Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Phillip Toppo Etc on 17 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV RAO,
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-01) (PC ACT),
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000131-2019
CC No. 06/2019 (Old No. 02/2011)
RC No. 43(A)/2007
Under Section 120B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC &
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation
.........Prosecution
Versus
1. Atul Vashisht
S/o Late Sh. P.L. Vashisht
R/o 98, Kilokari, Opposite Maharani Bagh
New Delhi.
2. Lal Mani,
S/o Late Sh. Chander Mani,
R/o D-5, Nandini Bhawan,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
New Delhi.
3. Ravinder Singh Sandhu,
S/o Sh. Gurmej Singh,
R/o 11, Hakikat Nagar,
Delhi-110009.
4. Vijay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Than Singh,
R/o K-183, Vijay Vihar,
Near Sector-4 Police Station,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV RAO
RAO Date: 2024.12.17
17:29:08 +0400
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 1 of 522
5. Mohan Lal,
S/o Sh. Maluk Chand,
R/o B-62, Nehru Vihar,
PS Timar Pur, Delhi.
6. Surjit Singh,
S/o Late Waryam Singh,
R/o House No. 185, Indra Vihar,
Near Banda Bahadur Marg Depot,
Delhi-110009.
..........accused persons
Date of institution : 27.03.2009
Date of arguments : 04.12.2024
Date of judgment : 17.12.2024
Decision : All accused persons stand
convicted except for accused
Ravinder Singh Sandhu who
stands acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE CHARGE SHEET
1. The Present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. D.K.Thakur, IO of case RC 34(A)/2007-DLI alleging therein that during the period 2006-07, SNS Sidhu, Director (not chargesheeted), Philip Toppo, Dy. Director (since deceased & proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 30.11.2018), Sumer Chand Garg, Asstt. Director (not charge sheeted & since deceased), accused no. 1 Atul Vashishth, UDC, while being posted & functioning in Slum & JJ Deptt. of MCD, entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with Ashok Malhotra (since deceased & proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 23.8.2016), Ashok Jain (since CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 2 of 522 deceased & proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 25.11.2022) and others.
1.2 It is its case that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, fake/forged documents like ration card, identity cards etc. were prepared and used in the name of fake/fictitious persons for allotment of plots under the resettlement scheme. The said officials of MCD by abusing their official position and in conspiracy with Ashok Malhotra, Ashok Jain & ors cheated MCD and dishonestly allotted 26 plots i.e. plots No. 5 to 17 and 30 to 42 at F-Block, Savada Ghevra, Delhi, Resettlement Scheme of MCD, on 09.03.2007 in the names of fake/fictitious persons on the basis of forged/fabricated documents.
1.3 It is its case that the Slum & JJ Department of MCD was set up in 1950s to implement the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 and was entrusted with the task of development and improvement of notified slum areas. The administrative control of the Department was transferred to MCD in 1992 and has since remained with it. The Slum & JJ Department is headed by an Additional Commissioner and is responsible for relocation of slum dwellers residing in Jhuggi Jhopries built on land belonging to Govt. agencies/public sector.
1.4 It is its case that the relocation process commences on receipt of request from the land owning agency, that they require their land for execution of a project of public importance. On receipt of such a request, the Sociology Division of Slum & CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 3 of 522 JJ Department conducts a joint survey alongwith a representative of the land owning agency. A physical survey of JJ dwellers is conducted by ascertaining details of name, parentage, jhuggi number, occupation, ration card, I card number, etc. and the information is tabulated in a prescribed proforma.
1.5 It is its case that a JJ dweller needs to fulfill two conditions to be eligible for a resettlement plot i.e. first, his name must figure in the joint survey list and secondly he must have a identity proof such as Ration Card to establish that he is a resident of Delhi prior to 31 December, 1998. Those who are residents prior to 31.01.90 are entitled to a resettlement plot measuring 18 Sq. Mtrs while those who became residents subsequently but upto 31.12.98 are eligible for allotment of a resettlement plot measuring 12.5 Sq. mtrs. as per policy of GNCT Delhi. After the survey, the land owning agency deposits prescribed amount as relocation charges with the Slum & JJ Department. Each prospective allottee of resettlement plot is required to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- with the Cash Section of Slum & JJ Department. This includes Rs. 2000/- as licence fee for the plot for a period of 10 years and Rs. 5,000/- as contribution of the beneficiary. A draw of plots is held by the Draw Committee and provisional identification slips are issued to the JJ dwellers.
1.6 It is its case that in the matter of allocation of resettlement plots, the Slum & JJ Department had issued instructions dated 09.01.2002 in compliance of observations CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 4 of 522 made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No. 6659 and CM No. 11425/01 dated 11.12.2001. As per these instructions, cases in respect of which there was some dispute/which had been left out due to various other reasons, were required to be referred to the 'Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee headed by a Dy. Commissioner, MCD. The committee was required to verify the proof of residence and other documents submitted by an applicant and then take a decision with reference to allotment of resettlement plot. These resettlement plots could not be resold by the allottee as the ownership remained with the MCD.
1.7 It is its case that as per order No. PS/AC(S)/2001/D-719 dt 18.12.2001 a Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee was set up to decide finally the eligibility of the disputed cases and issue instructions for the allotment of alternative relocation of plots whether 18 sqm or 12.5 sqm as the case may be with reference to cut off date of the disputed case.
1.8 It is further its case that all the premises which were found locked during joint survey are treated as 'Locked cases". These locked cases along with the cases of those dwellers who could not furnish necessary identity documents at the time of joint survey are considered by Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee. The S&JJ Dept., MCD vide its order no. PS/DC(S&JJ)/S/02/002/D24 dt 09.01.2002 had mentioned details of various types of disputes which this committee will look into and this order was issued keeping into account the order CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 5 of 522 of High Court, Delhi WP No. 6659 and CM no. 11425/2001 dt 11.12.2001. The original file through which the manual draw of the instant case was conducted as well as the original individual files of the allottees are not available with SUR, Slum & JJ Department, MCD.
1.9 It is its case that the Joint Survey of Gautam Puri Part II, Yamuna Pushta, New Delhi area was conducted by Field Investigators of Slum & JJ Deptt. alongwith officials of land owning agency i.e. L&DO during the period September, 2003 and though the names of 26 dwellers figures in the joint survey report, however, out of them 15 dwellers had already been allotted plots in the year 2004 through Computer Draw and 05 dwellers were not eligible for allotment of relocation of plots.
1.10 It is its case that during investigation, 8 dwellers namely Sh Bisram, Sh Jai Singh, Sh Kameshwar Mehto, Mohd. Arif, Smt Kalawati, Sh Ansar Ahmed, Sh Prabhu Dayal and Sh Shabir who were allotted plots during the year 2004 were examined who stated that they had been allotted plots in the year 2004 at Holambi Kalan & Bawana respectively and the documents in their names, which were seized during the investigation, do not belong to them. The photograph affixed on said documents is of different person and therefore forged & fake documents were prepared in their names.
1.11 It is its case that as per Office Order No. (D / 29) / Dy. Director (SUR) / 2005 dated 23/02/2005, SNS Sidhu, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 6 of 522 Director (SUR) (not chargesheeted), Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director (SUR) (since deceased), Sh. SK Rastogi, Dy. Director (EDP), Sh. Jagbir Singh, Asstt. Director (Survey/ Planning) and concerned Dealing Assistant were members of the draw committee. It is its case that to complete Quorum for conducting draw, presence of any four members as aforesaid was required. Sumer Chand Garg, Asst. Director (SUR) was not the member of draw committee and on 05.07.2006 Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director (SUR) took approval for conducting draw of plots for 50 or less than 50 JJ dwellers by Parchi System from Sh. R.M. Pillai, Addl. Commissioner, wherein it is mentioned in the note, that manual draw will be more transparent as the same is conducted in the presence of JJ dwellers. It is its case that the 26 plots No. 5 to 17 and 30 to 42 at F Block, Savda Ghevra, were allotted through manual draw & these parchis have been signed by Philip Toppo & accused no. 1 Atul Vashist, who were well aware of the said office order dated 23.02.2005, but despite this they went ahead with the draw, in gross violation of office order as they were acting in conspiracy with Ashok Malhotra and others to fraudulently allot the plots in the name of fictitious persons on the basis of forged documents. It is its case that the allotment of plots to these dwellers through manual draw held by accused officials on the basis of fake/forged documents is totally bogus/baseless.
1.12 It is its case that 26 nos. of Challans were prepared by Atul Vashisht, they were signed by Philip Toppo, they deposited share money of Rs. 7,000/- per dweller with the cashier and obtained cash receipt in duplicate. On the basis of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 7 of 522 false/forged documents Philip Toppo and accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht conducted manual draw (parchi system) of plots in the name of 46 dwellers on 09.03.2007, who were residents of Gautam Puri-11. The said draw parchis and draw list was prepared & signed by accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo. It is its case that for the purpose of the said draw Ashok Malhotra arranged forged documents like Ration Card which were filled by accused no. 2 Lal Mani, Dy. Secy., Delhi Vidhan Sabha, and Delhi Administration ID Cards which were filled by accused no. 6 Surjit Singh, both associates of Ashok Malhotra. On the basis of draw of plots and fake/forged documents, Philip Toppo and accused no. 1 Atul Vashist, in conspiracy with Ashok Malhotra and others, prepared the Provisional Identification Slips in the name of fictitious persons by obtaining thumb impression of persons like accused no. 5 Mohan Lal and other unknown persons.
1.13 It is further its case that the Provisional Identification Slips which were used as proof of allotment & other official records of such plots were knowingly passed on by the said MCD officials to Ashok Malhotra & Ashok Jain, which were recovered at the instance of Ashok Jain during the course of investigation of RC DAI 2007 A 0034. It is its case that the official records of SUR, Slum & JJ Department i.e, the draw list and draw parchis dt 09.03.2007 of said plots were also recovered from house no. B-62. Nehru Vihar, Delhi, where they had been kept on the directions of Ashok Malhotra. The original draw parchis and draw list were handed over by accused MCD CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 8 of 522 officials to Ashok Malhotra who got the said documents alongwith his other personal documents concealed at the residence of accused no. 5 Mohan Lal @ Mone. During searches in connected case no. RC 25(A) / 7 of CBI, ACB, New Delhi the said original draw parchis alongwith draw list having signatures of Philip Toppo and accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht were also recovered from residence of accused no. 5 Mohan Lal @ Mone. It is its case that accused no. 5 Mohan Lal @ Mone has also given his statement u/s 164 Cr. PC in connected case RC 25(A)/07 that the said documents were kept in his house on the instructions of Ashok Malhotra.
1.14 It is its case that Ashok Malhotra & Ashok Jain in furtherance of the said conspiracy prepared fake and forged documents, with the intention, to illegally sell the said plots in the open market at exorbitant prices in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to Government. It is its case that Ashok Malhotra got prepared fake & forged set of documents i.e. Receipt, GPA, Agreement to sell & purchase, Affidavit, Deed of will and Possession letter through accused Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji (since deceased and proceedings against him were abated vide orders dated 02.09.2024) by paying him Rs. 300/- per set of documents. It is its case that deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji got the said documents typed & prepared from accused no. 4 Vijay Kumar who also attested 06 sets of the said documents pertaining to Shri Ramvir, Sita Ram, Mohd. Mukhtar, Jai Singh, Mohd. Wasim and Ansar as Notary Public, in the name of Shri Bijender Singh.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 9 of 522 1.15 It is further its case that accused no. 3 RS Sandhu, another associate of Ashok Malhotra had provided the list of dweller with photographs in whose name the said set of documents were got prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji and deceased Ram Chander Arora had also affixed his thumb impression on the set of legal documents pertaining to Sh Prabhu Dayal, Mahavir Pandit, Samsuddin, Salik and Harinder, under different names and accused no. 5 Mohan Lal @ Mone had also affixed his thumb impression on the Provisional Identification Slips of Sh Prabhu Dayal and Sh Mohd. Mukhtar in place of allotees.
1.16 It is its case that accused no. 2 Lal Mani had affixed his Thumb Impression on 19 set of legal documents i.e. receipt, GPA, agreement to sale & purchase, affidavit, deed of will and possession letter and had also written the names of witnesses on all the 26 set of legal documents. It is its case that deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji and accused no. 3 RS Sandhu had given their statements u/s 164 Cr. PC in connected case bearing no. case RC 25(A)/07 & RC 34(A)/07 of CBI, ACB, Delhi respectively.
1.17 It is its case that Ashok Malhotra got prepared the set of documents alongwith ration card and Delhi Admn. ID Card in order to sell the said allotted plot in open market at exorbitant rates in conspiracy with one of his associates and partner Ashok Jain (since deceased). In furtherance to said conspiracy, the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 10 of 522 accused MCD officials Philip Toppo and accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht had handed over the Provisional Identification Slip, form G8A receipt of Rs. 7,000/- (red coloured copy) to Ashok Malhotra for their ulterior motives who further handed over the said documents alongwith the bunch of documents prepared for sale of plots to Ashok Jain.
1.18 It is its case that during the investigation of connected case RC 34(A)/7, 421 bunch of documents having papers ie. Provisional Identification Slip, Receipt of Rs.7,000/- Delhi Administration ID Cards, Ration Cards, Receipt of Rs. 25,000/-, General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell & purchase, Deed of will and Possession letter were recovered from Sardhana (UP) on the pointing out of accused Shri Ashok Jain (since deceased) during his police custody and the said recovery includes the original documents pertaining to the alleged 26 plots of the instant case. It is further its case that Ashok Jain in his disclosure statement revealed that he had obtained the said documents from Ashok Malhotra in order to sell them in open market.
1.19 It is its case that the documents containing finger prints were sent to CFSL for expert opinion and CFSL vide its report no. CFSL-2008/A-0296/5685 dated 05.11.2008 confirmed the thumb impressions of accused no. 2 Lal Mani, deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji and accused no. 5 Mohan Lal @ Mone.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 11 of 522 1.20 It is its case that during the course of investigation the documents containing writing and signatures of accused persons were sent to GEQD, Hyderabad and the expert vide his report no. CH-165/2008/3505 dated 19.9.08 confirmed the writing and signatures of Philip Toppo, accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht, accused no. 2 Lal Mani, accused no. 4 Vijay Kumar and accused no. 6 Surjit Singh.
1.21 It is its case that the aforesaid acts on the part of Philip Toppo, accused Atul Vashisht, Ashok Malhotra, Ashok Jain, accused Lal Mani, deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji, accused RS Sandhu, accused Vijay Kumar, accused Surjit Singh and accused Mohan Lal constitute offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC r/w 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and 13(2) r / v 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
1.22 It is its case that sanction for the prosecution of Philip Toppo (since deceased) and accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht have been obtained from Competent Authority and accused no. 2 Lal Mani, Dy. Secy., Delhi Vidhan Sabha has prepared fake/forged ration cards, which was not done in his official capacity, therefore, his prosecution sanction is not required in the instant case.
Cognizance & Charge
2. Vide order dated 18.9.2009, the cognizance of the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 12 of 522 offence was taken and the accused persons were summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 20.7.2013, charge for the following offences were framed:
Offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against all the accused persons apart from deceased Philip Toppo, Ashok Malhotra, Ram Chander Arora and Ashok Jain.
Offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B IPC against all the accused persons apart from deceased Philip Toppo, Ashok Malhotra, Ram Chander Arora and Ashok Jain.
Offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against accused Atul Vashisht apart from Philip Toppo (since deceased).
All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 52 witnesses in all. The deposition of these witnesses has been dealt with in detail at the time of appreciating the factual as well as the legal aspects of the case and while considering the rival contentions raised at bar viz-a-viz their deposition. Nonetheless their role, sum & substance of their examination in chief has been discussed herein below.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 13 of 522 3.1 PW1 Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma Private Secretary to SE, Circle-III, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) proved the extract of Annual Plan 2004-2005 Volume-
II, Planning Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Ex. PW1/A (D-57).
3.2 PW2 Syed Hamid Ali retired Executive Engineer, Slum & JJ Department proved vide letter dated 12.6.2008 i.e. Ex. PW2/A (D-43) vide which he had furnished information to Inspector S.S. Bhullar, CBI alongwith the site plan i.e. Ex. PW2/B. 3.3 PW3 Shri T.R. Rawal Assistant Engineer, Division C-12, DUSIB proved letter dated 26.11.2008 as Ex. PW3/A (D-63) vide which he had submitted documents to CBI alongwith photocopy of the attested pages bearing no. 1253 & 1254 from the allotment/possession register maintained for Block-E, SRS Bawana and he proved the original register bearing page no. 1253 & 1254 as Ex.PW3/B colly. He also deposed that he had also provided photocopy of identification slip of plot no. 687 in the name of Kameshwar Mahato & 735 in the name of Mohd. Arif and he proved the original of the same as Ex.PW3/C1 & Ex.PW3/C2 respectively. He further deposed that the photocopy of ration card Mark PW3/D1 (2 pages) bearing signatures of Kameshwar Mahato as available in the office record, his voter identity card Mark Ex.PW3/D2 bearing his signatures and photocopy of receipt of Rs.7,000/- Mark PW3/D3 issued in his favour were also provided.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 14 of 522 He further deposed that the photocopy of ration card Mark PW3/E1 (2 pages) bearing signatures of Mohd. Arif as available in the office record, his voter identity card Mark Ex. PW3/E2 bearing his signatures and photocopy of receipt of Rs.7,000/- Mark PW3/E3 issued in his favour were also provided to the CBI. He also deposed that he had furnished attested copy of draw list of draw held on 14.06.2004 of Gautam Puri-II dwellers shifted to Bawana E-Block consisting of 8 pages and he proved the original of the same as Ex. PW3/F while deposing that the same bears signatures of S.N.S. Sidhu at point A, Philip Toppo dated 16.6.2004 at point B and Sh. S.K. Rastogi at point C. 3.4 PW4 Shri Balbir Singh retired Deputy Director, DUSIB deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted in the Administration Branch, Slum & JJ Department, MCD as Assistant Director and at that time, accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht was working as UDC and Philip Toppo (since deceased) was posted as Deputy Director (SUR). He deposed that he can identify signatures of accused no. 1 Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo since he had seen them writing & signing during official course of duties and had also seen the documents signed by them. He correctly identified the said accused persons in the court. He deposed that he had identified the signatures of Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on various documents which were shown by the CBI officer during investigation and upon being shown draw slips in respect of plot no. F-32, Savda Ghevra he identified the signatures of Atul Vashisht at point Q1397 & of Philip Toppo at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 15 of 522 Q1398 on draw slip Ex.PW4/A1 and at point Q1400 & at Q1401 on draw slip Ex.PW4/A2 (D32).
