pramod Kumar) for opening the account and the account was opened. He identified 11 pay orders (D-123 to D-133) which were issued from branch and are in the handwriting of PW27 and pay orders are exhibited as Ex. PW28/A (Colly.). PW-28 stated that as per the record, the payment for CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 95 of 308 issuance of pay order was made in cash. All the 11 applications for making pay orders are Ex.PW28/B (Colly.). PW28 was shown the Manager's Cheque Register (D-134) for the period from 21.08.2003 to 31.03.2004. He deposed that the entries against pay order nos. 572 to 575 are on page no. 7 of the Manager's Cheque Register Ex.PW28/C (mark X- 1, X-2, X-3 and X-4). He deposed that the register is maintained in the normal course of business and entries are made accordingly. The entries against pay order nos. 621, 626, 627 at page 11 of the register Ex.PW28/D were identified as mark X-5, X-6 and X-7. The entries against pay order nos. 637 to 640 at page 12 of the register (Ex.PW28/E) have been identified as mark X-8 to X-11. He stated that all the above entries in the Manager's Cheque Register are in the handwriting of PW28 which was initialed by accountant Shri Tejender Singh.
101. PW-29 Shri Sandeep Jain has deposed that during the month of September 2016, he was working as UDC in the office of AERO (Asst. Electoral Registration Officer) (AC-50), Greater Kailash, New Delhi. He deposed that AERO is the custodian of the records and PW 29 was instructed by AERO to visit CBI office on 09.09.2016 in order to submit the documents. He met IO Shri Sanjay Kumar and handed over the documents to him which were seized vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 09.09.2016 Ex.PW29/A (D-163). He submitted the original forwarding letter of AERO dated 09.09.2016 which is Ex.PW29/B (D-
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 96 of 308164). The copy of electoral roll header is Ex.PW29/C (D-165). The copy of page no. 27 of electoral roll no. 036 containing entries, at sl. no. 1211 and 1212 and reflecting the name of the person registered. The voter ID card number specified at point X is Ex.PW29/D (D-166). PW29 was shown last page of electoral roll of part no. 036 which has the summary of total voters in the said part and the copy of same has been attested by AERO Shri R.K. Kanojia at point X and the same is Ex.PW29/E (D-167). PW29 was shown the copy of voter ID card containing name of Smt. Smt. Pankaj (page no. 58/C) from DDA file no. F27(15)/2003/AB(R) (already Ex.PW15/A). After seeing and comparing the entry made in Ex.PW29/D (page 58/C) of DDA file PW-29 deposed that the ID Card in the name of Smt. Smt. Pankaj is an incorrect document and the entry in their record against Ex.PW29/D is the exact and correct recorded entry. He was also shown the copy of voter ID card in the name of one Satish (page no. 59/C) from DDA file no. F27(15)/2003/AB(R) (Ex.PW15/A) and after seeing and comparing the entry made in Ex.PW29/D, PW29 deposed that the page 59/C (ID Card containing name of Satish) of DDA file in the name of Satish is an incorrect document and the entry in their record against Ex.PW29/D is the exact and correct recorded entry.
102. PW-30 Shri Rakesh Kumar Kanaujia was posted at Food and Civil Supplies Department and he was looking after the work of Food Supply Officer (FSO) and he was having additional charge of AERO, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 97 of 308 (AC-50), Greater Kailash, New Delhi. PW29 Sandeep Jain was working under him. He deposed that he instructed PW29 to visit CBI office on 09.09.2016 and to submit the documents. PW29 has deposed more or less on the similar lines of testimony of PW29 and no useful purpose shall be served by repeating the testimony of PW30.
103. PW-33 Shri Gurdeep Singh is an Official of South Indian Bank and he was posted at Dwarka Sector-10 Branch of the said bank. On the instructions of Bank Manager, he had handed over certain documents to the CBI. PW33 has brought on record the letter dated 03.08.2016 (Ex.PW33/A) (D-157) issued by Smt. Ganga Bisht. PW33 deposed that bank does not maintain hard copies of the demand drafts beyond 10 years period as per banking norms. The bank drafts requisitioned by IO were not available as the same were 10 years old and hence the print out of the screen shot of the digital details of the requisitioned record were submitted. The copy of the same has been brought on record as Ex.PW33/B (colly.) (two pages). PW33 further brought on record the print outs of digital copy of the ledger/account of account no. 0398079000000001 INR0398 vide PW33/C and Ex.PW33/D. The said documents relates to the cash deposit entries in the said bank account as well as related to the issuance of two pay orders i.e. pay order no. 496003 of Rs.21,000/- and 250989 of Rs.49,000/- both issued on 05.09.2003 in favour of DDA. PW33 has also brought on record the certificate u/s 65-B CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 98 of 308 of the Indian Evidence Act dated 03.08.2016 (part of D-157) issued by Smt. Ganga Bisht as Ex.PW33/E. The said certificate has been issued qua the said two pay orders. PW33 has further brought on record the certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 issued by Smt. Ganga Bisht as Ex.PW33/F.
104. PW-36 Smt. Shabnam Kaur Raheja is the Manager of PSB Bank at Defence Colony. As per prosecution case, the part payment of Rs.2,45,150/- of the alternate plot was made through a pay order no. 243379 dated 22.08.2003 which was got prepared by accused Gundeep Singh (since discharged) by issuing cheque bearing no. 084528 (from his current account in PSB Bank, Defence Colony) dated 28.02.2003 for Rs.2,45,150/-. PW36 was the Manager of PSB Bank Defence Colony w.e.f. 2002 to 2004 and during the said period the said pay order was issued under her signatures. PW36 has brought on record the aforesaid cheque vide Ex.PW36/A and original application form as Ex.PW36/B and original pay order as Ex.PW36/C. She has also brought on record the original account opening form of accused Gundeep Singh Anand as Ex.PW36/D.
105. PW-43 Shri Gaurav Girdhar was posted as Service and Operation Manager in IDBI Bank, Sri Ganga Nagar Branch from 2010 to 2014. During investigation, Sh Deepak Kumar Lakhotia, Branch Manager CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 99 of 308 handed over all the relevant document of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal vide letter Ex. PW43/A (D-159). Vide said letter he handed over the original documents to the IO i.e. account opening form of Mrs. Smt. Pankaj Goyal dated 20.07.2011 bearing account no. 0356104000050139 at Sri Ganga Nagar Branch. PW43 deposed that he had opened this account and he identified his signature along with official stamp at point X1 to X11. He deposed that Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal had put her signatures on the said account opening form Ex.PW43/B (colly) with a blue colour pencil at point A-3 to A-11. (The photocopy of the same is already on record as Ex.P-6 (part of D-160). He further deposed that Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal was a teacher, Nosegay Public School, Sri Ganga Nagar and her introducer was Nymphea Suden Reddy, Principal, Nosegay Public School and Papinder Singh, Chairman, Nosegay Public School, Sri Ganga Nagar. He further deposed that Smt. Smt. Pankaj also submitted the copy of her Pan Card (Ex.PW43/C) (D-160) which was duly identified by the bank officer Shri Suresh Manglani. He identified the signature of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal at Point-A on said copy of Pan Card. The statement of account of the above said account number for the period 11.10.2011 to 13.05.2016 is Ex.P7.
106. PW-23 Shri Prakash Chand was posted at the office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri as Class-IV employee during the month November 2016. He deposed that on the instructions of Shri Jagdev Singh (Sub CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 100 of 308 Registrar) (vide letter Ex.PW23/A), he visited CBI office on 05.11.2016 and met IO Shri Sanjay Kumar. He took original document bearing registration no. 19104, book no. 1 pages 46 to 54 volume no. 11297 dated 30.12.2003. The seizure memo (Ex.PW23/B) of the documents was prepared by Insp. Sanjay Kumar and it bears his signature at point A. He deposed that vide this seizure memo, the original office copy of Agreement to Sell dated 30.12.2003 executed by Shri Mange Ram and Smt. Rajwati in favour of Shri Gundeep Singh Anand were seized and the said documents are Ex.PW 23/C.
107. PW-35 Shri Anil Kumar Singh is the cashier from the office of Sub-Registrar-07, Vikas Sadan, DDA. He handed over perpetual lease deed dated 08.12.2003 (Ex.PW32/F) in the joint name of Shri Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj pertaining to plot no. 38, Sector-12A, Dwarka to CBI vide production cum seizure memo dated 30.06.2016 Ex.PW35/A (D-86) vide which the said lease deed was seized by CBI.
108. PW-54 Shri Sandeep Kumar is an official of the Office of Sub- Registrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi and he deposed that he provided certain documents to CBI on the direction of Sub-Registrar vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW54/A (Colly). PW54 handed over the documents i.e. GPA bearing registration no. 8549, in book no. 4, Vol. No. 532 pasted on page no. 38 to 40 (total 3 sheets) (Ex.PW54/B - D-89), CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 101 of 308 SPA bearing registration no. 8550, in book no. 4, vol no. 532 pasted on page no. 41 to 42 (total two sheets) (Ex.PW54/C - D90), Agreement to Sell dated 08.12.2003 bearing registration on 8450, in book no. 1, vol no. 1195, pasted on page no. 104 to 110 (total 7 sheets) (Ex.PW54/D - D-91) executed by Satish S/o Shri Hemraj in favour of Smt. Sunita Suneja W/o Shri Ajay Suneja and GPA dated 18.05.2005 executed by Smt. Sunita Suneja in favour of Shri Vikram Narang vide registration no. 4929, in book no. 4, vol. no. 774, pasted on page no. 198 to 200 (total three sheets) Ex.PW54/E (D-92) and agreement to sell executed by Smt. Sunita Suneja in favour of Shri Vikram Narang dated 18.05.2005 vide registration no. 7410 Book no. I vol 2058 pasted 152 to 166 (total 15 sheets) (Ex.PW54/F - D-93) as mentioned in the production-cum- seizure memo dated 30.06.2016. He also deposed that both the aforementioned sets of title transfer documents were related to plot no. 38, Sector 12A, Dwarka Residential Scheme Dwarka against the registration number.
109. The plot no. 38, Sector 12A, Dwarka Residential Scheme Dwarka, New Delhi alloted to Satish and Smt. Pankaj was disposed of by them to Smt. Sunita Suneja who further sold it to Shri Vikram Narang and thereafter Vikram Narang sold the said plot to Shri Umed Singh Rana by virtue of Sale Deed Ex.PW34/B. PW34 Satender Kumar is the E- Registrar of Kapashera who had tendered the sale deed executed by Shri CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 102 of 308 Vikram Narang in fovour of Shri Umed Singh Rana which was seized by the IO vide Ex.PW34/A.
110. PW-65 Shri Khem Chand Sharma is the Kanoongo who was posted in the Office of Land Acquisition Collector, situated at South-East District, Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. During his evidence, PW65 brought on record the production-cum-seizure memo dated 03.08.2016 vide Ex.PW65/A. Vide this memo, PW65 had handed over the documents to Insp. Sanjay Kumar IO of the case. PW65 also brought on record the letter dated 03.08.2016 of Dr. Navlendra Kumar Singh, LAC (SE) vide Ex.PW65/B (D-54). This witness was further shown certified copy of award no.2059 dated 24.01.1968 containing list of 109 claimants in English (11 sheets) (D-55), certified copy of Kabja Karyavahi dated 28.03.1968 in Urdu (D-56) and its translated version in Hindi (D-57), certified copy of Urdu and Hindi of Naksha Muntazamin. After seeing the said documents, PW65 stated that he had certified the copies pertaining to the abovesaid award no.2059 of village Bahapur (D- 58 & D-59) alongwith the order dated 13.08.1968 for award of compensation alongwith translated copy of Naksha Muntazamin. He had certified the copies of award no. 2059, photocopy of Kabja Karyavahi and Naksha Muntazamin pertaining to award no. 2059, Village Bahapur. PW65 brought the aforesaid documents on record vide Ex.PW65/C to Ex.PW65/E (D-55 to D-56 & D-58) respectively. The witness was further CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 103 of 308 shown the letter dated 21.12.2016 of Shri Rajeev Singh, the then LAC (SE), which has been brought on record by PW65 as Ex.PW65/B. He deposed that the said letter was addressed to Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Unit VI/AC-II, CBI. Vide this letter, the then LAC informed the IO of CBI that no record regarding sending and forwarding verification report of Land & Building Department pertaining to Shri Satish S/o Late Shri Hemraj is available in LAC Branch of this district.
111. PW-39 Shri Pratik Jawkar witnessed the search and seizure conducted on 22.06.2016 at the residential premises of accused Satish Kumar. PW-39 deposed that in the month of June 2016 he was posted at SBBJ (now known as SBI after being merged), Public Park Branch, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and on 22.06.2016, he had accompanied the CBI official at Sri Ganga Nagar on the instructions of Branch Manager. He deposed that he was called at the said Branch at about 5.00AM, where three CBI officials were already present alongwith one lady Constable alongwith SBBJ official namely Shri Nathu Lal. He deposed that CBI Officials went to the house and search was made and documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/A. PW39 further deposed that in token, he had put his initials on all the documents seized from there and the documents were brought into record vide Ex.PW39/B (Colly. - 104 pages) bearing his signature at Point "A".
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 104 of 308112. PW-41 Shri Chhotu Ram was a Ration Card Incharge from the year 2012 to 2016. During investigation, he had provided the original register of the card holders and particulars of their family members and also of the details of deletion etc. on the directions of Sh Naresh Kumar, Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Sri Karanpur. The said register as well as the letter Ex.PW41/B (by virtue of which PW41 was directed to provide the requisite record to CBI was seized by the IO vide Ex.PW41/A. PW41 has brought on record the seizure memo as well as the said letter. He deposed that the entries in the said register (Ex.P11) are in his handwriting and when his attention was drawn towards entry no.106, he stated that the name of Darshana Devi w/o Shri Hem Raj and the other members shown against this entry are Seema Rani d/o Shri Hem Raj and Satish Kumar s/o Shri Hem Raj and the address given is 89 B, Sri Karanpur, Rajasthan, Ward No. 16B. He was shown the ration card of Darshana Devi bearing card no. 4828, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan already Ex.P5 to which he stated that this is a duplicate ration card.
113. PW-42 Shri Mohan Lal Sharma is the concerned postman who was entrusted with the delivery of letter Ex.PW14/C. The said letter was sent through speed post and the envelope of this letter has been brought on record as Ex.PW15/C. He deposed that he was working as a Postman and distributing daak in Shri Karanpur, District Shri Ganga Nagar, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 105 of 308 Rajasthan during the year from 2002 to 2003. He was shown the envelope Ex.PW15/C and after seeing the same he deposed that he had received the same for delivery to Shri Satish Kumar, S/o Shri Hem Raj, Karanpura, Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. PW42 visited at the given address and found that the address was not complete and made an endorsement on the said envelop at Point-X. PW42 further deposed that he made inquiries from the neighborhood and on inquiry, it was revealed that there were two persons with the name of Satish Kumar and they were also having the same father's name i.e. Shri Hem Raj and thus, he returned the said daak as it was having incomplete address.
114. PW44 Shri Ashok Kumar is another officer of Punjab & Sind Bank, Defence Colony who remained posted there from August 2001 to August 2004. The pay order Ex.PW36/C was prepared during his tenure which bears his signatures as well signatures of PW36. PW44 has deposed more or less same as deposed by PW36 regarding the request letter dated 22.08.2021 Ex.PW36/B (D-137) of Gundeep Singh Anand for preparation of pay order for amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- through cheque bearing no. 084520 dated 22.08.2003 Ex.PW36/A. He also deposed about preparation of pay order Ex.PW36/C.
115. PW-47 Shri Satish Kakkar was the manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi from 1991 to 1996 and during CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 106 of 308 his tenure he had allowed opening of bank account no. bearing no. 1912 (old no.) 18912 (new no.) in the name of Shri Gundeep Singh Anand, S/o Shri Harvinder Pal Singh Anand (since discharged). PW47 has brought on record the account opening form (dated 23.06.1992) pertaining to the said bank account as Ex.PW47/A.
116. PW-50 Shri Ajay Kumar Singh was working as Senior Manager in Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, INA Branch, New Delhi. During investigation, in the month of July 2016, he had provided the account statements (of the relevant period) of the bank account of 'DDAHSS'. He has brought on record five statements of the said accounts and same have been exhibited as Ex.PW50/C, Ex.PW50/E, Ex.PW50/G, Ex.PW50/I and Ex.PW50/K. PW50 also brought on record the certificates under section 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act which were signed by him vide Ex.PW50/B, Ex.PW50/D, Ex.PW50/F, PW50/H, PW50/J. PW 50 has also brought on record the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which he had issued in respect to the said digital record and the same has been brought on record Ex.PW50/A. PW50 handed over all the documents by a forwarding letter Ex.PW50/1 and he handed over all these document vide production cum receipt memo dated 14.07.2016 Ex.PW50/L. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 107 of 308
117. PW-62 Smt. Chanchal Khanna was posted as Manager at Punjab & Sind bank, Meera Bagh Branch. During investigation certain documents were got verified by the CBI from this witness. PW 62 was examined to bring on record several documents which were submitted by her with the CBI during investigation. As per prosecution case, the 11 pay orders bearing no. 273594, 273595, 273596, 273597, 273644, 273649, 273650, 273660, 273661, 273662, 273663 were issued by the Punjab and Sind bank on the basis of the pay in slips (Ex. PW28/B) (colly) which were written by accused Pramod Garg. All these pay-in-slips were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW28/A. In this regard PW62 brought on record the MC Register (Managers Cheque Register) (Ex.PW62/A). After going through the said register witness stated that the entry regarding pay orders are at page no. 7 Ex.PW28/C, at page no. 11 Ex.PW28/D and at page no. 12 Ex.PW28/E of the register. She further stated that all the pay orders were prepared on cash payment which was made by the applicant as reflected in the pay-in-slips. In her further evidence, she brought on record the production cum receipt memo Ex.PW62/B and stated that vide this memo, she handed over the documents i.e. pay orders, pay in slips and MC Register. She further brought on record another production-cum-receipt memo dated 23.09.2016 (Ex.PW62/C). Vide this memo, witness handed over the document i.e. account opening form of account no. 1555 of Pramod Garg Ex.P-13 (D-144), statement of account Ex.P-14 (D-145) and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 108 of 308 also the certificate u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act given in support of the documents handed over by her through the above said memo. She deposed that these two certificates were issued by her and she identified her signatures at Point-A on Ex.PW 62/D and Ex.PW62/E. PW62 further brought on record another production-cum-receipt memo dated 10.10.2016 (Ex.PW62/F). Vide this memo, she also handed over the production cum seizure memo Mark-X.
118. PW-53 was authorized by Shri Sandeep Gaur, EO/DSO to produce and submit the documents, details of the family members of accused Satish Kumar Goyal which were specified in production cum receipt memo and which was brought on record as Ex.PW53/A. PW 53 also brought on record a letter (Ex.PW 53/B) by virtue of which he was authorized to submit the document mentioned in production-cum-receipt memo. He has further brought on record the letter Ex.PW53/C (Colly) alongwith which the copy of ration card of accused Satish was submitted. PW 53 further deposed that he along with letter dated 23.09.2016/Ex.PW53/A (it seems that during evidence the exhibit number of this letter is mentioned as Ex.PW53/A though actually on the said letter has been marked as Mark PW53/1(Colly). The said letter ought to have been given a subsequent exhibit number i.e. Ex.PW53/D thus, for the purpose of reference this document will be read as Ex.PW53/D). PW 53 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 109 of 308 identified the original ration card of accused Satish Kumar Goyal pertaining to the period 2001-2010 which was already Ex.P-5.
WITNESSES FROM THE CFSL.
119. PW-68 Ms. Alka Gupta is a Senior Scientific Assistant from the document division of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, New Delhi. She examined the purported writings of accused S.S. Malhi and Badrul Islam alongwith specimen writings of these accused persons for expert opinion. PW68 examined some of the documents, and furnished her report vide Ex PW-68/A and deposed that she received forwarding letter from SP, CBI , ACU-VI, AC-II, New Delhi dated 06.01.2017 on 06.01.2017 through Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi alongwith questioned documents marked Q-173 to Q-176 and specimen documents marked from S-180 to S-195 qua which she gave her opinion on 07.02.2017 (vide case no. CFSL 2017/D-0018) which runs in four pages. The said report was forwarded by Shri N. Ravi, Director through forwarding letter Ex.PW68/B. In regard to the specimen and questioned documents, PW68 stated that she compared the questioned documents and specimen documents with the help of scientific aids and by applying the principles of handwriting examinations and furnished the following opinion:-
(i) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen writings marked S-180 to S-189 attributed to Swarn CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 110 of 308 Singh Malhi being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q-173 and Q-174.
(ii) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen writing marked S-190 to S-195 attributed to Badrul Islam being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q-175 and Q-176.
120. PW-69 Shri Prashant Sharma is another Scientific Expert. He was also assigned certain documents for providing his expert opinion in respect of the handwriting on the questioned and specimen documents, pertaining to accused Badrul Islam, Satish Kumar Goyal, Rajesh Kumar Goel, Smt. Pankaj Goyal and Pramod Garg. PW69 deposed that the documents (questioned and standard) of case RC No. 217-2016 (A)0012/ACU-VI/AC- II, CBI, New Delhi were forwarded through SP, CBI, ACU-VI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi in CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and PW69 scientifically examined and compared the documents marked Q-1 to Q-86, Q-88 to Q-94, Q-96, Q-98, Q-100 to Q-107, Q-110 to Q-137 and Q-140 to Q-172 and S-1 to S-163, A-1 to A-16 with the help of various scientific instruments available in laboratory and applied the principles of handwriting examination and gave his opinion/report no. CFSL 2016/D- 1309 dated 27.01.2017 vide Ex.PW69/A (13 pages) and same was CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 111 of 308 forwarded through in-charge Director Shri N. Ravi to CBI, vide forwarding letter Ex.PW69/B. The report provided by PW69 is as follows:-
(i) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the standard English signatures marked S-1 to S-8 and A-1 and A-
2 attributed to Badrul Islam being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signatures marked Q-1 to Q-6 and Q-9.
(ii) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-9 to S-18 attributed to Swarn Singh Mahli being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings marked Q-7 (reproduced copy) and Q-8.
(iii) The questioned signature marked Q-10 to Q-17, Q- 20 to Q-22, Q-24, Q-28 to Q-34, Q-36, Q-37, Q-39, Q-41,Q- 43, Q-46, Q-48 to Q-51, Q-54, Q-56, Q-58, Q-60, Q-62, Q-64 to Q-66, Q-70 to Q-74, Q-76, Q-77, Q-79, Q-81, Q-83 to Q- 85, Q-89, Q-91, Q-92, Q-94, Q-96, Q-101, Q-103, Q-105 to Q- 107, Q-112, Q-114, Q-116, Q-118, Q-119, Q-121, Q-123, Q- 125, Q-127, Q-129, Q-131, Q-133, Q-135, Q-136, Q-140 to Q- 143 were compared with the standard signatures marked S-52 to S-59, S-70 to S-76 and A-12 attributed to Satish Kumar Goyal and specimen signatures marked S-44 to S-51 attributed to Neeru Kumar Gupta. It has been felt necessary to have ample number of admittedly genuine signatures of the contemporary period written during normal course of business of actual person alongwith a few more sheets of specimen signatures containing similar comparable material as that of the questioned ones of the actual and suspect persons to arrive at any opinion.
(iv) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the standard English Signatures marked S-29 to S-38 and A-13 to A-16 attributed to Rajesh Kumar Goyal being the person CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 112 of 308 responsible for writing the questioned English signatures marked Q-19 and Q-23.
(v) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the standard English signatures marked S-60 to S-69 and A-3 to A- 11 attributed to Smt. Pankaj Goyal being the person responsible for writing the questioned English signatures marked Q-26, Q-27, Q-35, Q-38, Q-40, Q-42, Q-44, Q-45, Q- 47, Q-52, Q-53, Q-55, Q-57, Q-59, Q-61, Q-63, Q-67 to Q-69, Q-75, Q-82, Q-86, Q-88, Q-90, Q-93, Q-98, Q-100, Q-102, Q- 104, Q-110, Q-111, Q-113, Q-115, Q-117, Q-120, Q-122, Q- 124, Q-126, Q-128, Q-130, Q-132, Q-134 and Q-137.
(vi) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings and signatures and Hindi signatures marked S-105 to S-151 and S-156 to S-159 attributed to Pramod Garg being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings and signatures and Hindi signatures marked Q-146 to Q-148, Q-151 to Q-155, Q-157 to Q-161 and Q-163 to Q-167.
121. PW-70 Shri Harender Prasad was working as Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-I, Finger Print Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. PW 70 states that vide forwarding letter dated 07.11.2016 PW 70 received the questioned documents and specimen documents on 15.02.2017 through document division of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, forwarded by the SP, CBI, ACU- VI/AC-II, New Delhi. PW 70 examined the questioned documents bearing thumb and finger print impressions detailed in his report dated 07.06.2017 vide Ex. PW70/A duly signed by him. PW 70 forwarded his report alongwith letter dated 20.06.2017, which was sent under signatures of Dr. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 113 of 308 N.Ravi, the then Incharge Director, CFSL, New Delhi and he identified the signatures of Dr. N. Ravi at point A in forwarding letter vide Ex.PW70/B and he had affixed his official seal on each questioned and specimen documents.
122. PW70 in his report vide Ex. PW70/A (colly) stated that the questioned thumb/finger print impressions on the GPA and SPA dated 08.12.2003, Original Perpetual lease deed dated 08.12.2003, specien fingerprint/palm print impressions of Smt. Pankaj Goyal marked S-164 to S-171 and Specimen fingerprint/palm print impressesions of accused Satish Kumar Goyal marked S-172 to S-179 were attributed to accused Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal.
123. PW70 vide forwarding letter Ex.PW70/B forwarded his report alongwith letter dated 20.06.2017, under the signatures of Dr. N.Ravi, the then Incharge Director, CFSL, New Delhi and he identified the signatures of Dr. N. Ravi at point A on the forwarding letter vide Ex.PW70/B.
124. Dr. Rajendra Singh knew Sh. Mangesh Kumar as he was the Senior Scientific Office, Grd. II (Finger Print) and was posted in CFSL, Delhi and later expired due to Covid. On being shown letter Ex. PW72/A (OSR) dated 12.02.2016 (part of D-266 in RC 04A/2015), PW70 identified his CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 114 of 308 signatures at Point A and vide this letter report of Sh. Mangesh Kumar was forwarded to SP, CBI carrying CFSL Report No. CFSL-2015/A-1736 dated 09.02.2016 as annexure. PW 72 also identified the report dated 09.02.2016 Ex. PW72/B (OSR) (Colly, 16 pages) as well as letter dated 12.02.2016 Ex. PW72/A. PW 72 identified the signatures of Sh. Mangesh Kumar as he was working under him and he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
125. PW72 Dr. Rajendra Singh vide his forwarding letter Ex. PW72/A has forwarded the report i.e. Ex. PW72/B (Finger Print Examination Report) to the Supt. Of Police CBI/ACU-VI, ACC-II. (the same relates to other case in RC 04A/2015).
126. PW73 Shri Vijay Verma, Sr. Scientific Officer-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, Delhi deposed that documents of the present case i.e. RC No. 2172012A003/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi were forwarded to Director, CFSL vide letter memo No. 15085/2172014A003/ACU- VI/New Delhi dated 08.12.2016 by SP, CBI and through this letter the questioned documents marked as Q1 to Q21, specimen documents marked as S1 to S16 and admitted documents marked as A1 to A6 were received. He further deposed that specimen signature S17 to S22 and admitted signatures A7 to A17 were received vide letter no.
1098/2172014A003/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi dated 02.03.2015. PW73 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 115 of 308 proved the office copy of these letters vide Ex.PW73/A. PW73 stated that he had examined carefully and thoroughly the questioned documents with the standards supplied and express his opinion in the form of report bearing no. CFSL2014/D-1714 dated 27.03.2015 and the original report was sent to CBI through forwarding letter dated 31.03.2015 under the signature of the then Director Dr. Rajender Singh and PW73 identified signature of Dr. Rajender Singh on the forwarding letter, copy of which is part of D-207. The original of this forwarding letter as well as aforesaid CFSL report dated 27.03.2015 is in the file of case CC No. 265/2019 (RC No. 217/2014/A0003/ACU-VI/CBI, New Delhi, and photocopies of the forwarding letter as well as report is placed in the file of the present case as D-207. Alongwith the CFSL report, there are original specimen signatures of Smt. Sheela Devi in the said file of CC No. 265/2019 and these specimen signatures S5 to S8 were amongst the other specimen signature of other persons were sent to CFSL for examination, and photocopies of the same are part of D-206 in the present case. These photocopies are the same as the original in the aforesaid CC No. 265/2019. PW73 stated that he had examined these specimen signatures alongwith other specimen signatures as well as the questioned documents Q2 to Q19 pertaining to Smt. Sheela Devi were also examined and thereafter PW73 rendered his aforesaid opinion number CFSL 2014/D-1714 dated 27.03.2015. PW73 deposed that the forwarding letter through which CFSL report was sent to CBI, his CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 116 of 308 opinion dated 27.03.2015, specimen signature of Smt. Sheela Devi are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW73/B. PW73 stated that Q2 to Q19 (D-205) have already been exhibited as Ex.PW10/A (Colly - 18 pages). PW73 stated that in his report, the opinion qua the specimen signature and questioned signature of Smt. Sheela Devi is at Opinion No. 3 of the Point No. 7 (Result of Examination). PW73 deposed that in the Point No. 3, it has been inadvertently mentioned that S-9 which ought to have been S-8 and PW73 corrected the same in his office copy. PW73 stated that he had also stated this fact in the said CC No. 265/2019, the photocpy of office copy of the said corrected report is placed on record as Ex.PW73/C. PW73 stated that his reports (Ex.PW73/C and part of Ex.PW73/B(Colly) bears his signature at Point-A. PW73 stated that the opinion qua the signatures of Smt. Sheela Devi in the questioned document Ex.PW10/A (Colly) after comparing is as under :
"The questioned English initials marked Q2 to Q19 shows inconsistency with the specimen English Mark S5 to S8 attributed to Sheela Devi which indicate their different authorship."