He also identified signatures of Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A3 at Q1403 & at Q1404 as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A4 (D32) at point Q1406 and Q1407 respectively in respect of plot no. F-5, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slip Ex. PW4/A5 at Q1409 & at Q1410 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A6 (D32) at point Q1412 & at point Q1413 respectively in respect of plot no. F-33, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of Atul Vashisht & Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex. PW4/A7 at point Q1415 & at Q1416 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex. PW4/A8 (D32) at point Q1418 and at Q1419 respectively in respect of plot no. F-30, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex. PW4/A9 at point Q1421 & at Q1422 respectively as well as on the Draw Slip Ex. PW4/A10 (D32) at point Q1424 & at Q1425 respectively in respect of plot no. F-17, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of Atul Vashisht & Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A11 at point Q1433 & at point Q1434 respectively and on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A12 (D32) at Q1436 & at Q1437 in respect of plot no. F-15, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht & Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A13 at point Q1427 & at Q1428 respectively as well as on draw Slip Ex.PW4/A14 (D32) CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 16 of 522 at point Q1430 & at Q1431 respectively in respect of plot no. F-31, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A15 at point Q1439 & Q1440 respectively as well as on other draw slip Ex. PW4/A16 (D32) at point Q1442 and at Q1443 respectively in respect of plot no. F-12, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A17 at point Q1445 & at Q1446 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A18 (D32) at point Q1448 & at Q1449 respectively in respect of plot no. F-35, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified the signatures accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A19 at point Q1451 & at Q1452 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A20 (D32) at point Q1454 & at Q1455 respectively in respect of plot no. F-9, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A21 at point Q1457 & at Q1458 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A22 (D32) at point Q1460 & at Q1461 respectively in respect of plot no. F-42, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex. PW4/A23 at point Q1463 & at Q1464 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A24 (D32) at point Q1466 & at Q1467 respectively in respect of plot no. F-34, Savda Ghevra.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 17 of 522 He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A25 at point Q1469 & at Q1470 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A26 (D32) at point Q1472 & at Q1473 respectively in respect of plot no. F-37, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A27 at point Q1475 & at Q1476 respectively and Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A28 (D32) at point Q1478 & at Q1479 respectively in respect of plot no. F-7, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A29 at point Q1481 & at Q1482 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A30 (D32) at point Q1484 & at Q1485 respectively in respect of plot no. F-16, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A31 at point Q1487 & at Q1488 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A32 (D32) at point Q1490 & at Q1491 respectively in respect of plot no. F-36, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A33 at point Q1493 & at Q1494 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A34 (D32) at point Q1496 & at Q1497 respectively in respect of plot no. F-40, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A35 at point Q1499 & at Q1500 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A36 (D32) CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 18 of 522 at Q1502 & Q1503 respectively in respect of plot no. F-14, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A37 at point Q1505 & at Q1506 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A38 (D32) at point Q1508 & at Q1509 respectively in respect of plot no. F-6, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A39 at point Q1511 & at Q1512 respectively as well as Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A40 (D32) bears at point Q1514 & at Q1515 respectively in respect of plot no. F-11, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A41 at point Q1517 & at Q1518 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A42 (D32) at Q1520 & at Q1521 respectively in respect of plot no. F-13, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A43 at point Q1523 & at Q1524 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A44 (D32) at point Q1526 & at Q1527 respectively in respect of plot no. F-39, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A45 at point Q1529 & at Q1530 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A46 (D32) at Q1532 & at Q1533 respectively in respect of plot no. F-10, Savda Ghevra.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 19 of 522 He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A47 at point Q1535 & at Q1536 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A48 (D32) at point Q1538 & at Q1539 respectively in respect of plot no. F-38, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A49 at point Q1541 & at Q1542 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A50 (D32) at point Q1544 & at Q1545 respectively in respect of plot no. F-8, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo on Draw Slips Ex.PW4/A51 at point Q1547 & at Q1548 respectively as well as on Draw Slip Ex.PW4/A52 (D32) at point Q1550 & at Q1551 respectively in respect of plot no. F-41, Savda Ghevra.
He also identified draw of plot list conducted through parchi system (manual) in respect of dwellers of Yamuna Pushta bearing signatures of Atul Vashisht at Q1553 & Q1556 and of Philip Toppo at Q1554 & Q1557 as Ex.PW4/B (2 pages-D32).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Shamsuddin pertaining to plot no. F-7 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1036 Ex.PW4/C1 (D19).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Salim pertaining to plot no. F-8 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1069 as Ex.PW4/C2 (D20).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Qutubudin pertaining to plot no. F-9 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1102 as Ex.PW4/C3 (D21).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 20 of 522 He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Jai Singh pertaining to plot no. F-10 Savda Ghevra and signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1135 as Ex.PW4/C4 (D22).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Salik pertaining to plot no. F-11 Savda Ghevra and signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1167 as Ex.PW4/C5 (D23).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Sabir pertaining to plot no. F-12 Savda Ghevra and signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1200 as Ex.PW4/C6 (D24).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Mohd. Wasim pertaining to plot no. F-13 Savda Ghevra and signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1233 as Ex.PW4/C7 (D25).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Ashok Kumar pertaining to plot no. F-14 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1266 as Ex.PW4/C8 (D26).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Harinder pertaining to plot no. F-15 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1299 as Ex.PW4/C9 (D27).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Arun Kumar pertaining to plot no. F-16 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1332 as Ex.PW4/C10 (D28).
He also identified Provisional Identification Slip bearing name of Ansar pertaining to plot no. F-17 Savda Ghevra and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1364 as Ex.PW4/C11 (D29).
He further deposed that he also identified the signatures of the author on various challans showing deposit of Rs.7000/-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 21 of 522 which are/were to be filled by/ on behalf of allottee and upon being shown challan dated 12.07.07 Ex. PW4/D1 in respect of allottee Kameshwar Mehto, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht on aforesaid challan at point Q1558 & Q1559 and that of Philip Toppo at Q1560 & Q1561.
Similarly, on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D2 in respect of allottee Mahavir Pandit, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1562 & Q1563 and that of Philip Toppo at point Q1564 & Q1565;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D3 in respect of allottee Prabhu Dayal, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1566 & Q1577 and signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1568 & Q1569;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D4 in respect of allottee Hari Shankar, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1570 & Q1571 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1572 and Q1573;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D5 in respect of allottee Ramveer, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1574 and & Q1575 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1576 & Q1577;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D6 in respect of allottee Bisram, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1578 & Q1579 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1580 & Q1581;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D7 in respect of allottee Kishan Lal, he identified the handwriting of Atul CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 22 of 522 Vashisht at point Q1582 & Q1583 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1584 & Q1585;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D8 in respect of allottee Sita Ram, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1586 & Q1587 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1588 & Q1589;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D9 in respect of allottee Smt. Kalawati, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1590 & Q1591 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1592 & Q1593;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D10 in respect of allottee Tarawati, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1594 & Q1595 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1596 & Q1597;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D11 in respect of allottee Hari, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1598 & Q1599 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1600 & Q1601;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D12 in respect of allottee Arif, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1602 & Q1603 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1604 & Q1605;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D13 in respect of allottee Mohd. Mukhtar, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1606 & Q1607 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1608 & Q1609;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D14 in respect of allottee Ravinder Kumar, he identified the handwriting of Atul CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 23 of 522 Vashisht at point Q1610 & Q1611 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1612 & Q1613;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D15 in respect of allottee Kushma Devi, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1614 & Q1615 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1616 & Q1617;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D16 in respect of allottee Samsuddin, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1618 & Q1619 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1620 & Q1621;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D17 in respect of allottee Saleem, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1622 & Q1623 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1624 & Q1625;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D18 in respect of allottee Kutbuddin, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1626 & Q1627 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1628 & Q1629;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D19 in respect of allottee Jai Singh, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1630 & Q1631 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1632 & Q1633;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D20 in respect of allottee Salik, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1634 & Q1635 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1636 & Q1637;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D21 in respect of allottee Sabir, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 24 of 522 point Q1638 & Q1639 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1640 & Q1641;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D22 in respect of allottee Mohd. Wasim, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1642 & Q1643 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1644 & Q1645;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D23 in respect of allottee Ashok Kumar, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at Q1646 & Q1647 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1648 & Q1649;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D24 in respect of allottee Hamidu, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1650 & Q1651 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1652 & Q1653;
on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D25 in respect of allottee Arun Kumar, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1654 & Q1655 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1656 & Q1657; and on challan dated 12.07.07 Ex.PW4/D26 in respect of allottee Ansar, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q1658 & Q1659 and the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1660 & Q1661.
3.5 PW-5: Shri Ved Prakash Post Master, Department of Post, Hauz Khas Post Office, New Delhi deposed that in 2007 he was posted as Public Relation Inspector, Andrews Gunj, New Delhi and on 06.09.07, on instructions of his senior officer, he visited CBI office on 07.09.07 at 6:00 a.m. He deposed that at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 25 of 522 the CBI office, at about 7:30 a.m., some officials from CBI came there along with Ashok Jain (correctly identified but since deceased) who was in custody. He further deposed that the said CBI officials included Inspector D.K. Thakur, Inspector S.S. Bhullar, SI Vikas Pathak, SI Anmol and Shri V.S. Chauhan and at the request of CBI officials, he accompanied CBI team for Sardhana. He further deposed that they passed via Police Headquarters, ITO wherein son of Ashok Jain met the CBI team and proceeded to Sardhana in a separate car.
He deposed that Ashok Jain disclosed that he had kept documents regarding allotment of plots pertaining to Slum & JJ Department in a house situated at Sardhana, Meerut, UP belonging to Shri Vineet Arora and his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/X (D-37) in RC DAI-2007-A-0034 (CC No.131/11) was separately recorded at Sardhana. He identified the signatures of Ashok Jain at point B, Inspector S.S. Bhullar at point C, V.S. Chauhan at point D and Inspector D.K. Thakur at point E on the said statement.
He further deposed that on reaching Sardhana, the vehicle was parked in the market at Sardhana and they proceeded towards the house on the directions as disclosed by Ashok Jain which was situated in a narrow lane and the said house at Sardhana belonged to Shri Vineet Arora. He deposed that Ashok Jain disclosed that the documents regarding allotment of plots by Slum & JJ Department had been kept by him in a room which was in the last verandah of the said house. The CBI officials along with Shri V.S. Chauhan and Ashok Jain proceeded to the room as disclosed by him and he stayed back in the verandah.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 26 of 522 He deposed that thereafter, the CBI officials along with Ashok Jain came out of the room along with two bags which on opening were found to contain documents relating to allotment of Slum & JJ Department i.e. Possession letters, ration cards, identity cards, slips of Rs.7,000/- issued by Slum & JJ Department, affidavits, sale and purchase agreements, wills etc. He further deposed that the documents which were recovered were also recorded in pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.9.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/Y (D30) which was signed by him as well as Shri V.S. Chauhan, CBI officials and others as recorded in the memo. He deposed that the details of the documents recovered at the instance of Ashok Jain were also mentioned on a separate sheet which contained the name of the allottee, father's/husband's name, plot number and number of documents. He identified signatures of Shri V.S. Chauhan at point A, Inspector D.K. Thakur at point B, his own signatures at point C, Inspector S.S. Bhullar at point D, Ashok Jain at point E, SI Vikas Pathak at point F, SI Anmol at point G and Deepak Arora at point H on Ex.PW5/Y. He deposed that the documents which were recovered at instance of Ashok Jain as contained in two bags as reflected in pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.07 were recorded on separate sheets alongwith pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.07 and thereafter, upon being shown two sheets dated 07.09.07 which bear the heading "Savda Ghevra" and is filed along with pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.07, he identified his signatures at point A on each page of the aforesaid two sheets. The aforesaid two sheets are the part of pointing out- cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.07 (Ex.PW5/Y) and he also CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 27 of 522 identified signatures of Shri V.S. Chauhan at point B on each page, SI Vikas at point C on each page and SI Anmol at point D on each page. He further deposed that the aforesaid two sheets contained the details of name of allottee with father's/husband's name with plot number and number of enclosures i.e. Documents relating to each allottee.
He deposed that after the completion of search at Sardana, he along with the CBI officials came back to Delhi with two bags containing documents, reached District Courts at Tis Hazari, Delhi and appeared in the court of ld. Special Judge, CBI and after the proceedings in the court, he along with CBI team proceeded to CBI Headquarters, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 and thereafter, returned back to his house.
He identified and proved provisional identification slip as Ex.PW5/A1 (D4) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Kameshwar Mehto, bearing plot number F-30 Savda Ghevra, the receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/A2, the ration card as Ex.PW5/A3, the Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/A4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/A5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/A6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/A7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/A8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/A9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/A10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex. PW5/B1 (D5) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Prabhu Dayal, plot number F-31 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 28 of 522 Ex.PW5/B2, ration card as Ex.PW5/B3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/B4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/B5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/B6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/B7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/B8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/B9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/B10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved provisional identification slip as Ex.PW5/C1 (D6) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Mahavir Pandit, plot number F-32 Savda Ghevra alongwith other documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/C2, ration card as Ex.PW5/C3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/C4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/C5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/C6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/C7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/C8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/C9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/C10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved provisional identification slip as Ex.PW5/D1 (D7) issued by Slum & JJ Department alongwith other documents in the name of alottee Hari Shankar, plot number F-33 Savda Ghevra, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/D2, ration card as Ex.PW5/D3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/D4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/D5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/D6, Agreement to Sell and Purchaseas Ex.PW5/D7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/D8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/D9 and the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 29 of 522 Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/D10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip Ex.PW5/E1 (D8) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Ramvir, plot number F-34 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/E2, ration card as Ex.PW5/E3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/E4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/E5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/E6, Agreement to Sell and Purchaseas Ex.PW5/E7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/E8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/E9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/E10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved provisional identification slip as Ex.PW5/F1 (D9) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Bisram, plot number F-35 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/F2, ration card as Ex.PW5/F3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/F4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/F5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/F6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/F7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/F8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/F9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/F10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved provisional identification slip as Ex.PW5/G1 (D10) issued in the name of alottee Kishan Lal, plot number F-36 Savda Ghevra by Slum and JJ Department along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 30 of 522 Ex.PW5/G2, ration card as Ex.PW5/G3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/G4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/G5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/G6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/G7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/G8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/G9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/G10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex.PW5/H1 (D11) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of alottee Sita Ram, plot number F-37 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/H2, ration card as Ex.PW5/H3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/H4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/H5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/H6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/H7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/H8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/H9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/H10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex.PW5/I1 (D12) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Smt. Kalawati, plot number F-38 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/I2, ration card as Ex.PW5/I3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/I4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/I5, the General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/I6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/I7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/I8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/I9 and the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 31 of 522 Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/I10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex. PW5/JI (D13) issued by Slum & JJ Department in the name of allottee Smt. Tarawati, plot number F-39 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/J2, ration card as Ex.PW5/J3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/J4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/J5, General Power of Attorney in as Ex.PW5/J6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/J7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/J8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/J9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/J10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex.PW5/K1 (D14) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Hari, plot number F-40 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/K2, ration card as Ex.PW5/K3, the Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/K4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/K5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/K6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/K7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/K8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/K9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/K10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex.PW5/L1 (D15) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Arif, plot number F-41 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/L2, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 32 of 522 ration card as Ex.PW5/L3, Delhi Administration Identity Card bearing as Ex.PW5/L4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/L5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/L6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase in as Ex.PW5/L7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/L8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/L9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/L10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex. PW5/M1 (D16) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Mohammad Mukhtar, plot number F-42 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/M2, ration card as Ex.PW5/M3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/M4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/M5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/M6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/M7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/M8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/M9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/M10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex. PW5/N1 (D17) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Ravinder Kumar, plot number F-5 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/N2, ration card as Ex.PW5/N3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/N4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/N5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/N6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/N7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/N8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/N9 and the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 33 of 522 Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/N10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified and proved Provisional Identification Slip as Ex. PW5/O1 (D18) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Smt. Krishna Devi, plot number F-6 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/O2, ration card as Ex.PW5/O3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/O4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/O5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/O6, the Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/O7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/O8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/O9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/O10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already proved as Ex. PW5/C1 (D19) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Samsuddin, plot number F-7 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents , receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/P2, ration card as Ex.PW5/P3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/P4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/P5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/P6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/P7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/P8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/P9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/P10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C2 (D20) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Saleem, plot number F-8 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/Q2, ration CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 34 of 522 card as Ex.PW5/Q3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/Q4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/Q5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/Q6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/Q7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/Q8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/Q9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/Q10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C3 (D21) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Kutubuddin, plot number F-9 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents , receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/R2, ration card as Ex.PW5/R3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/R4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/R5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/R6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/R7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/R8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/R9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee bearing my initials at point A is Ex.PW5/R10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C4 issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Jai Singh, plot number F-10 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- issued by Slum & JJ as Ex.PW5/S2, ration card as Ex.PW5/S3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/S4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/S5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/S6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/S7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/S8, Deed of Will as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 35 of 522 Ex.PW5/S9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/S10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip Ex. PW4/C5 (D23) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Salik, plot number F-11 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/T2, ration card as Ex.PW5/T3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/T4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/T5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/T6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/T7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/T8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/T9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/T10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C6 (D24) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Sabir, plot number F-12 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/U2, ration card as Ex.PW5/U3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/U4, the receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/U5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/U6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/U7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/U8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/U9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/U10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C7 (D25) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Mohd. Wasim, plot number F-13 Savda Ghevra along CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 36 of 522 with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/V2, ration card as Ex.PW5/V3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/V4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/V5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/V6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/V7 and the affidavit is Ex.PW5/V8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/V9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/V10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C8 (D26) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Ashok Kumar, plot number F-14 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/W2, ration card as Ex.PW5/W3, Delhi Administration Identity as Ex.PW5/W4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/W5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/W6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/W7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/W8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/W9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/W10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C9 (D27) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Harinder, plot number F-15 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/X2, ration card as Ex.PW5/X3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/X4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/X5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/X6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/X7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/X8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/X9 and the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 37 of 522 Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/X10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C10 (D28) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Arun Kumar, plot number F-16 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/Y2, ration card as Ex.PW5/Y3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/Y4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/Y5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/Y6, the Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/Y7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/Y8, Deed of Will as Ex.PW5/Y9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/Y10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
He identified Provisional Identification Slip already Ex. PW4/C11 (D29) issued by Slum and JJ Department in the name of allottee Ansar, plot number F-17 Savda Ghevra along with other set of documents, receipt for Rs.7,000/- as Ex.PW5/Z2, ration card as Ex.PW5/Z3, Delhi Administration Identity Card as Ex.PW5/Z4, receipt issued as sale consideration by the said allottee as Ex.PW5/Z5, General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW5/Z6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase as Ex.PW5/Z7, affidavit as Ex.PW5/Z8, Deed of Will in respect as Ex.PW5/Z9 and the Possession Letter executed by allottee as Ex.PW5/Z10 as same were signed, initialed by him after the same were recovered.
3.6 PW6 Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar deposed that in the year 2008, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 38 of 522 he was posted in Circle No. 3, Minto Road, Food & Supply Department as FSO and during the said year, the CBI officers had provided to them photocopies of some ration cards in different cases and they were asked to verify and report regarding the genuineness of the said ration cards. He deposed that total 26 ration cards pertaining to this case were part of the ration cards given to them by CBI officers for verification and report. He deposed that he had got the above 26 ration cards pertaining to this case verified through the Inspectors of the concerned area, all falling in Circle No. 3, and had submitted the verification report to the CBI officers.
He identified letter dated 18.06.2008 i.e. Ex. PW6/A (D44) bearing his signatures alongwith his official seal and deposed that this is the same letter vide which the above verification report of the above 26 ration cards was forwarded by him to the CBI officers. He deposed that the typed list consisting of three pages and containing the details of the above 26 ration cards and the report of verification, as was forwarded with the above letter is Ex. PW6/B (part of D44) and it bears his signatures on each page alongwith his official seal. He deposed that the above verification and the report was submitted by him on the basis of the entries contained in the Master Registers of different fair price shops falling in the concerned circle and the entries in the Master Registers are made at the time of issuance of the new ration cards, as and when it takes place. He deposed that all the above 26 ration cards were registered with two different fair price shops.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 39 of 522 After seeing the photocopies of Master Registers for consumer cards of fair price shops having license no. 1108 and 6390 he deposed that out of the above 26 ration cards, 10 cards pertained to shop having license no. 1108 and the remaining 16 cards pertained to the shop having license no. 6390. He deposed that the photocopies of Master Registers i.e. Ex. PW6/C (colly) and Ex. PW6/D (colly) were also forwarded by him alongwith the above letter Ex. PW6/A (D44) and are part of the above report. He deposed that during verification, it was found that none of the above 26 ration cards sent to them by the CBI for verification was issued from their office as no entry of any of these cards could be found in the concerned Master Registers of the two fair price shops with which these ration cards were claimed to be registered/enrolled.
On being shown the original 26 ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 (D4 to 29) and on the basis of the entries contained in the above list Ex. PW6/B (part of D44) he deposed that he can say that these are the same ration cards of which photocopies were sent to them for verification.
3.7 PW7 Sh. S. Vijayan, Retd. Assistant Director, Slum & JJ Department, Delhi deposed that he had remained posted in SUR Section of Slum & JJ Department, MCD from the year 2000 to 2004 as Head Clerk and prior to that he was working as a clerk in Slum & JJ Department since his appointment in the year 1974. He deposed that in 2005 he was again posted in SUR Section and he remained posted there till 2006. He deposed that while being posted in the SUR Section, he had worked with CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 40 of 522 S.N.S. Sidhu, Director, Phillip Toppo, Deputy Director, Sumer Chand Garg, Assistant Director, Atul Vashisht UDC of SUR Section. He deposed that since a long period of about 10 years has passed since then, it will be very difficult for him to identify the handwriting and signatures of the above persons.
He was shown Provisional Identification Slips Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/Z1 (D4 to D29) of plots no. 5 to 17 and 30 to 42 of F-Block, Savda, Ghevra, Delhi and asked if the particulars filled in the above slips with regard to the name of the cluster, JJ dweller, father/husband name, plot number and share money have been filled in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht or not and whether the above slips were signed by the accused Phillip Toppo as Assistant Director, SUR or not and he after seeing these documents stated that he is not able to identify the above writing and signatures of the above persons in the above documents.
Similarly, upon being shown the original Draw Parchis of the above 26 plots Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 (D32) (two parchis of each of the above plots) and the original Challan Forms Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 he failed to identify the handwriting or signatures of accused Atul Vashisht or Phillip Toppo on the same.
Thereafter Ld. SPP for the CBI cross examined the witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement. During his cross- examination he stated that he is Higher Secondary pass and he did it from Delhi through correspondence in the year 1972. He stated that he was the only Head Clerk posted in the SUR Section, during the period he remained posted there. He stated CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 41 of 522 that his immediate senior, to whom he was reporting, was the Director, SUR. He stated that as far as he recollects, accused Atul Vashisht was the only UDC posted in SUR Section at that time. He again said that one dealing assistant was also posted with him for some duration during the above period of his posting in SUR Section and his name was Jai Prakash, but he does not now recollects if he was a LDC or UDC. He stated that he never got any opportunity to see the documents written or signed by any of the 2 persons named in his examination in chief. He stated that the nature of his duties as a Head Clerk/dealing assistant was to ensure organization of demolition programmes, demolition teams etc and he was working under the directions of the Director, SUR. He stated that during his entire tenure in SUR Section, accused Atul Vashisht and Phillip Toppo had remained posted there. He stated that during his tenure, he had never put up any note, file or letter etc to accused Phillip Toppo and also never received any such documents from him. He voluntarily stated that it is so as no file or note etc is being put up in their department at their level. He stated that accused Atul Vashisht as UDC was dealing with demolition and issuance of slips to jhuggi dwellers. He stated that during his tenure, he had also been involved in the work of issuance of Identification Slips to jhuggi dwellers, as per the survey reports. He stated that there were only 4-5 officials posted in SUR Section, besides the officers, as it was a small department. He stated that in connection with this case, he was summoned by CBI officers in their office once, but his statement was not recorded and only his name, parentage and other particulars were noted down. He denied the suggestion that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 42 of 522 when he was summoned by the CBI officers, he was shown all the above documents and he had even identified the handwriting and signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and also the signatures of accused Phillip Toppo and Sumer Chand Garg (since expired) in the above documents. He denied the suggestion that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the CBI officers on 24.09.2008 i.e. the date on which he was summoned by them. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the above handwriting and signatures of the above accused persons as he has been won over and influenced by them. He denied the suggestion that being their colleague, he is intentionally giving a false statement in the court today to save them from the clutches of law.
3.8 PW-8 Shri Ramachandran. V, Assistant Chief Accountant / Finance Officer to Chief Engineer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) deposed that in July 2008, he was posted as Financial Officer to Chief Engineer, Slum & JJ Department, MCD, Delhi and he was called by CBI and asked for the procedure being followed in the Finance Department with respect to the squatter relocation scheme, since he became familiar with the above procedure as he had worked as AO, HQ upto July 2007. He deposed that he explained that apart from other works of AO, HQ, the squatter relocation scheme was also looked by HQ with respect to each financial aspects. He deposed that there was a separate account maintained for operating the scheme called SRS (Squatter Relocation Scheme) account under State Bank of India Branch, I.P. Estate, Delhi. He deposed that all CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 43 of 522 the receipts on account of relocation charges from the beneficiary jhuggi holders, relocation charges from the land owning agencies and grant-in- aid received from the Delhi Government under the scheme are put in this account and all the expenditures for development of plots and relocating the jhuggi holders are/were met out of this account. He deposed that he knows Sh. A. P. Mitra, Assistant Account Officer, who worked with him during the period from June 2000 to December 2001 and again from August 2006 to July 2007. He deposed that he was working under him as Accountant HQ during the above said period and he has seen him signing and writing documents in the official course of his duties and he can identify his signatures and handwriting, if the same are shown to him.
Upon being shown a letter dated 11.07.2008 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW8/A (D52) he deposed that the said letter was signed by him while looking after the work of AO, HQ as a link officer during leave period of Sh. N. K. Gupta, AO, HQ. He deposed that through this letter, he had sent certified xerox copies of the cash book in respect of the dates 12.07.2007 and 13.07.2007 (5 sheets) i.e. Mark PW8/1 (colly) (part of D52) and the same bears the signatures of Sh. A. P. Mitra, AAO at points A on each page, along with official seal of Account Officer (HQ), Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that the cash book entries normally consists of two part i.e. receipts and payments and the aforementioned 5 sheets are the xerox copies of the receipt side of the cash book of the relevant dates. He deposed that all these entries shown entered in the sheets pertained to the relocation charges received from the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 44 of 522 beneficiary jhuggi holders against issue of G8 receipts and the entries in respect of the amounts so collected deposited in the bank.
3.9 PW9 Sh. Mukesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2007, he was working as a Stamp Vendor at Old Court Compound, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, on the basis of license issued by office of Dy. Commissioner (North), Collector of Stamps, Delhi. He deposed that he knows Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate and his employees Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok working at Old Court Compound, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He deposed that the above persons used to visit him for purchasing the stamp papers in routine against payment of the cost / value of the stamp papers purchased by them. He voluntarily stated that sometimes payments were being made by them and sometimes Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate used to make these payments. He deposed that the name of the persons in whose name the stamp papers used to be purchased, the name of father of the above persons, their addresses and the purpose for which these papers were purchased, were written on the reverse side of the stamp papers and the above particulars were also noted down by him in the register kept by him with regard to the sale of the stamp papers and it was being done in routine. He deposed that he can identify the stamp papers sold by him by seeing his handwriting on these stamp papers, if the same are shown to him.
Upon being shown the General Power of Attorney dated 18.07.2007 typed on stamp paper of Rs. 50/- bearing No.F779529 and executed by Shri Kameshwar Mehto S/o Shri CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 45 of 522 Anand Mehto, R/o 319A, Yamuna Pusta, Delhi bearing Serial No. 8357 dated 18.07.2007 and sold in the name of above person already Ex.PW5/A-6, Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 18.07.2007 typed on stamp paper of Rs. 50/- bearing No.F779530 and executed between the above person and the name and other particulars of the second party of this agreement are found to be left blank, bearing Serial No. 8358 dated 18.07.2007 and sold in the name of above person already Ex.PW5/A-7 and the Affidavit dated 18.07.2007 typed on stamp paper of Rs.10/- bearing No. 11AA 199251 in the name of the above person bearing Serial No. 8359 dated 18.07.2007 and sold in the name of above person already Ex.PW5/A-8, all part of D-4, he deposed that the above set of three stamp papers were sold by him and the particulars on the reverse side of these stamp papers at encircled points A, containing the above serial numbers of his register, the date of sale and particulars of the person in whose favour the same are sold, are filled and written in his handwriting and that these particulars have been filled and written in the rubber stamp in his name.
He similarly deposed in respect of General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/B-6 to Ex. PW5/B-8 (part of D-5), General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/C-6 to Ex. PW5/C-8 (part of D-6) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/D-6 to Ex. PW5/D-8 (part of D-7) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/E-6 to Ex. PW5/E-8 (part of D-8) , General Power of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 46 of 522 Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/F-6 to Ex. PW5/F-8 (part of D-9) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/G-6 to Ex. PW5/G-8 (part of D-10), General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/I-6 to Ex. PW5/I-8 (part of D-12) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/J-6 to Ex. PW5/J-8 (part of D-13) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/K-6 to Ex. PW5/K-8 (part of D-14) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/L-6 to Ex. PW5/L-8 (part of D-15) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/M-6 to Ex. PW5/M-8 (part of D-16) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/N-6 to Ex. PW5/N-8 (part of D-17) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/O-6 to Ex. PW5/O-8 (part of D-18) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/P-6 to Ex. PW5/P-8 (part of D-19) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/Q-6 to Ex. PW5/Q-8 (part of D-20) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/R-6 to Ex. PW5/R-8 (part of D-21) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/S-6 to Ex. PW5/S-8 (part of D-22) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/T-6 to Ex. PW5/T-8 (part of D-23) , General Power of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 47 of 522 Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/U-6 to Ex. PW5/U-8 (part of D-24) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/V-6 to Ex. PW5/V-8 (part of D-25) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/W-6 to Ex. PW5/W-8 (part of D-26) , General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/X-6 to Ex. PW5/X-8 (part of D-27), General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/Y-6 to Ex. PW5/Y-8 (part of D-28) and General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and affidavit all dated 18.07.2007 i.e. Ex. PW5/Z-6 to Ex. PW5/Z-8 (part of D-29).
He deposed that all the above stamp papers sold in the names of the above said persons were purchased/taken from him by Ashok Kumar, as per stamp vendor register. He deposed that he maintained a register regarding sale of above stamp papers wherein particulars of above stamp papers entered in the relevant column and the said register was deposited in the office of DC (North), Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.
Upon being shown original Stamp Vendor register in his name vide license no. 266, containing pages 1 to 427 he deposed that the above register was maintained by him in his own handwriting. He deposed that the register contained particulars of stamp papers, name of party with parentage, house address and purpose for which the stamp papers were to be used by the party. He deposed that the entry regarding sale of stamp papers to the party is mentioned in the above register on page no. 291 to 294, in his handwriting and all the entries are encircled in red. He CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 48 of 522 deposed that the above stamp papers were sold by him to one Ashok, who signed in the column pertaining to signature. He deposed that all the above relevant entries on page 291 to 294 of the register are Ex. PW9/A-colly.
3.10 PW10 Sh. Raju Punaji Sirsikar, Assistant Director, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), East Zone-B, Seelampur deposed that he had joined Slum & JJ Department in 1990 as LDC at Vikas Kutir, ITO New Delhi and was promoted as UDC in 1997. He deposed that in the year 2000, he was posted in the Accounts Branch and was also posted as Cashier. He deposed that his duty involved making of salary cheques and other related work of Accounts Department. He deposed that he did not use to receive any official payments. He deposed that Shri Purshottam Kumar was the Assistant Director (Cash) at aforesaid time and the cash book and other relevant records were maintained by Shri Purshottam Kumar, Assistant Director (Cash). He deposed that amount of Rs.7,000/- of each slip was received by Shri Purshottam Kumar, Assistant Director and he merely used to issue the receipt. He deposed that the amounts were deposited by the allottees with Shri Purshottam Kumar who received the cash along with the challan. He deposed that the receipts were issued on deposit of sum of Rs.7,000/- for allotment of plot to JJ dwellers and were prepared in triplicate. He deposed that one copy was retained as a counterfoil while the two copies were handed over to the persons who filed the challan along with the amount. He deposed that the second carbon copy of the receipt was submitted by the allottees with the concerned CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 49 of 522 official of SUR Section. He deposed that he can identify initials/signatures of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht as he has seen the documents bearing their signatures received in the Cash Section.
Upon being shown the G8 pink laminated receipts for Rs.7,000/- each issued by Slum & JJ Department i.e. Ex.PW5/A2 (D4) to Ex.PW5/Z-2 (D29) he deposed that the same bear his initials at point A and are filled in his own handwritings.
Upon being shown PIS (D4) i.e. Ex PW5/A1 in respect of Kameshwar Mehto s/o Anand Mehto pertaining to plot no. F-30, Savda Ghevra he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q547 and signatures of Phillip Toppo at Q548.