WITNESSES FROM THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY.
127. PW-71 Shri Sanjay Kumar is the IO of the present case registered on 20.06.2016. After receiving the copy of the FIR, PW71 filed the application under section 93 Cr.PC for conducting search. PW71 has CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 117 of 308 brought on record the copy of FIR and the Application under section 93 Cr.PC as Ex.PW71/A, Ex.PW71/B and also the order passed by the Court on the aforesaid application as Ex.PW71/C. PW71 further deposed that on receipt of the said orders, he conducted the search at the house of Satish Kumar at Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. One lady constable of local police was present during search as an independent witness. Accused Smt. Pankaj Goyal i.e. wife of the accused Satish was also present. PW71 also stated that SI Neeraj Mallick and Head Constable Sudesh Kumar were also present. PW71 has brought on record the search papers and seizure as Ex.PW71/D and deposed that during the search he had collected the identity proof of accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Pankaj Goyal, the documents pertaining to financial transactions such as bank records of both above named accused. PW71 stated that SI Neeraj Kumar prepared the search list (Ex.PW39/A) under his directions and signatures of other persons including Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal were also taken and the same were appended on search and seizure memo Ex.PW71/D. PW71 further brought on record the application which was filed by him before Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for taking over unrelied/relied documents in case RC No. 12(A)/16, which were seized in RC 3 and 4 (A)/2015. PW71 has brought on record the aforesaid application vide Ex.PW71/E and the order of the Court by virtue of which the said application was allowed as Ex.P1 (admitted document) in RC CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 118 of 308 3(A)/15 and further Order of the Court in case RC No. 4(A)/15 is Ex. P-2 (D-6) (Admitted document). PW71 had collected the file Ex.PW15/A (D-7) on the basis of above said orders of the Court. PW71 had also collected the documents from Shri Dinesh Singh, Office Superintendent, Land and Building Department, GNCT Delhi vide memo dated 14.10.2015 (Ex.PW51/B) which were seized in case RC No. 4(A)/15 and were placed along with the charge-sheet in this case. The documents which were collected by PW71 during investigation are as under :-
(a) The document vide memo dated 29.07.2016 (Ex.
PW3/A) from Baidyanath Jha, UDC, EP Cell, Land & Building Department, GNCT of Delhi. Further, he had collected documents vide memo dated 14.09.2016 Ex.PW66/H from Chhatarpal, LSB (RESDL), DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
(b) The documents vide memo dated 24.10.2016 (Ex.PW66/I - D-71) from Chhatarpal, AD, LSB (RESDL), DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Vide this memo, he had collected the DDA File (D-73) as (Ex.PW 71/F) the entire file contains 27 pages of note sheet portion and 122 pages of correspondence portion. Further, the letter dated 24.10.2016 of Deputy Director (LA), Resdl, vide this letter forwarded the above said file Ex.PW71/F (D-73), which he had received vide Ex.PW71/G (D-
72).
(c) The production-cum-receipt memo Ex.PW56/D (D-
74). Vide this memo he had collected the documents mentioned therein from Mr. Narayan Singh.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 119 of 308(d) The letter dated 15.07.2016 of Director (Plg), Dwk which was received by him on 19.07.2016 as (Ex. PW71/H - D-
74).
(e) The documents mentioned in the production cum
seizure memo dated 30.06.2016 (Ex.PW35/A - D-86).
(f) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
19.10.2016 as (Ex. PW8/B - D-42).
(g) The file from Central Record Room, Land & Building
Department (D-44), total 146 pages from H.S. Kaim as (Ex. PW71/I).
(h) The file from Central Record Room (L&B
Department) from H.S. Kaim as (Ex. PW71/J - D-45).
(i) File from Central Record Room (L&B Department)
from H.S. Kaim as (Ex. PW71/K - D-46).
(j) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
19.07.2016 (Ex. PW2/A - D-32).
(k) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
27.07.2016 (Ex. PW2/E - D-37).
(l) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
03.08.2016 as Ex. PW13/A (D-47).
(m) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
03.08.2016 as Ex. PW65/A (D-53).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 120 of 308
(n) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
03.08.2016 as Ex. PW66/A (D-60).
(o) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
12.10.2015 as Ex. PW24/A (D-69).
(p) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
03.06.2016 as Ex.PW54/A (D-88).
(q) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
16.08.2016 as Ex.PW34/A (D-94).
(r) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
05.11.2016 as Ex.PW23/B (D-96).
(s) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
07.11.2016 Ex.PW71/L (D-98).
(t) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
14.07.2016 Ex.P-1/2 (D-104).
(u) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
14.07.2016 Ex.PW50/L (D-109).
(v) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
16.08.2016 Ex.PW62/B (D-122).
(w) The documents mentioned in the letter dated
26.08.2016 (Ex.PW71/M - D-135). He had received this letter on 29.08.2016 and in token of the receipt of the same. He appended his signatures and made an endorsement at point A. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 121 of 308
(x) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 23.09.2016 Ex.PW71/N (D-140) from Gerald Ratnakar Toppo.
(y) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 16.08.2016 Ex.PW62/B (D-122) and the documents mentioned in the memo dated 23.09.2016 Ex.PW62/C (D-143) From Smt. Chanchal Khanna.
(z) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
12.09.2016 Ex.PW71/O (D-148) from N.R. Hari.
(aa) The documents mentioned in the memo dated
20.09.2016 Ex.PW71/P (D-154).
(bb) The documents mentioned in the letter dated
30.08.2016 Ex.PW33/A (D-157) of South Indian Bank pertaining to DD no. 250989 issued in favour of DDA. He had received this letter on 29.08.2016.
(cc) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 31.08.2016 Ex.P-1/3 (D-158) (Admitted) that documents pertain to Account Opening form of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal, at IDBI Bank the Account no. is 0356104000050139, and also the certificate collected U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the documents and statement of accounts pertaining to above account.
(dd) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 09.09.2016 Ex.PW29/A (D-122) from Sandeep Jain, AERO (AC) 50, GK, New Delhi, the documents are attested copy of electoral role of AC, 08, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and also attested copies of page no. 27, part no. 036 of electoral role AC, 008, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 122 of 308 Malviya Nagar and summary sheet of the said Assembly Constituency of Malviya Nagar.
(ee) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 03.10.2016 Ex. P-1/1 (D-171) from Ankush Nagpal, helper employee, Nagarpalika, Padampur, Rajhasthan, the documents pertains to the copy of Ration Card of Shri Satish Kumar Goyal, S/o Shri Hemraj Goyal.
(ff) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 04.10.2016 Ex.PW41/A (D-173), from Chotu Ram, Fireman, O/o Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Sri Karan Pur, Ganga Nagar, Rajhasthan, the documents pertains to the copy of Ration Card Register for the year 1996-1997 for ward no. 16 Shri Karan Pur, Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajhasthan.
(gg) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 03.10.2016 Ex.PW53/A (D-176), from Ramesh Kumar, UDC, O/o DSO, Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajhasthan. The documents pertain to weeding out of record up to June 2014 regarding Ration Card Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajhasthan and computer downloaded e-Copy of Ration Card of Shri Satish Kumar.
(hh) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 05.09.2016 Ex.PW71/Q (D-181) pertains to the receipt of 04 pay orders in favour of DDA signed by Bajrang Garg.
(ii) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 14.09.2016 Ex.PW71/R (D-187) pertains to the copy of nine agreements to sell in the name of Gundeep Singh Anand pertaining to properties at Dwarka mentioned in the memo.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 123 of 308(jj) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 14.09.2016 Ex.PW71/S (D-183) i.e. pertains to the death certificate of Shri Bhagwan Singh, copy of Ration Card no. 583497 of Bhagwan Singh and copy of SB Acc. Of bearing no. 8351 of Bhagwan Singh.
(kk) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 05.11.2016 Ex.PW18/A (D-190) pertains to the death certificate No. 128423 of Shri Ashok Naggi from Amit Naggi.
(ll) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 04.10..2016 Ex.PW48/C (D-192) pertains to the SB Account Passbook bearing no. 50232010043980 of Shri Vikram Narang, copy of agreement to sell executed between Sunita Suneja and Shri Vikram Narang in respect to property Plot No. 38, Sector 12, Pocket A, Dwarka, copy of sale deed executed between Vikram Narang and Umed Singh Rana in respect of the above said property and copy of conveyance deed in the name of Vikram Narang in respect of above said property from Vikram Narang.
(mm) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 04.10.2016 Ex.PW45/B (D-197) pertains to the copy of five challans (4th copy), copy of allotment cum demand letter, copy of possession slip, copies of chain of documents (perpetual deeds, GPA/SPA/Agreement to sell, copy of sale deed from the name of Vikram Narang in favour of Shri Umed Singh Rana from Umed Singh Rana. Further, he handed over the above said documents to Shri Umed Singh Rana vide Supurdaginama dated 14.10.2016 Ex.PW45/C. (nn) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 04.11.2016 Ex.PW61/B (D-200) pertains to the one original CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 124 of 308 register captioned UPPAL of Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate from ShriLalit Kumar.
(oo) The documents mentioned in the memo dated 06.10.2016 Ex.PW71/T (D-203) pertains to the seizure of documents from Shri N.V. Navaneethakrisnan, Deputy SP who seized the documents from SS Malhi in case RC No. 3 (A)/14, copy of original charge report by SS Malhi, UDC, Land & Building, copy of forwarding letter of SP, CBI addressed to Director, CFSL vide which SP, CBI forwarded the questioned documents and the copy of letter of Director, CFSL alongwith the expert opinion from Shri N.V. Navaneethakrisnan. The production cum seizure memo dated 10.10.2014 in case RC No. 3 (A)/14. During Evidence of PW71 the case file containing the original production-cum-seizure memo of Ex.PW71/T was summoned from the Court of Shri Ajay Gulati, Ld. Special Judge, CBI where the proceedings in connection with RC NO. 3 (A)/14 (the case file in which the original of the said document was filed) were pending. Thus, after production of original production cum seizure memo the said document was given another exhibit number i.e. Ex.PW71/S-1 (OSR).
Further during the evidence of PW71 the original Charge report of SS Malhi which was also filed in the case RC 3 (A)/14 was also produced and it was specified that the photocopy of the same is already Ex. PW10/A (Colly - D-205).
(qq) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Badrul Islam on 22.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Mukesh Rawat, Clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-1 to S-8. He also obtained the signature of accused Badrul Islam, (now CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 125 of 308 Expired) the specimen signature/initial/writings are exhibited as Ex. PW4/A(Colly - D210).
(rr) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Badrul Islam (seems name of accused Badrul Islam is mentioned instead of accused S.S. Malhi) on 22.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Mukesh Rawat, Clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-9 to S-18 and he also obtained the signature of accused S.S. Malhi the specimen are Ex.PW4/B (Colly) (D-211).
(ss) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of Manoj Kumar Mallick on 05.09.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Bhupesh Seth, Senior TOA, BSNL and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-19 to S-28 and also obtained the signature of Manoj Kumar Mallick the specimen are Ex.PW20/A (Colly - D-212).
(tt) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of Rajesh Kumar Goyal on 05.09.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Bhupesh Seth, Senior TOA, BSNL and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-29 to S-38 and also obtained the signature of Rajesh Kumar Goyal the specimen are Ex.PW20/B (Colly - D-213).
(uu) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta on 22.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Mukesh Rawat, Clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 126 of 308 pencil as S-39 to S-51 and also obtained the signature of Neeru Kumar Gupta the specimen are Ex.PW4/C(colly) (D-214).
(vv) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Satish Kumar Goyal on 05.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Pratul Kumar Mishra, Clerk, BOI, CJO Complex, New Delhi and Yogendra Kumar Gautam, Marketing Manager, BOI and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-52 to S-59, S-70 to S-83 and also obtained the signature of Satish Kumar Goyal the specimen are Ex.PW1/A (Colly - D-215) and Ex.PW1/B (D-215).
(ww) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal on 05.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Pratul Kumar Mishra, Clerk, BOI, CGO Complex, New Delhi and Yogendra Kumar Gautam, Marketing Manager, BOI and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-60 to S-69 and also obtained the signature of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal the specimen as Ex.PW1/C (D-216).
(xx) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of Bajrang Garg on 05.09.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witnesses Bhupesh Seth, Senior TOA, BSNL and Sunil Ranjan Kumar, UDC, BSNL and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-84 to S-94 and also obtained the signature of Bajrang Garg the specimen are Ex.PW37/B (colly) (D-217).
(yy) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of Gundeep Singh Anand on 31.08.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witness Ashok Kumar, Executive, Vigilance, CONCOR and after CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 127 of 308 obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing,PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-95 to S-104 and also obtained the signature of Gundeep Singh Anand the specimen are Ex.PW21/A (Colly - D-218).
(zz) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Parmod Garg on 05.09.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witnesses Bhupesh Seth, Senior TOA, BSNL and Sunil Ranjan Kumar, UDC, BSNL and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-105 to S-163 and also obtained the signature of Bajrang Garg the specimen are Ex.PW25/A (Colly - D-219).
(zz1) The finger and palm impression of Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal on the given proforma in presence of Shri B.M.K. Ratnam, SSO2, Finger Print, CFSL, New Delhi which are marked as S164 to S167 and S168 to S171 as Ex.PW1/D (Colly) and Ex.PW1/E (D-220).
(zz2) The finger and palm impression of Satish Kumar Goyal on the given performa in presence of Shri B.M.K. Ratnam, SSO2, Finger Print, CFSL, New Delhi which are marked as S172 to S175 and S176 to S179 as Ex.PW1/F (Colly) and Ex.PW1/G (Colly) (D-221).
(zz3) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused SS Malhi on 22.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witnesses Mukesh Rawat, Clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-180 to S- 189 and also obtained the signature of SS Malhi the specimen are already Ex.PW68/C (colly) (D-261 and 262).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 128 of 308(zz4) The specimen signatures/ initials/writing of accused Badrul Islam on 22.07.2016 on white paper sheet in presence of witnesses Mukesh Rawat, Clerk, Bank of India, CGO Complex, New Delhi and after obtaining the specimen signature/initials/ writing, PW71 marked the same with blue pencil as S-190 to S- 195 and also obtained the signature of Badrul Islam (now expired) the specimen as Ex.PW71/S-2 (Colly - D-263).
(zz5) A notice u/s 160 CrPC to Shri Satish S/o Hem Raj at the given address i.e. Shri Karanpur, Shri Ganga Nagar, Rajhasthan and the said notice was received back on 29.08.2016 with the endorsement of the postal department " Adhura Pata Wapas Bheji Jati Hain". PW71 identified his signatures at Point- A on the notice alongwith the envelope and the notice alongwith the envelope are Ex.PW71/S-3 (Colly - D-222).
(zz6) A notice u/s 160 C.r.P.C to Shri Satish s/o Hem Raj at the given address i.e. Village Chirag Delhi, New Delhi and the said notice was received back by him on 22.08.2016 with the endorsement of the Postal Department " Incomplete address without house number" and the notice alongwith the envelope received back are Ex.PW71/S-4 (Colly - D-223).
(zz7) The documents vide memo dated 10.10.2016 as Ex.PW62/F (D-228) from Shri Chanchal Khanna, Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Meera Bagh, New Delhi. The documents pertain to original credit vouchers/photocopies of credit vouchers/ photocopies of cheques/original cheques for different amounts and also the copy of production memo dated 23.05.2007.
(zz8) A letter dated 23.12.2016 Ex.PW71/S-5 (D-231) from Shri Ashok Kumar Kain, Deputy Secretary (Admin) addressed to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 129 of 308 Shailender Kumar Verma, Inspector, CBI, AC-V, New Delhi and PW71 had received the said letter on 27.12.2016 through SP. This letter was received in lieu of the letter dated 30.11.2016 regarding the case RC No. 11 (A)/2016. Vide this letter, CBI had sought information if the circulars/Orders/Manuals/Guidelines with regard to the duties/responsibilities of Deputy Secretary/Dealing Assistant of Alternative Branch, Land & Building Department, Govt. of GNCT are available in the Department or not. The Department intimated that there is no, any such circulars/Orders/Manuals/ Guidelines.
(zz9) The documents vide memo dated 15.12.2016 Ex.PW38/B (D-232) from Shri Kiran Pal, LDC, Writ Cell, Land & Building Department. The documents pertain to original file movement register, Writ Cell from the period 01.01.2002 to 19.07.2002, 20.07.2002 to 06.05.2003, 07.05.2003 to 31.10.2003 and original Dak incoming register of writ cell w.e.f 24.01.2003 to 04.08.2003 and file movement register for the period 03.11.2003 to 19.11.2003 and original writ file movement register for the period 20.11.2003 to 20.04.2004.
(zz10) The documents vide memo dated 21.12.2016 Ex.PW57/B (D-232) from Shri Kishan Lal, Kanoongo, LA Branch, L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi. These documents are copy of land record register of Jasola and Bahapur, Extraordinary notification u/s Section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Original file movement register of LAB, L&B Department for the period 02.08.1999 to 31.12.1999, for the period of 03.01.2000 to 07.06.2000, for the period 07.06.2000 to 27.12.2000, for the period 04.05.2001 to 31.12.2001, for the period 25.04.2001 to 31.07.2002, for the period 01.08.2002 to 31.12.2002, for the period 16.10.2002 to 30.07.2004, for the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 130 of 308 period 01.01.2003 to 25.07.2003 and for the period 25.07.2003 to 29.01.2004.
(zz11) The documents vide memo dated 19.12.2016 Ex.PW64/E (D-239) from Shri Rajesh Kumar, LDC, Alternative Branch, L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi. These documents pertain to original report of Deputy Secretary, Central Record Room, L&B Department, GNCT of Delhi, the copy of the report of Deputy Secretary, CRR containing report on file No.F32 (21)/50/89/L&B and one original R& I Register for the period 01.04.2003 to 07.09.2003.
(zz12) The letter written by PW71 to ADM (South-East) dated 08.12.2016 seeking verification as to whether any verification report with respect to the land of Satish Kumar S/o Hemraj bearing Khasra No. 607, total measuring 23-10 Bigha, half share i.e. 11-15 Bigha acquired vide award no. 2059 dated 24.01.1968 of Village Bahapur, Delhi, South Zone (date of physical possession 30.05.1972) has been forwarded to Land & Building Department, GNCT Delhi. The said letter is Ex.PW71/S-6 (D-
245).
(zz13) In response to his above said letter, PW71 had received a letter dated 21.12.2016 Ex.PW65/F of Rajeev Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, South East. PW 71 had received this letter on 22.12.2016. Vide this letter it was informed that no record is available in LAC Branch of sending and forwarding of verification report to the L&B Department, GNCT Delhi.
(zz14) The documents vide memo dated 19.12.2016 Ex.PW11/F (D-251) from Shri R.S. Baniwal, Notary Advocate. These documents are photocopy of Delhi Bar Council, Tis Hazari, I -Card of RS Baniwal, Copy of Notary Register, copy of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 131 of 308 I-card of Pritampura-Rohini Bar Association of RS Baniwal and copy of Notary Register containing entries no. 2510 dated 13.08.2003 to 2517 dated 23.08.2003, 2551 dated 08.09.2003 and 3674 dated 09.03.2006 to Serial no. 3680 dated 10.03.2006.
(zz15) Further, a letter dated 05/6.01.2017 sent to Director, CFSL by Shri Ajay Kumar, SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi for having expert opinion on enclosed questioned documents Mark Q-173 to Q-176 and specimen writing/signatures marked as S- 180 to S-195, PW 71 identify signatures of the then SP, CBI at Point-A as he had worked under his supervision in his official capacity. The said letter is Ex.PW71/S-7 (D-260). Along with this letter the details of Exhibits for examination were also sent under his signature which are Ex.PW71/S-8.
(zz16) The specimen (s) and impression (s) of seals of Exhibit (s) which were forwarded to Director, CFSL under signature of Shri Ajay Kumar, the then SP are Ex.PW71/S-9. Further, the certificate of authority issued under signature of Ajay Kumar, by the then SP and the same was also forwarded to Director, CFSL, New Delhi vide Ex.PW71/S-10.
(zz17) The list of questioned documents, list of specimen signature/writing of accused persons and list of questionnaire which was prepared by PW71 and forwarded to the Director, CFSL, New Delhi are Ex.PW71/11 to Ex.PW71/13 (all part of D-
260).
128. PW71 further deposed that during his investigation, he had cited total 88 witnesses and recorded the statement of 70 witnesses truly and correctly whatever was stated by the witnesses before him. PW71 deposed that he had recorded the statement of Shri Deepak Chaudhary already CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 132 of 308 Ex.PW40/PX, Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal as Ex.PW60/PX, Manoj Kumar Mallick as Ex.PW46/PX and Megh Raj Verma as Ex. PW59/PX truly and correctly. PW71 further stated that the sanction for prosecution of accused Badrul Islam and SS Malhi was not obtained since both of them had already retired. He stated that after completion of the investigation he filed the charge-sheet before the Court on the basis of the material (oral as well as documentary) collected during investigation.
129. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 26.09.2022 pursuant to the submissions of Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
130. Statements of accused persons u/Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In support of their defence, accused persons have examined four witnesses i.e. DW1 Shri Jaldhari Meena, DW2 Shri Sunil Sadawarti, DW3 Shri Amit Gupta and DW4 Shri Subhash Gupta.
131. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., Swarn Singh Malhi (A-2) denied all the incriminating evidence against him either by saying that he does not know or it is a matter of record. A-2 stated that he joined the department in the year 1999 and the file was complete in all respect and he placed the same before the Dy. Director (Alternative CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 133 of 308 Branch). He further stated that he was not the member of the Recommendation Committee and he prepared the summary sheets at the instance of Dy. Director. He further stated that it was the responsibility of the concerned officials to make recommendations for allotment of the plot. A-2 has also stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against him as they were interested.
132. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., Satish Kumar Goyal (A-3) denied all the incriminating evidence against him either by saying that he does not know or it is a matter of record. A-3 stated that prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him at the instance of CBI. He further stated that he was known to accused Neeru Kumar Gupta as he was brother-in-law of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal is his brother-in-law and he went to Delhi to sign as a witness in order to make him escape goat for in a false case. A-3 also stated that the case of CBI is based on false and fabricated evidence after a long delay of 13 years. He also stated that his other brothers Harmesh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were also implicated in similar manner and A-3 further stated that Neeru Kumar Gupta had taken his signatures on blank papers.
133. In her statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal (A-4) denied all the incriminating evidence against her either by saying that she does not know or it is a matter of record. A-4 stated that CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 134 of 308 prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against her at the instance of CBI. She further stated that she was known to accused Neeru Kumar Gupta as he was brother-in-law of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal is the brother-in-law of her husband Satish Kumar Goyal and she went to Delhi to sign as a witness in order to make her escape goat for in a false case. A-4 also stated that the case of CBI is based on false and fabricated evidence after a long delay of 13 years. She also stated that other brothers of her husband, i.e. Harmesh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were also implicated in similar manner and A-4 further stated that Neeru Kumar Gupta had taken her signatures on blank papers.
134. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., Neeru Kumar Gupta (A-5) denied all the incriminating evidence against him either by saying that he does not have any knowledge and came to know only through the record of the case. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., A-5 took the plea in response to the evidence of PW40 that he was making contradictory statement. PW40 did not recognise him in the court. A-5 stated that he is innocent and as a lawyer, he provided legal assistance and no illegal act was committed by him and he further stated that at the time of search, some documents were planted at his house by the CBI and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that witnesses have deposed falsely to implicate him in the case.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 135 of 308135. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., Pramod Garg (A-6) denied all the incriminating evidence against him by saying that he does not know. A-6 stated that prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him at the instance of CBI. He further stated that he was not involved in any mannere whatsoever in the purported conspiracy between the accused persons of the present case pertaining to the property in question. A-6 further stated that he was not involved in any manner whatsoever in the process of submission of undertakings before the DDA by A-3 or execution of the perpetual lease deed dated 08.12.2003 or payments made in lieu thereof to DDA. A-6 further stated that neither Bajrang Garg nor Megh Raj Verma, Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar Goyal were his employees and he did not pay any salary to them. A-6 stated that Manoj Kumar Mallick and Rajesh Kumar Goyal were independent liason workers with the DDA departments and they used to get DDA work and used to do the same independently and that they were doing this work for several property dealers. A-6 stated that he had never asked them to sign the undertakings purportedly submitted by A-3 before the DDA and that Manoj Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Goyal had not acted under his instructions in any manner. A-6 further stated that he never asked Narayan Singh Yadav to sign the purported perpetual lease deed dated 08.12.2003. A-6 stated that the purported pay-in-slips for making of pay orders were never signed or written by him and he was not involved in CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 136 of 308 any conspiracy and he did not derive any benefit from the transaction and he has been falsely implicated.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
136. DW-1 Sh. Jaldhari Meena brought the relevant record pertaining to the RTI filed by Swarn Singh Malhi (the original application of the Said RTI was submitted in another case in the evidence of DW6 Sh. Layak Ram UDC of Land & Building Department). DW1 has also brought the copy of the RTI application (OSR) as well as office copy of reply of RTI application No. 9158/14 in File No. F/Misc/32/RTI/2014L & 4B/ ALT dated 30.09.2014 vide Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2.
137. DW-2 Sh. Sunil Sadawarti had brought the relevant record pertaining to the RTI filed by Swarn Singh Malhi i.e. the photocopy of the RTI application which was received on 12.08.2016 by the Department (already been submitted in Evidence of another matter). DW2 had also brought the office copy of reply dated 09.09.2016 to the RTI, the copy of the RTI application vide Mark DW2/A as well as copy of the office copy of RTI reply vide Ex. DW2/1. DW2 has also brought the relevant record pertaining to the another RTI application dated 18.08.2017 filed by accused Swarn Singh Malhi vide Ex. DW2/2. DW2 stated that as per record No. F.5 (66)/2016/ L&B/Admn./RTI/ 12432-34 dated 27.12.2016 which was CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 137 of 308 written by Sh. Ashok Kumar Kain, PIO, Deputy Secretary (Admin) and was addressed to accused SS malhi vide Ex.DW2/3.
138. DW-3 Sh. Amit Gupta who was doing the business of Property Dealing in the name of Vrinda Builders since 1999 used to buy and sell properties as well as raise construction on the properties later sell them. DW3 deposed that he was also engaged in the business of sales and purchase of plots and also involved in buying and selling DDA Plots. DW3 deposed that he knew Mr. Rajesh Goyal as he had done some liasoning work from him i.e. getting the plots leasehold to freehold. DW3 also deposed in regard to 8-10 plots had liasoned from Rajesh Goyal and Mr. Rajesh Goyal used to operate from his residence. Rajesh used to collect and deliver the relevant document. DW3 further deposed that he does not know the office address of Mr. Rajesh Goyal. DW3 also deposed that he knew Pramod Garg as they were into the same business. DW3 deposed that Mr. Rajesh Goyal used to do liasoning work for other persons also and he used to pay him remuneration as per his liasoning work.
139. DW-4 Sh. Subhash Gupta was brother in law of Pramod Garg and was also in the business of building construction since 2005. He stated that he was doing the property dealing business since 1982 in the name of M/s Gupta Properties and that he is doing business in states like Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Himachal. DW4 deposed that accused Pramod Garg CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 138 of 308 was doing the same business in the name of M/s Garg Properties Associates. DW4 deposed that he knew Sh. Bajrang Garg as he is his nephew and worked with him as a helper in property business. DW4 also deposed that he knew Manoj Malik being son of his friend and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Goyal being his relative. He further deposed that the all of them have worked under him till 2002-03 and he used to meet them occasionally.
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. SR. PP FOR CBI
140. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI contended that indisputably, there is a scheme for rehabilitation of the persons whose lands were acquired by the Government by allotting an alternative piece of land on subsidised rate. It is also contended that in order to be eligible for the allotment of land, the land of such person is to be acquired and revenue record should also contain his or her name. It is also contended that prior to making allotment of land in favour of the person, verification from different departments as well as personal verification of the applicant is to be conducted. It is also contended that it has been established that no such exercise of verification was conducted by Alternative Branch and if such verification exercise would have been conducted, then no recommendation for allotment of land could be made in favour of accused Satish. It is also contended that prosecution has established that a fake file vide no. F.32(21/50/89/L&B and Alt was created with a view to make CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 139 of 308 recommendation for allotment of plot in favour of Satish. It is also contended that it is established that neither Satish nor any of his forefathers had any land in Delhi and both Satish and Smt. Pankaj have never resided in Delhi at any point of time and therefore, no recommendation of allotment of land could have been made in favour of Satish (A-3). It is also contended that only four applications were received by Alternative Branch in respect of village Bahapur and no such application was mentioned in the register which is maintained to show the receipt of various applications for allotment of land.
141. It is also contended that certification in the summary sheets vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly at page no. 35) was made by A-2 S.S. Malhi which indicates that despite the fact that no application of Satish (A-3) has been received from village Bahapur and the same indicates that a fake file bearing no. F.32(21/50/89/L&B was created in the Aternative Department and such file was never consigned to record room at any point of time. It is also contended that charge report vide Ex.PW10/A contains forged and fabricated signatures of Smt. Shanti Devi. It is also contended that both A-2 was the custodian of the file and he was working on the directions of A-1. It is also contended that the booklet vide serial nos. 001351 to 001400 was issued to S.S. Malhi, the then Dealing Clerk and the serial number of the letter of recommendation vide Ex.PW3/H i.e. 001353 is CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 140 of 308 issued from the same booklet. It is also contended that till the file had reached DDA, A-2 was the custodian of the file.