Similarly, upon being shown PIS (D5) i.e. Ex. PW5/B1 in respect of Prabhu Dayal s/o Naraian pertaining to plot no. F-31, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D6) i.e. Ex. PW5/C1 in respect of Mahavir Pandit S/o Ramji Pandit pertaining to plot no. F-32, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D7) i.e. Ex. PW5/D1 in respect of Hari Shankar S/o Bhagwat Singh pertaining to plot no. F-33, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D8) i.e. Ex. PW5/E1 in respect of Ramvir S/o Nanhe Lal pertaining to plot no. F-34, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D9) i.e. PW5/F1 in respect of Bis Ram S/o Balloo pertaining to plot no. F-35, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D10) i.e. Ex. PW5/G1 in respect of Kishan Lal S/o Gurdev pertaining to plot no. F-36, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D11) i.e. Ex. PW5/H1 in respect of Sita Ram S/o Chander Prakash pertaining to plot no. F-37, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D12) i.e. Ex. PW5/I1 in respect of Smt. Kalawati W/o Late Bhola pertaining to plot no. F-38, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D13) i.e. Ex. PW5/J1 in respect of Smt. Tarawati W/o Ram Shankar pertaining CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 50 of 522 to plot no. F-39, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D14) i.e Ex PW5/K1 in respect of Hari S/o Swami Nath pertaining to plot no. F-40, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D15) i.e. Ex. PW5/L1 in respect of Arif S/o Mohd. Tahir pertaining to plot no. F-41, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D16) i.e. Ex. PW5/M1 in respect of Mohd. Mukhtar S/o Mohd. Muslim pertaining to plot no. F-42, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D17) i.e. Ex. PW5/N1in respect of Ravinder Kumar S/o Kishan Singh pertaining to plot no. F-5, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D18) i.e. Ex. PW5/O1 in respect of Smt. Kushma Devi W/o Sh. Sarjug Parsad pertaining to plot no. F-6, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D19) i.e. Ex PW4/C1 in respect of Samsuddin S/o Samsul Haq pertaining to plot no. F-7, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D20) i.e. Ex. PW4/C2 in respect of Saleem S/o Rashid pertaining to plot no. F-8, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D21) i.e. Ex. PW4/C3 in respect of Kutubuddin S/o Jakir pertaining to plot no. F-9, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D22) i.e. Ex. PW4/C4 in respect of Jai Singh S/o Bhagwati Prasad pertaining to plot no. F-10, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D23) i.e. Ex. PW4/C5 in respect of Salik S/o Shri Ram pertaining to plot no. F-11, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D24) i.e. Ex. PW4/C6 in respect of Sabir S/o Iman Bux pertaining to plot no. F-12, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D25) i.e. Ex. PW4/C7 in respect of Mohd. Wasin S/o Mohd. Said pertaining to plot no. F-13, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D26) i.e. Ex. PW4/C8 in respect of Ashok Kumar S/o Charan Singh pertaining to plot no. F-14, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D27) i.e. Ex. PW4/C9 in respect of Harinder S/o Musafir pertaining to plot no. F-15, Savda Ghevra, PIS (D28) i.e. Ex. PW4/C10 in respect of Arun Kumar S/o Burdeshwari Prasad pertaining to plot no. F-16, Savda Ghevra and PIS (D29) i.e. Ex. PW4/C11 in respect of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 51 of 522 Ansar S/o Ali pertaining to plot no. F-17, Savda Ghevra, he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at point Q579, Q611, Q643, Q676, Q708, Q742, Q773, Q805, Q838, Q871, Q904, Q937, Q970, Q1002, Q1035, Q1068, Q1101, Q1134, Q1166, Q1199, Q1232, Q1265, Q1298, Q1331, Q1363 and signatures of Phillip Toppo at Q580, Q612, Q644, Q677, Q709, Q741, Q774, Q806, Q839, Q872, Q905, Q938, Q971, Q1003, Q1036, Q1069, Q1102, Q1135, Q1167, Q1200, Q1233, Q1266, Q1299, Q1332, Q1364 respectively.
He further deposed that during investigation, he had also been shown the challans vide which the amount in respect of the plots in question was deposited in the office of Deputy Director, SUR, Slum & JJ, Vikas Kutir and he had identified the handwriting/signatures of Atul Vashisht and Phillip Toppo who had worked in the same office and since he was conversant with their handwriting/signatures.
He was shown 26 original challans, all part of D48 and upon being shown challan dated 12.07.07 i.e. Ex. PW4/D1 in respect of allottee Kameshwar Mehto he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht on aforesaid challan at Q1558 & Q1559 and the signatures of Phillip Toppo at Q1560 & Q1561. He deposed that he identified the signatures of Atul Vashisht and Philp Toppo since he had seen and received the documents signed and written by them during his official course of duties.
Similarly he identified the handwriting of Atul Vashisht at Q1562 & Q1563, Q1566 & Q1567, Q1570 & Q1571, Q1574 & Q1575, Q1578 & Q1579, Q1582 & Q1583, Q1586 & Q1587, Q1590 & Q1591, Q1594 & Q1595, Q1598 & Q1599, Q1602 & CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 52 of 522 Q1603, Q1606 & Q1607, Q1610 & Q1611, Q1614 & Q1615, Q1618 & Q1619, Q1622 & Q1623, Q1626 & Q1627, Q1630 & Q1631, Q1634 & Q1635, Q1638 & Q1639, Q1642 & Q1643, Q1646 & Q1647, Q1650 & Q1651, Q1654 & Q1655, Q1658 & Q1659 and the signatures of Phillip Toppo at Q1564 & Q1565, Q1568 & Q1569, Q1572 & Q1573, Q1576 & Q1577, Q1580 & Q1581, Q1584 & Q1585, Q1588 & Q1589, Q1592 & Q1593, Q1596 & Q1597, Q1600 & Q1601, Q1604 & Q1605, Q1608 & Q1609, Q1612 & Q1613, Q1616 & Q1617, Q1620 & Q1621, Q1624 & Q1625, Q1628 & Q1629, Q1632 & Q1633, Q1636 & Q1637, Q1640 & Q1641, Q1644 & Q1645, Q1648 & Q1649, Q1652 & Q1653, Q1656 & Q1657, Q1660 & Q1661 on challans dated 12.07.07 in respect of allottee Mahavir Pandit i.e. Ex.PW4/D2, in respect of allottee Prabhu Dayal i.e. Ex.PW4/D3, in respect of allottee Hari Shankar i.e. Ex.PW4/D4, in respect of allottee Ramvir i.e. Ex.PW4/D5, in respect of allottee Bisram i.e. Ex.PW4/D6, in respect of allottee Kishan Lal i.e. Ex.PW4/D7, in respect of allottee Sita Ram i.e. Ex.PW4/D8, in respect of allottee Smt. Kalawati i.e. Ex.PW4/D9, in respect of allottee Tarawati i.e. Ex.PW4/D10, in respect of allottee Hari i.e. Ex.PW4/D11, in respect of allottee Arif i.e. Ex.PW4/D12, in respect of allottee Mohd. Mukhtar i.e. Ex.PW4/D13, in respect of allottee Ravinder Kumar i.e. Ex.PW4/D14, in respect of allottee Smt. Kushma Devi i.e. Ex.PW4/D15, in respect of allottee Samsuddin i.e. Ex.PW4/D16, in respect of allottee Saleem i.e. Ex.PW4/D17, in respect of allottee Katbuddin i.e. Ex.PW4/D18, in respect of allottee Jai Singh i.e. Ex.PW4/D19, in respect of allottee Salik i.e. Ex.PW4/D20, in respect of allottee Sabir i.e. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 53 of 522 Ex.PW4/D21, in respect of allottee Mohd. Wasim i.e. Ex.PW4/D22, in respect of allottee Ashok Kumar i.e. Ex.PW4/D23, in respect of allottee Hamidu i.e. Ex.PW4/D24, in respect of allottee Arun Kumar i.e. Ex.PW4/D25, in respect of allottee Ansar i.e. Ex.PW4/D26.
He also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1398 & Q1401 and Q1396, Q1367, Q1399 & Q1400 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-32, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A1 and Ex.PW4/A2 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1404 & Q1407 and Q1402, Q1403, Q1405 & Q1406 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-5, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A3 and Ex.PW4/A4 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1410 & Q1413 and Q1408, Q1409, Q1411 & Q1412 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-33, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A5 and Ex.PW4/A6 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1416 & Q1419 and Q1414, Q1415, Q1417 & Q1418 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-30, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A7 and Ex.PW4/A8 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q14022 & Q1425 and Q1420, Q1421, Q1423 & Q1424 respectively on draw slips in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 54 of 522 respect of plot no. F-17, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A9 and Ex.PW4/A10 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1434 & Q1437 and Q1432, Q1433, Q1435 & Q1436 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-15, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A11 and Ex.PW4/A12 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1428 & Q1431 and Q1426, Q1427, Q1429 & Q1430 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-31, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A13 and Ex.PW4/A14 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1440 & Q1443 and Q1438, Q1439, Q1441 & Q1442 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-12, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A15 and Ex.PW4/A16 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1446 & Q1449 and Q1444, Q1445, Q1447 & Q1448 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-35, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A17 and Ex.PW4/A18 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1452 & Q1455 and Q1450, Q1451, Q1453 & Q1454 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-9, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A19 and Ex.PW4/A20 (part of D32).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 55 of 522 Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1458 & Q1461 and Q1456, Q1457, Q1459 & Q1460 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-42, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A21 and Ex.PW4/A22 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1464 & Q1467 and Q1462, Q1463, Q1465 & Q1466 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-34, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A23 and Ex.PW4/A24 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1470 & Q1473 and Q1468, Q1469, Q1471 & Q1472 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-37, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A25 and Ex.PW4/A26 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1476 & Q1479 and Q1474, Q1475, Q1477 & Q1478 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-7, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A27 and Ex.PW4/A28 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1482 & Q1485 and Q1480, Q1481, Q1483 & Q1484 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-16, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A29 and Ex.PW4/A30 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1488 & Q1491 and Q1486, Q1487, Q1489 & Q1490 respectively on draw slips in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 56 of 522 respect of plot no. F-36, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A31 and Ex.PW4/A32 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1494 & Q1497 and Q1492, Q1493, Q1495 & Q1496 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-40, Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A33 and Ex.PW4/A34 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1500 & Q1503 and Q1498, Q1499, Q1501 & Q1502 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-14 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A35 and Ex.PW4/A36 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1506 & Q1509 and Q1504, Q1505, Q1507 & Q1508 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-6 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A37 and Ex.PW4/A38 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1512 & Q1515 and Q1510, Q1511, Q1513 & Q1514 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-11 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A39 and Ex.PW4/A40 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1518 & Q1521 and Q1516, Q1517, Q1519 & Q1520 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-13 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A41 and Ex.PW4/A42 (part of D32).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 57 of 522 Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1524 & Q1527 and Q1522, Q1523, Q1525 & Q1526 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-39 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A43 and Ex.PW4/A44 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1530 & Q1533 and Q1528, Q1529, Q1531 & Q1532 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-10 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A45 and Ex.PW4/A46 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1536 & Q1539 and Q1534, Q1535, Q1537 & Q1538 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-38 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A47 and Ex.PW4/A48 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1542 & Q1545 and Q1540, Q1541, Q1543 & Q1544 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-8 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A49 and Ex.PW4/A50 (part of D32).
Similarly, he also identified signatures/handwritings of Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht at point Q1548 & Q1551 and Q1546, Q1547, Q1549 & Q1550 respectively on draw slips in respect of plot no. F-41 Savda Ghevra i.e. Ex.PW4/A51 and Ex.PW4/A52 (part of D32).
He further deposed that he had seen draw of plot list i.e. Ex. PW4/B (2 pages-part of D32) conducted through parchi system (manual) in respect of dwellers of Yamuna Pushta which CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 58 of 522 is in two pages and he identified signatures of Atul Vashisht at Q1553 & Q1556 and of Phillip Toppo at Q1554 & Q1557.
3.11 PW-11 Sh. Kundan Lal, Retd. Joint Director, Slum & JJ Department, MCD deposed that he worked as a Joint Director (SUR) in Slum & JJ Department, MCD from December 1992 to September 2002. He deposed that the Slum & JJ Department is implementing an approved plan scheme of relocation of JJ Clusters, for which funds are being provided by Delhi Government on year to year basis. He deposed that the broad guidelines are given in the above plan scheme. He deposed that Slum & JJ Department relocates those JJ Clusters, for which the request of land agency is received and they agree to bear the expenditure of relocation. He deposed that after receiving written request from the land agency, Slum Department requests the land agency to depute their representatives to conduct the joint survey of the concerned JJ Cluster and the Joint Survey Team as per the order of the survey incharge of the joint survey team, conducts joint survey of the concerned JJ Cluster. He deposed that during the survey, the Joint Survey Team notes the information in respect of name of the jhuggi dwellers, father name, ration card no., election I card no. and occupation in the prescribed format and after completing the survey, the team finalizes the survey report and classifies the information as 1. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued before 31.01.1990, 2. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued post 1990 and upto December 1998, 3. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued after 1998, 4. Number of locked CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 59 of 522 cases and 5. Number of worship places. He deposed that the final survey report is submitted to the survey officer for further action. He deposed that on availability of land, the allotment section organizes the relocation programme as per the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner. He deposed that it is further mentioned that, in pursuance of the order issued by the Hon'ble High Court in December 2001, the department setup a committee namely Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee to deal and dispose of cases of the concerned JJ Cluster. He deposed that the allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- as beneficiary share with the cashier, after receiving challan from the dealing assistant. He deposed that thereafter, the draw of lots is conducted in respect of those jhuggi dwellers who deposited their share money. He deposed that on the basis of the draw, the dealing assistant issues provisional allotment slips and gives plot numbers and advises the jhuggi dwellers to report the area JE for taking possession of the plot alloted to him. He deposed that two copies of the provisional allotment slips are prepared and one is retained by the dealing assistant and the original slip is given to the jhuggi dwellers.
He proved the copy of the extracts taken from Annual Plan 2004-2005, Vol. IV, Planning Department, GNCTD (D57) as Ex.PW1/A and identified the signatures of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, the then Assistant Director (Coordination and Resettlement Division, SLUM Deptt. MCD, Delhi) at point A on all the pages. He deposed that if the name of any jhuggi dweller does not figure or is included in the joint survey list prepared by CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 60 of 522 the officers of the Slum & JJ Department and the land owning agency, he cannot be granted an alternative plot and cannot be rehabilitated, but his jhuggi from the existing site is demolished. He voluntarily stated that however, in some cases, on the instruction of the Hon'ble High Court, a fresh survey of a left over area is conducted and some fresh names may also be included in the survey report, after approval of the competent authority of the Slum & JJ Department. He further deposed that in October 2000, he was posted as Joint Director (SUR) in Slum & JJ Department, MCD and he had issued an office order dated 17.10.2000 in the capacity of Joint Director (SUR) after obtaining the approval of Deputy Commissioner, Slum & JJ Department. He deposed that the said order was with regard to setting up of committee to dispose off the locked cases, dispute cases, vacant plot cases, Shahbad Daulatpur cases and Tilak Vihar cases. He deposed that it was decided to set up a committee under the chairmanship of Sh. S. R. Bhatnagar, Field Investigator, Sh. Shankar Sahni and Sh. R. C. Kamal, Field Investigators as member of the committee and the said committee was responsible for disposing off all such cases in a time bound manner so that dwellers may not suffer.
He identified his signatures on attested copy of office order dated 17.10.2000 (D59) i.e. Ex. PW11/A and deposed that he had handed over the same to CBI after verifying/comparing the same from the original record.
He further deposed that attested copy of office order dated 18.12.2001 i.e Ex. PW11/B regarding constitution of disputed cases Eligibility Determination Committee under the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 61 of 522 chairmanship of Sh. S. K. Trivedi, Deputy Commissioner, Slum and three other members was issued under the signatures of Sh. Manjeet Singh, the then Addl. Commissioner, S&JJ who expired in the year 2008. He deposed that he had attested the copy of said order after verifying the same from the original record and handed over the same to the CBI.
3.12 PW-12 Sh. Sangam Lal Shukla, UDC, Delhi Health Services, Mobile Health Scheme, Dwarka, Delhi deposed that he was posted as UDC in the Department of Social Welfare during the year 2005 onwards and probably, in the year 1986-87-88, he was posted in Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) as LDC, when Sh. V. P. Singh was the Prime Minister. He deposed that during his tenure their office was given the work of preparing ID cards meant for jhuggi clusters of the Slum & JJ Department of Govt. of Delhi and this work was to be done in collaboration with Food & Supply Department. He deposed that printed ID cards with names & other particulars of the concerned jhuggi dwellers already written therein were provided to them by the F&S Department and their job was only to visit the concerned clusters, to take the photographs of the jhuggi dwellers and to paste the same on the ID cards. He deposed that the above photographs were taken by them on a polaroid camera and 4 photographs of different persons in a sheet were used to be printed from the camera itself in a small sheet and no negatives of these photographs were there as no film was put or inserted in the camera. He deposed that the above ID cards were then given to the concerned jhuggi dwellers at the spot itself as the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 62 of 522 signatures and stamp of the concerned issuing officer/authority of the F&S Department used to be already there on these ID cards provided to them by the department. He deposed that he can identify if any ID cards of the area in which he had done the job of taking photographs are shown to him and upon being shown one laminated ID card Ex. PW5/A4 in the name of Kameshwar Mehto issued by Delhi Administration and one consumer/ration card Ex. PW5/A3 in bunch of documents D-4, he deposed that the photographs appearing on the said card and ration card were not taken by him because the area of the above jhuggi dweller was not falling within his jurisdiction. He was asked by Ld PP for CBI to state if the photographs appearing in the above ID card and ration card have been taken with a polaroid camera or with a normal camera having a film/negative and he deposed that the photographs do not appear to be of a polaroid camera as in a polaroid camera, the photo generally comes in light shade due to the reflection of light on the face.
3.13 PW-13 Sh. B. L. Meena, Assistant Director, Sociology Division, DUSIB, Vikas Kutir, ITO, New Delhi deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as Field Investigator in Sociology Division, S& JJ Department, MCD, Vikas Kutir, New Delhi and during that period, a joint survey of Gautam Puri-II, Delhi was carried out qua jhuggi dwellers of the said area by him and Sh. Biri Singh, an official of Land & Development Office, Delhi. He deposed that a survey list was prepared by him in this regard and he along with Sh. Biri Singh had signed the same on each page.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 63 of 522 Upon being shown one survey list i.e. Ex. PW13/A-colly (part of D-40) of Gautam Puri-II, Hathiwala Park, Yamuna Pushta Area from serial number 564 to 877, he deposed that it is the same survey list, which was prepared by him during the aforesaid survey and he identified his handwriting and signatures at point A as well as those of Sh. Biri Singh at point B on each page of the said list. He deposed that he had also written an endorsement 'Eligibility subject to verification of documents at the time of relocation' on each page of the aforesaid survey list at point C. He deposed that he had also handed over certain documents to CBI including the above said survey list Ex. PW13/A vide seizure memo dated 11.04.2008 (D-39) i.e. Ex. PW13/B (D-39).