142. It is also contended by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that in furtherance of the conspiracy, A-3 and A-4 had submitted forged and fabricated voter I- cards and also gave affidavit/undertakings and other documents with a view to induce DDA to allot land in favour of A-3 and A-4. It is also contended that various documents as furnished by A-3 & A-4 to the DDA were having signatures of persons who signed at the instance of Pramod Kumar Garg and Neeru Kumar Gupta. It is also contended that documentarty and oral evidence is also backed by the scientific reports from FSL vide Ex.PW69/A, Ex.PW70/A and Ex.PW72/B. It is also contended that witnesses have directly supported the case of the prosecution by positively identifying the signatures of accused persons and witnesses. It is also contended in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the accused Pramod Garg had provided the finance. It is also contended that accused persons entered into conspiracy to cheat Government and DDA to obtain the possession of land to which accused was not available and different accused persons played different role. It is also contended that Public servants were part of the conspiracy and had committed criminal misconduct. The Ld. Sr. PP for CBI submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 141 of 308SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR A-2
143. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 that prosecution has failed to collect report from various branches of L&B Department and that A-2 has circumvented the sending of files to any of the department. It is also contended that no investigation has been made from Revenue Department to the effect that whether any file was sent by Alternative branch and reference has made to the cross-examination of PW-71, whether A-2 was competent to verify the credentials of the applicant.
144. It is also contended that guidelines vide Ex. PW2/D (D-34) provides that verification is to be conducted from the revenue staff and building department and the same does not in any manner calls for verification from legal cell/ writ cell. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant by making reference to Para 7, 8 and 9 of the charge-sheet and contended that report was called from LAC South East, whereas the property pertains to the LAC South Zone and the Investigating Officer despite knowing the fact has sent noting about document PW65/F and PW71/S-6 and the contentions is basically to the effect that the enquiry was rooted to wrong zone therefore reply could not come. (This argument rebutted by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI by referring to the PW38/A and reference is made to Para 10 of the charge-sheet that the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 142 of 308 Halka Patwari from South Zone has been examined). It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 that :
a) Award no. 224/DC (S)/2005-2006 dated 01.06.2005 Village Bahapur under the signatures of the Land Acquisition Collector (SOUTH).
b) Award no. 1364 dated 23.07.1962- Village Bahapur- Under the signatures of Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, pertains to the year 2005-06 whereas the districts were divided in the year 2003.
(The aforesaid submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and is referred in the written submissions, however, this fact was not brought either to investigating officer or other witnesses.
145. Ld. Counsel appearing for A-2 has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence whatsoever that A-2 deliberately omitted to collect the concerned reports from the various branches of L&B Department. It is submitted that the entire investigation fails to show beyond reasonable doubt that A-2 in any way circumvented the sending of the file to the concerned departments. It is submitted that no document whatsoever has been brought on record nor has any witness from the Revenue Department been examined which would say that the file in question in the instant case has been sent or not sent to the Revenue CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 143 of 308 Department. It is argued that the investigating officer has clearly admitted that he had not conducted any investigation qua the Revenue Branch of L&B Department, therefore, there is no question whatsoever to state that A-2 did not send documents to the Revenue Department. It is further argued that no document has come on record which shows that it was the duty of A-2 of personally verifying the credentials of an applicant. It is submitted that the investigating officer himself admitted that it was not the job of A-2 to personally verify the credentials of an applicant. It is argued that A-2 is not under any duty to personally verify the authenticity/genuineness of the documents from the concerned person. It is submitted that the Allotment of Alternative Plots Guidelines for applicants issued by the Land & Building Department clearly shows that the procedure only includes verification from the concerned LAC and the Revenue staff and there is no mention whatsoever of any form of verification by the Legal Cell/Writ Cell. Ld. Counsel for A-2 further argued that the Investigating Officer vide letter dated 08.12.2016 Ex.PW71/S-6 had sought information only from the ADM (South East) pertaining to allotment in favour of Satish, whereas there are various districts in Delhi but details were only sought from the South-East District. However, the LAC (South East) vide reply dated 21.12.2016 Ex.PW65/F informed that there is no such record available in LAC branch of "this district" regarding sending and forwarding verification report to Land & CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 144 of 308 Building Department, in favour of Satish. It is submitted that LAC (South East) vide reply Ex.PW65/F himself copied his own reply to the LAC (South) stating therein that the LAC (South) is required to provide information, if available, directly to CBI as sought by them because the office of LAC (South East) used to be combined with District South in the year 2003, and no document whatsoever on behalf of the LAC (South) has been brought on record in response to the letter Ex.PW65/F from the LAC (South) which shows a fatality in the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that as on date, village Bahapur falls within the jurisdiction of the LAC (South) and not LAC (South East). It is submitted that in 1962, village Bahapur came under a singular Land Acquisition Collector but in 2005-06, village Bahapur came under the Land Acquisition Collector (South), as the districts were further after the year 2003 and this fact stands proved vide Award No. 24/DC(S)/2005-2006 dated 01.06.2005, Village Bahapur and Award No. 1364 dated 23.07.1962. Village Bahapur, under the signature of LAC. It is thus, argued that the prosecution has not even investigated the correct LAC i.e. LAC (South) and that the allegation that the file of an applicant was 'never sent' to the Writ Cell/legal Cell is completely unsubstantiated and in fact contrary to the case of the CBI.
146. Ld. Counsel for A-2 has submitted that the translator of the documents vide Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D was not examined by the prosecution. It is further contended that noting of Shri P.C. Tiwari vide CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 145 of 308 Ex.PW57/A was not proved by PW57 Shri Kishan Lal. It is also contended that the summary sheets were not made basis for the recommendation of plot of land as stated by the members of Recommendation Committee. It is also contended that so called summary sheets from different files were collated and were shown in one bunch and whereas it could not have been in one bunch. It is also contended that there is no pagination etc. It is also contended that members of Recommendation Committee were never misled in making the recommendation on the basis of summary sheet and therefore, no offence was committed by the accused. It is also contended that different dealing clerks who were dealing with different Zones were not examined by the prosecution. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts constituting the offence. It is also contended that two summary sheets of the rejected case were not mentioned in the charge sheet and no explanation whatsoever has been given by any witness and the said fact was admitted by investigating officer in his cross- examination. It is also contended that on 03.12.2002, 29 cases were taken up for consideration but only 27 summary sheets were filed by the prosecution.
147. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued on the applicability of Section 420 IPC in the present case that for offence of cheating, there must be deception which should always precede the fraudulent and dishonest CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 146 of 308 inducement and it must be established that the intention of the accused was dishonest even at the time of making the promise. But, in the instant case, a long conspiracy as alleged by the CBI, has been executed in different parts and by different stages and specially, as it was never under the control and hands of collaborators. Further, recommendation was made under authority of four different officials of L&B Department and handing over of possession and execution of the lease deed of the plot in question was executed by different branches of DDA. In such circumstances, nothing was under the control of any collaborator and thus, it cannot be alleged that the accused had any dishonest intention even at the initial stage. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that if the allegation of commission of offence of forgery is not made out, then offence of cheating would also not stand. From the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence of forgery could not be proved. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of using a forged document as genuine. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under Section 120-A IPC. Further, if there are several accused persons, the corroboration in the material particular must connect every accused individually. The independent corroboration need not to cover the whole prosecution story. However, the corroboration must be on material particulars. The first tainted evidence cannot corroborate the other tainted evidence.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 147 of 308148. It is also contended that prosecution has neither obtained a sanction u/Section 19 PC Act nor under section 197 Cr.P.C. and without obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority., the present case against A-2 cannot proceed and he is liable to be acquitted on this ground. It is also contended that the testimonies of the witnesses from L&B Department as well as members of the Recommendation Committee are contradictory. It is contended that the chain of custody of the file has not been proved by the prosecution and therefore, the A-2 cannot be held liable for loss/theft of the files.
149. Ld. counsel for A-2 has relied upon number of judgments :-
Conspiracy and circumstantial evidence
(i) Anjan Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, {(2017) 14 SCC 359} - (Supreme Court); (ii) State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai & Ors., {AIR 2009 (Supp) 1744} - (Supreme Court);
(iii) Mohan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, {(2020) 10 SCC 531} - (Supreme Court) Sanction
(i) D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, {AIR Online 2020 SC 597} - (Supreme Court); (ii) B.K. Paruchure Vs. State & Anr., {2022 SCC Online Del 2492} - (Delhi High Court); (iii) State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh, {(2014) 16 SCC 807} -
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 148 of 308(Supreme Court); (iv) Devender Singh Vs. State of Punjab, {(2016) 12 SCC 87} - (Supreme Court); (v) Dr. C.P. Thakur Vs. CBI, {2009 DHC 1242} - (Delhi High Court); (vi) A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Anr., {2023 INSC 682} - (Supreme Court); (vii) A. Srinivasulu Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police, {2023 SCC Online SC 900} - (Supreme Court); (viii) C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI), {W.P. (Crl.) No. 262/2010} - (Delhi High Court); (ix) Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. Vs. Union of India, {MANU/SC/2091/2005} - (Supreme Court); (x) Amrik Singh Vs. State of Pepsu, {(1956) SCR 1302} - (Supreme Court); xi) R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, {(1995) SUPP 6 SCR 236} - (Supreme Court).
Foundational facts must be proved by the prosecution.
(i) Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer, {AIR 1956 SC 404} - (Supreme Court); (ii) Satye Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, {(2022) 5 SCC 438} - (Supreme Court); (iii) Babu Vs. State of Kerala, {(2010) 9 SCC 189} - (Supreme Court); (iv) Navin Dhaniram Baraiye Vs. State of Maharashtra, {2018 SCC Online Bom 1281} - (Bombay High Court) Forgery
(i) Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, {AIR 1963 SC 1572}
- (Supreme Court); (ii) Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., {(2009) 8 SCC 751} - (Supreme Court); (iii) Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., {AIR 2018 SC 2434} - (Supreme Court); (iv) Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State NCT of Delhi, {2005(84) DRJ 577} - (Delhi High Court).
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 149 of 308(i) Dev Raj Arora Vs. State (Through CBI), {2012 DHC 65} - (Delhi High Court) Section 276-277 Cr.P.C.
(i) Naim Ahamed Vs. State, {(2023) 1 SCR 1061} - (Supreme Court).
Section 13 PC Act
(i) R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha & Ors., {(2004) 2 SCC 9}
- (Supreme Court); (ii) Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai & Ors., {(2011) 15 SCC 398} - (Supreme Court).
Admissibility of Handwriting sample taken by the Investigating Authority
(i) State of UP Vs. Ram Babu Mishra, {(1980) 2 SCR 1067};
(ii) Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, {(1994) 3 SCR 1061}; (iii) Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, {(2011) 1 SCR 929}; (iv) Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, {(2018) 7 SCR 830}; (v) Bhupinder Singh Vs. State, {(2011) DHC 5097 DB}; (vi) Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State, {(2012) DHC 3629 - DB};
(vii) Rajender Kumar @ Raju Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), {(2012) DHC 5349 - DB}; (viii) Raj Kumar Vs. State, {(2012) DHC 5349 - DB); (ix) Zafar Umar Khan @ Jafar Umar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), {(2013) DHC 1360 - DB); (x) Anand Kumar @ Beeru & Ors. Vs. State, {(2013) DHC 6266
- DB); (xi) Prakash Chand Vs. State, {(2014) DHC 1463 - DB}; (xii) Sanjay @ Vicky Vs. State, {(2014) DHC 6298 - DB}.
Applicability of Section 311A Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 150 of 308(i) Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), {(2023) 7 SCR 719} - (Supreme Court); (ii) Jaipal Vs. State, {(2011) DHC 3294 - DB) DHC; (iii) Khalil Ahmed Vs. State, {(2014) DHC 6900 - DB} DHC; (iv) Babitha Surendran Vs. State, {MANU/TN/1786/2015} - Madras HC).
Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
(i) Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. @ Bhure Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), {(2016) 7 SCR 927} (Supreme Court); (ii) Rakesh Bisht Vs. CBI, {2007 SCC Online Del 13} (DHC).
Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act
(i) Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1967 SC 1326}(Supreme Court); (ii) S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, {(1996) Supp 3 SCR 439} (Supreme Court);
(iii) B. Raghuvir Acharya Vs. CBI, {(2013) 7 SCR 132} (Supreme Court); (iv) Basrur Venkata Row, {1911 SCC Online Mad 159}, Madras High Court.
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR A-3 & A-4
150. Ld. Counsel for A-3 & A-4 submitted that A-3 and A-4 are the relatives of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta and they had signed some of document in good faith. It is further submitted that no witness has identified them. Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to the statement of PW4 Shri Deepak Choudhary, who deposed that A-3 was not present when his photograph on the form was attested. It is also contended that PW11, 60 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 151 of 308 and 61 have not ascribed any role to accused A-3 and A-4. It is also contended that PW-46 did not identify the photograph of documents, the documents pertaining to A-3 and A-4 were misused and signature of the accused persons were obtained on the blank papers as well as on the document by N.K. Gupta who is their distant relative and reference is made to the testimony of PW-17 in respect of their relationship. It is also submitted PW-56 Naryan Singh was also not aware about the accused persons. It is also contended that no offence was committed by A-4 since she was totally unaware about the transaction and committed acts on the askance of A-4. It is also contended that no loss was suffered by DDA or any government agency. Ld Counsel also contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for the acquittal of the accused persons.
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR A-5
151. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-5 that A-5 has been charged u/Section 120B and for the substantiative offences u/Section 419/420/467/471 and 468 IPC. Ld. Counsel for A-5 contended that it is his case that specimen signatures of A-5 was never taken and in this respect, he had referred the testimony of Shri Mukesh Rawat (PW4) and by drawing the attention of PW4, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel that CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 152 of 308 perusal of his cross-examination would indicate that the said witness had only recalled the name of accused Badrul Islam and was unable to recall the name of other persons whose specimen signatures were taken by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW4/C. It is also contended that PW4 did not identify A-5. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-5 by making reference to the testimony of Shri Prashant Sharma (PW69) that handwriting expert had not given any conclusive report in respect of the signature of A-5. It is contended that the said expert in page no. 3 of his deposition has stated that the other sheets are required for specimen signatures for comparing the questioned documents with the actual person. Ld. Counsel for A-5 has also drawn attention of the court to the cross- examination of PW69 at page no. 6. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-5 that even questioned signatures Q6, as appearing on Ex.PW71/DX-1, was never sent for analysis and in the absence of Q6 being not sent for examination, the linkage of the accused cannot be made. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-5 that A-5 is being roped within the ambit of conspiracy by making reference to the effect that mother-in- law of his brother-in-law is maternal aunt of accused Satish Kumar and merely on the basis of this acquaintance, it cannot be said that A-5 is a part of conspiracy. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-5 that Shri Brindaban Gupta (PW63) in his cross-examination had merely stated that he had seen accused S.S. Malhi with the present accused and it is CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 153 of 308 contended that on the basis of this, A-5 cannot be linked as a part of conspiracy in the present case. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A- 5 that Shri Manoj Kumar Mallick (PW46) had also not imputed any role to the accused. It is also contended that PW46 had clearly stated that N.K. Gupta had ever visited the office of Pramod Garg or that Shri N.K. Gupta had signed on the document Ex.PW15/K-3. It is also contended that even in this respect, no opinion in respect of signature on Ex.PW15/K-3 of A-5 was taken. It is also contended that Shri Mohan Lal (PW16) has not identified A-5 in reference to Ex.PW15/K-3. It is also vehemently contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-5 that IO had not conducted the search and therefore, he could have not spoken anything in respect of the search conducted by some other person. It is also contended that only one witness Shri Dinesh Kumar Singhal (PW22) who had accompanied one of the police official to the house of A-5 was examined and perusal of his testimony would reveal that there are material and apparent contradiction to the fact that he had ever visited the house of N.K. Gupta. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-5 that this witness has clearly stated that when search of accused was made, the CBI officials were not carrying any Laptop, Printer etc, whereas the search memo and other documents would indicate that the search memo was typed one and same is not possible. It is also contended that if any search could have been made on 09.06.2015 then written memo etc. could have been prepared. It is also contended by CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 154 of 308 Ld. Counsel that in the year 2014, a raid was conducted into the house of A-5 and where from certain documents were taken and shown in the present case.
152. It is also contended that since earlier a raid was conducted into the house of A-5 in 2014 and, therefore, it would be not possible that any incriminating document could have been found from his place. Ld. Counsel for A-5 has also referred to cross-examination of Shri Sanjay Kumar (PW71), dated 26.09.2022 and contended that Ex.PW71/DX-1 (Colly) which are basically the photocopy and it is also contended that even those documents do not prove the charge of conspiracy. It is also contended that on the basis of the material adduced by the prosecution, no case was made out against A-5. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A- 5 that there is an unexplained delay of more than 34 years and in any case, if the recommendation for allotment of plot has been made in the year 2003 and the FIR was registered in the year 2016 then there is a delay of 13 years which has not been explained. The date of conspiracy has not been explained. It is also contended that Shri Deepak Chaudhary, advocate (PW14) did not identify A-5.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 155 of 308153. Ld. Counsel for A-5 has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Section 195 Cr.P.C.
(i) Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206; (ii) M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State, (2000) 1 SCC 278; (iii) Arvind Kumar Adhukia Vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2010) 173 DLT 738; (iv) CBI Vs. Indra Bhushan Singh & Anr., AIR 2014; (v) Bashir-
Ul-Haq Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293; (vi) Padohi Ram Vs. State of UP, 1990 Crl. LJ 495 and (vii) B.N. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore, 1955 Crl. LJ 160).
Conspiracy
(i) L.K. Advani Vs. CBI, 1997(4) Crimes 1 at PP 32; (ii) Devender Pal Singh Vs. State NCT Delhi, 2002 Crl. LJ 3034 at Page 2047 (SC); (iii) Joseph Vs. S.I. of Police, Munnar, 2005(2) LT 269 at Page 286; (iv) State of Bihar Vs. Kailash Prasad Sinha, AIR 1961 Pat. 451 at Page 459, and (v) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sivarsan, 1997 SCC (Cr) 362 at Page 107.
Section 420 IPC
(i) Public Prosecutor Vs. Thalla Gangadharudu, (1956) 2 Andh. W.R. 805 at Page 807 : 1956 Andh L.T. 678.
Section 471 IPC
(i) Pritam Hariomal & Ors. Vs. Emperor, AIR 1939 Sind 185;
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Govind Ram Bagadiya & Ors., 2003 Crl. LJ 1169; (iii) Jethsur Surangbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) AIR (SC) 151; (iv) Bhagwan Das Keshwani & CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 156 of 308 Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1974) AIR (SC) 898; (v) R.K. Khatri Vs. CBI, (1996) 1 Crimes 511; (vi) Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) Crl. LJ 388; (vii) Jattha @ Aziz Khan Vs. State of M.P., (1986) 3 Crimes 163; (viii) Hari Prasad Chamaria Vs. Bishnu Kumar Surekha & Anr., (1974) AIR (SC) 301; (ix) Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M.P., (2003) AIR (SC) 1069; (x) Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar Etc. Vs. State (UTI Goa, Daman & Diu), (1980) AIR (SC) 499; (xi) Prabhat Kumar Bose & Shibdas Dutta Vs. Tarun Kanti Bagchi & Anr., (1994) AIR (SC) 960; (xii) Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh & Anr., (1997) AIR (SC) 1448; (xiii) Vivekanand Nand Kishore Vs. State, (1969) AIR (Allahabad) 189, and (ivx) Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Anr. Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (Deceased) through legal Representatives & Anr., (1964) AIR (SC) 529.
154. Ld. Counsel appearing for A-5 has submitted that A-5 could not have been summoned by the court in view of the embargo of section 195(1) CrPC. It is contended that there is no material on the basis of which A-5 could be roped in the conspiracy. It is also contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against A-5 and none of the ingredients of Section 120-B IPC in so far as the present accused is made out. It is also contended that no offence u/Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC is made out against A-5. It is prayed that A-5 has not committed any offence and hence he may be acquitted for the offence charged.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 157 of 308SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR A-6
155. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A6 that accused Pramod Garg has been falsely implicated without any basis. It is contended that there was no evidence or material which show that there is any documentary or oral evidence to show that A-6 has any role to play in the present case. It is contended that allegations against him to the effect that he provided finances or facilitated the preparation of document to complete the formalities relating to the allotment of land with the help of his employees are baseless without any evidence. It is also contended that there is no evidence which indicate that Demand Draft No. 243379 of Rs. 2,45,000 was handed over by Bajrang Garg to him and he provided the same to accused Satish. It is also contended that merely on the statement of PW-46 and PW-60, it can be said that PW-37 was employee of accused Pramod Garg and no documents were placed by the prosecution that PW- 37 was ever employed by him. It is also contended that testimonies of PW-46 and PW-60 are contradictory and false and they were tutored to make a particular statement which is full of contradiction and no reliance could be placed on it and there is no evidence or material to indicate PW-46 AND PW-60 had worked with A-6. Ld. Counsel for A6 had referred to the testimonies of DW-4 Subhash Gupta and contended that DW-4 had stated accused Rajesh and Manoj were his employees PW-46 and PW-6 were CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 158 of 308 doing the business of liasoning work independently as per DW-3. It is further contended that allegations of prosecution that he had provided finance or any money to accused Satish is belied got prepared the bank draft by giving different applications in the bank were not proved by any person and during the trial and FSL Report vide Ex.PW69/A is only piece of evidence by which the present accused is being linked and in the absence of the substantive evidence, the corroborative evidence canot be acted upon.
156. It is also contended prosecution has failed to examine any witness to effect that any pay orders were got prepared by the accused Pramod Garg. It is also contended that allegations that accused got prepared any bank draft would not implicate him in the charges of substantive offences under 419/420/467/468/471 IPC as no offence is made against the accused Pramod Garg. It is also contended that no witnesses had identified the signature and handwriting of accused Pramod Garg and no bank official had identified the accused Pramod Garg. It is also contended that there is no material to indicate Pramod Garg had forged any document. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for accused for their contended that there is no direct or indirect evidence to the effect that accused Pramod Garg had paid any money to any person. It is also contended that PW- 56. Narayan Singh testimony was tutored and no reliance can be placed on it. It is also CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 159 of 308 contended main conspirator the case had been let off by the IO of the case and reference is made to the testimony of Ajay Suneja would reveal that beneficiary was someone else and role of Raju Pradesi was not examined in the present by implicating him in the case. It is also contended that prosecution has failed to establish that he was the beneficiary in respect of transaction and therefore A6 is liable to acquitted in the present case. It is also contended that allegations of CBI that he financed the transactions is belied from the fact A-6 deals in the cash for varied reason and amount of Rs. 8,50,000 was withdrawn on 22.08.2002 he cannot be connected with the present case. LD. counsel prayed for the acquittal and also referred to his written submission.
157. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has relied upon (i) Padum Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 35; (ii) Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 210 and (iii) Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SC 111.
158. I have considered the submissions made by the both the sides and have gone through the voluminous record of the case and the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 160 of 308ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
159. In brief the case of prosecution could be summarized to the effect that Delhi Government had launched a Welfare Scheme whereby plot of land is to be allotted to those persons whose lands were acquired for the planned development of Delhi after the receipt of recommendations from Recommendation Committee, constituted by Government. Name of recommendee(s) is sent to DDA and DDA holds a draw for allotment of plot and if a recommendee(s) is successful in the draw, then he/she is asked to complete some formalities such as deposit of money/payment etc. as well as verification of the documents and providing documents such as proof of identity, letters etc and other procedural formalities. A lease deed is executed in favour of such an allottee by DDA. The case of prosecution is to the effect that A-2 who was a public servant had entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-1 (public servant, now deceased) and other accused persons so that A-3 who is not eligible for allotment of land is made eligible and A-3 would obtain the possession of land. It is further case of the prosecution that A-5 had played an important role in the conspiracy and whereas, A-6 has provided the requisite finance and had also performed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy so that land is allotted to the accused Satish Goyal and A-4 who is the wife of accused Satish Goyal had furnished forged and fabricated documents such as election CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 161 of 308 identity card and also made false statement with a view to induce the DDA to execute lease deed in favour of accused Satish Goyal and accused Smt. Pankaj Goyal and subsequently, the plot of land was sold by the accused No. 3 and 4 and thereafter plot of land was sold to other persons. Gravamen of the allegations on the basis of which the entire setting of the prosecution case is based on the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused persons and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, substantive offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and offences under Indian Penal Code were committed by the accused persons with an objective of obtaining the possession of land for ineligible person.
160. Foremost question for consideration is whether the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, whether substantive offences were committed by them and the role played by the accused qua the substantive offences committed by them and their role in the conspiracy and thus, it would be appropriate to consider the substantive provision of the conspiracy and the law relating to Criminal Conspiracy propounded by the Apex Court and applied in different cases.
161. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code defines Criminal Conspiracy as follows:
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 162 of 308When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation ; It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. Section 120B, which prescribes in sub-section (1) the punishment for criminal conspiracy provides: Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
162. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253, after considering plethora of judgment summarised broad principles which governs the law of conspiracy in Paragraph 583 :
(1) Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence.
The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 163 of 308(2) Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
(3) Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
(4) Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a chain--A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. There may be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrollment, where a single person at the centre does the enrolling and all the other members are unknown to each other, though they know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category. It may however, even overlap. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of a single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role.
(5) When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyone who joins in the agreement. There have thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.
(6) It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 164 of 308 be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
(7) A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. 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. As observed by Judge Learned Hand, this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders‟ [ United States v. Falcone, 109 F 2d 579 (2d Cir 1940)] (8) As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. (9) It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. This means that everything said, CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 165 of 308 written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
163. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1988 AIR 1883, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 24, the following observation was made by in respect of the ingredients of the offence of Conspiracy :
12. Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime. It also serves as a basis for holding one person liable for the crimes of others in cases where application of the usual doctrines of complicity would not render that person liable. Thus, one who enters into a conspiratorial relationship is liable for every reasonably foreseeable crime committed by every other member of the conspiracy in furtherance of its objectives, whether or not he knew of the crimes or aided in their commission. The rationale is that criminal acts done in furtherance of a conspiracy may be sufficiently dependent upon the encouragement and support of the group as a whole to warrant treating each member as a causal agent to each act. Under this view, which of the conspirators committed the substantive offence would be less significant in determining the defendants liability than the fact that the crime was performed as a part of a larger division of labor to which the accused had also contributed his efforts.
[Firozuddin Basheeruddin].
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 166 of 308164. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India this Court considering the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy said: (SCC pp. 616-17, para 8) "Section 120-A of IPC defines 'conspiracy' to mean that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as 'criminal conspiracy'. No agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy, unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in furtherance thereof. Section 120-B of IPC prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy. It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements:
agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects."
165. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 it was further observed as under:
"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. Yet, in our considered view, the agreement does not come to an end with its making, but would endure till it is accomplished or abandoned or proved abortive. Being a continuing offence, if any acts or omissions which constitute an offence are done in India or CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 167 of 308 outside its territory the conspirators continuing to be parties to the conspiracy and since part of the acts were done in India, they would obviate the need to obtain sanction of the Central Government. All of them need not be present in India nor continue to remain in India.
Finally the Court said as under: (SCC pp. 625-26, paras 24-25).
24. Thus, an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means is criminal conspiracy. If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. The offence is complete as soon as there is meeting of minds and unity of purpose between the conspirators to do that illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Conspiracy itself is a substantive offence and is distinct from the offence to commit which the conspiracy is entered into. It is undoubted that the general conspiracy is distinct from number of separate offences committed while executing the offence of conspiracy. Each act constitutes separate offence punishable, independent of the conspiracy. The law had developed several or different models or techniques to broach the scope of conspiracy One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the other a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. An illustration of a single conspiracy, its parts bound together as links in a chain, is the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or an illegal foreign drug for sale in different parts of the globe. In such a case, smugglers, middlemen and retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. The smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers; and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of someone or another. Thus, the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not. And could not. Stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their settlers. The accused embarked upon a venture in all parts of which each was a participant and an abettor in the sense that, the success of the part with which he was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole. It should also be considered as a spoke in the hub. There is a CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 168 of 308 rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy. It is not material that a rim is found only when there is proof that each spoke was aware of one another's existence but that all promoted in furtherance of some single illegal objective. The traditional concept of single agreement can also accommodate the situation where a well-defined group conspires to commit multiple crimes; so long as all these crimes are the objects of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship, and the conspiracy continues to subsist though it was entered in the first instance. Take for instance that three persons hatched a conspiracy in country A to kill D in country B with explosive substance. As far as conspiracy is concerned, it is complete in country A. One of them pursuant thereto carried the explosive substance and hands it over to third one in the country B who implants at a place where D frequents and got exploded with remote control. D may be killed or escape or may be diffused. The conspiracy continues till it is executed in country B or frustrated. Therefore, it is a continuing act and all are liable for conspiracy in country B though first two are liable to murder with aid of Section 120-B and the last one is liable under Section 302 or Section 307 IPC, as the case may be. Conspiracy may be considered to be a march under a banner and a person may join or drop out in the march without the necessity of the change in the text on the banner. In the comity of International Law, in these days, committing offences on international scale is a common feature. The offence of conspiracy would be a useful weapon and there would exist no conflict in municipal laws and the doctrine of autrefois convict or acquit would extend to such offences. The comity of nations are duty-bound to apprehend the conspirators as soon as they set their feet on the country's territorial limits and nip the offence in the bud.
25. A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 169 of 308 and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa."
166. The present case owes its genesis from a source information received by CBI to the effect that certain irregularities were committed in the matter of allotment of alternate plot of land which culminated into lodging of FIR vide Ex.PW71/A, naming public servant and other persons. During the course of the investigation, number of witnesses/persons were examined and thousands of pages of the documents were collected and records from DDA and L&B department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi were perused and accused persons were interrogated and after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons. Seven accused persons were summoned and compliance under section 207 Cr.PC was made and arguments on charges were and charges were framed against six accused and one accused was discharged. During the trial, accused Badrul Islam had expired.
167. As mentioned earlier, Smt. Usha Chaturvedi (PW52) has explained in detail as to how recommendation for an alternative plot is made for an eligible applicant. She also explained that recommendation for allotment of plots were made consequent to the recommendation made by the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 170 of 308 Recommendation Committee for allotment of alternative piece of land in pursuance to a public notice/guidelines. PW52 further stated that Committee which recommends the allotment of alternate plot of land to the needy persons, is called "Recommendation Committee". PW52 has broadly explained the process of allotment in detail in her deposition that reports etc were called from various departments to consider the case of the persons seeking allotment of alternative land. PW52 in her deposition had also explained the procedure and the eligibility of an applicant to be entitled for allotment of the land. PW52 also stated that applications are received at the Central RI Branch of L&B Department and thereafter same is sent to Alternative Branch where it was diarised and further steps are taken. PW-52 also outlined the duties which are required to be performed various officials, specially Deputy Director and other procedural formalities that are required to be fulfilled by L&B Department. In her evidence, she also stated that number of documents were furnished either herself or on her directions by her subordinates to the Investigating Agency. PW52 in her testimony has also brought the guidelines Ex.PW2/D (D-34) vide which the recommendation of allotment of land is made in favour of the eligible applicant.
168. PW6 Shri Subhash Gupta, member of the Recommendation Committee as well as Dy. Legal Advisor, stated that he used to assist the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 171 of 308 Committee in connection with the documents in respect of the cases listed before the Recommendation Committee. PW6 further stated that the applications for allotment of alternate plots in lieu of the land by the land owners were moved before the Dy. Director, and the Alternative Branch used to process the case and after verifying the revenue record and after obtaining the record from LAC, used to put the processed file before the Recommendation Committee for its consideration. PW6 further stated that Dy. Director (Alternative) was custodian of the file. PW6 also identified his signatures on the Minutes dated 04.02.2003 vide Ex.PW6/A and deposed that recommendation for the allotment of alternative plot to Satish Kumar Goyal (Accused No.3) vide Annexure 'A', annexed with Ex.PW6/A at Sr. No. 4 was made by the Recommendation Committee. PW6 also explained the role of A-1 Badrul Islam and A-2 Swaran Singh Malhi in reference to the present case. PW6 deposed that Dy. Director (Alternative) used to process the files and obtain the relevant revenue record and LAC report to verify the correctness of the averments made in the application. PW6 also stated that both A-2 Swaran Singh and A-1 Badrul Islam used to be present in the meeting of the Recommendation Committee.
169. In his cross-examination, PW6 stated that it was the duty of the Alternative Branch to obtain report from LAC and to verify the same and as a member of the Recommendation Committee, he was not required to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 172 of 308 verify the same. In further cross-examination, it was enquired from PW6 whether after receipt of application for alternate plot, Alternate Branch used to send LAC report and Revenue record for verification to the concerned Land Acquisition Collector's Office and Revenue Office, to which PW6 stated that these documents were not sent for verification but were required to be verified by LAC and Revenue office by the Dy. Director (Alternative). In his further cross-examination, PW6 explained that the Land & Building Department comprises various branches and each branch is assigned specific duties and there is a separate head of each branch or 2 to 3 branches could be headed by the same person, depending upon the availability. He further stated in his cross-examination, as to how the agenda of the meeting was sent and that A-1 had not performed his duties diligently.
170. PW7 Shri Prakash Kumar, Chairman, Alternate Plots Recommendation Committee deposed that he signed the minutes of the meeting on 04.02.2003 vide Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that the applications for allotment of plots in lieu of the land acquired by the land owners were moved before the Dy. Director (Alternative) Branch and the Alternative Branch used to process the whole case after verifying it from the record and after receipt of LAC report and after the file is processed, the same is put up before the Recommendation Committee. PW7 identified the note of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 173 of 308 accused Badrul Islam Mark Q-175 and Mark Q-176 "fair minutes of meeting added for signature please." (reference is made to Ex.PW6/B - D10). PW7 also identified the recommendation letter which was issued in the name of accused Satish Kumar and explained the role of accused Badrul Islam and Swaran Singh Malhi in recommending the name of Satish Kumar Goyal. PW7 stated that as per rules and practice, Dy. Director (Alternative) being the head of branch, used to process all such files and obtain Revenue record and LAC reports to verify the correctness of averments made in the application. He also deposed that accused S.S. Malhi used to be present in the meeting alongwith accused Badrul Islam as he was clerk in the Alternative Branch. In his cross-examination, PW7 stated that he is not aware whether three copies of application for alternative plots are to be submitted by the applicant. PW7 also stated that applications are first received at R&I who used to send the same to the Dy. Director (Alternative). PW-7 further stated that the clerks used to open separate files for each application in which year and serial number etc. are mentioned. He further stated in cross-examination that dealing clerk used to maintain the application containing the details of the applicants including the name of village, award number etc. including the report of the LAC for verification of the particulars mentioned in the application. PW7 also stated that after receiving the LAC report, the dealing assistant was supposed to make his noting in respect of contents of the report. In his CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 174 of 308 further cross-examination on behalf of Ld. Counsel for A-1, PW7 stated that files were meticulously examined by the members of the Recommendation Committee and Dy. Director (Alternative) used to work as Member Secretary and thereafter the decision was taken for allotment of the land. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for A- 2, A-5 and A-6 as to why he signed the minutes on 04.02.2003 despite the meeting being held on 03.12.2002.
171. PW9 Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, Member, Recommendation Committee, deposed that Recommendation Committee used to consider the application for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the acquired land in Delhi. In his statement before the court, PW9 stated that the minutes of the meetings used to be prepared by Dy. Director (Alternative) and his role as a member of Recommendation Committee was to assess the cases placed before the Committee on the basis of records prepared by the Alternative Branch of L&B and the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector. PW9 further stated that Recommendation Committee used to recommend the cases for allotment which fulfills the guidelines. He also stated that the minutes of the meeting was signed on 04.02.2003 but he was unable to recall the specific reason for signing the same after about two months. PW9 also stated that custodian of the file was Dealing Assistant S.S. Malhi CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 175 of 308 and the case of Satish at Sr. No. 4 vide Annexure 'A' annexed with Ex.PW6/A was recommended for the allotment of land. PW9 also stated that accused Badrul Islam and Dealing Assistant S.S. Malhi used to process the case and would submit the report comprising check list that documents were in order and complete. He also stated that when the file was presented to the Committee, no anomaly or doubt in respect of the claim of Satish was found. PW9 identified 27 summary sheets of different files vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly 27 in numbers) being certified by accused S.S. Malhi. PW9 explained in detail the process of allotment of a land for the applicant. In his evidence before the court, he stated that A-1 and A-2 were responsible for processing of the application of Satish and were also responsible for getting the report from Revenue branch and for obtaining the details in respect of the compensation certificate from the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. He also stated that various other formalities as required under the rules are required to be undertaken by Dy. Director and Dealing Asstt. PW9 also stated that a brief summary of the facts of the case including payment certificate, date of compensation, LAC report, Revenue record are certified to be true were given by S.S. Malhi and endorsed by Badrul Islam and the reference of which is mentioned in brief summary vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly - total 27 in numbers). In his cross- examination, he stated that Dy. Director (Alternative) and Dealing Assistant were not supposed to personally visit LAC office and Revenue branch for CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 176 of 308 ascertaining the genuineness of the report given in the applications for alternative plot. PW9 also stated that the decision to recommend allotment was made by members of the Recommendation Committee and it used to be a joint decision. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW9 stated that the summary sheet vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly) at page No 35 was prepared by S.S. Malhi and endorsed by Badrul Islam. He also stated that during deliberation, due consideration and importance is given to the summary sheet and summary sheet is required for processing each case for consideration of the Recommendation Committee. PW9 also stated that cases of different zones might have been put before the Recommendation Committee during his tenure. PW9 was unable to admit or deny whether there was separate Dealing Assistant for processing the file of each zone. He stated that it depends on the order of the appointment of dealing assistant. He deposed that on 03.12.2002, 29 cases were put before the Committee vide Ex.PW6/A and 27 summary sheets were in existence in respect of 29 cases. PW9 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for A-1 and PW9 stated that reports were called from Legal Department, Revenue department and Land Acquisition prior to meeting. PW9 also stated that 18 items were recommended vide Ex.PW6/A (wrongly typed as Ex.PW48/B) in the meeting dated 03.12.2002 (wrongly typed as 03.12.2003). PW9 also explained in his evidence that 29 items were on the agenda and out of which 18 matters were recommended and 9 were sent for re-examination CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 177 of 308 and two cases were rejected.
172. It is palpable from depositions of Shri Subhash Gupta (PW6), Shri Prakash Kumar (PW7) and Shri Z.U. Siddiqui (PW9) that recommendation for allotment of alternative plot of land after deliberating the cases of different applicants were made by them alongwith A-1. 29 cases were taken up for consideration on 03.12.2002 by the Recommendation Committee and out of which recommendation for allotment of plot is made in 18 cases and 9 cases were sent for re-examination and two cases were rejected and recommendation for allotment of land to Satish Kumar was mentioned at Sr. No. 4 in Annexure '1' vide Ex.PW6/A. It had also come in the deposition of these three witnesses that it is necessary to verify the records from different branches such as Revenue, Land Acquisition Branch and Legal Department for considering the application for allotment of alternative plot of land and thus, reports are also to be obtained. The decision of the Committee to recommend allotment of alternative piece of land is dependent upon the fact whether LAC report, Revenue report and report from Legal Department are in order. A meaningful reading of the depositions of these witnesses i.e. members of Recommendation Committee would indicate that Alternative branch is the Nodal agency which ensures that all background exercise in respect of the land on the basis of which the eligibility of the applicant for an alternative piece of land CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 178 of 308 is determined and the information furnished by Alternative Branch plays a role in making the recommendation for the allotment of land. It has also come in the depositions of the witnesses that both A-1 and A-2 were present on the meeting dated 03.12.2002 when recommendation for allotment of alternative piece of land was made.
173. PW9 also explained in detail that A-1 used to act as Member Secretary of the Recommendation Committee for alternative allotment of the land. He also explained that a summary sheet was prepared by Alternative Branch by accused S.S. Malhi and the same was also endorsed by accused Badrul Islam. Perusal of summary Sheets vide Ex.PW- 3/K(Colly - D-9) including that of accused Satish at page no. 35 would reveal that certification is made by A-2 and which was also endorsed by A-
1. The certification (vide Ex PW-3/K at page 35 in respect of the present case) made in respect of the present case is to the following effect :-
"Certified that the particulars above are found correct as per record. Sd/- S.S. Malhi."
174. Meaning thereby that positive assertion has been made by A-2 in respect of the correctness of the eligibility of the applicant to become entitled for the allotment of land and the existence of various documents to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 179 of 308 show the eligibility of the applicant. As already mentioned, PW9 had given the importance of summary sheets while considering the individual cases in the meeting of Recommendation Committee.
175. PW-52, PW-6, PW-7 & PW-9 stated that recommendation for allotment of the land hinges on the documents submitted alongwith the application and the requisite carried out verification by Alternative Branch which was helmed by A-1(now deceased). The prosecution in the present case had asserted that the preparation of files etc. and the responsibility for conducting the entire process i.e. verification etc. was in the domain of A-1 Badrul Islam who was assisted by his Dealing Assistant S.S. Malhi (A-2) and Summary Sheets in respect of the various cases were put up before the Recommendation Committee on 03.12.2002 and which was endorsed by the accused Badrul Islam (Since expired).
176. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that merely on the strength of a note prepared on a summary sheets by A-2, he cannot be roped into the present case since PW6, PW7 and PW9 had deposed in their evidence before the court that they have made recommendation for the allotment of land after going through the file and recommendation was CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 180 of 308 made after due application of mind as members of the Recommendation Committee applied their minds which is reflected from the fact that 18 cases were recommended for allotment of land and 9 cases were sent back for reconsideration and two cases were rejected. It is also contended that only the members of Recommendation Committee are answerable as to why they made recommendation for an ineligible applicant.
177. In order to deal with the specific contention qua the role of A-2, the above referred witnesses deposed categorically that A-1 is the Dy. Director (Alternative) as well as one of the member of Recommendation Committee. The Alternative Branch is a part of L&B Department and the Alternative Branch used to look after the specific requirement on the basis of which eligibility for the allotment of land for an applicant can be determined. In order to be eligible for recommendation for allotment of land first notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, secondly, the applicant must be recorded owner in revenue record, thirdly, he must have got the compensation from the concerned LAC and its certificate, fourthly, he should apply to the L& B Department under specified period, fifthly, he or his family or his dependent should not have any other plot or residential property out of village abadi and sixthly, the total land of the farmer should have been acquired and he should not have been left with CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 181 of 308 any other piece of agriculture land. The eligibility of an applicant to be entitled for alternative piece of land was not seriously challenged by the accused persons.
178. A perusal of the summary sheets vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly - total 27 in numbers) were made by A-2 and summary sheets in relation to the present case is at page no. 35 vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly), was endorsed by A-1 in which certain columns etc. were to be filled. The information supplied in the summary sheet was patently false as the land of A-3 was never acquired and he was not paid any compensation and there is no contemporaneous record which indicates that Satish Goyal had resided in village Bahapur or in Delhi and even name of any ancestors of Satish was not recorded in any document and no documents were brought into record by any of the accused persons during the course of trial and more specifically by A-3 that A-3 holds a land in Delhi. As discussed earlier PW6, PW7 and PW9 as well as PW52 had clearly stated that prior to conveying the meeting of the Recommendation Committee, a verification is required to be done by Alternative branch by seeking report etc. There are some minor variations in testimonies of the witnesses as to how the verification is to be done, however, the witnesses were consistent in their depositions that responsibility of the verification of the information is required to be made CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 182 of 308 by Alternative Branch. In the present case, the summary sheets containing particular information (vide Ex.PW-3/K (Colly at page 35) was made by A- 2 and was endorsed by A-1 in respect of A-3, then it was for A-1 and A-2 to explain as to how and in what manner the said summary sheets containing the information came into existence. The stand of accused persons and more specifically in the present case of A-2 is wavering and contradictory and is based on total denial. It is contended that investigation from LAC, Revenue and Legal department was not done in proper manner and it is also vociferously pitched that it was not the duty and responsibility of A-2 to get the verification conducted from different departments and since it is not the part of the duty of A-2, so A-2 cannot be held to be liable.
179. The file of accused Satish on the basis of which the recommendation for the allotment of alternate land was not found in Alternative Department or at any other branch/section of L&B and what is left is the summary sheets vide Ex.PW-3/K(Colly- 27 in numbers and in respect of the present accused is at page no. 35) and different note sheets qua the holding of meeting in respect of the holding of meeting of the allotment committee were found. PW6, PW7 and PW9, members of the Recommendation Committee, deposed that when applications for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired are moved, then Alternative CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 183 of 308 Branch processes the case by verifying it from Revenue record, obtaining reports from LAC and documents are also obtained from different departments and even personal verification of the applicants are also conducted. PW52 Ms. Usha Chaturvedi has also explained the procedure/methodology, adopted by L&B Department for processing the application for allotment of alternative piece of land. The eligibility of Satish Kumar Goyal, to be entitled for the allotment of alternative piece of land was never verified from any of the department and the same shows that a fake file was created to show that Satish Kumar as an eligible person and his case was considered by the Recommendation Committee on the basis of the documents. Even if it is accepted that file of Satish was missing or not traceable, and the only way to test his eligibility for the allotment of land is to retrace the steps by verifying or cross checking the documents on the basis of which his eligibility for an alternative plot of land is determined and further to consider the basis and justification of the information which was certified by A-2 in summary sheet vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly) and more specifically at page no. 35 of the summary sheet pertaining to the present case i.e. of accused Satish and the documents which were referred in the summary sheets. The prosecution in order to test the eligibility of accused Satish and further to establish that information mentioned in Ex.PW3/K (Colly at page no. 35) were patently false and fake file of the accused Satish was created by A-1 & A-2 in pursuance of the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 184 of 308 criminal conspiracy and had examined few witnesses qua the fact that A-3 did not possess any document or had any basis to be recommended for the allotment of land and a fake file was created to enable the recommendation for allotment of plot of land to A-3.
180. PW65 Shri Khemchand Sharma, Kanoongo from Land Acquisition Collector, South-East District was examined. He brought the certified copy of Award No. 2059 dated 24.01.1968 containing list of 109 claimants in English (11 Sheets) Ex.PW65/C (D-55), certified copy of Kabja Karyavahi dated 28.03.1968 in Urdu Ex.PW65/D (D-56) and its translated version in Hindi (D-57), certified copy of Urdu and Hindi of Naksha Muntazamin pertaining to the above-said award no. 2059 of Village Bahapur alongwith the order dated 13.08.1968 for award of compensation and certified translated copy of Naksha Muntazamin vide Ex.PW65/E (D-58 & D-59). A perusal of his cross-examination would reflect that no questions in respect of non-appearance of name of Satish or his forefather were put to the witness either by A-2 or A-3 or A-4. Nothing material has emerged in the cross-examination of this witness to the effect that name of Satish was mistakenly omitted. This witness has also clearly stated that no record is available in LAC Branch in respect of sending and forwarding of verification report from L&B Department pertaining to Satish son of Late Shri Hemraj. The above referred documents as brought on record by PW65 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 185 of 308 would indicate that neither name of Satish nor any of his ancestors were mentioned therein and same indicate that either the land of Satish or his forefathers was never acquired and even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that record in respect of sending or verification of the record is not available at least the fact that name of Satish or his forefather should be mentioned vide Ex.PW65/C to Ex.PW65/E (D-55 to D-56 and D-58) in the list of the claimants whose lands in village Bahapur were acquired. Name of Satish or his forefathers is conspicuously missing in Ex.PW65/C to Ex.PW65/E. The contention of Ld. Counsel that village Bahapur falls within the jurisdiction of LAC(South) and the record from the LAC was not called by the Investigating Agency from LAC (South) is liable to be rejected since perusal Ex.PW65/B would reveal that certified copy of Award, certified copy of Naksha Mumtazin, certified copy of kabza karwahi alongwith its translated copy was given to the Investigating Officer. PW65 has brought on record the certified copy of the Award and the said award clearly mentions that khasra no. 607 was acquired. The award did not mention the name of accused Satish or any of his forefather. The possession in respect of khasra no. 607 has also been taken and the contention by making the reference to Ex.PW65/F to the effect whether any compensation was paid or not? In this regard, it is noted that when neither land of accused Satish was acquired nor any award was passed in his favour then how can such an information could be provided by South CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 186 of 308 District. It is also relevant to mention that earlier South East District was combined with South District and when the record pertaining to village Bahapur is available which was provided by LAC (South East) and therefore, the mere endorsement that if any record is available with South District be provided is a basically an additional endorsement as the record pertaining to the verification was not found in the District when the subject khasra no. 607 was part of village Bahapur in South East District. Moreover, all details towards the acquisition of khasra No. 697 alongwith claimant and the status as regards the possession is clearly mentioned. Neither during trial nor at the stage of defence evidence, any material or document was brought by the accused to indicate that accused Satish has received compensation and the same shows that no verification was carried out and moreover all the information has been supplied by PW-65. Moreover, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for A-2 is liable to be rejected in view of the specific testimony of PW57 who has clearly brought the notification in respect of village Bahapur vide Ex.PW57/C and the same clearly shows that neither name of accused nor his forefathers were mentioned and no entry in respect of the file movement were found).
181. PW13, Patwari, brought the photocopy of Jamabandi of Mauj Bahapur Tehsil and Zila for the year 1949 vide Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D (D-49 and D-50). He had also provided the translated copy of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 187 of 308 Jamabandi from Urdu to Hindi vide Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F and he had deposed that the name of accused Satish was not mentioned in the said document. PW13 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused S.S. Malhi, Neeraj Kumar Gupta and Pramod Garg. No cross-examination was done on behalf of A-1, A2 & A5 and no material questions were put on behalf of A-3 & A-4 to the effect that either Satish's name or the name of his forefathers were mentioned in the Jamabandi or that there are some other documents which shows the name of accused Satish Kumar or any member of his family that they had ever resided at Village Bahapur or they had any land at Village Bahapur. The Jamabandi documents and translated copy thereof remained unchallenged to the effect that name of Satish Kumar Goyal was not mentioned and thus, he was not eligible for the allotment of alternative piece of land. In fact no document was brought at the stage of cross-examination or at the stage of defence evidence that accused Satish has any land at Village Bahapur or at any place in Delhi. The accused persons have merely raised technical objection without specifying as to what they want to disprove. No cross-examination was done by the accused person and more specifically by accused No. 2 as to what process is being followed by the department while putting up the case for allotment before the Recommendation Committee and he remained associated with this Department for long period of time as he is well conversant with the process of the recommendation of allotment of land. Ultimately, the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 188 of 308 requisite job is to be done by the Alternative Department, no alternative mode or methodology was suggested by the accused persons.
182. PW57 testified to the effect that files are received from the Alternative Branch for the purposes of verification of notification under sections 4 & 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land which was acquired. PW57 stated that copy of the notification was provided by Shri Alok Sharma with whom the witness had worked. PW57 also deposed that no entry/file movement in respect of file no. F.32(21/50/89/L&B and Alt is found available in the record of L&B Department. Interestingly, no substantial cross-examination of this witness was conducted by the defence. It has thus, emerged from testimony of this witness that no information was sought or obtained from LA Branch in respect of the notification in respect of Khasra number 607. Since it was claimed that khasra no. 607 of village Bahapur was acquired and A-3 Satish is eligible for allotment of land under the Welfare Scheme.
183. If any villager or his forefathers holds a land in the village, then names of such person are figured on the Jamabandi and in case of acquisition of any land, the persons whose names are mentioned in Jamabandi documents, become entitled for compensation and in some cases, if the Government formulates a scheme that some benefit would be CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 189 of 308 provided to the persons whose lands were acquired then Jamabandi is one of the document which helps in determination of the claim of rightful claimant.
184. From the aforementioned testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW13, PW57, and PW65, it is crystal clear from the record that land of the accused Satish Kumar Goyal was never acquired, neither he nor any of his forefather have any land in Village Bahapur and it is also established from the depositions of these witnesses that Satish Kumar Goyal was not even the resident of village Bahapur and his name is not mentioned in any of the official record. The only challenge that is laid on behalf of the accused persons is to the effect that it was not the responsibility of A-2 to verify the credentials from different departments as same was not the part of the duty of the accused and reference is also made to the testimony of IO/PW71 and it was contended that since it was not the duty of A-2 to make any verification or whether any verification has been conducted would not be the responsibility of A-2. Reasons for examining the witnesses from LAC i.e. PW13, PW57, PW65 and PW67 are two-fold, firstly to establish that it was the duty of A-2 and A-1 to check the correctness of the record on the basis of which A-3 was made eligible for the allotment of alternative piece of land. Secondly, the prosecution is trying to establish that since A-2 had certified that particulars mentioned therein are correct, whereas the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 190 of 308 particulars in summary sheet vide Ex.PW3/K (in reference to the case of accused Satish at page 35) are not correct and A-2 by making certification in respect of Ex.PW3/K (Colly.) is misleading the government in conspiracy with A-1 so as to facilitate the allotment of land. The record as produced by these witnesses clearly established that A-3 was not eligible for allotment of any plot of land and the certification made by A-2 is false and incorrect. It is certainly part of the duty of A2 to verify the information as mentioned in the summary sheets and both A-1 & A-2 have not facilitated the verification in respect of acquisition of the land or the report from LAC or from legal department or the basic verification of A-3 to facilitate the illegal allotment of the land and fake file was created and the summary sheets at page no. 35 was designed in furtherance to establish a false claim.
185. In so far as the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that award was in Urdu and the same was translated in Hindi and the translator was not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the certified copy and its Hindi translation cannot be read in evidence. In order to appreciate this contention, it is required to be noted that official language in Delhi is English, Hindi and Urdu. No objection was raised at the time of examination of the witness that translation from Urdu to Hindi furnished was incorrect or the accused persons were unable to understand Urdu or CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 191 of 308 that Hindi version is incorrect at any stage i.e. at the stage of section 207 CrPC or at the time of examination-in-chief of the witnesses. It is pertinent to mention both Urdu and translated record shows that the name of accused Satish Kumar Goyal or his father is not mentioned and the contention in this regard is liable to be rejected. (Reference is made to the judgment of "Om Prakash Vs. CBI", Crl. Appeal No. 134/2016 dated 05.09.2017 (Delhi High Court) - relevant paragraph no. 5.11, in which it was observed as follows :-
"Legal position on the point is thus well settled that if the document is otherwise inadmissible for want of a certificate or any other requirement of law, it being exhibited in the course of trial does not make the document admissible in law and though an objection as to the mode of proof can be waived off and should be taken at the first instance, however the objection as to the admissibility of a document hich goes to the root of the matter can be taken at any stage. Supreme Court in the decision reported as R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) held:
"20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [AIR1966 SC 1457] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified in two classes:
(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 192 of 308
(ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document n evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be llowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.
The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party endering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons:
firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court."CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 193 of 308
186. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the document vide Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D (D-49 & D-50) and its translated version vide Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW65/D and Ex.PW65/F alongwith its translated version can be read in evidence and the objection raised on behalf of the ld. Counsel for the accused persons is rejected.
187. The contention Counsel for accused that guidelines do not prescribe any specific directions for conducting verification from different department and therefore, same cannot be called as part of public duty. PW52 had provided a methodology as to how an object of a welfare scheme is required to be achieved. Guidelines Ex.PW2/D had provided the basis for the verification of the documents from the persons who are seeking allotment of land. It is quite natural for a Government Department while seeking application from the general public whose lands were acquired, to submit an application for allotment of alternative piece of land alongwith necessary documents to conduct the scrutiny whether land was acquired or not or the name of the applicant is mentioned in the revenue record and personal verification of such applicant and in the absence of the required information as mentioned in Ex.PW3/K (Colly - page no. 35), it is certainly not possible to decide as to who would be eligible for the allotment of alternative piece of land and therefore, the contention that guidelines do not provide the basis for verification are liable to be rejected.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 194 of 308188. Perusal of the cross-examinations of different witnesses specially PW6, PW7, PW9 and PW52 and other witnesses from LAC and Revenue would indicate that A-3 has not even cross-examined any of the aforementioned witnesses to the effect that he was eligible for the allotment of alternative piece of land. A-2 had simply taken the defence that mere certification on Ex.PW3/K (Colly, and in reference to the present case of accused Satish at page no. 35) would not make him liable in the case that entries made by him are correct or not had not even attempted to bring any evidence on record to the effect that the land of A-3 was acquired or that he was eligible for the allotment of land.
189. It is vehemently contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 that guidelines had provided for the verification from LAC and revenue department and it did not provide for the verification from Legal Department. The contention on the face of it looks attractive, however, in the present case, in order to go into the root of the matter, the prosecution had even considered the fact that whether any documents were received from Alternative Branch by the Legal department and to verify the documents as submitted with the application and the very fact that the documents/file in respect of Satish was never sent to the Legal Department only lends credence to the case of the prosecution that A-3 was not eligible CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 195 of 308 for any plot of land and the file which was put before the Recommendation Committee was a fake file and possibility of the same containing forged and fabricated document is not ruled out. Although guidelines do not provide that verification is to be conducted from legal department, however, it has come in evidence that practice of conducting verification from legal department used to be conducted by Alternative Branch. In the instant case, in order to check the claim of A-3, the investigating agency has even gone extra mile to cross check with the legal department as to whether the verification in support of the claim of A-3 was made by the public servant.
190. PW52 outlined the process in respect of the eligibility of the applicant and had also testified to the effect that files were placed before the competent authority of L&B Department to fix date for calling the meeting of Recommendation Committee which consists of Principal Secretary, Additional Secretary, Deputy Legal Advisor and Deputy Director of the Alternative Branch and after approval of the date, notices were issued to the concerned members of the Recommendation Committee for the meeting. On the date and time of scheduled meeting, cases were placed before the members. Some of the cases gets approved and some gets rejected due to some deficiencies. Minutes of the meeting were issued after the meeting in which all the details of each and every approved and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 196 of 308 rejected cases were mentioned. PW52 stated that after the minutes of the meeting was prepared, the deficiency memos were issued to the farmers/applicants to complete their papers and for approved cases, recommended letter in triplicate was issued (one for DDA, other for applicant and third one is office copy). The triplicate copies were prepared in three colours i.e. green colour letter for the DDA, yellow colour for the applicant and pink for office copy. These letters also bear the booklet number and attested photograph of the applicant. These letters were sent through Central R&I branch of L&B department to DDA and to the applicant, through post. PW52 stated that the concerned Dealing Assistant prepares the recommendation letter having details of applicant name, village name, khasra number and total area of acquired land in the prescribed proforma and the same was signed by the Dy. Director of the Alternative Branch. PW52 stated that after recommending the alternative plot and issuing order, the file was consigned to the record room of L&B Department.
191. It is the case of the prosecution that a fake file of the applicant Satish was created and the same was later on destroyed so that no trail is left. In the preceding paragraphs, it has already been demonstrated that verification qua the eligibility was not done and nothing has come on CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 197 of 308 record which indicates that A-3 was eligible for the alternative piece of land qua the acquisition of his land in Delhi.