Upon being shown a copy of letter no. K19014/4/96- DDII/B/Vol.III of Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation dated 13.10.2000 (part of D-45) i.e. Mark PW13/1 he deposed that the copy of the said letter was supplied by him to the CBI vide the aforesaid seizure memo Ex. PW13/B and the same is mentioned at serial number 2 of the said seizure memo.
Upon being shown one file (part of D-40) containing survey list of Gautam Puri-I having 236 pages i.e. Mark PW13/2 (colly) he deposed that he had handed over the said file vide the aforesaid seizure memo Ex. PW13/B and the same is mentioned at serial number 3 of the said seizure memo.
Upon being shown file (part of D-40) containing survey lists of Gautam Puri-II having 262 pages i.e. Mark PW13/3 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 64 of 522 (colly) including Ex. PW13/A-colly, he deposed that he had handed over the said file containing the survey lists of Gautam Puri-II area vide the aforesaid seizure memo Ex. PW13/B and the same is mentioned at serial number 4 of the said seizure memo.
He further deposed that he was called by CBI many times for the purpose of interrogation/checking of documents handed over by him to CBI. He was survey serial numbers 589, 592, 595, 597, 611, 615, 624, 627, 630, 632, 641, 643, 686, 687, 697, 699, 706, 714, 735, 744, 749, 765, 782, 784, 867 and 868 in survey list Ex. PW13/A-colly and asked as to what comments/remarks he had told to the CBI in respect of the aforesaid entries qua the eligibility/non eligibility of the persons mentioned at the aforesaid serial numbers in the list and he deposed that he was deputed only to conduct the survey of the and eligibility/ non eligibility of any of the persons mentioned in the list was not supposed to be done by him. He further deposed that for the same reason, there was no question of his giving any comments /remarks to CBI qua the aforesaid entries at serial numbers mentioned above in survey list Ex. PW13/A-colly.
Thereafter he was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had also given his comments/remarks to the CBI about the eligibility/non eligibility of the persons whose names are mentioned in the table given in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 26.09.2008 Ex. PW13/C. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately resiling from his statement given to CBI earlier in this regard as he has been won over by the accused and he is therefore trying to help them.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 65 of 522 3.14 PW14 Shri Lal Chand deposed that he is working as a typist with Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate at his Chamber No. 117, Old Court Complex, Kashmere Gate, Delhi since 1996 on salary basis. He deposed that he knows deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee who resides in Gandhi Vihar, Delhi and often used to visit Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate for the purpose of preparation of documents qua sale, purchase, transfer, etc. of properties, and also affidavits, applications etc. for the said purpose. He deposed that his work was to type the said documents only and he handed over the same after typing to Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate. He deposed that deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee used to provide the names, particulars and the photographs of the persons to Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate whose documents were to be prepared. He deposed that the stamp papers required for the purpose of preparing affidavits etc. were either provided by the party or were purchased by Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate from a stamp vendor, namely, Mukesh who used to sit near office of Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate at Old Court. He deposed that no record was being maintained by him for the stamp papers being purchased for the purpose of preparing documents of various parties. He deposed that he does not know whether any such record was being maintained by Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate. He deposed that no register was there in the office of Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate for this purpose. He deposed that stamp vendor Mukesh was maintaining a register for recording the particulars of the parties in whose name the stamp papers were being sold by him. He deposed that he does not know who signed on the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 66 of 522 register of Mukesh Kumar for the stamp papers purchased at the instance of Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate. He voluntarily deposed that he himself never went to Mukesh Kumar for purchase of stamp papers. He further deposed that his statement was not recorded by CBI although he was interrogated by them.
Thereafter he was cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI and during his cross-examination he admitted that he was interrogated by CBI on 14.03.08. He admitted that his statement was recorded by them on the said date. He admitted that Insp. S.S. Bhullar had recorded his statement as told by him. He also admitted that he had told, whatever was asked from him, in Hindi which was translated and typed by him in English. He admitted that Insp. S.S. Bhullar had also read over his statement dated 14.03.08 to him. He admitted that he had deposed before CBI that he and one Vijay Kumar, employee of Sushil Kumar, used to purchase stamp papers in the name of the persons as mentioned in the list provided to them by Masterjee. He admitted that they used to purchase the stamp papers from Mukesh Kumar, Stamp Vendor, who used to sit in the Old Court, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He admitted that he and Vijay Kumar used to sign the register maintained by Mukesh Kumar in respect of the stamp papers purchased from him. Thereafter he was shown entries made in the register maintained by Stamp Vendor, Mukesh Kumar i.e. Ex.PW14/A-colly {also Ex. PW9/A (colly)} i.e. entries no. 529, 530, 251, 549, 550, 261, 541, 542, 257, 533, 534, 253, 603, 604, 288, 591, 592, 282, 579, 580, 276, 605, 606, 289, 593, 594, 283, 597, 598, 285, 571, 572, 272, 581, 582, 277, 601, 602, 287, 531, 532, 252, 547, 548, 206, 557, 558, 265, 575, 576, 274, 589, 590, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 67 of 522 281, 599, 600, 286, 561, 562, 267, 569, 570, 271, 595, 596, 284, 583, 584, 278, 565, 566, 269, 527, 528, 250, 519, 520, 246 and he stated that the said entries were signed either by him or by Vijay Kumar. He admitted that he and Vijay Kumar had prepared the documents in D4 to D29 which relate to allotment of 26 plots in F-Block, Savda Ghevra as per the list provided by deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee. He admitted that he and Vijay Kumar used to affix the photographs on the said documents if the same were provided to them by the concerned parties. He admitted that sometimes, the photographs of parties were provided by deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee. He denied the suggestion that he used to get the aforeaid documents attested from one Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand who used to sit in Old Court, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and was working as an Advocate for Sh. Bijender Singh, Advocate. He admitted that Vijay Kumar used to get the aforesaid documents attested from Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand. He stated that he does not know whether Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand was an advocate or not, but he knows that he used to sit in the Old Court, Kashmere Gate. He stated that he cannot say whether he used to sit on the seat of Bijender Singh, Advocate. He admitted that Sh. Sushil Kumar, Advocate had instructed them to get the documents attested from Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand. He admitted that Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand mostly used to sign the documents himself, however, he denied the suggestion that he also used to sign the said documents for the purpose of attestation when he was busy or not available. He stated that he does not know whether Vijay Kumar used to attest the said documents when Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand was not CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 68 of 522 available. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately deposing falsely on this aspect as he knows that this was a wrong committed by him. He admitted that while getting the documents attested he used to affix the stamps on the stamp papers or documents to be attested. He voluntarily stated that Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand himself signed the said documents for attestation. He admitted that he and Vijay Kumar used to write in the names and addresses of the persons as well as those of the witnesses in the documents to be attested as per the list provided by Masterjee. He denied the suggestion that he also used to put signatures/thumb impressions of the witnesses on the said documents. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately making false statement. He denied the suggestion that he had told CBI that Vijay Kumar had signed in place of Notary Public on the legal documents pertaining to allotment of plots to Ram Veer, Sita Ram, Mohd. Mukhtar, Jai Singh, Mohd. Wasim and Ansar or that he had identified the said signatures on the aforesaid documents to be those of Vijay Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberating resiling from his aforesaid statement given to CBI. He admitted that Masterjee used to pay Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per set of documentation to Sushil Kumar, Advocate, who used to pay him salary of Rs.3000-4000 per month.
Thereafter this witness was also re-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI and during his re-examination following question was put to him and he replied as under:-
Q: I put it to you that you have deposed during your cross-examination by Ld PP that you and one Vijay Kumar, employee of Sushil Kumar, used to purchase stamp papers in the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 69 of 522 name of the persons as mentioned in the list provided to you by Masterjee and you both used to purchase the stamp papers from Mukesh Kumar, Stamp Vendor, who used to sit in the Old Court, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, and also that you and Vijay Kumar used to sign the register maintained by Mukesh Kumar in respect of the stamp papers purchased from him and you had also identified the relevant entries in the copy of register Ex. PW14/A maintained by Stamp Vendor, Mukesh Kumar as those either signed by you or by Vijay Kumar, but during your cross- examination by Shri Hitender Kapur, Advocate, you have stated that neither you nor Vijay Kumar had ever purchased the stamp papers as mentioned in Ex. PW14/A nor you both signed the register of the Stamp Vendor qua the said stamp papers against the entries contained from pages 291 to 294 of Ex. PW14/A. Which of the above statement is correct ?
Ans: My deposition during cross-examination by Shri Hitender Kapur, Advocate to the effect that neither me nor Vijay Kumar ever purchased stamp papers nor signed in the Stamp Vendor register against the entries in pages 291 to 294 in Ex. PW14/A, is correct.
He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately changed his stand during cross-examination by Shri Hitender Kapur, Advocate so as to save the accused from punishment. He denied the suggestion that he has changed his stand because during cross-examination by Shri Hitender Kapur, Advocate, it suddenly occurred to his mind that his deposition during cross-examination by Ld PP will go against the accused. He denied the suggestion that he himself being an accused in two cases of CBI, he is CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 70 of 522 sailing in the same boat as that of accused of the present case and therefore want to shield them as well as himself.
3.15 PW15 Shri Bijender Singh Sehrawat deposed that he started practicing as an Advocate at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in 1991 after completing his LL. B. from MDU, Rohtak. He deposed that he obtained the license of Notary Public in the year 2004 from Government of India and worked as Notary Public till 2009, thereafter stopped the said work.
Upon being shown receipt Ex. PW5/A5, GPA Ex.
PW5/A6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/A7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/A8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/A9 (D4) he deposed that they are neither signed by him nor bear his seal as Notary Public. He further deposed that the seal of Notary Public affixed on the said documents although does bear his name 'Bijender Singh', but the same does not bear his appointment number as Notary Public, nor do the said documents bear the entry number vide which the same have been purported to be attested.
Similar was the answer of the witness upon being shown receipt Ex. PW5/B5, GPA Ex. PW5/B6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/B7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/B8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/B9 (D5), receipt Ex. PW5/C5, GPA Ex. PW5/C6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/C7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/C8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/C9 (D6), receipt Ex. PW5/D5, GPA Ex. PW5/D6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/D7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/D8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/D9 (D7), receipt Ex. PW5/E5, GPA Ex. PW5/E6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/E7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/E8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/E9 (D8), receipt Ex. PW5/F5, GPA Ex. PW5/F6, Agreement to Sell CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 71 of 522 Ex. PW5/F7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/F8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/F9 (D9), receipt Ex. PW5/G5, GPA Ex. PW5/G6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/G7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/G8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/G9 (D10), receipt Ex. PW5/H5, GPA Ex. PW5/H6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/H7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/H8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/H9 (D11), receipt Ex. PW5/I-5, GPA Ex. PW5/I-6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/I-7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/I-8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/I-9 (D12), receipt Ex. PW5/J5, GPA Ex. PW5/J6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/J7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/J8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/J9 (D-13), receipt Ex. PW5/K5, GPA Ex. PW5/K6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/K7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/K8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/K9 (D14), receipt Ex. PW5/L5, GPA Ex. PW5/L6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/L7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/L8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/L9 (D15), receipt Ex. PW5/M5, GPA Ex. PW5/M6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/M7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/M8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/M9 (D16), receipt Ex. PW5/N5, GPA Ex. PW5/N6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/N7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/N8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/N9 (D17), receipt Ex. PW5/O5, GPA Ex. PW5/O6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/O7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/O8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/O9 (D18), receipt Ex. PW5/P5, GPA Ex. PW5/P6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/P7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/P8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/P9 (D19), receipt Ex. PW5/Q5, GPA Ex. PW5/Q6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Q7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/Q8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Q9 (D20), receipt Ex. PW5/R5, GPA Ex. PW5/R6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/R7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/R8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/R9 (D21), receipt Ex. PW5/S5, GPA Ex. PW5/S6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/S7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/S8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/S9 (D22),receipt CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 72 of 522 Ex. PW5/T5, GPA Ex. PW5/T6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/T7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/T8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/T9 (D23),receipt Ex. PW5/U5, GPA Ex. PW5/U6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/U7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/U8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/U9 (D24), receipt Ex. PW5/V5, GPA Ex. PW5/V6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/V7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/V8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/V9 (D25), receipt Ex. PW5/W5, GPA Ex. PW5/W6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/W7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/W8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/W9 (D26), receipt Ex. PW5/X5, GPA Ex. PW5/X6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/X7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/X8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/X9 (D27), receipt Ex. PW5/Y5, GPA Ex. PW5/Y6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Y7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/Y8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Y9 (D28), receipt Ex. PW5/Z5, GPA Ex. PW5/Z6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Z7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/Z8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Z9 (D29).
He further deposed that he does not know any Ashok Verma or Hari Chand and no such person named above ever worked for him nor he had authorized any such person as named above to attest legal documents on his behalf.
3.16 PW16 Shri Sushil Kumar deposed that he is practicing as an Advocate since 1999 at Old Court, Kashmere Gate and deals in drafting & registration of all legal documents. He deposed that he knows Lal Chand R/o Burari, Vijay Kumar R/o Vijay Vihar, Rohini & Ashok Kumar R/o Gulabi Bagh andthey all used to sit outside his Chamber and did typing & other miscellaneous work connected to registration of documents. He deposed that he also knows Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji who CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 73 of 522 was a property dealer in the area of Gandhi Vihar near Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and he used to often visit him in connection with preparation of sets of documents pertaining to sale, purchase & registration of properties etc. He deposed that Lal and Vijay were mainly doing the typing work and Ashok Kumar was doing the miscellaneous job for them like giving water to their customers and collecting and depositing the documents etc. in the office of Sub-Registrar and further they all also used to get the documents notarized/ attested from the Notaries and Oath Commissioners sitting in the complex, as and when required. He correctly identified accused Vijay Kumar and Ram Chander Arora.
He deposed that he can identify the documents drafted by him or typed from his computer if the same are shown. Upon being shown the documents detailed in the table below:
S.No Bunch Documents detail 1 D-4 Receipt Ex. PW5/A5, GPA Ex. PW5/A6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/A7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/A8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/A9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/A10 2 D-5 Receipt Ex. PW5/B5, GPA Ex. PW5/B6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/B7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/B8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/B9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/B10 3 D-6 Receipt Ex. PW5/C5, GPA Ex. PW5/C6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/C7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/C8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/C9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/C10 4 D-7 Receipt Ex. PW5/D5, GPA Ex. PW5/D6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/D7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/D8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/D9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/D10 5 D-8 Receipt Ex. PW5/E5, GPA Ex. PW5/E6, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 74 of 522 Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/E7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/E8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/E9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/E10 6 D-9 Receipt Ex. PW5/F5, GPA Ex. PW5/F6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/F7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/F8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/F9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/F10 7 D-10 Receipt Ex. PW5/G5, GPA Ex. PW5/G6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/G7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/G8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/G9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/G10 8 D-11 Receipt Ex. PW5/H5, GPA Ex. PW5/H6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/H7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/H8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/H9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/H10 9 D-12 Receipt Ex. PW5/I5, GPA Ex. PW5/I6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/I7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/I8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/I9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/I10 10 D-13 Receipt Ex. PW5/J5, GPA Ex. PW5/J6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/J7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/J8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/J9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/J10 11 D-14 Receipt Ex. PW5/K5, GPA Ex. PW5/K6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/K7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/K8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/K9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/K10 12 D-15 Receipt Ex. PW5/L5, GPA Ex. PW5/L6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/L7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/L8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/L9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/L10 13 D-16 Receipt Ex. PW5/M5, GPA Ex. PW5/M6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/M7, Affidavit Ex.
PW5/M8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/M9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/M10 14 D-17 Receipt Ex. PW5/N5, GPA Ex. PW5/N6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/N7, Affidavit PW5/N8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/N9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/N10 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 75 of 522 15 D-18 Receipt Ex. PW5/O5, GPA Ex. PW5/O6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/O7, Affidavit PW5/O8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/O9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/O10 16 D-19 Receipt Ex. PW5/P5, GPA Ex. PW5/P6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/P7, Affidavit PW5/P8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/P9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/P10 17 D-20 Receipt Ex. PW5/Q5, GPA Ex. PW5/Q6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Q7, Affidavit PW5/Q8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Q9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/Q10 18 D-21 Receipt Ex. PW5/R5, GPA Ex. PW5/R6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/R7, Affidavit PW5/R8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/R9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/R10 19 D-22 Receipt Ex. PW5/S5, GPA Ex. PW5/S6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/S7, Affidavit PW5/S8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/S9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/S10 20 D-23 Receipt Ex. PW5/T5, GPA Ex. PW5/T6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/T7, Affidavit PW5/T8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/T9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/T10 21 D-24 Receipt Ex. PW5/U5, GPA Ex. PW5/U6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/U7, Affidavit PW5/U8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/U9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/U10 22 D-25 Receipt Ex. PW5/V5, GPA Ex. PW5/V6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/V7, Affidavit PW5/V8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/V9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/V10 23 D-26 Receipt Ex. PW5/W5, GPA Ex. PW5/W6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/W7, Affidavit PW5/W8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/W9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/W10 24 D-27 Receipt Ex. PW5/X5, GPA Ex. PW5/X6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/X7, Affidavit PW5/X8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/X9, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 76 of 522 Possession Letter Ex. PW5/X10 25 D-28 Receipt Ex. PW5/Y5, GPA Ex. PW5/Y6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Y7, Affidavit PW5/Y8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Y9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/Y10 26 D-29 Receipt Ex. PW5/Z5, GPA Ex. PW5/Z6, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW5/Z7, Affidavit PW5/Z8, Deed of Will Ex. PW5/Z9, Possession Letter Ex. PW5/Z10 he deposed that these documents were typed on his computer by Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar as they used to sit outside his Chamber in the space provided by him and did his work on priority. He further deposed that he can identify the said documents as having been typed on his computer because of the standard typical language used in the said documents, the proforma of which was already saved in his computer.