192. One of the contention of the Ld. Counsel for A-2 is to the effect that members of the Recommendation Committee deposed that they had checked the documents while making recommendation for the allotment of plot of land to Satish and on that basis, it is contended that summary sheets qua the case of Satish would not make much difference. In appreciating this contention of Ld. Counsel for A-2, it is required to be mentioned that a government department/office works on a hierarchical basis. When some documents or information is given by public at large, the information in the form of documents is distilled at subordinate level or the basic scrutiny is done by forwarding the application/the case to a Superior Authority. When decision making is based on the verification of documents and after the basic scrutiny has been completed and file(s) are placed before a decision making Committee, the said Committee would definitely rely upon the reports and the documents presented before it and if it is further backed by the necessary noting/comment in respect of the documents by a clerk/dealing assistant. In reference to the present case, the summary sheets Ex.PW3/K (Colly) was in the aid of decision making process by confirming the existence of the documents on the basis of which the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 198 of 308 recommendation for allotment of plot is made and therefore to say that summary sheets Ex.PW3/K (Colly at page 35 of Satish) has no value while making recommendation for the allotment of land is liable to be rejected. The categorical noting/comment by a government servant for the immediate perusal of his superior are contributory factor in arriving at a decision and therefore to say that a misleading comment or noting which influences the basic decision making would not have any value, is liable to be rejected as such information authenticates the information/details, presented before the Committee for consideration.
193. PW52 deposed that four applications were received from village Bahapur for allotment of land by making reference to the stock register vide Ex.PW2/J (Colly). Neither A-1 nor A-2 and A-3 or other accused persons have challenged the statement of PW52 that name of A-3 is not mentioned or there is some other method by which the name of Satish should have been mentioned in the register vide Ex.PW2/J. If the name of A-3 does not figure in the register then as to how application of Satish (A-
3) could have been considered. A-3 maintained complete silence in this regard. A-2 who is the Dealing clerk has also failed to give complete explanation as to how the case of A-3 was put up before Recommendation Committee when the register which is maintained in the office did not indicate that any application of Satish has been received from village CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 199 of 308 Bahapur and this fact itself shows that fake file was created to make basis for recommendation of allotment of alternate land.
194. It would be appropriate to take note of the fact that Charge under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against A-1 (now deceased) and A-2.
195. At the cost of reiteration, the submission of ld. Counsel for A-2 is that no rules or procedure was demonstrated by the prosecution to show that A-2 has abused his position as a public servant and in the absence of any rule and practice, the so-called exercise of holding the verification from different departments cannot be called as part of the duty. It is also contended that members of the Recommendation Committee deposed contrary to Ex.PW-2/D and therefore, no offence under section 13(1) & (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes out against A-2. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that no criminal misconduct was committed by A-2 and there is no evidence or material which suggest that A-2 had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or that any corrupt or illegal means were adopted by A-2 or that he has abused his position or had acted without public interest and therefore, ingredients of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 200 of 308 offence under Section 13(1)(d) does not make out against A-2. It is also submitted that guidelines do not have the statutory force or that A-2 cannot be penalized for not strictly following the guidelines or that mere certification would not make out the case for invoking provision of section 13 of PC Act. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 9
(ii) Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 398.
196. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Act reads as under :-
"If any -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest"
197. Section 13(2) of PC Act is a punishable section when ingredients of offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are made out against the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 201 of 308 public servant. Section 13 of PC Act provides that, if a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. Secondly, if a public servant abuses his position as a public servant obtains either for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thirdly, when a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
198. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI in Crl. Appeal No. 482/2002 (DoD : 21.12.2011) was pleased to observe that :
"74. Having now settled the true interpretation of whether the offence under Section 13(1) (d) (iii) requires proof of mens rea, it would now be vital to settle what really the prosecution would have to establish to say that the public servant‟s actions or decisions, which result in a third party obtaining a pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, without public interest. The expression "public interest" is known to law; at the same time its meaning is not rigid, and takes colour from the particular statute".
IIn a later decision, LIC of India vs Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482, it was held that:
- public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined to act in a manner i.e. fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options--CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 202 of 308
Further in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors ., (2011) 6 SCC 508, in the light of provisions of Section 13 (1)
(d), The court held that:
The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc. acts as a trustee--
75. It would be profitable to emphasize that public servants are an entirely different class, and the level of trust reposed in them by the society is reflected in the high standards of behaviour and rectitude expected of them, both in the discharge of their duties, and otherwise.
* * * *
78. Therefore, when a public servant‟s decision exhibits complete and manifest disregard to public interest with the corresponding result of a third party obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, he is fastened with responsibility for "criminal misconduct" under Section 13(1)
(d) (iii). There is nothing reprehensible in this interpretation, because the "act" being "without public interest" is the key, the controlling expression, to this offence. If one contrasts this with "abuse" of office resulting in someone "obtaining" "pecuniary advantage or valuable thing", it is evident thatSection 13(1)(d) (ii) may or may not entail the act being without public interest. This offence- under Section 13(1) (d) (iii) advisedly does not require proof of intent, or mens rea, because what Parliament intended was to punish public servants for acts which were without public interest. This kind of offence is similar to those intended to deal with other social evils, such as food and drug adulteration, (offences under Prevention of Food Adlteration Act, Section 13(1), Drugs & Cosmetics Act; Section 7(1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 25 Arms Act (1959), possession of explosives, air and water pollution, etc. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 203 of 308
199. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neera Yadav Vs. CBI in Crl. Appeal No. 253 of 2017 was pleased to observed that :
"15. Sectiom 13 of the P.C. Act in general lays down that if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he would be guilty of 'criminal misconduct'. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 speaks of the punishment for such misconduct. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act lays down the essentials and punishment respectively for the offence of 'criminal misconduct' by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) reads as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(d) if he,--
(i) by by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing o r p e c u n i a r y 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"
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13(1)(d).
Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 204 of 308 amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning "obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct.
Illegality in Allotment of Plot No.B-002 Sector 32 and subsequent conversion to Plot No.26, Sector-14A".
200. The word 'Misconduct' has been considered in the case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 617, in paragraph 46 it was observed as under :
"In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh it was stated:
Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., at p. 999, thus:
''Misconduct. A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness.'' Misconduct in office has been defined as: ''Misconduct in office Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the fact of an affirmative duty to act.'' In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., at p. 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under:
'Misconduct. The term ''misconduct'' implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 205 of 308
MISCONDUCT is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.
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."
337. As to when conduct of a public servant becomes criminal misconduct within the meaning of PC Act, it was observed in paragraphs 35 and 47 as under:
''35. Section 13 of the Act provides for criminal misconduct by a public servant. Such an offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant can be said to have been committed if in terms of Sections 13(1) (d)(ii)(iii) a public servant abuses its position and obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Subsection (2) of Section 13 provides that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
47. Even under the Act, an offence cannot be said to have been committed only because the public servant has obtained either for himself or for any other person any pecuniary advantage. He must do so by abusing his position as a public servant or holding office as a public servant. In the latter category of cases, absence of any public interest is a sine qua non. The materials brought on record do not suggest in any manner whatsoever that Respondents 1 to 7 either had abused position or had obtained pecuniary advantage for Respondents 8, 9, and 10, which was without any public interest."
201. The applicability of Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not dependent on CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 206 of 308 the fact that A-2/public servant should have obtained a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage for himself. An offence under section 13 of PC Act can be said to have been in terms of Sections 13(1) (d)(ii)(iii), when a public servant abuses his position and obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Hence, it is not necessary that pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing has been procured by public servant for himself, it could be a third party. The word 'illegal' has not been defined under the PC Act but the same is defined in Indian Penal Code.
Section 43 of Indian Penal Code defines illegal, legally bound to do when any action is an offence or is prohibited by law or which furnishes grounds for a civil action, the person is said to be legally bound to do whatever it is illegal in him to omit.
202. It is vivid from the documentary as well as oral evidence that A-3 was not entitled for allotment of land and the guidelines vide Ex.PW2/D provides exercise of the verification from different departments as explained in detail by PW52 and other witnesses that verification is required to be conducted, although there might be some minor variation as to how verification is to be conducted. It is palpable from the material available on record that A-3 was not eligible for the allotment of land and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 207 of 308 yet the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H was issued by A-1 in conspiracy with A-2. If A-1 and A-2 have not joined the hands together, probably the offence would not have been committed. The instant case is not confined to minor infraction of duties rather two public servants in conspiracy with other accused persons have provided benefit to an ineligible person so that an alternative piece of land is allotted to such person and thereby depriving the claim of rightful person who would have been entitled for the same and therefore, the contention of Ld. Counsel for A-2 to the effect that Section 13 of PC Act is not attracted is rejected.
203. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs and from the testimonies of the witnesses that documents on the basis of which the recommendation for allotment of plot is made had never existed and, thus, the role of A-2 & A-3 become very important. The plea of A-2 is of total denial and harps on the fact that mere certification would not make him liable. A-2 has failed to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of the established procedure/practice followed by the department while considering the application for allotment of land and if such verification was conducted and there is no wrong doing on the part of A-2, there could have been no reason for A-2 to make the certification on Ex.PW3/K (Colly) at page 35 in respect of the present case.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 208 of 308204. The ratio of the judgments of "Runu Ghosh" and "Sahai" (supra) would reveal that while considering the conduct of a public servant, the element of a public interest is also required to be considered. The policy for allotment of land to eligible farmers/land owners was not the charity, but a recognition from welfare state that land owners who were deprived of their land by contributing to the planned development of land must have stake in Delhi for which they had offered their land. The "public duty" and "public interest" require such an allotment should only be made to eligible person but in the present case A-2 consciously and deliberately failed to consider the element of public interest, the role played by A-2 is further strengthened from the fact that the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H was issued in the name of Satish Kumar son of Shri Hem Raj. The stock register vide Ex.PW2/G (D-39) would indicate that recommendation forms/letter for allotment of recommendation for alternative plot South Zone was issued in the name of S.S. Malhi and the same bears his initials at Points-A vide Ex.PW2/G. It is also relevant to mention that Receipt and Issue of Recommendation Form Register vide Ex.PW3/J at Sr. No. 338 mentions the name of accused Satish including the case file number.
205. It is pertinent to mention that the Receipt & Issue Register vide Ex.PW3/J remained with accused S.S. Malhi which is apparent from the signature of accused S.S. Malhi, as per which he had allegedly handed over CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 209 of 308 the register to Sheela Devi on 29.07.2003, meaning thereby that till 29.07.2003 the accused S.S. Malhi was the custodian of the forms for recommendation of allotment of plot of land. A perusal of the recommendation letter Ex.PW3/H (green colour is the copy for DDA) indicates that the same was received in DDA on 01.05.2003 vide diary no. 11823 and it contains the complete details such as Award, Village and Zone etc. It is evident from the material as brought by the prosecution that S.S. Malhi and accused Badrul Islam used to deal with various recommendation forms and it would be appropriate to say that the details which are filled in the various recommendation forms is in the complete knowledge of Badrul Islam and S.S. Malhi. A perusal of cross-examination of PW3 Shri Baidhnath would indicate that not a single suggestion or any cross- examination was conducted to the effect that S.S. Malhi did not use to deal with the various recommendation forms which was issued in his name. The recommendation form vide Ex.PW3/H received in DDA, bears the photograph of Satish Kumar. A-2 has not denied his presence in the meeting convened on 03.12.2002 and he being associated with A-1, could have easily explained as to on what basis, he made the certification and when the entire record was with him and he thus knowingly provided the benefit to A-3.
206. There was no cross-examination to the effect that A-2 was not CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 210 of 308 present in the meeting dated 03.12.2002. Although A-2 has challenged his handwriting and signature and the said aspect shall be discussed at an appropriate place in the present judgment. It is also not the case of A-3 i.e. Satish Kumar that he was the resident of Delhi or he had ever resided at village Bahapur or his land was ever acquired.
207. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 that the summary sheets as available on record vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly) were merely for indexing/page/table of contents and it is submitted that the summary sheets as available on record, could not have been found in bunch and summary sheets of different files had been taken and filed in the charge sheet.
208. Perusal of the record reveals that vide production-cum-receipt memo Ex.PW51/B, the original file bearing no. F.30(Misc)/1/97/L&B/Alt (Vol.III) containing subject "Constitution of the Committee for Alternative Plots" containing note sheet portion from page 1/N to 6/N (top of the note- sheet) and correspondence portion from page 1/C to 65/C (below the page). The aforementioned file which was seized memo vide Ex.PW51/B contains number of documents/papers including note sheets/minutes etc. and even draft notes and also contains the summary sheets (27 in numbers) and all summary sheets were certified by A-2 to the effect that "certified that the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 211 of 308 particulars above are found correct as per record". The file contains all the summary sheets and which was seized by the Investigating Officer from PW51. PW71, in his cross-examination dated 26.09.2022, has clearly stated that summary sheets i.e. Ex.PW-3/K (Colly), 27 summary sheets including that of accused Satish is also part of record vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly) (D-9). PW51 Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta was examined and he identified the signature of Shri Dinesh Singh on production-cum-receipt memo at Point-X. Perusal of the statement of PW51 would indicate that no question was put to this witness as to whether summary sheets were taken out from different files of allottee/applicant and put in the file which were seized by the Investigating Officer. Vide Ex.PW51/B, the summary sheets alongwith other documents were handed over to the Investigation Officer and it shows that separate summary sheets were also prepared for the ready reference in respect of the files which were taken into consideration by the Recommendation Committee and was kept in the main file. PW-9 has deposed that summary sheets were also prepared.
209. All 27 summary sheets bear the certification of A-2 in his own handwriting and if the contents whose certification which was made by A-2 is correct or not, the onus is on A-2 to explain whether certification as made is correct or not? The very fact that in reference to the summary sheets pertaining to Satish son of Shri Hem Raj, the accused had made the specific CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 212 of 308 noting that the particulars above are found correct as per record. It has also come in the testimonies of PW6, PW7 and PW9 that in the meeting of the Recommendation Committee, A-2 and A-1 used to be present and A-2 used to assist A-1. The members of the Recommendation Committee did not say even a word about the presence of some other person from Alternative Branch, except A-1 and A-2 and even no cross-examination was conducted on behalf of A-2 that he was not present when the meeting of the Recommendation Committee used to be held. Various note sheets were prepared and same were signed by the A-2 and same further indicates the complete awareness and knowledge about the working of the Recommendation Committee.
210. Perusal of the different summary sheets (27 in number) vide Ex.PW-3/K (Colly) would indicate in the column, details such as land acquired of the applicant, eligibility and zone, recorded owners name, LAC report, revenue record, date of compensation and the requisite details against the column were filled including that of accused Satish. In the summary sheet, the requisite information in respect of the land acquired, LAC report and zone and details in respect of other legal heirs are mentioned. More importantly, it mentions the relevant page numbers in respect of the documents which are usually filed when a person applies for alternative piece of land in view of the acquisition of the land etc. and the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 213 of 308 same was duly certified by A-2. The cross-examination of members of the Recommendation Committee in respect of the presence of A-2 in the meeting was not challenged by the defence and even the certification which was made by A-2 in the summary sheet pertaining to A-3 Satish was not seriously disputed that A-2 did not make the certification as alleged by the prosecution except for the bald suggestion that signature of accused was taken in the office of CBI. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross- examination of the witnesses. The contention of the ld. counsel for the accused that summary sheet vide Ex PW-3/K(Colly) is the photocopy and also in relation to the present case would not make difference as the accused No. 2 himself signed and wrote on the same by certifying the details mentioned therein and thus, he cannot deny his authorship.
211. As discussed above, the members of the Recommendation Committee made recommendation for the allotment land to Satish on 03.12.2002 and the minutes of the same were signed on 04.02.2003 and it was contended on behalf of the accused persons that minutes were signed after considerable delay. The minutes were signed on 04.02.2003 and this delayed signing of the minutes of the meeting is a usual case of bureaucratic delay which occurs in the government department because of sheer amount of work and other business. Moreover, members of the Recommendation Committee are from different department and they signed CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 214 of 308 the same on 4.2.2003 and the delay in signing the minutes of the meeting would not make much difference.
212. Recommendation letter vide Ex.PW-3/ H was issued in favour of Satish on 28.04.2003 under the signature of A-1 (now expired). It has also come in evidence that A-2 S.S. Malhi was transferred out from the Alternative Branch and PW-10 Ms Sheela Devi took charge from A-2 on 29.06.2003. PW-10 denied her signature on the charge report vide Ex.PW- 10/A (the charge report mentions the file name of accused Satish) and stated that her initials were forged. In her deposition she stated that she was asked by A-1 to take charge of number of files and she put her signature on the charge report without checking the individual files as she cannot understands the contents of individual files. The FSL report vide Ex.PW- 72/A does not give conclusive opinion in respect of the signature of PW-10. Pertinently PW-10 handed over the charge to Satbir, however Satbir was not examined by the prosecution as to whether Sheela Devi handed over the file of accused Satish. PW-8 deposed that file was not consigned to Record Room and same establishes that file of the accused Satish went missing from Alternative Branch and it is not evident from the material brought by the prosecution as to where the file remained from 2003 to 2016 and the responsibility for the loss of file cannot be fixed on a particular in view of the lack of evidence, however, it is established from the material on CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 215 of 308 record that the file was lost or destroyed from the Alternative Branch, although there are suspicious circumstance surrounding the loss of file, however this loss of file or destruction of file would not make much difference as prosecution has brought sufficient evidence on record in respect of the eligibility of the applicant to be entitled for the allotment of land. Moreover, only four applications were received from village Bahapur for allotment of alternate land and same indicates that no application of Accused Satish was given and therefore proves that fake file of accused Satish was prepared.
213. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel that if A-1 & A-2 could be made an accused on the ground that A-3 was not eligible for the allotment of land, then members of the Recommendation Committee cannot be absolved from the charge that they made false recommendation. The contention is liable to be rejected for the reason that no evidence or material had been brought on record to show involvement of any members of the recommendation except A-1. Secondly, the entire file pertaining to the recommendation of land for allotment is within the custody of Alternate Branch which is helmed by A-1 and A-2. Recommendation Committee members did not have any access to the files except A-1and A-2, therefore, it can be safely said that members of the recommendation committee except A-1 is not involved in the present case.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 216 of 308214. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the offence under Section Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Preventon of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against accused S.S. Malhi.
215. It is the case of the prosecution that after receipt of recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H in pursuance to the conspiracy the role of other accused persons also come into the picture whereby substantive offences under sections 420/467/468/471 IPC apart from Section 120B IPC were also committed.
216. It would be appropriate to consider the provisions of Section 415 and 420 IPC before appreciating the contentions of the parties with regard to commission of offences under Indian Penal Code. Section 415 IPC reads as under:
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 retrain 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, 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".CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 217 of 308
Section 420 IPC reads as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces, the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
217. The necessary ingredients of offence of cheating under section 420 IPC are, when any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him 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 to omit anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or commission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property is said to cheat.
218. If both sections 415 IPC and 420 IPC are read together, then in order to attract the applicability of Section 420 IPC, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are also required to be satisfied. Secondly, the person cheated must be dishonestly induce to deliver a property to any person.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 218 of 308Thirdly, when a person destroys or alters either wholly or part of the valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security is said to have committed the offence of cheating.
Sections 463, 464, 467, 468, 469 IPC read as under :-
Section 463 Indian Penal Code [Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 464 IPC in The Indian Penal Code 464 Making a false document. -- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly --Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 219 of 308 in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly --Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix hi [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.] Section 467 IPC
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 468 IPC
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
219. In Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, it was held that:
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 220 of 308The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. If so read, the ingredients of the offence of forgery relevant to the present enquiry are as follows, (1) fraudulently signing a document or a part of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was signed by another or under his authority; (2) making of such a document with an intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. In the two definitions, both mens rea described in s.464 i.e., "fraudulently" and the intention to commit fraud in s. 463 have the same meaning. This redundancy has perhaps become necessary as the element of fraud is not the ingredient of other intentions mentioned in s. 463. The idea of deceit is a necessary ingredient of fraud, but it does not exhaust it;an additional element is implicit in the expression. The scope of that something more is the subject of many decisions. We shall consider that question at a later stage in the light of the decisions bearing on the subject. The second thing to be noticed is that in s. 464 two adverbs,"dishonestly" and "fraudulently" are used alternatively indicating thereby that one excludes the other. That means they are not tautological and must be given different meanings.
Section 24 of the Penal Code defines"dishonestly" thus :"Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly"."Fraudulently" is defined in s. 25 thus:" A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to 591defrand but not otherwise".The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further the juxtaposition of the two expressions "'dishonestly" and"fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other. To illustrate, in the definition of "dishonestly", wrongful gain or wrongful loss is the necessary enough. So too, if the expression "fraudulently' were to be held to involve the element of injury to the person or persons CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 221 of 308 deceived, it would be reasonable to assume that the injury should be something other than pecuniary or economic loss. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice versa, it need not necessarily be so. Should we hold that the concept of fraud" would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived, it would be appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of"dishonestly" that to satisfy the definition of"'fraudulently" it would be enough if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived. Both need not co-exist.
6. Let us now consider some of the leading text book writers and, decisions to ascertain the meaning of the word "fraudulently".
7. The classic definition of the word "fraudulently" is found in Steplien's History of the Criminal law of England, Vol.2, at p. 121 and it reads "I shall not attempt to construct a definition which will meet every case which might be suggested, but there is little danger in saving that whenever the words "fraud" or intent to defraud" or "fraudulently" occur in the definition of a crime two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime : namely, first, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases mere secrecy ;
and secondly, either actual injury or possible injury or to a risk of possible 'injury by means of that deceit or secrecy............. This intent is very seldom the only, or the principal, intention entertained by the fraudulent person, whose principal object in nearly every case is his own advantage................. A practically conclusive test of the fraudulent character of a deception for criminal purposes is this : Did the author of the deceit derive any advantage from it which could not have been had if the truth had been known ? If so it is hardly possible that the advantage should not have had an equivalent in loss or risk of loss to someone else, and if so, there was fraud."It would be seen from this passage that "'fraud" is made up of two ingredients, deceit and injury. The learned author also realizes that the principal object of every fraudulent person in nearly every case is to derive some advantage though such advantage has a corresponding loss or risk of loss to another. Though the author has not visualized the extremely rare situation of an advantage secured by one without a corresponding loss to another, this idea is perused in later decisions.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 222 of 30815. To summarize : the expression "'defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. injury is something other than (1) 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, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non economic or non- pecuniary 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.
220. Recommendation letter vide Ex.PW-3/H was received in DDA from Alternative/L&B Department, a file in respect of the allotment of the alternative plot was opened in DDA. PW-15 deposed that a draw of lot for allotment of the plot was held on 29.05.2003 and thereafter, the file was sent to system department for the generation of demand/allotment letter vide Ex.PW-14/A. He also stated that another demand/allotment letter Ex.PW14/B was sent to Satish through post, however it was received back unserved with the remarks "Adhura pata hai pure pata ke liye vapis. Ek hi naam pita naam ke do vyakti hai" (Incomplete address, hence same is being returned for providing complete address, two persons having similar father's name) vide endorsement at Point-X on the envelope Ex.PW15/C. PW15 also stated that when the envelope was put before him, he made a noting in the file Ex.PW-15/A to procure the complete address of allottee Satish Kumar (A-3) and noting was sent to Sr. Officers. As demand/allotment letters sent through post were returned unserved and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 223 of 308 hence, it was directed that field staff may be deputed to handover the undelivered letter and if the addressee/allottee is outside Delhi, some reference be obtained.
221. It appears from the record that on 08.09.2003, accused Satish Goyal gave an application/letter vide Ex.PW15/D (Page No. 24/C - D-7) addressed to Deputy Director, DDA alongwith other documents for completing the necessary formalities for the allotment of land, such as affidavits (vide Ex.PW11/A and Ex.11/E), undertaking (Ex.PW11/B). Original five bank challans (Ex.PW15/E (Colly.) (page no. 13/C to 17/C), his photo and signatures duly attested by Notary vide (Ex PW11/D), voter- ID card (Ex. PW15/F) and specimen of thumb impression (Ex.PW11/C) (page no. 13/C to 24/C), on 08.09.2009 (date should have been 08.09.2003). After receipt of certificate of encashment of five challans and NOC from the Accounts Branch, possession of letter dated 03.10.2003 was directed to be issued and letter vide Ex.PW-14/D was sent to accused Satish with copy marked to other officials. Accused Satish had also filed an affidavit of undertaking in respect of his wife. It has also come in evidence that accused Satish took the possession of plot on 29.10.2003 and since the total area of the plot was found to be excess, the accused Satish had submitted letter Ex.PW-15/M alongwith the challan, and NOC was issued by Account Departments Department. Lease paper was issued in the name CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 224 of 308 of accused Satish on 02.12.2003 and the lease paper duly stamped was submitted and thereafter vide letter Ex.PW-14/F dated 5.12.2003 was issued to accused Satish Kumar and Smt. Smt. Pankaj for the execution of lease Deed. PW-15 deposed that lease deed was executed on 08.12.2003 in his presence and both accused Satish and his wife Smt. Pankaj were present and Lease Deed was handed over to the accused Satish. The above referred formalities and the procedure that was adopted in DDA was also reiterated by PW14 in his deposition. As per prosecution, after issuance/receipt of recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H, the documents as referred above were provided by accused Satish and his wife Smt. Smt. Pankaj. In order to achieve the objective of getting land from the DDA, forged documents i.e voter I-card, affidavits and undertaking were prepared so as to facilitate the allotment of land from DDA and the funds towards the purchase of land were provided by some other persons and later on the plot was sold to other set of persons. The various documents as submitted by A-3 & A-4 were basically to establish their false claim on the land and to strengthen their claim of being eligible for the allotment of land. There is not much challenge in so far as the completion of the formalities at DDA or the documents including the challan alongwith Pay order/Bank draft by Satish was challenged by any of the accused persons. The cross-examination of both the witnesses i.e. PW14 and PW15 do not shake the case of the prosecution in any manner to the effect that accused Satish furnished the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 225 of 308 documents to DDA and also took further steps for completing the formalities.
222. Two events are worth consideration. PW19 i.e. Shri Jagdish Kumar, Postman deposed that dak entrusted for distribution could not be delivered because of incomplete address. The envelope was received vide endorsement at Point-X and was exhibited as Ex.PW19/A. A close perusal of the envelope would reveal that letter file no. F.27(15)/03/LBS(R)/7059 was returned alongwith the said envelope. The envelope contains the letter vide Ex.PW14/J bearing no. F.27(15)/03/LBS(R)/DDA/7059 and purported address of Delhi is mentioned (Page No. 68 and 69 of file Ex.PW15/A - D-
7). It is relevant to mention that during trial, no attempt was made by accused persons to bring on record to indicate that there was any other address or accused Satish Kumar Goyal had resided at some other places. PW42 Shri Mohan Lal Sharma had also deposed that letter Ex.PW15/C to the accused Satish at his Rajasthan address has not been delivered due to incomplete address. As observed earlier, PW-15 had brought it to the knowledge of his superiors that letter sent to accused were received back. The reason for non-delivery of letters as other attending circumstances would suggest that the address of Rajasthan and Delhi of accused Satish were fake addresses due to which the letters could not be delivered to accused Satish. A perusal of cross-examination of PW19 and PW42 in CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 226 of 308 respect of the non-delivery of the letters were not seriously challenged by any of the accused persons and even no attempt was made to give any justification that due to some other reason the letters could not be delivered to accused Satish.
223. Both the accused persons i.e. Satish and Smt. Pankaj photocopy of voter card having their signatures at the time of execution of lease deed. PW-29 deposed that entry Nos. 1211 and 1212 indicate the name of the person whose name is registered on the electoral roll. PW-29, upon seeing the copy of electoral card in the name of Smt. Pankaj Goyal (page no. 58/C
- file no. F27(15)/2003/AB(R) and Satish (page no. 59/C - file no. F27(15)/2003/AB(R) and comparing with the entries made in electoral card Ex.PW29/D, stated that copy of voter card of Smt. Pankaj and Satish are incorrect. The testimony of PW-29 to the effect that respective copies of the electoral cards do not pertain to the accused persons was not challenged by accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj except for the bald suggestion that witness is deposing falsely. Hence, it is established that copy of the electoral card is a false document and the factum of the same is uncontroverted.
224. It is also relevant to mention that search of the house of accused persons i.e. Satish and Smt. Pankaj Goyal were made during the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 227 of 308 investigation and during search, the documents i.e. the residential proof of both the accused persons were taken and bare perusal of the same would reflect that same does not tally with the address provided to the DDA or mentioned in affidavits/undertakings etc. PW-41 Sh. Chhotu Ram, Ration Card Incharge was examined by the prosecution and deposed after pointing out towards various entries and after referring to entry at Ex.P-11 stated that name of Darshana Devi W/o Sh. Hem Raj and the other members shown against this entry are Seema Rani D/o Sh. Hem Raj and Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Hem Raj and the address given is 89 B, Sri Karanpur, Rajasthan, Ward No. 16B. PW-41 was shown the ration card of Darshana Devi bearing card no. 4828, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan already Ex.P5 to which he stated that this is a duplicate ration card and the same further fortifies the that the address furnished by Satish and his wife were false and incorrect address.
FINANCIAL TRAIL AND PAYMENT OF MONEY TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF LAND FROM DDA
225. The prosecution in order to establish that apart from public servants and accused Satish, there were other players who conspired together to get the plot of land. During the course of trial, no documents or any records were brought to fore by the accused persons Satish and Smt. Pankaj that they had any money in their account to make payment of land and accused Satish Goyal did not explain as to from which source he made payments CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 228 of 308 towards purchase of land and thus, it would be appropriate to understand the availability of funds with the accused Satish, and if the accused Satish did not have fund, then who provided the funds to the accused and whether the persons who provided the fund could be terms as conspirators. The total amount payable to DDA towards land was Rs.11,40,325/- apart from payment of Rs 11404 towards excess area and same was paid through five challans bearing no. 146064 dated 04.09.2003 for Rs.1,325/-, challan no. 10283703 dated 23.08.2003 for Rs.4,41,000/-, challan no. 10283803 dated 02.09.2003 for Rs.4,41,000/-, challan no. 10283903 dated 02.09.2003 for Rs.1,38,000/- and challan no. 10284003 dated 03.09.2003 for Rs.1,19,000/- and through these five challans 23 Demand Draft/ Pay Orders were furnished to DDA. 11 bankers cheques vide Ex.PW28/A (Colly), bearing nos. 273594 to 273597 dated 22.08.2003 each of Rs.49,000/-, bankers cheques bearing nos. 273644, 273649 & 273650, dated 01.09.2003 each of Rs.49,000/-, and banker cheques bearing nos. 273660 to 273663 dated 01.09.2003 amounting to Rs.10,000/- each were issued from Punjab & Sind Bank and 11 bankers cheques were mentioned in the DDA challan Ex.PW27/D at page 13/C to 16/C and Ex.PW15/E. Rs.11,404/- was paid in cash towards excess area.
226. As mentioned earlier, total amount of Rs.11,40,325/- was paid through 23 pay orders/bank drafts by way of five DDA challans. The CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 229 of 308 prosecution asserts that payment was made by Pramod Kumar Garg. However, during the course of trial, only the details regarding 13 pay orders/drafts could be found and the trail in respect of other bank drafts/pay orders which are mentioned in challan submitted by the accused Satish. It would be appropriate to refer to the following chart which indicates the payment made to the DDA through challan alongwith the details of mode of payment :
Details of Payment made by Accused Satish To DDA S.No. Challans No. Particulars of Bank Drafts/Pay Amount paid.
Orders/Managers Cheques.
1. 146064 Paid in Cash Rs. 1,325/- (One Thousand Three (Dated Hundred Twenty Five) 04.09.2003) Bank: Central Bank.
Ex. PW15/E (page 17/C)
2. 10283703 DD No. 243379 Rs. 2,45,000/-
(Dated Banker's Cheque No: 273594 Rs. 49,000/- x 4 = 1,96,000/-
22.08.2003) to 273597 Total= Rs. 4,41,000/- ( Four Lac
Ex. PW 27/D Forty One Thousand Only)
(colly) Bank: Punjab Bank & Sind
(page 16/C) Bank
3. 10283803 DD No. 273644 Rs.4,41,000/- ( Four Lac Forty One
(Dated Banker's cheque No: 506267 to Thousand Only)
02.09.2003) 506274
(page 15/C) Bank of Punjab Ltd. & Punjab
& Sind Bank
4. 10283903 DD No. 273660 to 273663 Rs. 1,38,000/- ( One Lac Thirty
(Dated Banker's cheque No: 273649 to Eight Thousand Only)
02.09.2003) 273650
(page 14/C) Bank: Punjab & Sind Bank
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 230 of 308
5. 10284003 DD no. 250989 Rs. 1,19,000/- (One Lac Nineteen
(Dated Banker's Cheque No: 506281 Thousand Only)
03.09.2003) & 8506282
Ex. PW 27/D Bank: Bank of Punjab ltd &
(Colly) South Indian Bank.
(page 13/C)
6. Challan No. Paid in Cash Rs.11,404/-
159597
(On account of
excess area of
2.57 Sq. meter)
227. Four pay orders/challans bearing nos. 243594 to 243597 of Rs.49,000/- each, dated 22.8.2003 from Punjab & Sindh Bank Extension Counter, G.C. Convent (Sr. No. 2 of the chart) were issued by moving different applications in the bank. It is the case of the prosecution that application forms for issuance of demand drafts/pay orders/Manager's cheque was given in the name of fictitious persons, however, the same was in the handwriting of accused Pramod Garg, although he was having a saving account no. 1555 vide Ex.P-13 (admitted document) in the same bank.
228. PW-28 Shri Mohan Pal Singh, Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank, G.S. Convent School Branch, Paschim Vihar Branch in his statement before the court after referring to the Manager's Cheque Register of the period 21.08.2003 to 31.03.2004, deposed that 11 applications vide CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 231 of 308 Ex.PW28/B (Colly) were received on the basis of which Manager's Cheque/Pay Orders were issued. It is reflected from his testimony that eleven pay orders were issued from Punjab and Sindh Bank and the same matches with Bank Draft/Manager's Cheque in the five challans. Nothing material has emerged in the cross-examination that eleven pay orders were not issued by the respective bank or the same was not given by accused Satish/Smt. Pankaj while making an application for allotment/possession of land to DDA.
229. PW33 Shri Gurdeep Singh brought record from South Indian Bank which indicates that a demand draft of Rs.49,000/- was issued in the name of Fateh Singh and the complete details are not available such as draft/application etc. as same is used to be destroyed. However, the data for the issuance of the same is available in one of the software of the bank, the details thereof are available at Ex.PW33/D and Ex.PW33/A alongwith certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and certificate under section 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence vide Ex.PW33/E and Ex.PW33/F. The demand draft no. 250989 matches with the details in one of the challan submitted by accused Satish.
230. PW36 Smt. Shabnam Kaur Raheja had deposed that the demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/- (vide no. 243379 dated 22.08.2003) was issued from CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 232 of 308 the account of Gundeep Singh Anand vide cheque and application form vide Ex.PW36/A and Ex.PW36/B respectively. Demand draft/Manager's cheque bearing no. 243379 of Rs.2,45,000/- was mentioned in one of the challan no. 10283703 (at Sr. No. 2 of the table), given by the accused Satish alongwith his application/letter to DDA.
231. In view of the testimonies of PW-28, PW33 and PW36, it is established that 13 pay orders of Rs.11,40,325/- including demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/- were used for making payment to DDA. All the demand drafts/Manager's cheque/pay orders, except demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/- vide no. 243379, was prepared from the account of Gundeep Singh Anand. Other pay orders/Manager's cheque were made by making cash payment to the respective banks.
232. The prosecution apart from establishing the money trail and also to connect accused Pramod Garg by bringing out facts and circumstances that in pursuance of the conspiracy, accused Pramod Garg has financed the transaction so as to enable accused Satish to obtain possession and allotment of land as well as the fact that he played a role by ensuring the compliance of the formalities at DDA.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 233 of 308233. The demand draft/Manager's Cheque bearing no. 243379 of Rs.2,45,000/- which was used by the accused Satish while submitting his application for allotment of land to DDA was collected by PW37 Shri Bajrang Garg, an employee of Pramod Garg, from an employee of Gundeep Singh Anand vide document Ex.PW37/A. PW37 stated that he used to work with accused Pramod Garg, a property dealer, and he used to collect and deliver papers and cheques etc. The testimony of PW37 to the effect that he used to work with Pramod Garg remained unrebutted and unchallenged by accused Pramod Garg and other accused persons. The testimony of PW37 qua the collection of demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/- also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. There is no cross- examination of PW37 that he did not work with Pramod Garg or that he did not hand over the demand draft to accused Pramod Garg. When an employee of Pramod Garg had collected the pay order/demand draft for him and if the same is used by accused Satish, then onus lies on the accused Pramod Garg to explain for what purpose and reason, Pramod Garg took the draft and handed over the same to the accused Satish? It is also not the case of Pramod Garg that he had assisted the accused Satish Goyal or his wife Smt. Pankaj Goyal being their relative, by advancing monies. No reason or explanation has been given by accused Pramod Garg, either by cross-examining the witness or in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Advancement of a huge amount of money for CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 234 of 308 whatever be the reason is in the special knowledge of accused Pramod Garg and accused Satish, but none of them had explained the same during the course of the trial. Accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj maintained studied silence on this aspect.
234. As stated earlier, the allegations are that four bank drafts vide application Ex.PW28/B (Colly) were in the handwriting of accused Pramod Garg, however, the handwriting of accused Pramod Garg has matched in three application forms, although he had a bank account at Punjab & Sind Bank vide Ex.P-13 (admitted document). It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that merely on the strength of the handwriting report vide Ex.PW69/A, the accused Pramod Garg cannot be said to be a part of the conspiracy or had committed any substantive offence as his signature and handwritings were stated to be matched by handwriting expert PW69. It is contended that evidence of handwriting expert is corroborative in nature and in the absence of the substantive evidence, the corroborative evidence is liable to be discarded. Ld. Counsel for A-6 has relied upon a judgment Padum Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 35 in support of his contention.
235. Before considering the above referred submission, as advanced by the Ld. Counsel for A-6, it would be appropriate to consider the testimonies CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 235 of 308 of other witnesses in respect of the role played by accused Pramod Garg in the present case. In order to connect the accused Pramod Garg to the conspiracy, the prosecution examined few witnesses to indicate that during the entire transaction, accused Pramod Garg had supervised it so much that documents which were required to be submitted to DDA such as affidavit or undertaking etc. and other documents, the same were witnessed at the instance of accused Pramod Garg by PW46, PW56 and PW60.
236. Perpetual Lease Deed vide Ex.PW56/A (D-7) executed between Satish Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal with DDA bears the signature of PW56 Shri Narayan Singh and his wife Smt. Shanti Devi as witnesses. PW56 stated that he had signed the perpetual lease deed vide Ex.PW56/A at the instance of accused Pramod Garg and in response to the court question, he stated that accused Pramod Garg was physically present when the perpetual lease deed was executed. PW56 also identified the thumb impression of his wife who had signed as a witness. PW56 in his deposition explained the context in which he happened to sign the perpetual lease deed vide Ex.PW56/A as he had a land at Village Bharthal which was acquired by DDA and PW56 received a recommendation letter and he was in need of money so he gave(sold) the plot to accused Pramod Garg. In his further evidence, certain documents were shown to PW56 in relation to the acquisition of his land and receipt of recommendation letter. Although the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 236 of 308 documents vide Ex.PW56/E to Ex.PW56/G, Ex.PW56/L (D-82) were objected, however, the documents only shows the relevance and the context by which PW56 had happened to sign the perpetual lease deed between DDA and Satish as a witness. A perusal of his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused persons would reveal that nothing material has come on record that PW56 was not acquainted with the accused Pramod Garg. Not much cross-examination of PW56 was conducted on the aspect that he did not sign the perpetual lease deed at the instance of accused Pramod Garg, except for the bald suggestion that accused Pramod Garg was not physically present at the time of execution of the perpetual lease deed. It is also relevant to mention that witness Narayan Singh (PW56) had entered into an agreement to sell and also executed number of documents for the transfer of his plot which he got as an alternative plot from the DDA to bhabhi of accused Pramod Garg. It shows that accused Pramod Garg is taking an active interest in completing the necessary formalities in obtaining the allotment and possession of the plot by acting in a discreet manner so as to conceal his identity.
237. Ex.PW11/B is an undertaking dated 06.09.2003 given by accused Satish Kumar to DDA and the perusal of the same would indicate that it was witnessed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal (PW60) and Shri Manoj Kumar Mallick (PW46). A perusal of the evidence of PW46 would CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 237 of 308 indicate that this witness had stated that he used to work with the accused Pramod Garg from 2001 to 2005 and thereafter he had joined Shri Subhash Gupta, Jija of Pramod Garg. PW46 also identified his signature at Point-Q- 18 in Ex.PW11/B and further stated that the undertaking was also witnessed by Shri Rajesh Goyal who was also a co-employee of the accused Pramod Garg. PW46 categorically stated that he had signed the undertaking at the instance of the accused Pramod Garg when PW46 was working with the accused Pramod Garg. The testimony of PW46 to the effect that he had worked with the accused Pramod Garg from the period 2001 to 2005 or that he had signed the undertaking vide Ex.PW11/B, at the instance of accused Pramod Garg being his employee, remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. There is no cross-examination on behalf of the accused Pramod Garg or other accused persons in this regard. PW60 Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal had also deposed that he knew the accused Pramod Garg as he was working with him and PW60 used to do the field work etc. and also used to get prepared the documents from Deed Writers etc. PW60 had also identified his signatures on the perpetual lease deed dated 08.12.2003 vide Ex.PW56/O, executed between Narayan Singh (PW56) and DDA, in which PW60 had signed as a witness. PW60 clearly stated that he witnessed the execution of documents i.e. perpetual lease deed and undertaking on the asking of the accused Pramod Garg. PW60 also disclosed that Bajrang Garg was a relative of the accused Pramod CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 238 of 308 Garg. PW60 had also stated that he had worked for about 15-16 years with Pramod Garg although he was unable to identify the photograph of Satish on Ex.PW-3/H (D-7). The testimony of PW60 to the effect that he had witnessed execution of undertaking on the asking of the accused Pramod Garg was not challenged and same remained unrebutted and there is no cross-examination to the effect that PW60 had not worked with the accused Pramod Garg at any point of time and in fact no question was asked to the effect that PW60 did not witness execution/signature in undertaking vide Ex.PW15/K3.
238. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the accused Pramod Kumar Garg (A-5) by making reference to the testimony of DW4 Shri Subhash Gupta that DW4 was engaged in the property dealing in the name of Gupta Properties and the accused Pramod Garg was doing the property business in the name of Garg Properties and that Bajrang Garg was his nephew who used to help him in his business. DW4 also stated that Shri Manoj Mallick worked for about one year and had joined him in the year 2001, whereas Shri Rajesh Goyal had worked from 2002 to 2003. A close perusal of testimony of DW4 would indicate that accused Pramod Garg is trying to build a defence that Shri Rajesh Goyal and Shri Manoj Mallick were working under DW4 Shri Subhash Gupta. In considering the testimony of DW4, it is required to be noted that the testimonies of PW46 CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 239 of 308 and PW60 to the effect that they had signed the documents at the behest of Pramod Garg and worked with him, was not challenged when both these witnesses were examined. Perusal of testimony of DW4 would unveil that this witness had not stated that in the year 2003 when affidavit Ex.PW15/K3 and affidavit Ex.PW11/B were made, PW46 and PW60 were working under him. Reading of the entire testimony of DW4 would indicate that attempt of the defence to the effect that both PW46 and PW60 were working with Subhash Gupta fails to inspire confidence to indicate that both PW46 and PW60 had worked with DW4. It appears that the testimony of DW4 is tailor-made with a view to save accused Pramod Garg.
239. Even if, it is accepted that PW46 and PW60 were doing the liasoning work in the area of Dwarka but the same would not mean that both PW46 and PW60 were not acting at the instance of accused Pramod Garg. Perusal of testimonies of PW46 and PW60 would reveal that both of them were known to accused Pramod Garg either being the distant relative or by way of some other affinity. Property dealing business generally operates in Delhi on an informal basis and the persons who are employed are paid in cash or minimal salary are paid and were asked to do various kinds of work and without any money trail being left and, therefore, it is simply not possible to have a formal letter of appointment etc and in all CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 240 of 308 these cases the specific testimonies of the witnesses and the type of the association are required to be considered and analysed. The larger evidence available on record does not indicate as to why PW46 and PW60 would falsely state that they were never employed by accused Pramod Garg, specially in a situation when both these witnesses were not cross- examined. It is also relevant to mention that no question was put to PW46 and PW60 to the effect that they were working with DW4 Subhash Gupta. Testimony of DW3 is also not of much help to the defence as his testimony is general in nature and this witness had stated that Rajesh Goyal used to do liasoning work only. DW3 had not clearly specified the period when he had interacted with Rajesh Goyal. Mere fact that Rajesh Goyal used to do the liasoning work would not mean that he was not doing the job/work for accused Pramod Garg. The testimonies of Rajesh Goyal and Manoj Kumar Mallick have not been challenged. There could be no reason for PW37, PW46 and PW60 to depose against the accused Pramod Garg. Therefore, it stands established that demand draft bearing no. 243379 vide Ex.PW27/D (Colly) was received by Shri Bajrang Garg (PW37) for the accused Pramod Garg. Accused Pramod Garg has not explained as to how the demand draft had reached the hands of Satish Goyal which was utilized for obtaining the possession and lease deed qua the plot from DDA. It establishes the role of A-6 Pramod Garg qua is role in the present case and the same would show his complicity in the present case in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 241 of 308240. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-6 that prosecution had alleged that finances in respect of the purchase of the plot was made by Pramod Garg but prosecution was not able to fully prove the same. In this regard, it is observed that the prosecution is able to successfully link payment of Rs.2,45,000/- plus Rs.1,47,000/- as directly attributable to accused Pramod Garg. It is necessary to observe that remaining demand drafts and the details of the payment that were made to DDA were not traced due to lapse of time. If one looks into the banking transaction, made by the accused Pramod Garg, a definite pattern would emerge from the perusal of his bank statement that he was majorly dealing in the cash transaction, although he had attempted to justify the same by saying that he required to make payment to some Authority etc and he was dealing in the large amount of cash. Per se, dealing in cash is not an offence, however, the same assumes importance as he was dealing cash in such a manner to conceal his involvement in the present case and therefore, considering the fact that in order to avoid any trail, the cash transaction was done and whatever material qua the financial transaction was brought into record by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, not much benefit can be given to the accused person in respect of the inability of the prosecution to explain the complete financial trail in view of the above referred discussion and moreover, no explanation was given by the Pramod Garg as to for what CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 242 of 308 purpose, he provided the finance to Satish and what was his special interest to depute two of his employees to provide cover to Satish and Smt. Pankaj, to cheat DDA, Government and the rightful claimants.
241. The role played by the Accused Pramod Garg(A-6) has been detailed and it shows that accused Pramod Garg has committed the offence punishable under section 120B IPC with other accused persons. In the offence involving section 120B IPC, direct evidence is not available as the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it has to be inferred from the circumstances and the evidence and material on record clearly shows the involvement of A-6 Pramod Garg in the criminal Conspiracy.
242. As mentioned above, accused Satish has addressed letter/application Ex.PW15/D to DDA alongwith other documents in which he had filed his undertaking and affidavit. PW-11 Shri Rajender Singh Beniwal denied that he attested the affidavit, undertaking and attestation of specimen signature vide Ex.PW-11/A, B, C and D respectively, and PW11 also stated that he had also not attested the photographs and signature of the accused. PW11 had denied his signature on the above-mentioned documents. PW-61 Shri Lalit Kumar was shown affidavits vide Ex.PW- 15/K-1 (Satish Kumar) and vide Ex PW-15/K-2(Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal) as well as undertaking vide Ex PW-15/K-3 (Satish Kumar), and he denied CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 243 of 308 attestation and signature on these documents. A perusal of the testimonies of these two witnesses indicate that it remained unchallenged. Both the accused persons have also not denied their signatures appearing on the affidavits.
243. After completing the necessary formalities i.e. application for handing over the possession, affidavit and undertaking, and after completion of the verification report dated 19.09.2003, accused Satish had deposited the requisite amount. The possession of plot was handed over to accused Satish on 29.10.2003 after comparing with the ID proof, photograph and attested signatures of accused were taken vide letter no. F12(1386)/2003/Dwk/Plg. dated 28.10.2003 vide Ex.PW15/L-2 by PW31 and PW31 further stated that accused Satish had signed on the possession letter i.e. at Point-Q-33 and Q-34, and vide Ex.PW31/G, he gave a report vide Ex.PW31/H for handing over of plot no. 38, Pocket No. A, Sector 12, Phase-I Dwarka (page 1 of Residential Scheme, Dwarka) and the same was given in response to the letter given by accused Satish.
244. A letter vide Ex.PW14/E was issued to accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj for stamping of perpetual lease and after receipt of the duly stamped lease paper, a letter vide Ex.PW14/F was issued for execution of the lease deed in favour of Satish and Smt. Pankaj and lease deed vide Ex.PW32/F was executed. PW35 has brought the registered copy of the lease deed CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 244 of 308 dated 08.12.2003 which was executed between DDA and Satish & Smt. Pankaj. Testimonies of PW14, PW15, PW31, PW32 and PW35 were not challenged by accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj in particular that they did not submit the documents to DDA or that accused Satish did not obtain possession of the plot. Accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj also did not deny the execution of lease deed vide Ex.PW32/F, bearing their signatures and thumb impressions on different pages. The accused persons have also not denied the presence of Shri Narain Singh (PW56) who had signed as a witness. The photographs of both the accused persons Satish and Smt. Pankaj were affixed on Ex.PW32/F. The FSL report in respect of the signature of accused Smt. Pankaj had attributed to her and the thumb impression/hand impression of both the accused persons were found attributed to them. No positive opinion was given in respect of the signature of accused Satish. The lease deed vide Ex.PW32/F was registered in the office of Sub Registrar and it can be safely said the official work has been performed in the manner required by the law and moreover, not much challenge has been made to this effect.
SALE OF PLOT BY BOTH THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND FURTHER SALE OF THE ALTERNATIVE PLOT OF DIFFERENT PERSONS
245. After the lease deed was executed in favour of the accused Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal, both the accused persons entered into CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 245 of 308 General Power of Attorney, and registered Agreement to Sell and Special Power of Attorney in favour of Ms. Sunita Suneja vide Ex.PW-54/B(D-89), Ex.PW-54/C (D-90) and Ex.PW-54/D (D-91) on 08.12.2003 at the office of Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera, New Delhi. PW-55 Smt. Sunita Suneja also deposed in respect of the execution of General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney and Registered Agreement to Sell and she further stated that the documents pertain to the transfer of Plot No. 38, Section 12A, Dwarka Residential Scheme in respect of the payment. PW55 stated that her husband Shri Ajay Suneja is aware about the same. A perusal of the agreement to sell would evidence that sale consideration of the same was Rs12,25,000/- and stamp duty @ 5.4% i.e. Rs.66,150/- was paid. PW-58 Ajay Suneja is the husband of Smt. Sunita Suneja. He deposed that he was working with Raju Pardesi (a property dealer) and the entire consideration was paid by Raju Pardesi and the name of his wife was mentioned in the documents to reduce the liability of stamp duty if the property is registered in the name of a female. The testimonies of PW-54, PW55 and PW58 would reveal that their testimonies in respect of the execution of documents by both the accused remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and there was no denial to the effect that these documents bear the signatures, thumb impression of accused Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal or their photographs and the case of the prosecution that after execution of lease deed on the very same day i.e. 08.12.2003 both the accused persons i.e. CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 246 of 308 Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj have entered into agreement to sell and also parted with the possession to Smt. Sunita Suneja and thus, transferred the plot in question i.e. Plot No. 38, Sector 12A, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Delhi.
246. The plot in question was further transferred by Smt. Sunita Suneja in favour of Vikram Narang vide Ex.PW-54/E (General Power of Attorney) and PW-54/F (Agreement to sell). The factum of registration and the aforesaid transaction was proved by PW-54, PW-55, PW-58 and PW-48, on 18.05.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,25,000/- by cheques and the relevant entries in respect of the encashment of cheques in the passbook are Ex.PW-48/A.
247. The plot in question again changed hand. PW-48 had sold the abovesaid plot to Umed Singh Rana on 22.06.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- vide Ex.PW45/A and the copy of the same was provided vide Ex.PW48/C to the investigating officer. Testimonies of these witnesses remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
248. The above chain of transfer of plot of land shows that after the allotment is made in favour of Satish and Smt. Pankaj, it has changed many hands. In reference to the present case, the investigating officer after bringing into record the series of transfer how he did not show the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 247 of 308 involvement of other persons qua the transfer of plot which has changed hands over the period of time. One of the contention of the Ld. Counsel for A-6 Pramod Garg to the effect is that entire transaction was managed by Raju Pardesi and his role should have been examined. In considering the submission of Ld. Counsel for A-6, it is required to be noted that like every institution investigating agency and more particularly, the investigating officers who are investigating the case undertakes many jobs i.e. collection of documents, recording of statement of witnesses and to present the material in a coherent manner. It is also a matter of record that in the present case, the illegal allotment of plot was done in the year 2002/2003 and the same came to notice in the year 2016 and whatever prosecutable material has been brought by the investigating agency considering the constraint in which he was working and, therefore, the inability of the investigating agency does not impact the present case as prosecution is able to establish that accused persons in conspiracy have got illegal allotment of land and thereafter the land in question was sold and therefore, it would not make much difference in reference to the present case as prosecution was successful in establishing the complete chain of event in the present case and in this regard, it is profitable to refer C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. Appeal Nos. 1632-1634 of 2010, it is observed that :
55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 248 of 308 the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. (Vide Chandrakant Luxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 220; Karnel Singh v. State Of M.P. 1995 5 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1850; Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar 1999 2 SCC 126; State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy. AIR 2000 SC 185; Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh 2003 2 SCC 518; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat. 2002 3 SCC 57 and Ram Bali v. State of U.P. 2004 10 SCC 598).
249. Accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj in purusance of the conspiracy by impersonating as an agriculturist of village Bahapur took possession of plot no. 38, Sector 12, Pocket-A, Dwarka and Conveyance Deed was executed in their favour by the DDA on the strength of various documents provided by them to DDA and both accused i.e. Satish and Smt. Pankaj Goyal have used forged and fabricated election I-cards and by using the same, they had executed the transfer documents in favour of Smt. Sunita Suneja.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 249 of 308250. A-3 & A-4 transferred the plot in favour of Ms. Sunita Suneja by executing number of documents such as GPA (Ex.PW54/B), SPA (Ex.PW54/C) and agreement to sell (Ex.PW54/C). In the process of obtaining the land from DDA, A-3 presented himself as one of the persons who is entitled for the allotment of land whereas he was not entitled for the same. The evidence on record has clearly established that accused Satish Kumar Goyal or his forefathers have never resided in Delhi or at Village Bahapur. Accused Satish Kumar Goyal had furnished affidavits/undertakings and also performed other acts with an intention to induce DDA and the Government to deliver him a property and the wife of accused Satish Kumar Goyal had also furnished number of documents to DDA to induce it to deliver the land in question to him. In order to induce and deceive the DDA and the Government, accused Satish Kumar Goyal had even paid money towards the land to DDA. The aforesaid acts of both the accused would show that they had an intention to cheat DDA by getting a plot of land by making mischievous and fraudulent misrepresentation to DDA at each stage and were successful in getting the possession of land. Both the accused persons i.e. Satish and Smt. Pankaj despite being not entitled for the land had further sold the land to Smt. Sunita Suneja by executing number of documents and therefore, offence under section 420 IPC is made out against both the accused persons i.e. Satish Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 250 of 308251. As discussed above, accused Satish Goyal appeared before DDA and moved an application for allotment of land alongwith necessary documentation. He furnished affidavits and undertaking. He also furnished his identity proof i.e. photocopy of his election identity card vide Ex.PW56/C containing his signature. Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal, wife of accused Satish Goyal had also furnished the photocopy of the election identity card containing her signatures and voter I-card was not issued in the name of Satish and Pankaj.
252. As discussed earlier, a conspiracy was hatched inter se between the accused persons to get the land allotted from DDA for personal use. Necessary documents such as affidavit, undertaking and identity documents were furnished by both these accused persons alongwith photocopy of identity card/voter card basically to establish their identity that both of them are residents of Delhi and the identity which is mentioned in the voter identity card would induce the Authority to make allotment of land or to hand over the possession of land or would facilitate other official acts that are required to be performed by a public authority without which no land can be allotted in favour of any person and thus, accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj have cheated both Government and DDA to part with the possession CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 251 of 308 of plot. It has come on record that voter election identity card never existed in official record. Meaning thereby that photocopy of the voter identity card which was signed by them was never in existence and the intention behind furnishing the false document is to cheat DDA and other Agency. It is pertinent to mention that both the accused persons i.e. Satish Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal were charged for the commission of offence under sections 468 and 471 IPC. Section 468 IPC is invoked in the cases where a person commits a forgery on the documents for the purpose of cheating. The material available on record would indicate that prosecution has not established whether accused Satish Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal had themselves forged the respective voter identity card and the evidence on record had only established that they had used the forged and fabricated voter identity card to buttress their claim of having the identity of Satish Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal from Delhi. Section 471 IPC is applicable in cases where forged and fabricated documents are used. Therefore, the complicity of accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj Goyal in so far as the commission of 471 IPC is established beyond doubt and no offence under section 468 IPC is made out against them.
253. In view of the above discussion, charges under section 419/420/471 IPC are made out against the accused Satish Kumar Goyal and Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 252 of 308254. As per prosecution, the applications for preparation of pay orders vide Ex.PW28/B(Colly.) were written and signed by the accused Pramod Garg by mentioning different names of the applicants. PW59 was unable to identify the handwriting and signature of accused Pramod Garg on Ex.PW28/B. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. Substantive offence under sections 420 IPC, 467, 468 & 471 are pressed against the accused Pramod Garg and the entire case of the prosecution for the substantive offence against the accused Pramod Garg is built on the fact that he filled application for a draft/Pay order and got issued the draft of different name. In construing the substantive offence against the accused Pramod Gupta, it is required to be noted in the present case, it is not the case of prosecution that demand draft/pay order was prepared without any payment of any money by accused Pramod Garg and rather charges were paid for the same and there is no complaint or grievance that demand draft was fraudulently issued or some other person was entitled for the demand draft or any monetary loss was suffered by the bank. Any person could have gone to the bank and could have easily got the bank draft person, it would altogether be a different matter, whether this act could be considered as one of the material on the basis of which conspiracy could be deduced. The persons on whose names the demand drafts were prepared have also not made any complaint that they have suffered any loss of reputation etc CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 253 of 308 and the necessary ingredient constituting the offence under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC are not made out against the accused Pramod Garg.
255. The prosecution apart from Section 120B IPC has invoked charges under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta. It was alleged that accused Neeru Kumar Gupta got attested the photograph of accused Satish Goyal from PW40 Shri Deepak Chaudhary and the attested photograph was pasted on the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H. The basis for invocation of charge under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is on the basis of the statement made by PW40. A perusal of statement of Shri Deepak Chaudhary (PW40) would reveal that he has stated that he attested the photograph of accused Satish Goyal at the asking of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta who was practicing lawyer. PW40 also stated that he attested the photograph not as a Gazetted officer but being the Standing Counsel. He was unable to identify the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta in the court.