He deposed that he has no idea as to who were the executants of these documents and that Vijay Kumar, Lal Chand and Ashok used to get these documents notarized. He deposed that one Bijender Singh, Notary Public used to sit in the Court Complex where he was having his Chamber and maximum documents were attested by him as those bore his stamps. He further deposed that Lal Chand, Vijay and Ashok Kumar used to purchase the stamp papers for the purpose of registration of documents and also got those notarized as mentioned above. He deposed that same was done in the case of documents notarized and registered at the instance of Shri Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji. He deposed that he also used to pay Vijay, Lal Chand and Ashok Kumar according to the work that he gave to them every month. He deposed that Vijay and Lal Chand have shifted CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 77 of 522 to the Chamber of another Advocate for the last one year and Ashok Kumar had worked with him till 2009, thereafter he shifted to another Advocate.
3.17 PW17 Shri Hari Om Sharma, Asstt. Supdt. of Posts, Office of Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, Meghdut Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that in June 2008, he was posted as Inspector in Office of Senior Supdt of Post Offices, Naraina Industrial Estate, New Delhi and during that period, he was instructed by his superior officers to visit CBI office for the purpose of joining some investigation. He deposed that a written communication in this regard was received from CBI in their office and thereafter, he was orally instructed by his superior officer qua the same. He deposed that accordingly, he had reached at the CBI office on a day, the date which he does not now remember, in the morning time. He deposed that in the CBI office he had put his signatures as a witness on 3-4 sets of documents/sheets on which some addresses were already written and besides him Insp. S.S. Bhullar of CBI had also put his signatures on these documents. He deposed that the above addresses or writings on the above sheets were not written in his presence and hence, he cannot say by whom the same were written, however, he can identify the said writings witnessed by him if the same are shown to him.
Upon being shown D36 containing specimen handwritings of Surjit Singh S/o Waryam Singh and marked as S-178 to S-229 (consisting of 52 sheets) i.e. Ex. PW17/A (colly) he deposed that these are the same documents on which his signatures were taken CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 78 of 522 as a witness by Insp. S.S. Bhullar of CBI on the above day and he also identified his signatures at point A on each page of the said documents. He deposed that before he had put his signatures on the above documents, the handwritten as well as the typed matter of these documents was already there. He deposed that in the room in which he had witnessed the above documents, besides him there were only Insp. S.S. Bhullar of CBI and one other Sikh gentleman sitting there. He deposed that perhaps, he might be the same person whose writings might have been taken on the above sheets. He deposed that he cannot identify the said Sikh gentleman and hence, he cannot say if he is present in the court today or not.
Thereafter he was cross-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI and during his cross-examination he admitted that as per the above documents Ex.PW17/A-colly, the specimen writings which he had witnessed were of one Surjit Singh S/o Waryam Singh. He stated that he cannot say if accused Surjit Singh present in the court today and being pointed out to him is the same Sikh gentleman who was sitting in the room of CBI on that day and whose specimen writings were taken on the above sheets, which he had attested. He stated that presently, he is posted as Asstt. Supdt. Posts and his qualification is MA (Hindi). He stated that he does not now remember if his statement was also recorded by Insp. S.S. Bhullar on that day or that he had visited the CBI office on 14.06.08 or that his statement was also recorded on that day. He stated that he does not even remember if he visited the office once or twice in the said month or that he visited the said office on 12.06.08 as well as 14.06.08. He stated that he does not CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 79 of 522 now remember if he had stated in his statement Mark PW17/1 that the specimen writings of accused Surjit Singh on the above sheets were taken in the CBI office on 12.06.08 as well as on 14.06.08 in his presence and he had given the said writings voluntarily. He denied the suggestion that on being shown the said writings he had identified his writings and signatures on the above said documents and also his signatures put thereon as a witness during his above statement. He admitted that alongwith his signatures appearing at point A on the above sheets, the words 'in my presence' are also typed just above his signatures and stated that by words 'in my presence' it means that above writings were taken in his presence. He stated that he had signed as a witness below the words 'in my presence' only because he was sent by his office to join the investigation. He stated that he did not raise any objection in the CBI office as to why he was being made to sign on the above documents, i.e. specimen writings and signatures shown to have been taken in his presence, despite the fact that the same were not taken in his presence. He stated that even after coming back to his office, he did not take up this issue with his senior officers, orally or in writing, till date. He stated that he is aware of the CVC circular/guidelines to the effect that if any official witness deposes falsely in any matter then action can be taken against him. He denied the suggestion that though the above specimen writings and signatures were taken in his presence, but he has deposed falsely in the court only because he has been won over or influenced by accused Surjit Singh or the other co accused. He denied the suggestion that it is only for CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 80 of 522 these reasons that he had not identified the accused Surjit Singh in the court today.
3.18 PW18 Shri Sumer Singh, Hindi Translator, Language Department, North Delhi Municipal Corporation deposed that in April 2008, he was posted as UDC in Horticulture Deptt., MCD, Green Park Zone, New Delhi and during the said month, a letter was received from the CBI in the office of the Dy. Commissioner and on its basis, he was deputed by the DC office to visit the office of CBI and join the investigation of this case. He deposed that accordingly, he had visited the office of CBI on one day in the said month, the date of which he does not now remember, in the morning time. He deposed that after reaching at the CBI office, he had first marked his attendance at the reception and then he was sent at the first floor of the said office, where he met Insp. Bhullar of CBI. He deposed that two other persons namely Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo were also present there. He correctly identified both of them in the court. He deposed that both these persons had tendered their specimen writings/signatures on some sheets voluntarily in his presence and he had also put his signatures on the said sheets as a witness. He deposed that he can identify the above sheets containing the specimen writings/signatures of these two persons, if the same are shown to him. Upon being shown D34 containing the specimen writings/ signatures of accused Philip Toppo and marked as S1 to S5 (5 sheets) and also D35 containing the specimen signatures/writings of Atul Vashisht and marked as S6 to S10 (5 sheets) i.e. Ex.PW18/A-colly and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 81 of 522 Ex.PW18/B-colly, he identified these to be the same specimen writings/signatures of the above two accused taken in his presence in the CBI office on that day, i.e. 30.04.08 as stated in the above documents. He also identified his own signatures appearing at point A on each of the above sheets.
3.19 PW-19 Sh. Nabor Beck, Retired Public Relation Inspector, Head Post Office Kalkaji, New Delhi deposed that in July 2008, he was posted as Public Relation Inspector at Head Post Office Kalkaji, New Delhi and in the said month, as per the instructions of his senior officers, he visited the CBI office one day in the morning time and joined the investigation of this case. He deposed that one official of CBI, whose name he does not now remember, had taken his signatures on some documents and at that time, there was no other person present in the above room of CBI, where his signatures were taken, except him and the above official of CBI. He deposed that there was something already written on those documents, on which his signatures were taken. He deposed that he can identify the said documents as well as his signatures thereon, if the same are shown to him. Upon being shown specimen writings/signatures S338 (D38) Ex. PW19/A of Vijay Kumar S/o Than Singh taken on 22.07.2008, he deposed that this is the same sheet containing specimen writings/signatures on which his signatures were taken by CBI on the date mentioned above and he identified his signatures on the said sheet at point A. He deposed that the specimen writings/signatures on the above sheet were already written when CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 82 of 522 he had put his signatures on the said sheet as a witness and the same were not written in his physical presence.
Thereafter he was cross-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI and during his cross-examination he stated that the words 'in my presence' are mentioned above his signatures at point A on the aforesaid sheet and to him, the words 'in my presence' mean that the above specimen writings/signatures were taken in his presence. Thereafter a court question was put to the witness as follows:
Court que: How you reconcile your depositions to the effect that the above specimen writings/signatures were taken in your presence when you have earlier stated in your examination before lunch that the same were not taken in your presence and there was also no other person in the said room, except you and the CBI official?
Ans: Perhaps, the above specimen writings/signatures were put in my presence by the CBI official himself and my previous depositions that the same were not taken in my presence are not correct and these were made due to lapse of time.
He stated that his statement was not recorded by the CBI on 22.07.2008, i.e. the day on which the above specimen writings/signatures were taken. He denied the suggestion that his statement Mark PW19/1 was recorded on that day by Insp. S. S. Bhullar regarding the above proceeding or that in his above statement, he had told him that specimen writings of Vijay Kumar were taken in his presence and the said Vijay Kumar had given said specimen writings voluntarily. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay Kumar present in the court today CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 83 of 522 and being pointed out to him was also present in the above office of CBI on that day or that his specimen writings/signatures on the above documents Ex. PW19/A were taken on the said day in his presence, which he had attested as a witness. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in this court today at the behest of the said accused as he has been won over or influenced by him. He denied the suggestion that for the same reasons, he had also not intentionally identified him in the court today.
3.20 PW-20 Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, RT Nagar, Banglore deposed that in April, 2008, he was posted as Sr. Manager, Vijaya Bank, Regional Office, 17 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and was instructed by his Sr. Officer Sh. G. V. K. Shetty, General Manager of the Regional Office to visit CBI office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi for the purpose of joining some investigation. He deposed that accordingly, he had visited CBI office next day in the morning and day thereafter. He deposed that on the first day, he had first gone to the reception at CBI office thereafter he was taken to one officer who was a Sikh gentleman namely Sh. Bhullar. He deposed that he was also introduced by Sh. Bhullar to another person by the name of Lal Mani sitting besides him. He deposed that on both dates, Mr. Bhullar had asked Lal Mani to write something on some sheets in his presence and accordingly, Lal Mani had written on the said sheets voluntarily. He deposed that Lal Mani had also put his signatures on the said sheets and he had also signed the said sheets thereafter. He deposed that he can identify the said sheets, if the same are shown to him. Upon CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 84 of 522 being shown D37, which are the sheets containing the specimen handwritings of Lal Mani from S230 to S289 dated 21.04.2008 and S290 to S333 dated 22.04.2008 i.e. Ex. PW20/A (colly), he deposed that these are the same sheets on which Lal Mani had given his specimen handwritings in his presence and had also put his signatures thereupon. He also identified his own signatures at points A and those of Lal Mani at points B on each of these sheets. He also correctly identified accused Lal Mani in the court.
3.21 PW-21 Sh. Shankar Miglani, Retired Anti Malaria Inspector, MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi deposed that in May, 2008, he was posted as Malaria Inspector, MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and during that period, a direction was received from the Administrative Officer of MCD in their office wherein he had been directed to visit CBI office in connection with some case. He deposed that the file containing the said direction was marked to him and he was instructed by his superior to visit CBI office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi for the purpose of joining some investigation. He deposed that accordingly, he visited CBI office next day in the morning, first went to the reception and thereafter, he was taken to one officer who was a Sikh gentleman namely Sh. Bhullar. He deposed that he was also introduced by Sh. Bhullar to another person by the name of Atul Vashisht sitting besides him. He correctly identified accused Atul Vashisht in the court. He deposed that Mr. Bhullar was writing statement of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of Atul Vashisht were also taken by Mr. Bhullar on some paper CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 85 of 522 sheets and these paper sheets were also got signed from him.
Upon being shown S11 to S177 in D35, which are containing some specimen handwritings of accused Atul Vashisht i.e. Ex. PW21/A (colly), he deposed that these are the same sheets on which Atul Vashisht had signed in his presence and he had also signed on the same thereafter. He identified his signatures as well as those of Atul Vashishst on the said sheets at points A and B respectively.
Upon being asked as to who had written the specimen writings appearing in the body of the above sheets, which are found encircled in blue pencil he deposed that he does not now remember as to who had written the same. He deposed that he also stated that he is not having his spectacles today and that he has recently undergone an operation for cataract of his right eye and hence, he is not able to properly read the said writings also. He deposed that he had also undergone a surgery around three months before and a pacemaker has been installed.
Later on, he deposed that the writings in the body of sheets containing specimen handwritings in Ex. PW21/A-colly (D35) from S11 to S177 were written by Atul Vashisht in his presence and he had also put his signatures on the same in his presence and only thereafter, he had signed on the sheets. He deposed that Atul Vashisht had given his specimen signatures/handwritings voluntarily without any kind of pressure or influence whatsoever.
3.22 PW-22 Sh. Shanti Swaroop, Chief Engineer-I, DUSIB, Opposite DCP West Office, Raja Garden, Delhi deposed that in December, 2008, he was posted as Executive Engineer (Slums), CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 86 of 522 Construction Division-II, Slum & JJ Department, MCD, Delhi and during that period, he had handed over to CBI copies of certain documents as required by them after telephonic discussion with Insp. S. S. Bhullar of CBI, ACB, Delhi vide a covering letter. He deposed that the said documents pertained to handing over of possession of plots to some persons in Squatter Resettlement Scheme (SRS), Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Block B & C. Upon being shown D62 comprising of one letter dated 01- 03.12.08 written by the witness to Insp. S. S. Bhullar of CBI, ACB, New Delhi and copies of certain documents relating to 13 plots as mentioned in the said letter (total 75 sheets, including letter) i.e. Ex. PW22/A (colly), he identified the same as the covering letter vide which he had handed over the copies of documents attached thereto in D-62 to Insp. S. S. Bhullar. He deposed that he had got the aforesaid documents copied in his office and had compared the copies with the originals at his office before putting his signatures and handing over the same to CBI.
He deposed that he was also shown 12 other sets of documents relating to handing over of possession of some plots at some other site to same persons as mentioned in his letter dated 01-03.12.2008 as well as the documents annexed thereto (Ex. PW22/A-colly). He deposed that the said sets of documents, which were shown to him by CBI were having the same names, father's/husband's name and addresses of allottees as were there in the documents handed over by him to CBI i.e. Ex. PW22/A- colly.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 87 of 522 Upon being shown bunches D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29, he deposed that these are the same bunches of documents which were shown to him in the CBI office by Insp. S. S. Bhullar and he was asked to compare these documents with the copies of documents submitted by him i.e. Ex. PW22/A-colly and upon comparing he found that the said documents pertained to allotment of plots in Savda Ghewra area. He deposed that he also noticed that the names, father's/husband's name and addresses mentioned in the 12 sets of documents shown to him by CBI were same as those mentioned in the copies of documents (Ex. PW22/A-colly) submitted by him to CBI, except one which pertained to plot no. C-282, which was allotted to Manikant S/o Sudama Verma. He deposed that he also noticed that the name, father's name and address mentioned in the documents shown to him by CBI and those handed over by him to CBI were one and the same, but the photographs appearing on the documents differed. During his deposition, after comparing D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29 with copies of documents Ex. PW22/A-colly (D62) handed over by him to CBI he deposed that the names, father's names as well as addresses appearing in the aforesaid sets of documents are same as mentioned in documents Ex. PW22/A-colly handed over by him to CBI, although the photographs in the aforesaid sets of documents D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29 are different.
He deposed that as far as handing over of plots in SRS Holambi Kalan, Phase-II in Block B, in respect of which he had handed over documents Ex. PW22/A-colly to CBI, is concerned, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 88 of 522 the possession must have been handed over after duly scrutinizing and verifying the documents as well as establishing the identity of the allottees concerned as mentioned in his letter Ex. PW22/A-colly and the possession must have been handed over only after ascertaining that the documents as well as the persons to whom possession was to be delivered were genuine. He deposed that his statement was recorded by CBI.
3.23 PW-23 Shri Vinod Singh Chauhan, Section Officer, Ministry of Urban Development deposed that in September, 2007 he was posted as Assistant in Directorate of Estate, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi and during that period, he was informed by the Vigilance Section of their office to report at CBI office, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi for the purpose of some investigation. He deposed that accordingly, he had reported to the Duty Officer at CBI office and thereafter, he was instructed to meet Inspector D. K. Thakur of CBI in the CBI office itself and accordingly he had met him. He deposed that another Inspector of CBI namely Mr. Bhullar was also there. He deposed that he does not remember if any other person was also present there. He deposed that another person by the name of Mr. Jain was also present there. He correctly identified accused Ashok Jain in the court. He deposed that another witness namely Ved Prakash was also present there. He deposed that thereafter, the CBI team including him, Ved Prakash and Mr. Jain left for Sardhana for the purpose of some search. He deposed that at Sardhana, they had visited the house of one Mr. Arora. He deposed that Mr. Jain got the door of the house opened and Mr. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 89 of 522 Arora met them there. He deposed that he came to know that who opened the door was Mr. Arora as Mr. Jain was addressing him so. He deposed that CBI team introduced themselves to Mr. Arora and told him the purpose of the visit, i.e. conducting of search at the residential premises of Mr. Arora. He deposed that Mr. Arora cooperated in the search and accordingly, the house of Mr. Arora was searched. He deposed that during the course of search, two bags containing documents were recovered from two separate rooms, one of which was quite small. He deposed that the zips of the bags were opened and a list/ inventory of the documents present in the bags was also prepared there and a seizure memo was also prepared there and he alongwith other persons present there had signed the same.
Upon being shown D30 Ex. PW5/Y, which is a copy of pointing cum seizure memo dated 07.09.2007 prepared U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he deposed that it is a copy of the same seizure memo which was prepared at the premises of aforesaid Mr. Arora at Sardhana on 07.09.2007. He also identified his signatures on the said seizure memo at points A and those of accused Ashok Jain at points E on each page.
He deposed that he had put his signatures on the aforesaid documents only after reading the same. He deposed that he does not remember whether the blank at point X2 on second page of pointing out cum seizure memo Ex. PW5/Y came to his notice when he signed the pointing out cum seizure memo or not.