256. There are no allegations to the effect that accused has forged any document or had used any forged document as genuine before any Authority and even if the allegations leveled by the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, no offence under sections 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC is CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 254 of 308 made out against accused Neeru Kumar Gupta. Merely asking a person to attest the photograph would not make him liable for committing the offence of forgery or cheating. It is also pertinent to mention that colour attested photograph is that of accused Satish Goyal and it is also not the case of the prosecution that photograph on Ex.PW3/H was changed by accused Neeru Kumar Gupta and moreover PW-40 failed to identify Neeru Kumar Gupta in the court.
257. PW15/K3 is an undertaking which is given by the accused Satish Kumar Goyal to the DDA in which the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta had signed as a witness. There are no allegations to the effect that accused Neeru Kumar Gupta had forged the stamp of Notary Public or false stamp papers etc. were used by him or he provided any false document to Satish Kumar Gupta or any other person. There are no allegations to the effect that the so called attestation was made by accused Neeru Kumar Gupta. Shri Rajesh Goyal who was examined as a witness had also not stated any specific role to accused Neeru Kumar Gupta that the purported undertaking were attested by accused Neeru Kumar Gupta or the documents on the undertaking was prepared by Neeru Kumar Gupta. In the absence of any credible material allegations, no offence under sections 468 or 471 IPC is made out against the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta. Moreover, handwriting CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 255 of 308 and signature of the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta did not match as per CFSL report vide Ex.PW69/A.
258. In view of the above mentioned discussion, no substantive offences under sections 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC is made out against the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta (A-6) and it is further observed that in so far as the present case against the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta, charge under section 120-B IPC was invoked against the accused and the material on the basis of which charge under section 120 B IPC was invoked against the accused is that he was the witness to the execution of undertaking and he is acquainted with accused S.S. Malhi and certain document i.e photocopy of divorce deed was found which bears the signature of accused Neeru Kumar Gupta were found in the house of Neeru Kumar Gupta. PW-63 also deposed that accused Swaran Singh Malhi used to meet Neeru Kumar Gupta. In this regard, merely having an acquaintance or visiting a person who was indulging in the corrupt activities would not make such a person as culpable for the offence charged against him nor such a person can be convicted merely on the basis of the fact that he is involved in the present case unless credible evidence establishing the involvement is brought into record and it is not uncommon to see that in societal level people used to meet an honest person or rude person or an amiable person and even corrupt and in the present case, the only material which is brought against CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 256 of 308 the accused Neeru Kumar Gupta is that he signed as witness in the undertaking and he is being connected in the present case, this evidence is too insignificant to infer the conspiracy against the accused and the contention of the Ld. PP for the CBI that conspiracy is hatched in conspiracy and even a small role played by the accused is sufficient to invoke section 120B IPC. There is no cavil to the proposition of law as submitted by ld. PP for the CBI, however like other offence under Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish the charge of conspiracy like any other offence. Shiva Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 wherein it was observed that "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
WHETHER FSL REPORTS CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSDIERATION SINCE SPECIMEN HANDWRITINGS OF ACCUSED PERSONS WERE TAKEN BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WITHOUT PERMISSION OF MAGISTRATE.
259. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 that specimen handwriting of A-2 and other accused persons were taken by the police without permission of Ld. Magistrate. It is also contended that there is no procedure either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in any other law which CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 257 of 308 permits the police to take specimen handwritings of an accused person without obtaining the permission of the Ld. Magistrate. It is also contended that since specimen signatures of the accused persons were obtained sans permission of Ld. Magistrate and hence, the FSL Reports, prepared on the basis of comparison of specimen and questioned handwritings and signatures are liable to be discarded and other counsels have also adopted the similar contention.
260. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for A-2 has relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, {(2018) 7 SCR 830}; (ii) Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State, {(2012) DHC 3629 - DB}; iii) Rajender Kumar @ Raju Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), {(2012) DHC 5349-DB; iv) Raj Kumar Vs. State, {(2012) DHC 5349-DB}; (v) Zafar Umar Khan @ Jafar Umar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi),{(2013) DHC 1360-DB;
vi) Anand Kumar @ Beeru & Ors. Vs. State, {(2013) DHC 6266-DB}; vii) Prakash Chand Vs. State, {(2014) DHC 1463-
DB}; viii) Sanjay @ Vicky Vs. State, {(2014) DHC 6298 - DB}; ix) Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi),{(2023) 7 SCR 719}; x) Sudhir Chaudhary @ Bhure Etc Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), {(2016) 7 SCR 927}; xi) Rakesh Bisht Vs. CBI, {2007 SCC Online Del 13) (DHC, Single Judge); xii) Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, {AIR 1967 SC 1326}; xiii) S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, {(1996) Supp 3 SCR 439}; xiv) B.Raghuvir Acharya Vs. CBI, {(2013) 7 SCR 132} and xv) Basrur Venkata Row, {1911 SCC OnLine Mad 159}.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 258 of 308261. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that in Sapan Haldar Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 804/2001 dated 25.05.2012, full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that handwritings and signatures are not measurements as defined under section 2 of Identification of Prisoner's Act. The investigating officer cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of committing an offence. It is also contended that prior to 23.01.2006, the specimen signature or handwriting samples cannot be obtained by an investigating agency and as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, only the concerned court could direct a person to give his handwriting or samples for the purposes of comparison.
262. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that in State of UP Vs. Ram Babu Mishra, (1980) Part II SCR 1067, it was observed that Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act does not empower a Magistrate to give direction to the accused to give his signature when the case is under investigation. It is also observed that second paragraph of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act enables the court to direct a person to give his specimen writing for the purposes of enabling the court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purposes of enabling the court to appear and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency to compare, if the case is under investigation and there is no proceeding then court cannot order for giving the specimen signature for anticipated necessity for CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 259 of 308 comparison in a proceeding which may be instituted later. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that in Ram Babu Mishra (supra) and Sukhvinder Singh Vs. State (Supra), it was observed that signatures obtained during the investigation cannot be taken into consideration.
263. Other judgments were also relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for A-2 to the effect that during investigation, the handwriting and specimen signature of an accused person cannot be taken without permission of the Ld. Magistrate.
264. Per contra, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI submits that it was open for an investigating agency to collect or obtain signature or handwriting of any person. It is also contended that it is not known whether the person who are being examined by the investigating agency could be named as an accused or witness and it is only during the course of investigation, it could be determined whether a person stands as an accused or a witness. It is also contended that there is no law which bars the police from taking handwriting of an accused person during the course of investigation. It is also contended that an accused cannot be arrested simply to obtain his signature or handwriting. It is also contended that if during the course of investigation, an accused person willingly furnishes his signature or handwriting, it cannot be said that he is incriminating himself or making a statement against himself and therefore, Article 20(3) of Constitution of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 260 of 308 India is not attracted. It is further submitted that it would be permissible for the investigating officer to collect specimen signature and handwriting of any person. It is also contended that if the investigation is underway, it is the duty of the investigating agency to collect all material and evidence in a prompt manner, specially in a situation when accused persons are co- operating in the investigation and have no grievance in furnishing their handwritings or signatures. In support of his contention, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has relied upon Rekha Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. Appeal No. 124/2013 delivered on 05.03.2015 (Delhi High Court) and Ravinder Pal Singh @ Dara Singh Vs. CBI, (2011) 1 SCR 929.
265. It is evident from plethora of judgments, relied by both the sides, that the issue whether specimen handwriting taken during the investigation was the issue in number of judgments of Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
266. In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 :
(1962) 3 SCR 10 it was observed as under :
(1) An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. In other words, the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 261 of 308 particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the accused person had been compelled to make the impugned statement.
(2) The mere questioning of an accused person by a police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement, which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not 'compulsion'. (3) 'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing evidence' in its widest significance; that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statements but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. (4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'.
(5) 'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in court or otherwise.
(6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in court or out of court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing. (7) To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Article 20 (3) the person accused must have stood in the character of an accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an accused, any time after the statement has been made."
267. In Rekha Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. Appeal No. 124/2013 delivered on 05.03.2015, it was observed by Delhi High Court :-
305. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India reported as (2011) 2 SCC 490, negatived the contention of the appellant-
accused that his exemplars were required to be obtained before the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 262 of 308 Magistrate and in its absence such evidence was liable to be jettisoned from consideration.
268. Reliance is also placed upon State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, 17 (2005) 11 SCC 600, wherein such an argument was repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms:-
―In this context, a contention was raised before the High Court that in view of Section 27 of POTA, specimen signature should not have been obtained without the permission of the Court. In reply to this contention urged before the High Court, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel for the State clarified that on the relevant date, when the specimen signatures of Afzal were obtained, the investigation was not done under the POTA provisions and de hors the provisions of POTA, there was no legal bar against obtaining the handwriting samples. The learned counsel relied upon by the 11 Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. Kattikalu Oghad : 1961CriLJ856 in support of his contention that Article 23 of the Constitution was not infringed by taking the specimen handwriting or signature of a person in custody. Reference has also drawn to the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Boota Singh : [1979]1SCR298. We find considerable force in this contention advanced by Mr. Gopal Subramanium. In fact this aspect was not seriously debated before us.
306. Thus, it is not open for the appellants to canvass the said argument before this Court. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that judicial discipline obliges the High Courts of the land to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court and the mere fact that a particular provision or argument was not considered by the Supreme Court while deciding a case would not denude its precedential value.
307. Strong reliance is placed on a judgment of a Three-Judge Bench of this High Court in Sapan Haldar (supra). As a matter of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 263 of 308 fact the judgment in Sapan Haldar case (supra) rightly recognizes the fact that the Magistrate could not have been approached by the investigating agency in terms of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 for obtaining handwriting exemplars. The Court rightly opined in Para 31(i) that handwriting and signatures are not ― measurements and, therefore, do not fall within the ambit of the Identification of the Prisoners Act, 1920. However, it is submitted that in Para 19, it was erroneously concluded that the police officer during investigation could not have obtained such signatures on his own. It would be pertinent to highlight that the said conclusion is sans any reasoning or discussion whatsoever.
308. The High Court in Sapan Haldar's case (supra) did not advert its precious consideration to the definition of the term ―investigation prescribed under Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. which has also been subject matter of interpretation in catena of judgments of the Supreme Court which have held it to have a broad and inclusive connotation. The High Court lost sight of the fact that the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka reported as (2010) 7 SCC 263 has held that the term ―investigation includes steps which are not exhaustively and expressly enumerated.
309. Learned counsel submits that the lawmakers never intended to expressly and exhaustively lay down in a statute such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 what ―investigation would mean and include. The legislature in its wisdom only provided an inclusive definition as has been recognized by the Apex Court.
Therefore, the prosecution it is empowered to obtain the handwriting exemplars of the accused itself while exercising its wholesome powers of investigation (power coupled with duty) as inclusively defined under Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. to be an act for the purpose of collection of evidence. Section 311-A Cr.P.C. introduced with effect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Mishra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 264 of 308 for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre-existed before enactment of the said provision.
269. In Manikram Vs. State, (2009) 5 CTC 316, it has been held that there is no law which prohibits the investigating officer from lifting the finger prints of the accused for comparison during the course of investigation of the case. Section 5 of the 1920 Act and Section 311-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as inserted by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23.6.2006, speak only about the powers of the Judicial Magistrate when he is approached by the investigating officer for the purpose of issuance of a suitable direction to the accused to cooperate by giving his finger prints or signature or sample handwriting, as the case may be. Needless to emphasize, neither Section 5 nor Section 311-A put any embargo on the investigating officer for acting on his own for taking the finger prints, signature or handwriting of the accused during the course of investigation. It has been held in the said case that there is no mandatory provision under the 1920 Act to obtain the permission of the Magistrate.
270. In State Vs. M. Krishna Mohan & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 667, it was held by the Apex Court that specimen finger prints and handwritings can be taken from an accused.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 265 of 308271. In Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan & Anr. AIR 1994 SC 1775, it was opined that the term 'investigation' as defined in Cr.P.C. has an inclusive definition. It was also opined that investigation includes all efforts of a police officer for collection of evidence, namely proceedings to the spot, ascertaining facts and circumstances, discover and arrest of the suspected offender, collection of evidence relating to commission of offence which may consists of examinations of various persons including the accused and taking of their statements in writing and search of places or seizure of things considered essential for investigation and to be produced at the trial.
272. In Selvi & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) Part VII SCC 263, it was observed :
"145. ... For instance, even though acts such as compulsorily obtaining specimen signatures and handwriting samples are testimonial in nature, they are not incriminating by themselves if they are used for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts or materials that the investigators are already acquainted with. The relevant consideration for extending the protection of Article 20(3) is whether the materials are likely to lead to incrimination by themselves or 'furnish a link in the chain of evidence" which could lead to the same result. Hence, reliance on the contents of compelled testimony comes within the prohibition of Article 20(3) but its use for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts already known to the investigators is not barred."CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 266 of 308
273. In Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2011, decided on 28th April 2023, it was observed by Supreme Court of India in relation to Handwriting taken during the investigation ;
56. The above view has been consistently followed by this Court in several decisions i.e. State of U.P. v. Sunil; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. & Another'; and, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu"." 1 (2010) 7 SCC 263, 15 (2017) 14 SCC 516, 16 (2013) 2 SCC 357, 17 (2005) 11 SCC 600.
57.A conspectus of the decisions above would indicate that since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not infringe the rule against self- incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
58. In the instant case, the suicide letter was already seized by the investigating agency and therefore, obtaining specimen signatures and handwritings of Neeraj was with a view to enable a comparison for the purposes of identifying the signature/writing on the suicide letter. As such an exercise does not infringe the mandate of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the defence argument that use of specimen signatures of Neeraj, forcibly obtained during investigation, would violate rule against self-incrimination is worthy of rejection and is, accordingly, rejected. We therefore hold that the specimen signature/handwriting of Neeraj obtained by the investigating agency could not have been discarded merely because of allegations that they were forcibly obtained during investigation without permission of the Magistrate/ Court. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court is erroneous and is, accordingly, set aside.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 267 of 30859. We shall now examine whether the specimens used for comparison were duly proved to be that of Neeraj. In the instant case, according to the prosecution evidence, the specimen signatures and handwritings of Neeraj were obtained during investigation. Memorandum/ documents in connection therewith including the specimens were produced, proved and marked exhibits thereby proving that they were properly kept and dispatched to FL along with the disputed suicide letter for obtaining expert opinion. Genuineness of those specimens have not been questioned by Neeraj. The only defence taken is that the specimens of handwriting and signature were obtained by compulsion.
As we have already found that such objection was unsustainable therefore, once genuineness of the specimens was not disputed, the specimens were available for comparison and were rightfully used for obtaining expert report. In such a scenario, the net result would be that the FSL report, which was provided by a government scientific expert specified in Section 293 of the Code, was admissible regardless of the fact that the expert was not examined as a witness. More so, when the defence filed no application to summon the expert for cross-examination.
274. Consequently, the finding of the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the FSL report being inadmissible was set aside by Apex Court.
275. Hon'ble Madras High Court in Babitha Surendran Vs. State, Crl. OP No. 711/2015 dated 03.06.2015 observed that the power of police to obtain handwriting and signature during the course of investigation from witnesses, suspects and accused has never been questioned because it is a necessary power which is inheres in an investigation. It was also observed that there is no constitutional or statutory prohibition inhibiting the police CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 268 of 308 from obtaining specimen handwriting and signature from an accused. It was also observed that mere obtainment of specimen signature cannot fasten any liability on any person as the same is required to be compared by an expert with disputed one and the obtainment of specimen signature is not a statement like to police officer which may mulct the accused with criminal liability. The Hon'ble Madras High Court had also referred to the judgment of State of UP Vs. Buta Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1770 in which it was observed that merely taking a specimen handwriting does not amount to be given as a statement so as to be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Madras High Court also referred to Section 311A Cr.P.C. by observing that to say that Section 311A is the only repository of power to obtain signature and handwriting from the accused during investigation would amount to denuding a power which is available with the police. It was also observed that if one goes by the provision of Section 311A Cr.P.C. and the proviso to Section 311A Cr.PC, it would mean that accused is required to be arrested.
276. It was also observed that during the investigation, the police for the purposes of investigation can take handwriting or specimen signature of any person. Since as the term 'investigation' as defined u/Section 2(h) of Code of Criminal Procedure includes the collection of all the material which are required for the purposes of investigation.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 269 of 308277. In view of the above referred judgments Kathi Kogad, Santosh Alias Bhure, Selvi, Rekha and Directorate of Enforcement (Supra) the taking of specimen handwriting during the course of investigation is permissible and moreover, in Kathi Kogad, it was observed that taking of a specimen handwriting is not a testimonial compulsion.
278. The specimen signatures and handwritings of accused S.S. Malhi and other accused persons were taken in the presence of independent witnesses by the Investigating officer. The independent witnesses have testified in respect of taking of specimen signatures of the other accused persons in their presence. PW4 identified the specimen signature of initial, handwritings of A-2 vide Ex.PW4/A on a paper sheet. PW4 also deposed that the signatures were taken in his presence on different points and he also deposed that signatures and initials or writing of other accused persons were also taken. Perusal of cross-examination of PW4 does not reveal that A-2 has not provided his signature/initial or writings or that he was compelled to write any incriminating thing. Even no suggestion was given to the effect that specimen signatures were not taken in his presence or that A-2 was not willing to give his signature or writing to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no fault could be laid on the investigating agency on the manner and mode by which signature of A-2 was taken. Other accused persons namely A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-6 have also raised similar contentions however, it is necessary to observe that it is only at the final stages this CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 270 of 308 objection is being raised and there was no cross-examination that any of the accused persons were compelled to give their handwritings or signatures and the independent witnesses namely have explained as to how specimen signatures of the different persons were taken and all the accused persons have voluntarily given their specimen signatures without any objection.
279. Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned discussion, the contention that FSL reports filed cannot be taken into not taken into consideration is rejected.
280. The second aspect that is required to be taken into consideration is Section 311-A Cr.P.C. which provides that handwriting/sample could be taken in the presence of the Magistrate, the proviso further provides that when accused is arrested in the case. A bare reading of Section 311A Cr.P.C. reveals that it provides that a sample handwriting can be taken in the presence of the Magistrate provided that such an accused person is arrested in the case.
281. In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, dated 02.07.2014, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non bailable and cognizable. It was held that the existence of the power to arrest is one thing and its justification for the exercise is another and police has to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 271 of 308 furnish the reasons for the arrest. Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to section 41 Cr.PC held that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer that such a person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. It was further observed that Police officer prior to arrest had to be satisfied that such an arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. Hon'ble Supreme Court passed slew of directions after taking into consideration of section 41 CrPC, 41 CrPC and mandated the issuance of notice of appearance and other direction.
282. Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349, it was observed that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 272 of 308 detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person.
283. Section 41 Cr.P.C. provides that an accused person could be arrested by police without the warrant of arrest in situation which are mentioned in Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. Section 41A Cr.P.C. as enforced from 01.11.2010 provides that when the arrest of the person is not required under the provisions of Sub Section 1 of Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. it could issue a notice directing for presence of a person against whom a complaint has been made or a credible information has been received to appear before him. It is also provided that the person on whom notice u/Section 41A Cr.P.C. is served then the person has to comply with the notice and if such person complies with the notice then he shall not be arrested unless for the reason to be recorded and if such a person fails to comply with the terms of the notice or unwilling to identify himself, the police officer can obtain an order from the competent court and arrest him for the offence as mentioned in the notice.
284. Section 41A Cr.P.C. provides for the circumstances in which an arrest of the accused is to be effected. In the present case, during the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 273 of 308 investigation, the accused persons had cooperated with the investigating agency by giving their specimen handwriting. From the perusal of the cross-examination of PW71 and other witnesses, there is no material or evidence that accused person had ever objected the taking of their handwriting sample at any stage of proceedings and even in the statement recorded u/Section 313 Cr.P.C, no plea was taken and it was during the final stages that the argument was raised that handwriting of the accused could not have been obtained without permission of the magistrate. Nothing has been indicated to show that accused persons have not voluntarily given their handwriting in the presence of independent witnesses and therefore, the challenge in this regard is liable to be discarded that since the signature of the accused persons were obtained during the investigation voluntarily.
285. The next point for determination is in respect of identification of the signature and handwriting of A-2 by PW-3 and PW-63. It is vehemently contended that handwriting and signatures of A-2 could not have been identified by PW-3 as he had never seen him writing and signing at any point of time and therefore, there was no occasion for PW-3 to identify the signature and handwriting of A-2 on highly doubtful as PW-3 works in a different department as Record Keeper.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 274 of 308286. A perusal of deposition of PW-3 indicate that he remained as Record Keeper from 2000 to 2014 and he used to get files from different branches of L&B Department including Alternative Branch. PW3 deposed that accused Swaran Singh Malhi was posted as UDC in the Alternative Branch. He identified signatures and handwritings of accused S.S. Malhi on different documents. Pertinently, PW3 not only identified the signatures and handwritings of accused S.S. Malhi, but also that of other members of the Recommendation Committee. PW3 also identified the signatures and handwritings of accused Badrul Islam. PW3 had also identified the photocopy of receipt and issue of recommendation forms vide entry dated 28.04.2003 bearing no. 338 in respect of accused Satish Kumar Goyal and he also identified the handwritings as that of accused S.S. Malhi as well as on Ex PW-3/K.
287. A perusal of cross-examination of PW3 reveals that statement of the witness in respect of the identification of handwritings and signatures of accused S.S. Malhi on different documents was not challenged by A-2 in the cross-examination, except for the bald suggestion that he had wrongly identified the signatures of accused S.S. Malhi at the instance of the CBI. In his cross-examination, PW3 has stated that he was working in the Record Room at L&B Branch, from where files from different departments used to come and since those files must be having signatures CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 275 of 308 of different employees and therefore, PW3 was in a position to identify the signatures of A-2. The contention of Ld. counsel that since PW3 was working in a different department and therefore, he is not able to identify the signatures of A-2 is liable to be rejected as PW3 is the Record Keeper and in usual course of his office dealing, he used to deal with number of files including the files from the Alternative Branch and therefore, PW3 could have easily identified the signatures and handwritings of A-2 on Ex.PW3/K. It is relevant to mention that both A-2 and PW3 were working in the same department for a long period of time and PW3 being Record Keeper/custodian of files for a period of more than 14 years itself justifies that he is in a position to properly identify the signatures and handwritings of accused S.S. Malhi. It is also reflected from the cross-examination of PW3 that no suggestion was given to the effect that writings on various documents does not pertain to accused S.S. Malhi. In normal course of human conduct and business, when two employees are working in a same government department having different branches and the witness is one of the record keeper for a long period of 14 years would be in a very good position to identify the handwritings and signatures of the persons whose record used to come in the Record Section and mere say that since witness is from a different department and unable to identify the signatures and handwritings is too broad proposition to be accepted as Record Keeper used to see handwritings and signatures of different persons in his regular CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 276 of 308 course of business. Hence, no fault can be put in respect of the identification of handwritings and signatures of A-1 & A-2 by PW3.
288. Prosecution has also cited another witness i.e. PW63 Shri Brindaban Gupta, in respect of the identification and handwriting of accused no. 2, who deposed that he was working as a Research Officer in the year 2002 and 2003, and accused S.S. Malhi was working in the Alternative Branch as Head UDC and PW63 and accused S.S. Malhi used to sit in a single room. PW63 identified the writings of accused S.S. Malhi on sheets Ex.PW63/A, appearing at page 1/N of the noting portion of the file which is noting dated 09.10.2002, at page no. 2/N dated 17.10.2002, at page 3/N dated 09.12.2002 and at page no. 5/N dated 07.02.2003. PW63 also identified writings of S.S. Malhi on Ex.PW3/K (Colly), appearing on all the 27 summary sheets encircled with red at Point-X. Perusal of the cross-examination of PW63 in respect of the identification of the signature and handwriting of the accused S.S. Malhi (A-2) by the accused was not seriously challenged. There is no cross- examination that A-2 and PW63 do not used to sit in the same room or that PW63 or that PW63 has not seen A-2 signing before him and, therefore, he cannot identify the signature. The testimony in respect of the identification of handwriting and signature A-2 by PW63 remained unchallenged. In his cross-examination, PW63 had admitted that writings CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 277 of 308 in different summary sheets where the particulars and details and other information is mentioned in the summary sheets were not the handwritings of the accused S.S. Malhi. The ability of the witness i.e. PW63 to identify different set of writings in the document reflects that witness is able to distinguish the writings of the accused S.S. Malhi. When a witness is able to positively identify the handwriting of a person and is also able to distinguish the handwritings clearly establishes that witness had seen the writings and signatures of accused S.S. Malhi and further lends an assurance in respect of the correct identification of the handwritings and signatures of accused S.S. Malhi. If the witness is unable to identify the handwriting of S.S. Malhi, then he would not have distinguished the handwriting appearing on Ex.PW3/K (Colly). No suggestion was given to PW63 that writings on notes, summary sheets etc. were not of accused S.S. Malhi.
289. The judgment B. Rahuvir Acharya (supra), relied by the counsel, is not applicable as PW3 and PW63 have provided the sufficient basis for identifying the signature and handwriting of accused persons and thus, the judgment cited is inapplicable in reference to the present case.
290. Interestingly in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused S.S. Malhi (Q. No. 560) had stated that "I was not the member of the Recommendation Committee nor any document was prepared by me CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 278 of 308 except for the summary sheets as per the direction of the then Dy. Director." This statement is in stark contrast to his stand questioning his handwriting and signature on the documents.
291. It is not disputed by the defence/accused that when meeting of the Recommendation Committee took place on 03.12.2002, accused Swaran Singh Malhi was present, as deposed by PW6 and PW7. PW9 in his deposition had stated that when case is taken by the Recommendation Committee, the dealing assistant S.S. Malhi used to process the case and used to submit a report consisting a check list regarding documents in order. PW9 also deposed that brief summary of the case including payment certificate, date of compensation, LAC report, revenue record are certified by A-2 and endorsed by accused Badrul Islam, and PW9 also identified the brief summary vide Ex.PW3/K (Colly).
CFSL REPORTS IN RELATION TO THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND WITNESSES.
Sr. Name of documents Remarks/Opinion No.
1. Note sheets from the Alternative Branch, L&B Vide Report Ex. PW68/A the Department (page 2/N) - Q-173 vide handwritings are atributable to the Ex.PW63/A( the original notesheet is in case accused S.S. Malhi. RC No 4 (A)/2015) (D-87 to D-89).
2. Note sheet of the Alternative Branch, L&B Vide Report Ex.PW68/A the Department (page 3/N and 4/N) - Q-174 to handwriting at Point Q-174
176.(the original notesheet is in case RC No 4 "Ammended pair is put-up for CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 279 of 308 (A)/2015) (D-87 to D-89). approval/sign please" is attributed to the accused Swaran Singh Malhi.
(In his deposition, PW68 stated that the original document D-267 is in the file of RC No. 4A/2015 and the present report vide Ex.PW68/A is based by comparing with the report Ex.PW68/DX-1).
3. Original draft of meeting and enclosures from FSL report vide Ex.PW69/A the file captioned as "Constitution of attributed the signature at Q-7 on Committee for Alternative Plot" - Q-7 & Q-8 noting (page no. 4/N and noting no. were the documents purported to be the 12 to accused S.S. Malhi and writing of accused S.S. Malhi. signature i.e. Q-8 on noting at page (The original draft of meeting is in case RC no. 5/N & noting no. 16, dated No. 4 (A)/2015) 07.02.2003 to accused S.S. Malhi from his sample signatures from S-9 to S-18.
4. Original draft of meeting and enclosures from Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the the file captioned as "Constitution of questioned signature was attributed Committee for Alternative Plot" - Vide to accused Badrul Islam. Ex.PW3/G i.e. the original minutes of meeting and Mark Q-1 bears the signature of Badrul Islam.
5. Vide Ex. PW15/A1 i.e. the original Minutes of Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the Meeting held under the chairmanship of questioned signature was attributed Secretary (Land) on 3.12.2002 for allotment of to accused Badrul Islam. alternative plots and mark Q-9 bears the signature of Badrul Islam.
6. Vide Ex. PW15/D i.e. the list of cases recommended for re-examination vide Annexure C bears the signature of Badrul Islam at Q-14. (the original of the same is in case RC No. 4 (A)/2015)
7. Vide Ex. PW3/G i.e. the draft of the minutes of Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the meeting dated 3.12.2002 for allotment of questioned signatures were attributed alternative plots that bears the signature of to accused Badrul Islam. Badrul Islam at Mark Q-1.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 280 of 308Mark Q-2 and Q-3 bear the signatures of Badrul Islam on the draft list of recommended cases vide Annexure A. Mark Q-4 and Q-5 bear the signatures of Badrul Islam on the draft list of rejected cases vide Annexure B. Mark Q6 bears the signature of Badrul Islam on the draft of list of cases recommended for re-examination vide Annexure C.
8. Original letter for allotment of alternative plot Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the under the scheme of large scale acquisition, questioned signature was attributed development and disposal of land in Delhi, to accused Badrul Islam. 1961, bearing the signature of accused Badrul Islam (Q- 9) vide Ex. PW3/H.
9. Vide Ex.PW11/E i.e. an original Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is affidavit/undertaking in the name of Satish, reserved as few admitted genuine where he signed as deponent on Q-10 & Q-11. signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
10. Vide Ex.PW11/D i.e. the document having Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is specimen signatures of Satish and photograph reserved as few admitted genuine of Satish is also affixed on the document. At signatures of the contemporary Q-12, Q-13 and Q-14 signatures of Satish in period alongwith more sheets of Hindi are mentioned. writing were required.
11. Vide Ex. PW11/A i.e. an Affidavit duly signed Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is by Satish Kumar in Hindi on Mark Q-20 and reserved as few admitted genuine Q-21. signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
12. Vide Ex. PW15/D i.e. a letter for issuance of Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is possession letter for the plot in question and reserved as few admitted genuine bears the signature of Satish in Hindi on Q-22 signatures of the contemporary on the said document. period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
13. Vide Ex.PW15/K i.e. affidavit in the name of Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is Satish, bearing the signature of Satish in Hindi reserved as few admitted genuine CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 281 of 308 (Mark Q-28 and Q-29). signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
14. Vide Ex. PW15/J i.e. an original letter for Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is issuance of lease deed, bearing the signature of reserved as few admitted genuine Satish Kumar in Hindi (Q-30). signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
15. Vide Ex. PW15/M i.e. original application for Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is submission of bank challan no. 159597, reserved as few admitted genuine bearing the signature of Satish Kumar in Hindi signatures of the contemporary on Mark( Q-31) and site plan having signature period alongwith more sheets of of Satish Kumar in Hindi (Q-32). Related to writing were required. Delhi Development Authority.
16. Vide Ex. PW15/L2 i.e. original possession Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is letter, bearing the signature of Satish Kumar in reserved as few admitted genuine Hindi, obtained from the Office of Director signatures of the contemporary Planning (Mark Q-33 and Q-34). period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
17. Ex.PW56/A is the perpetual lease of Satish and Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the Smt. Pankaj, containing signatures of Smt. questioned signatures in English of Smt. Pankaj (Mark-Q-35, Q-38, Q-40, Q-42, Smt. Smt. Pankaj were attributed to Q-44, Q-45 and Q-47 in English), and of her after comparing it with specimen Satish at Mark-Q-36, Q-37, Q-39, Q-41, Q-43, signatures. Vide report Ex.PW69/A, Q-46 and Q-48 in Hindi. opinion is reserved as few admitted genuine signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
18. Vide Ex.PW14/E i.e. original letter marked to Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is Satish and Smt. Pankaj regarding stamping of reserved as few admitted genuine perpetual lease deed of plot in question, signatures of the contemporary bearing the signature of Satish (Mark Q-49). period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
19. Ex. PW15/N i.e. original letter addressed to Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the the Asstt. Director DDA for execution of lease questioned signatures in English of deed in respect of the plot in question having Smt. Smt. Pankaj were attributed to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 282 of 308 signatures of Satish Kumar at Mark Q-50; her after comparing it with specimen Mark Q-51 bearing the signature of Satish signatures. Vide report Ex.PW69/A, Kumar and Q-52 bearing the signature of Smt. opinion is reserved as few admitted Smt. Pankaj on the site plan. genuine signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
20. Vide Ex. PW15/O i.e. the perpetual lease dead Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the and form Mark Q-53 to Q-64 bearing the questioned signatures in English of signature of Satish Kumar in Hindi (Q-54, Q- Smt. Smt. Pankaj were attributed to 56, Q-58, Q-60, Q-62 and Q-64) and that of her after comparing it with specimen Smt. Smt. Pankaj in English at Q-53, Q-55, Q- signatures. Vide report Ex.PW69/A, 57, Q-59, Q-61 and Q-63. opinion is reserved as few admitted genuine signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
21. Vide Ex. PW14/F i.e. original letter bearing Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the no. F 27(15)2003/LSB®/1131 dated questioned signatures in English of 05.12.2003 addressed to Sh. Satish and Smt. Smt. Smt. Pankaj were attributed to Smt. Pankaj, bearing siganture of Satish her after comparing it with specimen Kumar in Hindi (Mark Q-65) and Mark Q-66 signatures. Vide report Ex.PW69/A, i.e. on Form No. 60, bearing the signature of opinion is reserved as few admitted Satish Kumar in Hindi. genuine signatures of the contemporary period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
22. Vide Ex. PW61/A2 i.e. the specimen Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is signatures and photograph of Satish, bearing reserved as few admitted genuine his signatures in Hindi (Mark Q70, Q71 and signatures of the contemporary Q72). period alongwith more sheets of writing were required.
23. Vide Ex. PW61/A3 i.e. the affidavit regarding Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is the plot in question of Satish, bearing signature reserved as few admitted genuine of Satish in Hindi (Mark Q73 and Q74); signatures of the contemporary Election ID card of Satish, bearing signature of period alongwith more sheets of Satish on the application to issue lease deed in writing were required. respect of plot in question, bearing the signature of Satish Kumar. (Mark Q-76 and Mark Q-77).
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 283 of 30824. Vide Ex. PW32/F i.e. original perpetual lease Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the deed of Satish and Smt. Pankaj, bearing their questioned signatures of Smt. Smt. signatures from Mark Q-121 to 132; on the site Pankaj were attributed to her after plan, bearing signature of Satish Kumar (Mark comparing it with specimen Q-133); Mark Q-134 bearing the signature of signatures.Vide report Ex.PW69/A, Smt. Smt. Pankaj on the site plan; Mark Q- opinion is reserved as few admitted 135, Q-136 and Q-137 bearing the signatures genuine signatures of the of Satish Kumar in Hindi and on mark Q-138 contemporary period alongwith more and Q-139 bearing the thumb impressions of sheets of writing were required. Smt. Pankaj & Satish respectively.
Vide report Ex.PW70/A, the questioned impression of Satish (Q-
139) on the lease deed were faint, blurred/smudged and no opinion was given. However, the questioned impression of Smt. Pankaj (Q-138 i.e. left thumb impressons) were found identical with the specimen thumb impression and other questioned Q-138R of Smt. Pankaj were faint, blurred/smudged and no opinion was given.
25. Ex.PW 54/B (D-9) is the affidavit filed on Vide report Ex.PW69/A, with regard behalf of Satish and Smt. Pankaj in regard to to signatures of accused Satish, the plot in question, bearing the signatures of further opinion is reserved as more Satish on Mark Q84, Q85, Q89, Q91, Q92, sheets of his specimen writings were Q94, Q96, Q101. required.
26. Vide Ex.PW54/D i.e. the agreement to sell Vide report Ex.PW69/A, opinion is bearing the signature of Satish on Q-103, Q- reserved as few admitted genuine 105, Q-106, Q-107,Q-112, Q-114,Q-116, Q- signatures of the contemporary 118 and Q-119 and on Q-108 bearing the period alongwith more sheets of finger prints of Satish; Q-95, Q-97, Q-108A writing were required. and Q-108B are the left thumb impressions of Vide report Ex.PW70/A, the Satish Kumar. Specimen role prints of questioned thumb impression/finger accused Satish Goyal taken before the print impression of Satish (Q-95, Q- Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW1/F. Referred 97, Q-108A and Q-108B) on the as S-172. Special Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell were found CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 284 of 308 identical with the specimen thumb impression.
27. Vide Ex. PW15/K2 i.e. an affidavit on behalf Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the of Smt. Pankaj bearing her signatures on Mark questioned signatures were attributed Q-26 and Q-27. to accused Smt. Pankaj.
28. Vide Ex.PW61/A-1 i.e. the specimen Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the signatures and photograph of Smt. Smt. questioned signatures were attributed Pankaj. Mark Q-67, Q-68 and Q-69, bearing to accused Smt. Pankaj. the signatures of Smt. Smt. Pankaj; Photocopy of Election ID card of Smt. Pankaj bearing her signature at Mark Q-75.
29. Vide Ex. PW43/B (colly) i.e. the account Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the opening form in the name of Mrs. Smt. Pankaj questioned signatures were attributed having her signatures on Mark A-3, A-5, A-6, to accused Smt. Pankaj. A-7 and A-9 and Vide Ex.PW43/C i.e. the copy of PAN Card of Smt. Pankaj Goyal having her signature on Marked A-8. Mark A-
11 bearing the signature of Smt. Pankaj on the copy of IDBI Bank Account Form.
30. Ex.PW 54/B (D-9) is the affidavit filed on Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the behalf of Satish and Smt. Pankaj in regard to questioned signatures were attributed the plot in question, bearing signature of Smt. to accused Smt. Pankaj. Pankaj on Mark Q82, Q86, Q88, Q90, Q93, Q98, Q100. Q111 bearing the signature of Vide report Ex.PW70/A, the Smt. Smt. Pankaj. Q-87 and Q-99 bearing the questioned thumb impression/finger finger prints of accused Smt. Pankaj. print impression of Smt. Pankaj (Q-
87 and Q-99) on the GPA and SPA were found identical with the specimen thumb impression.
31. Vide Ex.PW54/D i.e. the agreement to sell Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the bearing the signature of Smt. Pankaj on Q-102, questioned signatures were attributed Q-104, Q-110, Q-111, Q-113, Q-115, Q-117 to accused Smt. Pankaj. and Q-120 and Q-109 bearing the finger prints Vide report Ex.PW70/A, the of Smt. Pankaj on the said Ex.PW54/D. questioned thumb impression/finger CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 285 of 308 print impression of Smt. Pankaj (Q-
109) on the Agreement to Sell were found identical with the specimen thumb impression.
32. Ex.PW11/B (undertaking containing the Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the signature of Manoj Kumar and Rajesh Kumar questioned signature Q-18 were Goyal as witnesses at Point-Q-18 and Q-19 attributed to accused Rajesh Kumar respectively. Goyal, and with regard to signatures of Manoj, further opinion is reserved as more sheets of his specimen writings were required.
33. Vide Ex. PW15/K3 (undertaking of Satish, Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the bearing signatures of Rajesh, Satish and Neeru questioned signatures with regard to Kumar at Point Q-23, Q-24 and Q-25 signatures of accused Neeru Kumar, respectively. further opinion is reserved as more sheets of his specimen writings were required.
34. Mark Q-146 to Q-148 bearing the handwriting Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the of accused Pramod Garg on the Application to questioned signatures/writings were issue DD (Part of D-122 to D-133); Mark Q- attributed to accused Pramod Garg. 151 to Q-155 bearing the handwriting of accused Pramod Garg; On Q-157 to Q-161 and Q-163 to 167 bearing the handwriting of accused Pramod Garg on the Punjab & Sind Bank application to issue DD.
35. Handwriting of accused Pramod Garg on Q- Vide report Ex.PW69/A, the 144 to Q-167 on the Payin slip dated questioned signatures/writings (Q- 22.08.2003 vide Ex.PW62/B on the Payin Slip 146 to Q-148, Q-151 to Q-155, Q- dated 22.08.2003. 157 to Q-161 and Q-163 to Q-167) were attributed to accused Pramod Garg.
292. Perusal of FSL reports would indicate that no opinion in respect of signature (in Hindi) of accused Satish were furnished in the FSL report. Witnesses from DDA have stated that accused had signed on the documents such as letter of possession etc. Moreover, thumb/finger prints of accused CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 286 of 308 Satish on various documents were attributable to him as per FSL report Ex.PW70/A. The signatures as well as thumb/finger prints of Smt. Pankaj were duly found matched in the FSL reports vide Ex.PW69/A and Ex.PW70/A. Although, opinion in respect of signature of Manoj Kumar Mallick was not attributed as per FSL report, however, in his evidence before the court, he identified his signature and the same was not challenged by defence in any manner and signature. The judgments Padum Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 35 and Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 210 relied by Ld. Counsel for A-6 is distinguishable as ample evidence has been brought into record to consider FSL report vide Ex.PW69/A. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 195 Cr.P.C.
293. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the trial and the subsequent proceedings in the present case are vitiated due to non- compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is contended that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. It is also contended that penal provisions under Section 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC were invoked, whereas a plain reading of the charge sheet would disclose that only offence punishable under section 172 to 188 IPC were made out. It is contended that offence punishable under section 172 to 188 of the IPC or abetment of or attempt to act to commit or any other criminal conspiracy to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 287 of 308 commit such offence would fall within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that offence has been committed in contempt of the public authorities i.e. of public servant i.e. members of Recommendation Committee as well as the officers of L&B Department, Govt. of NCT, a plot of land was allotted and a written complaint in writing as per requirement of Section 195 A(1) Cr.PC is mandatory in nature.
294. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had relied upon (i) Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 173 DLT 738, (ii) M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State, (2000) 1 SCC 278, (iii) Arvind Kumar Adhukia Vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2010) 173 DLT 738 and (iv) CBI Vs. Indra Bhushan Singh & Anr., AIR 2014.
295. It is contended that in Daulat Ram (supra), it was held that provisions under section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. It is also submitted that in Basirul Haque & Ors. Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293, it was observed that even if some distinct offences are committed then the case could be brought within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
296. Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides that no cognizance could be taken for committing offences u/Sections 172 to 188 of IPC or for abetment or attempt to commit, such offence except on the complaint in CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 288 of 308 writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
297. Section 195(1)(b) further provides that if any offence punishable under section 193 or 196, 199, 200/205 to 211 and 228 are committed or in relation to, any proceedings in any court then no cognizance could be taken except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officers of the court or as the court may authorize in this behalf or to any other court to which he is administratively subordinate. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and (b)(iii) and (3) provides that when an offence under section 463 or 471, 475 or 476 is alleged to have been committed in respect of the documents produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court or the criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of any offence, such offence and the cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken except when there is a complaint in writing.
298. 195(2) provides for the methodology of withdrawal of such complaint.
299. It is necessary to observe that applicability of Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.PC arises only, if the offences are committed with respect to the documents, when such document has been produced or evidence in any CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 289 of 308 court. In this reference, it would be profitable to refer to Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, AIR 2005 SC 2119 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the scope and applicability observed as below :
"Section 19(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provisions have been committed with respect to the document after it has been produced or in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e., during the time when the document was in "custodia legus".
300. The similar observation is also made in (i) Bashir-Ul-Haq Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293, (ii) Padohi Ram Vs. State of UP, 1990 Crl. Law Journal 495 and (iii) B.N. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore, 1995 Crl. Law Journal 160.
301. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court, Section 195(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is only attracted when the document is produced before the court or in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. when the document was in "custodia legus" and hence Section 195(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case.
302. Ld. Counsels cited Bashir-ul-Haq V. Sate of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 293) in support of his contention that complaint in writing is necessary and rather referred judgement holds that if other offences are committed, section 195 does not bar the cognizance by the magistrate of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 290 of 308 that offence, even if no action is taken by the public servant to whom the false report has been made note:
"......12. Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, on which the question raised is grounded provides, inter alia, that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 172 to 188, Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The statute thus requires that without a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned no prosecution for an offence u/s 182 can be taken cognizance of. It does not further provide that if in the course of the commission of that offence other distinct offences are committed, the magistrate is debarred from taking cognizance in respect of those offences as well. The allegations made in a complaint may have a double aspect, that is, on the one hand these may constitute an offence against the authority of the public servant or public justice, and on the other hand, they may also constitute the offence of defamation or some other distinct offence. The section does not per se bar the cognizance by the magistrate of that offence, even if no action is taken by the public servant to whom the false report has been made".
According, it was held that if two sets of offences are disclosed and for which complaint is register and other for which no complaint is registered, the court can proceed with the other offences as it is barred u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also cited Padohi Ram V. State of U.P. & Anrs. {1990 Crl. L.J. 495} This judgment is contrary to the constitution Bench Judgement of Iqbal Sindh Marwah V. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, as in the said case, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is distinction off forgery having been committed outside the court and inside the court. For forgery having been committed outside the court, complaint under section 195 Cr. P.C. is not required.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 291 of 308303. Sections 172 to 188 IPC were not invoked and therefore, the contention that a complaint in writing is to be given, is not attracted in the present case. Bare perusal of the charge sheet and evidence adduced during the course of trial would indicate that distinct offences are invoked against the accused persons and thus, there is no requirement to file a complaint in writing by the public servant or by his superior in the instant case. The trial of the case would indicate that distinct offences under sections 419, 420, 463, 467, 471 and 120B IPC as well Section 13 of PC Act were invoked and even charges were framed qua the commission of offences against these sections and there is sufficient material on record to indicate the commission of above referred offences and hence, the contention that proceedings are vitiated is rejected in view of the observation made in paragraph 12 of Bashir-Ul-Haq (supra). It is also necessary to observe that detailed order on charge was passed on 26.07.2018 and the charges were framed against the accused persons on 27.08.2018 and no arguments were raised at any point of time that provisions under section 195 Cr.P.C. was not complied.
SECTION 197 Cr.PC - NO PROSECUTION SANCTION FOR THE COMMISISON OF OFFENCE UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE.
304. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for A-2 that no prosecution sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained as A-2 was a public servant. It is also contended that Section 197 Cr.P.C. provides that when a person who CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 292 of 308 is or was a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to be in discharge of his official duty. Ld. Counsel for A-2 has relied upon State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 807, wherein it is held that the protection afforded under section 197 Cr.P.C. is available to the public servant even after retirement. In, Devender Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87, it is held that the question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima-facie on the basis of accusation and it is open to decide the question of sanction afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage. In, D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, AIR Online 2020 SC 197, it was observed :-
70.An offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a police man assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However if an act is connected to the discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.
71.If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.
72.The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 293 of 308 makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to bed one in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority.
73.To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law.
305. In B.K. Parchure Vs. State & Anr, SCC Online Del 2492, it is held that :-
27. It is thus seen that the act of the petitioner clearly falls within the scope of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., so as to attract the requirement of obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance. If Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated.
306. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for A-2 as well as the judgments cited on behalf of A-2 which provides for the desirability of obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the relevant authorities if the offence is committed by public servant and the ratio flowing out from the cited judgments is that prosecution sanction is not CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 294 of 308 required only for acts done in discharge of the official duty but same is also required for an act which is purported to be done in the discharge of official duty.
307. In considering the submissions, whether prosecution sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required in the present case, the factual matrix of the case are to be taken in proper prospective to consider whether act of A-2 was in the discharge of his official duty or the act of A-2 was in the purported discharge of his official duty. The abundant material on record shows that A-3 was not eligible for the allotment of alternate land and thus, no recommendation for allotment of land could have been made in favour of A-3. The crux of the allegations against A-2 is to the effect that a claim of fictitious person who was never eligible for allotment of land was processed with criminal conspiracy by accused persons inter-se and a fake file was created so as to advance the case of allotment of land to A-3 and A-4, providing undue benefit or providing the advantage to any person when such person is not entitled for the allotment of land. The act performed is not done in discharge of official duty but a fraudulent transaction under the cloak of official duty. The act of A-2 cannot be said to be in discharge of official duty or in excess of such duty or authority rather that facts of the case would show that each and every step the process of verification was bypassed with a view to provide benefit to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 295 of 308 ineligible person by fraudulently getting a recommendation letter issued in favour of A-3. The judgments cited on behalf of A-2 are not applicable in the facts of the case and even the judgment cited i.e. D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, AIR Online 2020 SC 197, on behalf of A-2, the para no. 70 and 71 distinguishes when an official act cannot be said to be in the discharge of the official duty. In the present case, if A-1 and A-2 had not conspired together, A-3 would not have got the land. There is no reasonable connection with the act and the performance of the official duty performed by A-2 and therefore, in the facts of the case, there is no requirement to obtain the prosecution sanction u/Section 197 Cr.P.C for A-2 qua the commission of offence under section 120B IPC.
308. In so far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for A-2 to the effect that sanction u/S 19 of PC Act has not been obtained. In Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (2012) 3 Supreme Court SCC 64, it is held that no sanction is necessary to prosecute a retired public servant u/Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Labh Singh & Manmohan Singh (supra), it was held that crucial date for considering the question, whether sanction under section 19 of PC Act is required is to be considered in light of the fact whether the court could have taken the cognizance in case when charge sheet was filed and in reference to the present case, on the date of the the cognizance of the offence, the accused CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 296 of 308 had already retired from his service and, therefore, there is no requirement to take sanction under section 19 of PC Act.
309. It is also contended that there is a delay in the lodgment of the FIR and the benefit should go to the accused persons. In this regard, it is observed that mere delay in the lodgment of the FIR is not material in relation to the present case as the Investigating Agency came to know about the offences committed by the accused persons on 20.06.2016 and thereafter it investigated the case and filed the charge sheet and therefore, the delay has been suitably and properly explained in relation to the present case.
310. The contention that neither DDA or Government was cheated as full payment was made towards the land for the allotment is required to be rejected as the allotment of land was made in favour of ineligible persons by denying the benefit to deserving citizens who were denied the opportunity to get the land pursuant to the Welfare Scheme launched by the Government.
311. The law relating to the conspiracy has already been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment and the material and the evidence produced by CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 297 of 308 the prosecution has been analysed. Apart from substantive offences, Section 120B IPC has been invoked against all the accused persons and Section 120B IPC is also the substantive offence and like other substantive offences, the material and the evidence produced is required to be analysed in relation to the ingredients of Section 120A IPC and made punishable under section 120B IPC. After analysing the testimonies of different witnesses as well as the documentary evidence brought on record and the circumstances as surfaced during the trial, the prosecution has proved the following facts and circumstances against accused persons namely A-2, A- 3, A-4 and A-6 which establishes that there was a conspiracy and different offences has been committed, and following circumstances and facts have been established during the course of the trial :
i. That Government of NCT of Delhi has formulated a scheme for the purposes of rehabilitation of persons whose lands were acquired by the Government.
ii. It is established that pursuant to the public notice, applications were received from the persons whose lands were acquired by the Government of NCT and the applications were dealt by Alternative Branch in Land & Building Department, NCT of Delhi. Four applications for allotment of land had been moved by CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 298 of 308 different persons from Village Bahapur, Delhi and no application for allotment of land of A-3 was received in the Land & Building Department.
iii. The applications received in the Land & Building Department were given separate file numbers and at the relevant point of time, the Alternative Branch was led by A-1 and the applications for allotment were dealt by A-1 & A-2, the Dealing Asstt., and the duty of the Land & Building Department was to ensure that a check list is prepared in respect of the documents submitted by the applicants and also to call reports from different departments such as LAC, Revenue, legal department etc. iv. The Recommendation Committee only makes the recommendation for allotment of land to eligible persons, if they were found to meet the criteria such as the land of applicant i.e. Satish has been acquired or that he was resident of Delhi when the land was acquired and reports from other departments were required. The material available on record/evidence, clearly shows that neither any compensation was awarded to accused Satish nor he was an owner of any piece of land in the khasra no. 607 and thus, his land was never acquired, as well as the fact that CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 299 of 308 his name is also not mentioned in any jamabandi document which shows that no exercise of verification was carried out from the different Departments.
v. After the files of all persons are processed, the same were used to be put before the Recommendation Committee, comprising of A- 1, PW6, PW7 & PW9 which made a recommendation vide Ex.PW6/A, recommending the name of A-3 for allotment of land.
vi. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the Recommendation Committee vide Ex.PW6/A, a recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H was issued inter alia recommending the name of accused Satish for allotment of land. It has also come in the evidence that file no. F.32(21)/50/89-L&B/Alt was not found traceable in the Land & Building Department and the same was also not consigned to Central Record Room. In order to provide benefit to A-3, a fake file was created in the Department and the files for allotment of land and different applications used to remain in the custody of S.S. Malhi (A-2) and Badrul Islam (A-1) as they used to deal with the same. No application for allotment of land was received from accused Satish from village Bahapur and no verification was conducted and the accused S.S. Malhi in conspiracy with other accused persons had prepared a summary CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 300 of 308 sheet vide Ex.PW3K (Colly - at page no. 35) inter alia conveying the information to members of the Recommendation Committee that requisite verification in respect of Satish has been conducted and the accused S.S. Malhi wrote in his handwriting "certified that the particulars above are found correct as per record."
vii. Meeting of Recommendation Committee took place on 03.12.2002 and it made recommendation for allotment of land of Satish in relation to File No. F.32(21)/50/89-L&B/Alt and in the meeting, A-1 and A-2 were also present and thereafter recommendation letter vide Ex.PW-3/H was issued by A-1. The recommendation letter no. 1353 was part of the booklet containing recommendation form and the booklet was issued in the name of A-2 and the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H was having the attested photograph of accused Satish.
viii. It is also explicit from the internal noting of the file that various note sheets were used to be prepared either by A-1 and A-2 in the Land & Building Department while processing the case for allotment of land.
ix. In order to obtain the alternative plot, the accused persons have entered into criminal conspiracy and in the process, they also CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 301 of 308 committed substantive offences. As discussed earlier, after receipt of the recommendation letter vide Ex.PW3/H and draw of lot was held on 29.05.2003, the name of accused Satish was recommended for the allotment of land.
x. Letters were sent by DDA to complete the formalities and for making payment, but letters sent to Satish were returned back unserved, however, he appeared before DDA and gave an application for the allotment of land alongwith other documents to stake his claim towards the land. Since at the relevant point of time, the policy of the DDA was to make joint allotment in favour of the applicant and his wife and in this regard, both Satish (A-3) and his wife Smt. Pankaj (A-4) also furnished affidavit of undertaking and other documents etc. to establish their claim that they were from Delhi and also provided voter I-card and the same was found to be forged and fabricated as no record of the same was found available in the Electoral office xi. In order to achieve the objective of getting land from DDA, forged documents in the form of identity card, affidavits, undertaking which contain the false address of accused persons namely Satish and Smt. Pankaj and the funds towards the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 302 of 308 purchase of land were provided by persons like accused Pramod Garg.
xii. In order to complete the necessary formalities and further to establish their identity before the DDA, the documents such as undertaking/affidavit filed on behalf of Satish and his wife Smt. Pankaj were found to be witnessed by some private persons i.e. Shri Rajesh Kumar Goyal and Shri Manoj Kumar and it has also come in the evidence that those private persons who signed the undertaking had signed at the instance of accused Pramod Garg as they were employed by him. Affidavits/undertaking as well as specimen signatures and thumb impressions were attested by Notary Public, however, Notary Public Shri R.S. Beniwal (PW11) and Shri Lalit Kumar (PW61) had denied attesting the same.
xiii. Accused Satish (A-3) and his wife Smt. Smt. Pankaj (A-4) have not explained about the source of the money and it was found that a major portion of the money was provided by A-6. It has also come in evidence that demand draft of Rs.2,45,000/- which was used for the part payment towards the plot was taken by Bajrang Garg (PW-37, an employee of A-6) on behalf of the accused Pramod Garg and the same was used by accused Satish for depositing in DDA. Moreover, accused Pramod Garg in order to CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 303 of 308 conceal his identity had also got prepared four bank drafts in his own signatures, however, the application forms for issuance of bank drafts had matched with three applications. It has been estalished through the FSL report Ex.PW69/A that three application forms for issuance of draft/pay orders were made by the accused Pramod Garg in his own handwriting. It has also come in the evidence that accused Pramod Garg was dealing with the huge amount of cash during the period when the offence was committed.
xiv. On 08.12.2003, a lease deed was executed between DDA and accused Satish & Smt. Pankaj in which one Narayan Singh (PW56) had signed as a witness and PW56 stated that he signed at the instance of accused Pramod Garg and accused Pramod Garg was present at the time of execution of lease deed. At the time of execution of lease deed, both accused Satish as well as Smt. Pankaj had furnished the forged and fabricated voter I-cards. Accused Satish and Smt. Pankaj at the time of execution of lease deed had also appended their finger print impressions and the same were attributed to them vide FSL report Ex.PW72/B. xv. Accused persons i.e. Satish and Smt. Pankaj after execution of the lease deed on 08.12.2003, on the same day, had transferred the CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 304 of 308 land to Smt. Sunita Suneja and it has also come in evidence that no payment etc was made by Smt. Sunita Suneja to Satish & Smt. Pankaj and the plot bearing No. 38, Pocket A, Sector 12, Residential Scheme in Dwarka, New Delhi has changed hands to number of persons.
xvi. Issuance of recommendation letter Ex.PW3/H was the result of the conspiracy hatched by accused persons which continued till the allotment and possession of plot was given to accused Satish Goyal (A-3) and his wife Smt. Smt. Pankaj Goyal (A-4). In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Satish Goyal and Smt. Pankaj Goyal on the same day had transferred the possession and also executed number of documents in favour of the buyer.
312. The above referred circumstances and facts would reveal that accused persons have entered into criminal conspiracy and thus, committed an offence punishable under section 120-B IPC and some of the accused persons also committed the substantive offences and due to the offences committed by them a plot of land was allotted to accused Satish and Smt. Smt. Pankaj.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 305 of 308313. In view of the above discussion, Swarn Singh Malhi (A-2) is convicted for committing offences under sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC (r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Satish Kumar Goyal (A-3) & Smt. Pankaj Goyal (A-4) are convicted for committing offences under sections 419/420/471 IPC and Section 120B IPC (r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Pramod Garg @ Munna (A-6) is convicted for committing offences under section 120B IPC (r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Neeru Kumar Gupta @ N.K. Gupta (A-5) is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 120B IPC (r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).
314. FINAL CONCLUSION Sr. Name of the accused Offences charged Offences proved No.
1. Swarn Singh Malhi 120-B IPC r/w Sections Proved (A-2) 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 306 of 308 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 13(2) r/w Section Proved 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Satish Kumar Goyal 120-B IPC r/w Sections Proved @ Satish (A-3) 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
419/420/467 & Section 471 Proved under
r/w Section 468 IPC. sections
419/420/471 IPC
3. Smt. Smt. Pankaj 120-B IPC r/w Sections Proved
Goyal (A-4) 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w
Section 468 IPC & Section
13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
419/420/467 & Section 471 Proved under
r/w Section 468 IPC. sections
419/420/471 IPC
4. Neeru Kumar Gupta 120-B IPC r/w Sections Acquitted @ N.K. Gupta (A-5) 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 307 of 308419/420/467 & Section 471 Acquitted IPC r/w Section 468 IPC.
5. Pramod Garg @ 120-B IPC r/w Sections Proved Munna (A-6) 419/420/467 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
419/420/467 & Section 471
r/w Section 468 IPC. Not proved.
315. Accused Neeru Kumar Gupta @ N.K. Gupta is directed to file personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
316. To come up for arguments on the point of sentence as well as fine/compensation on 25.01.2024. Digitally signed (Announced in the open court HASAN by HASAN ANZAR today i.e. on 22.01.2024) ANZAR Date: 2024.01.22 17:19:48 +0530 (Hasan Anzar) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03, RADC/New Delhi/22.01.2024.
CBI Vs. Badrul Islam & Ors. CC No. 300/2019 RC No. 12(A)/2016 Page 308 of 308