Upon being shown one list in two sheets (part of D30) dated 07.09.2007, which is a list titled as 'Savda Ghewra' containing names of 26 persons, alongwith plot numbers i.e. Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 90 of 522 PW23/A he deposed that this list was prepared in the aforesaid premises of Mr. Arora itself on 07.09.2007 and the same bears his signatures at points B and those of Ved Prakash at points A on each page.
Upon being shown Ex. PW5/X, which is a copy of disclosure statement of accused Ashok Jain dated 07.09.2007, he deposed that the said statement was recorded at CBI HQs in his presence prior to leaving for the said search at Mr. Arora's house at Sardhana and he also identified his signatures on the said disclosure statement at point D and those of Ved Prakash at point A. He deposed that accused Ashok Jain had put his signatures at point B on the aforesaid disclosure statement in his presence.
Upon being shown documents D4 to D29, he deposed that the said documents bear signatures of Ved Prakash at points A and further deposed that these documents were present in the bags which were recovered during the aforesaid search proceedings and Ved Prakash had signed the said documents at the searched premises at Sardhana itself in his presence.
3.24 PW-24 Shri Chob Singh deposed that during the period 1995 till 2005 he worked as a hawker and used to sell scent from door to door. He deposed that he also used to visit various offices in Delhi to sell scent and might have also visited MCD office situated at ITO for the said purpose during that period, but he does not now exactly remember. He deposed that he knows one Darshan Lal who used to frequent Amar Jyoti Colony near Samai Pur Badli during that period. He deposed that he had also been allotted one plot no. A-79 in Amar Jyoti CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 91 of 522 Colony in resettlement of JJ Cluster from Okhla and Darshan Lal used to meet him there only. He deposed that he also heard about one Ashok Malhotra that he was involved in some fraud in allotment of resettlement plots against jhuggi jhopri. He deposed that he does not know any person by the name of S.C. Garg, Atul, Toppo or Purushottam. He deposed that he had also visited Purnarwas Bhawan at ITO, New Delhi during the course of allotment of aforesaid plot no. A-79 to him. He deposed that he does not now remember the name of the official whom he used to meet at Punarwas Bhawan for the said purpose. He deposed that he knows one Kamod Jha @ Panditji since the year 2007 and he used to work as a pandit/priest in a temple at Budh Vihar, Phase-I and was also operating one printing press at Budh Vihar near the said mandir. He deposed that he used to print wedding cards etc. He deposed that during that period, Darshan Lal had asked him to get about 150/200 ration cards printed from aforesaid Kamod Jha @ Panditji while stating that sometimes, jhuggies get burnt and the ration cards issued to the jhuggi dwellers also get burnt in the fire and so new ration cards were required to be issued to the jhuggi dwellers. He deposed that he had paid him Rs.60/- per card out of which Rs.40/- was paid to Kamod Jha @ Panditji and Rs.20/- was his commission per card. He deposed that the serial no. was also put on the said ration cards by Kamod Jha @ Panditji himself. He deposed that infact, Darshan Lal used to give him slips containing the serial numbers to be put on the ration cards and he forwarded the same to Kamod Jha @ Panditji who put the same on ration card with the help of a machine. He deposed that he then collected the ration cards from CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 92 of 522 Kamod Jha @ Panditji and handed them over to Darshan Lal. He deposed that these ration cards which he used to hand over to Darshan Lal were in new condition. He deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Mr. K.K. Thereafter he was cross-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI and during his cross-examination he stated that he was called by the CBI in connection with investigation of this case and his statement was also recorded by them. He stated that it may be correct to suggest that the said statement was recorded on 16.05.08 and admitted that in his above statement, he told the CBI that he was a frequent visitor to the SLUM and JJ Department. He voluntarily stated that he used to visit all the government department and he visited these departments in connection with his above business/work. He denied the suggestion that in his above statement he also told the CBI that there was one Darshan Lal who used to work for Ashok Malhotra and the said Darshan Lal also used to visit the SLUM and JJ Department. He denied the suggestion that he had also told CBI that officials working there namely Sh. S.C. Garg, Atul, Toppo and Purshottam were personally known to him as he used to frequently visit their office at S-13, Punarwas Bhawan, Vikas Kutir, ITO, New Delhi or that he used to get the work of other people related to this office done from these officials. He denied the suggestion that he had also told CBI that both Atul and S.C. Garg, as per his knowledge, were doing similar work for different areas which were to be demolished and relocated or that they both were charging Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- for preparing the challan for other genuine allottees. He denied the suggestion that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 93 of 522 he had told CBI that he could recognize the ration card through its colour or that ration cards got printed by him had been made old by him as he used to make them appear old by pouring tea on them. He denied the suggestion that he had told CBI that he had given these ration cards during the period from 2004-2006. He denied the suggestion that he had told CBI that one person namely Sh. Masterji whom he met at Punarwas Bhawan used to sell the plots of Ashok Malhotra. He denied the suggestion that he had told CBI that he had got about 400-500 ration cards printed @ Rs. 25/- per ration card and about same number of Delhi Admn ID cards @ Rs. 2 per ID cards printed from Panditji. He voluntarily stated that only about 100 Delhi Administration Cards were got printed by him from Kamod Jha @ Panditji at the asking of Darshan Lal. He stated that he cannot identify any of the accused persons present in the court today to be amongst the persons who used to meet him in the office at Punarwas Bhawan at Vikas Kutir, ITO, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo in the court today as they are well known to him and he is having old friendly relations with them. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely qua the said accused as he wants to help them wriggle out of the present case.
3.25 PW-25 Sh. Sanjiv Handa, Assistant Account Officer (Officiating), Vikas Kutir, ITO, Delhi deposed that in 2007 he was working as UDC in Slum and JJ Department and was associated with the same since 1991. He deposed that he was promoted to the rank of UDC in the year 2002 and that he knows CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 94 of 522 Sh. S. N. S. Sidhu the then Director SUR, Sh. Philip Toppo, the then Dy. Director, Sh. S. C. Garg (since expired), the then Assistant Director, Sh. Atul Vashisht the then UDC in SUR department (correctly identified). He depsoed that he can identify the signatures of accused S. N. S.Sidhu, Philip Toppo and S. C. Garg (since expired) on the documents as he was dealing with the personal files of above officials.
Upon being shown parchis (D32) bearing name of Mahavir Pandit S/o Ramji Pandit alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-32, Savda Ghevara i.e. Ex. PW4/A1 and Ex. PW4/A2, he deposed that both the parchis bear the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1398 and Q1401.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1404 and Q1407 on parchis Ex. PW4/A3 and Ex. PW4/A4 bearing name of Ravinder Kumar S/o Kishan Singh and reflecting the plot no. F-5, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1410 and Q1413 on parchis Ex. PW4/A5 and Ex. PW4/A6 bearing name of Hari Shankar S/o Bhagwat Singh alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-33, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1416 and Q1419 on parchis Ex. PW4/A7 and Ex. PW4/A8 bearing name of Kameshwar Mehto S/o Anand Mehto alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-30, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1422 and Q1425 on parchis Ex. PW4/A9 and Ex. PW4/A10 bearing name of Ansar S/o Ali alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-17, Savda Ghevara.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 95 of 522 Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1434 and Q1437 on parchis Ex. PW4/A11 and Ex. PW4/A12 bearing name of Harinder S/o Musafir alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-15, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1428 and Q1431 on parchis Ex. PW4/A13 and Ex. PW4/A14 bearing name of Prabhu Dayal S/o Narayan alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-31, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1440 and Q1443 on parchis Ex. PW4/A15 and Ex. PW4/A16 bearing name of Sabir S/o Iman Bux alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-12, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1446 and Q1449 on parchis Ex. PW4/A17 and Ex. PW4/A18 bearing name of Bis Ram S/o Balloo alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-35, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1452 and Q1455 on parchis Ex. PW4/A19 and Ex. PW4/A20 bearing name of Kutbuddin S/o Jakir alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-9, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1458 and Q1461 on parchis Ex. PW4/A21 and Ex. PW4/A22 bearing name of Mohd Mukhtar S/o Mohd Muslim alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-42, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1464 and Q1467 on parchis Ex. PW4/A23 and Ex. PW4/A24 bearing name of Ramvir S/o Nanhey Lal alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-34, Savda Ghevara.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 96 of 522 Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1470 and Q1473 on parchis Ex. PW4/A25 and Ex. PW4/A26 bearing name of Sita Ram S/o Chander Parkash alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-37, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1476 and Q1479 on parchis Ex. PW4/A27 and Ex. PW4/A28 bearing name of Samsuddin S/o Samsul Haq alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-7, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1482 and Q1485 on parchis Ex. PW4/A29 and Ex. PW4/A30 bearing name of Arun Kumar S/o Burdeshwari Parsad alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-16, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1488 and Q1491 on parchis Ex. PW4/A31 and Ex. PW4/A32 bearing name of Kishan Lal S/o Gurdev alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-36, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1494 and Q1497 on parchis Ex. PW4/A33 and Ex. PW4/A34 bearing name of Hari S/o Swami Nath alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-40, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1500 and Q1503 on parchis Ex. PW4/A35 and Ex. PW4/A36 bearing name of Ashok Kumar S/o Charan Singh alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-14, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1506 and Q1509 on parchis Ex. PW4/A37 and Ex. PW4/A38 bearing name of Smt. Kushma Devi W/o Sarju Prasad CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 97 of 522 Salongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-6, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1512 and Q1515 on parchis Ex. PW4/A39 and Ex. PW4/A40 bearing name of Salik S/o Ram alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-11, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1518 and Q1521 on parchis Ex. PW4/A41 and Ex. PW4/A42 bearing name of Mohd Wasim S/o Mohd Said alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-13, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1524 and Q1527 on parchis Ex. PW4/A43 and Ex. PW4/A44 bearing name of Smt. Tarawati W/o Ram Shankar alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-39, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1530 and Q1533 on parchis Ex. PW4/A45 and Ex. PW4/A46 bearing name of Jai Singh S/o Bhagwati Parsad alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-10, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1536 and Q1539 on parchis Ex. PW4/A47 and Ex. PW4/A48 bearing name of Smt. Kalawati W/o late Sh. Bhola alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-38, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1542 and Q1545 on parchis Ex. PW4/A49 and Ex. PW4/A50 bearing name of Salim S/o Rashid alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-8, Savda Ghevara.
Similarly, he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at points Q1548 and Q1551 on parchis Ex. PW4/A51 and Ex. PW4/A52 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 98 of 522 bearing name of Arif S/o Mohd Tahir alongwith another parchi reflecting the plot no. F-41, Savda Ghevara.
He also identified the signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1554 and 1557 on Ex. PW4/B. Upon being shown Provisional Identification Slip (PIS) (D4) i.e. Ex. PW5/A1 in respect of Kameshwar Mehto pertaining to plot no. F-30, Savada Ghevara he identified the signatures of Philip Toppo at point Q548 on the PIS.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q580 on provisional identification slip (D5) i.e. Ex.PW5/B1 in respect of Prabhu Dayal S/o Narain pertaining to plot no. F-31, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q612 on provisional identification slip (D6) i.e. Ex.PW5/C1 in respect of Mahavir Pandit S/o Ramji Pandit pertaining to plot no. F-32, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q644 on provisional identification slip (D7) i.e. Ex.PW5/D1 in respect of Hari Shankar S/o Bhagwat Singh pertaining to plot no. F-33, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q677 on provisional identification slip (D8) i.e. Ex.PW5/E1 in respect of Ramvir S/o Nanhey Lal pertaining to plot no. F-34, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q709 on provisional identification slip (D9) i.e. Ex.PW5/F1 in respect of Bis Ram S/o Balloo pertaining to plot no. F-35, Savada Ghevara.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 99 of 522 Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q741 on provisional identification slip (D10) i.e. Ex.PW5/G1 in respect of Kishan Lal S/o Gurdev pertaining to plot no. F-36, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q774 on provisional identification slip (D11) i.e. Ex.PW5/H1 in respect of Sita Ram S/o Chander Prakash pertaining to plot no. F-37, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q806 on provisional identification slip (D12) i.e. Ex.PW5/I-1 in respect of Smt. Kalawati W/o late Sh. Bhola pertaining to plot no. F-38, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q839 on provisional identification slip (D13) i.e. Ex.PW5/J1 in respect of Smt. Tarawati W/o Ram Shankar pertaining to plot no. F-39, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q872 on provisional identification slip (D14) i.e. Ex.PW5/K1 in respect of Hari S/o Swaminath pertaining to plot no. F-40, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q905 on provisional identification slip (D15) i.e. Ex.PW5/L1 in respect of Arif S/o Mohd Tahir pertaining to plot no. F-41, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q938 on provisional identification slip (D16) i.e. Ex.PW5/M1 in respect of Mohd Mukhtar S/o Mohd Muslim pertaining to plot no. F-42, Savada Ghevara.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 100 of 522 Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q971 on provisional identification slip (D17) i.e. Ex.PW5/N1 in respect of Ravinder Kumar S/o Kishan Singh pertaining to plot no. F-5, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q971 on provisional identification slip (D18) i.e. Ex.PW5/O1 in respect of Smt. Kushma Devi W/o Sarjug Prasad pertaining to plot no. F-6, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1036 on provisional identification slip (D19) i.e. Ex.PW4/C1 in respect of Samsuddin S/o Samsul Haq pertaining to plot no. F-7, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1069 on provisional identification slip (D20) i.e. Ex.PW4/C2 in respect of Salim S/o Rashid pertaining to plot no. F-8, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1109 on provisional identification slip (D21) i.e. Ex.PW4/C3 in respect of Kutbuddin S/o Jakir pertaining to plot no. F-9, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1135 on provisional identification slip (D22) i.e. Ex.PW4/C4 in respect of Jai Singh S/o Bhagwati Prasad pertaining to plot no. F-10, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1167 on provisional identification slip (D23) i.e. Ex.PW4/C5 in respect of Salik S/o Ram pertaining to plot no. F-11, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1200 on provisional identification slip (D24) i.e. Ex.PW4/C6 in respect CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 101 of 522 of Sabir S/o Iman Bux pertaining to plot no. F-12, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1233 on provisional identification slip (D25) i.e. Ex.PW4/C7 in respect of Mohd Wasim S/o Mohd Said pertaining to plot no. F-13, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1266 on provisional identification slip (D26) i.e. Ex.PW4/C8 in respect of Ashok Kumar S/o Charan Singh pertaining to plot no. F-14, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1299 on provisional identification slip (D27) i.e. Ex.PW4/C9 in respect of Harinder S/o Musafir pertaining to plot no. F-15, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1332 on provisional identification slip (D28) i.e. Ex.PW4/C10 in respect of Arun Kumar S/o Burdeshwari Prasad pertaining to plot no. F-16, Savada Ghevara.
Similarly he identified signatures of Philip Toppo at Q1364 on provisional identification slip (D29) i.e. Ex.PW4/C11 in respect of Ansar S/o Ali pertaining to plot no. F-17, Savada Ghevara.
He also identified signatures of Pillip Toppo on point Q1560 & Q1561 on Ex. PW4/D1, Q1564 & Q1565 on Ex. PW4/D2, Q1568 & Q1569 on Ex. PW4/D3, Q1572 & Q1573 on Ex. PW4/D4, Q1576 & Q1577 on Ex. PW4/D5, Q1580 & Q1581 on Ex. PW4/D6, Q1584 & Q1585 on Ex. PW4/D7, Q1588 & Q1589 on Ex. PW4/D8, Q1592 & Q1593 on Ex. PW4/D9, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 102 of 522 Q1596 & Q1597 on Ex. PW4/D10, Q1600 & Q1601 on Ex. PW4/D11, Q1604 & Q1605 on Ex. PW4/D12, Q1608 & Q1609 on Ex. PW4/D13, Q1612 & Q1613 on Ex. PW4/D14, Q1616 & Q1617 on Ex. PW4/D15, Q1620 & Q1621 on Ex. PW4/D16, Q1624 & Q1625 on Ex. PW4/D17, Q1628 & Q1629 on Ex. PW4/D18, Q1632 & Q1633 on Ex. PW4/D19, Q1636 & Q1637 on Ex. PW4/D20, Q1640 & Q1641 on Ex. PW4/D21, Q1644 & Q1645 on Ex. PW4/D22, Q1648 & Q1649 on Ex. PW4/D23, Q1652 & Q1653 on Ex. PW4/D24, Q1656 & Q1657 on Ex. PW4/D25 and Q1660 & Q1661 on Ex. PW4/D26.
3.26 PW-26 Sh. A. P. Mitra deposed that he had retired as Accounts Officer from Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) on 30.09.2012 and was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer during August 2006 to February 2008. He deposed that he was working under Sr. Account Officer, HQs namely Sh. Rama Chandran V. Upon being shown Ex. PW8/A (D52), he identified the signatures of Sr. Account Officer, HQs namely Sh. Rama Chandran V. at point A on the same and also identified his signatures on Mark PW8/1-colly (5 sheets). He also identified his initials at points 'Y' and initial of Sr. Account Officer, HQs Sh. Rama Chandran V. at points X on all pages on Mark PW8/1- colly. He further identified the original relating to Mark PW8/1, i.e. cash book, SBI, Squatter dated 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 Ex. PW26/A-colly. He deposed that the entries contained in Ex. PW26/A-colly pertain to the deposit of Rs. 7,000/- by individual on account of security and license fee vide their respective receipt numbers with date.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 103 of 522 3.27 PW-27 Sh. K.S. Mehra, retired Principal Secretary, Environment & Forest, Govt. of Delhi and deposed that he was posted as Commissioner MCD from 20.02.2008 till 02.05.2012 and had accorded sanction U/s 19 of PC Act for the prosecution of officials being the competent authority. He deposed that he had accorded the sanction qua Philip Toppo & Atul Vashisht vide Ex. PW27/A and Ex. PW27/B respectively after application of mind and considering the relevant documents. He further deposed that he was the competent authority for the removal of the aforesaid officials who were working with Slum & JJ Department and the same was under administrative control of MCD. He further deposed that before granting the sanction, he had gone through circumstances of the case and material placed before him including FIR, statement of witnesses, CFSL opinion, GEQD opinion, statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and documents collected during the course of investigation in respect of allegations. He deposed that he had accorded sanction for prosecution U/s 120B r/w 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof or any other offence made out of the said facts and circumstances. He deposed that he had perused section of offences from Acts before according sanction.
3.28 PW-28 Mohd Arif deposed that he has been residing at E-7/35, Block-E, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi since 2004 and the said plothas been allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 104 of 522 plot, he had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 16556 dated 04.08.2004 i.e. Ex. PW28/A. He deposed that after depositing of Rs. 7,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 77 dated 05.08.2004 i.e. Ex. PW28/B in respect of plot No. E-735, Bawana by Slum & JJ Department, MCD, as he was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta.
He further deposed that before shifting to E-735, Block No. E, Bawana, Delhi, he was residing at C-8/230, Gautam Puri- II, Delhi and at this address, he had been issued a ration card by the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that at the time of shifting to Bawana, he had to deposit back the ration card bearing no. 38935 dated 26.04.1991 i.e. Ex. PW28/C issued at C-8/230, Gautam Puri-II, Delhi address to the Food & Supply Department.
He also identified photocopy of voter I card No. HDS0651661 dated 20.04.2002 i.e. Ex. PW28/D as was issued to him by the Election Commission of India at C-8/230, Gautam Puri-II, Delhi. He deposed that he had to deposit back the original voter I card to the Election Commission when he shifted to Bawana from Gautam Puri. Upon being shown the photocopy of ration card No. APL22610256 dated 27.02.2007 i.e. Ex. PW28/E, he identified the same as was issued to him when he shifted to E-735, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi.
He deposed that provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/L1 was not issued to him though it bears his and his father's name. He deposed that Ex. PW5/L1 does not bear his thumb impression and the address mentioned thereon does not belong to him and it also does not bear his handwriting or signature. He further deposed that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/L2 was not issued CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 105 of 522 to him though it bears his name & address and that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/L4 does not belong to him and it does not bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression. He further deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/L4 is not his photograph, though it bears his and his father's name. He further deposed that ration card No. 205633 dated 05.03.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/L3 has not been issued to him and it does not bear his thumb impression. He deposed that Ex. PW5/L3 does not contain the correct details of his family members and that Shakeela & Farida, the names appearing at point A on Ex. PW5/L3 are not his family members and the photograph appearing at point B on Ex. PW5/L3 is not his photograph. He deposed that Ex. PW5/L5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures & thumb impression and that he does not know any person by the name of Salim S/o Rashid, C-8/422, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing at point A on Ex. PW5/L5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-41, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that he has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/L3, Ex. PW5/L4 and Ex. PW5/L5. He deposed that he has never executed GPA Ex. PW5/L6, agreement to sell & purchase Ex. PW5/L7, affidavit Ex. PW5/L8, Will Ex. PW5/L9, possession letter Ex. PW5/L10 with respect to Plot No. F-41, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi and they do not bear his handwriting, signature and thumb impression. He deposed that Ex. PW5/L1 to Ex. PW5/L10 are CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 106 of 522 forged & fabricated documents made in his, his father's name and address.
3.29 PW-29 Sh. Sabir deposed that he has been residing at R/o B-1035, Holambi Kalan, Metro Vihar, Delhi since 2004 and the said plot has been allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this plot, he had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 11765 dated 13.02.2004 i.e. Ex. PW29/A and after depositing Rs. 7,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 94 dated 13.02.2004 Ex. PW29/B in respect of plot No. 1035, Block-B, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II by Slum & JJ Department, MCD, as he was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta. He deposed that before shifting to 1035, Block-B, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Delhi, he was residing at C-8/222, Gautam Puri- II, New Delhi and had been issued ration card No. BPL03141133 dated 18.06.2002 (2 pages) Ex. PW29/C at the said address by the Food & Supply Department which, at the time of shifting to Holambi Kalan, he had to deposit back to the Food & Supply Department. He further deposed that Delhi Administration I Card No. 036907 Ex. PW29/D was issued to him by the Delhi Administration in respect of address C-8/222, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi and that the ration card with respect to his present address, i.e. B-1035, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, New Delhi has not been issued by the concerned department, though he has already applied for the same. He deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW4/C6 was not issued to him though it bears his & his father's name and that it does not bear his hand CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 107 of 522 writing, thumb impression or signature and the address mentioned thereon does not belong to him. He further deposed that Form G8A Ex. PW5/U-2, was not issued to him though it bears his name and address. He deposed that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/U4 does not belong to him nor does it bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression and the photograph appearing on the same is not his photograph, though it bears his & his father's name. He deposed that the ration card No. 117582 dated 03.02.1997 Ex. PW5/U3 was not issued to him and does not bear his thumb impression nor does it contain the correct details of his family members. He deposed that Rukhsana and Chand, the names appearing on Ex. PW5/U3 are not his family members and the photograph appearing on the same is not his photograph. He deposed that Ex. PW5/U5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures & thumb impression and that he does not know any person by the name of Mohar Ali S/o Sh. Shehzad, C-8/335, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/U5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-12, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that that he has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/U3, Ex. PW5/U4 and Ex. PW5/U5. He deposed that he has never executed GPA Ex. PW5/U6, agreement to sell and purchase Ex. PW5/U7, affidavit Ex. PW5/U8, deed of will Ex. PW5/U9 and possession letter Ex. PW5/U10 with respect to Plot No. F-12, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi and that the said CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 108 of 522 documents do not bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression. He deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Mohar Ali and that the documents Ex. PW4/C6, Ex. PW5/U2 to Ex. PW5/U10 are forged & fabricated documents made in his & father's name and address.
3.30 PW-30 Sh. Bisram deposed that he has been residing at B-819, Block No. B, Holambi Kalan Phase II, New Delhi since 2004 and the said plot has been allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this plot, he had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 10806 dated 22.01.2004 i.e. Ex. PW30/A and after depositing of Rs. 7,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 98 dated 13.02.2004 Ex. PW30/B in respect of plot No. 819, Block B, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II by Slum & JJ Department, MCD, as I was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri- II, Yamuna Pushta. He deposed that before shifting to 819, Block-B, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, New Delhi, he was residing at 305/145, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi and at this address, he had been issued a ration card No. 085296 dated 22.12.1995 Ex. PW30/C by the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that at the time of shifting to Holambi Kalan, he had to deposit back the said ration card to the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that ration card No. APL54471354 i.e. Ex. PW30/D was issued at the address of B-819, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Delhi-110082 by the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that electricity bill dated 01.09.2006 Ex. PW30/E issued in the name of Bisram R/o B-819, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Phase-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 109 of 522 II, Delhi-82 was raised for the electricity consumed by him at the given address and that application Ex. PW30/F regarding single point delivery connection serial No. 723 dated 10.07.2006 was submitted by him regarding the deposit of Rs. 1850/- for the electricity connection in his name at the said address. He deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW5/F1 was not issued to him though it bears his & his father's name and that it does not bear his thumb impression or handwriting or signature and that the address mentioned thereon does not belong to him. He deposed that Form G8 Ex. PW5/F2 was not issued to him though it bears his name & address and that Ex. PW5/F4 is not his Delhi Administration I Card nor it bears his handwriting, signature & thumb impression and that the photograph appearing on the same is not his photograph, though it bears his and his father's name.
He deposed that ration card No. 117527 dated 22.02.1997 Ex. PW5/F3 was not issued to him nor does it bear his thumb impression and that it does not contain the correct details of his family members. He deposed that Kanta, the name appearing on Ex. PW5/F3 is not his family member and The photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/F3 is not his photograph. He deposed that Ex. PW5/F5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures & thumb impression and that he does not know any person by the name of Bhim Yadav S/o Ram Raj, R/o C-8/404, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/F5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-35, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that he has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 110 of 522 he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/F3, Ex. PW5/F4 and Ex. PW5/F5.
He deposed that he has never executed GPA Ex. PW5/F6, agreement to sell & purchase Ex. PW5/F7, affidavit Ex. PW5/F8, deed of will Ex. PW5/F9 & possession letter Ex. PW5/F10 with respect to Plot No. F-35, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi. He deposed that Ex. PW5/F6 does not bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression, does not know any person by the name of Bhim Yadav and that the documents Ex. PW5/F1 to Ex. PW5/U10 are forged & fabricated documents made in his & his father's name and address.
3.31 PW-31 Sh. Prabhu Dayal deposed that he has been residing at the C-299, Phase II, Holambi Kalan, Delhi since 2004 and the said plot has been allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this plot, he had deposited Rs. 3,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 11860 dated 13.02.2004 i.e. Ex. PW31/A and after depositing Rs. 3,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 151 dated 13.02.2004 Ex. PW31/B in respect of the said plot by Slum & JJ Department, MCD, as he was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta. He deposed that before shifting to 299, Block-C, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Delhi, he was residing at C-8A/476, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi and at this address, he was issued ration card No. BPL03250084 dated 18.06.2002 i.e. Ex. PW31/C by the Food & Supply Department which, at the time of shifting to Holambi Kalan, he had to deposit back with the Food & Supply Department. He further deposed CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 111 of 522 that voter I Card No. DL/01/003/ 192639 i.e. Ex. PW31/C was issued in his name at the address of C-8A/476, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi by the Election Commission of India. He identified his photograph and signatures on the ration card and election I card.
He further deposed that ration card bearing No. BPL54560376 dated 13.10.2008 i.e. Ex. PW31/E with respect to his present address, i.e. C-299, Block C, Holambi Kalan, Phase- II, New Delhi was issued by the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW5/B1 was not issued to him though it bears his & his father's name and that it does not bear his thumb impression, handwriting or signatures and the address mentioned thereon does not belong to him. He deposed that Form G8A Ex. PW5/B2 was not issued to him though it bears his name and address. He deposed that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/B4 does not belong to him, it does not bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression and the photograph appearing on the sameis not his photograph, though it bears his & his father's name.
He deposed that ration card No. 330347 dated 15.06.1997 Ex. PW5/B3 was not been issued to him, it does not bear his thumb impression and does not contain the correct details of his family members. He deposed that Shanti, Inderjeet and Sunder, the names appearing on Ex. PW5/B3 are not his family members and the photograph appearing on the same is not his photograph.
He deposed that Ex. PW5/B5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures & thumb impression and that he does not know any person by the name of Suresh S/o Sh. Bachu Prasad, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 112 of 522 C-8/C-256, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/B5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-31, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that he has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/B3, Ex. PW5/B4 and Ex. PW5/B5.
He deposed that he has never executed GPA Ex. PW5/B6, agreement to sell & purchase Ex. PW5/B7, affidavit Ex. PW5/B8, deed of Will Ex. PW5/B9 and possession letter Ex. PW5/B10 with respect to Plot No. F-31, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi and that the said documents does not bear his handwriting, signature and thumb impression. He deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Suresh and Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B10 are forged & fabricated documents made in his, his father's name and address.
3.32 PW-32 Sh. Kamod Jha deposed that he is working as a priest since 1998 at Laxmi Narain Mandir in Budh Vihar, Phase-I and prior to that, he was working as compositor in Somson Printing Works at Gole Market, New Delhi from the year 1980/1981 till 1993/1994 and during the period around 1993/1994 till he took the work of priest, he was getting the printing and other job works done on commission basis. He deposed that he knows Chob Singh who used to visit the above Mandir regularly as a devotee as he used to reside in Sector 24, Rohini and that he visited his house only once in connection with CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 113 of 522 performing some puja (hawan) in the year 2003/2004. He deposed that around the year 2006/2007 Chob Singh approached him for getting photocopied one blank ration card of old format, though during the said year the above format of ration card was not in use. He deposed that he took Chob Singh and the above blank ration card to some photocopiest, who told that it was not possible to get the above ration card copied as it was in a booklet format and then he went to one computer shop, from where he was getting his printing work designed and the person computer shop told him that he will scan the above ration card, give a copy thereof on butter paper and then he could get that ration card printed from screen printing press. He deposed that the name of the computer shop owner was Anil and he was running his shop at Mangolpuri Khurd area, but he does not now remember the name of his shop. He deposed that after getting a copy of the above format of ration card printed on butter paper from the shop of Anil, he went to the shop of one Titu who was running a screen printing press in Mangolpuri Kalan, got printed around 100 copies of the above ration card through screen printing and handed over the same to Sh. Chob Singh. He deposed that after around 2-3 months thereof, he also got some more copies of the above ration card printed from the above screen printing shop of Titu at the instance of Sh. Chob Singh and thus, he had got printed around 350-400 copies of ration card in total. He deposed that he used to pay around Rs.20/- per ration card to Titu and he used to charge around Rs.25/- per card from Chob Singh. He deposed that the serial numbers on some ration cards were also initially put by him with the help of a small metallic CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 114 of 522 numbering machine, but since this process was not clean and effective, he asked Chob Singh to get the serial numbers printed on the said cards himself. He deposed that he had initially asked Chob Singh as to how he was getting printed the above ration cards, which were government documents, but he gave him an excuse that some jhuggies had been burnt in fire, the jhuggi dwellers are not able to get ration and some officer in the Food and Supply Deptt had asked him to get those ration cards printed. On being inquired by the court he stated that he was told by Chob Singh that he was working in some Food and Supply office near ITO. He further deposed that besides the above ration card, he had also got printed some blank Delhi Administration Identity Cards for Sh. Chob Singh from the above screen printing press of Mr. Titu and upon being shown 26 ration cards Ex.PW5/A3 (Part of D4), Ex.PW5/B3 (Part of D5), Ex.PW5/C3 (Part of D6), Ex.PW5/D3 (Part of D7), Ex.PW5/E3 (Part of D8), Ex.PW5/F3 (Part of D9), Ex.PW5/G3 (Part of D10), Ex.PW5/H3 (Part of D11), Ex.PW5/I3 (Part of D12), Ex.PW5/J3 (Part of D13), Ex.PW5/K3 (Part of D14), Ex.PW5/L3 (Part of D15), Ex.PW5/M3 (Part of D16), Ex.PW5/N3 (Part of D17), Ex.PW5/O3 (Part of D18), Ex.PW5/P3 (Part of D19), Ex.PW5/Q3 (Part of D20), Ex.PW5/R3 (Part of D21), Ex.PW5/S3 (Part of D22), Ex.PW5/T3 (Part of D23), Ex.PW5/U3 (Part of D24), Ex.PW5/V3 (Part of D25), Ex.PW5/W3 (Part of D26), Ex.PW5/X3 (Part of D27), Ex.PW5/Y3 (Part of D28), Ex.PW5/Z3 (Part of D29) and 26 Delhi Administration Identity Cards Ex.PW5/A4 (Part of D4), Ex.PW5/B4 (Part of D5), Ex.PW5/C4 (Part of D6), Ex.PW5/D4 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 115 of 522 (Part of D7), Ex.PW5/E4 (Part of D8), Ex.PW5/F4 (Part of D9), Ex.PW5/G4 (Part of D10), Ex.PW5/H4 (Part of D11), Ex.PW5/I-4 (Part of D12), Ex.PW5/J4 (Part of D13), Ex.PW5/K4 (Part of D14), Ex.PW5/L4 (Part of D15), Ex.PW5/M4 (Part of D16), Ex.PW5/N4 (Part of D17), Ex.PW5/O4 (Part of D18), Ex.PW5/P4 (Part of D19), Ex.PW5/Q4 (Part of D20), Ex.PW5/R4 (Part of D21), Ex.PW5/S4 (Part of D22), Ex.PW5/T4 (Part of D23), Ex.PW5/U4 (Part of D24), Ex.PW5/V4 (Part of D25), Ex.PW5/W4 (Part of D26), Ex.PW5/X4 (Part of D27), Ex.PW5/Y4 (Part of D28) and Ex.PW5/Z4 (Part of D29), he stated that the same were got printed by him at the instance of Chob Singh from the printing press of Titu. He further deposed that Chob Singh had initially told him that he had a letter from his office qua getting these I-cards and ration cards printed, however, he never provided him any such letter.
3.33 PW-33 Smt. Kalawati deposed that she is residing at 1095, B Block, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Delhi-110082 for the last so many years and the said plot was allotted in her name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. She deposed that for the allotment of this plot, she had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 12055 dated 19.02.2004 i.e. Ex. PW33/A and after depositing Rs. 7,000/-, she was issued identification slip No. 103 dated 19.02.2004 i.e. Ex. PW33/B in respect of the said plot by Slum & JJ Department, MCD as she was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta. She deposed that before shifting to the said plot she was residing at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 116 of 522 C-8/332, Gautam Puri-II, Delhi and at this address, she was issued ration card No. APL54470948 dated 17.07.2005 i.e. Ex. PW33/C by the Food & Supply Department and at the time of shifting to Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, she had to deposit back the said ration card to the Food & Supply Department. She identified her thumb impression and photograph on the same.
She further deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW5/I-1 was not issued to her though it bears her & her husband's name and it does not bear her thumb impression at point Q169 and the address mentioned thereon does not belong to her. She deposed that Ex. PW5/I-1 does not bear her handwriting, thumb impression or signature. She deposed that Form G8A Ex. PW5/I-2 was not issued to her though it bears her name and address.
She deposed that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/I-4 does not bear her handwriting, signature and thumb impression at point Q170 and the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/I-4 is not her photograph, though it bears her & her husband's name.
She deposed that ration card No. 294841 dated 12.01.1997 Ex. PW5/I-3 was not issued to her and it does not bear her thumb impression at point Q171 and the photograph appearing at the same is not her photograph.
She deposed that Ex. PW5/I-5 does not contain her handwriting, signatures and thumb impression at Q173 and Q174. She deposed that she does not know any person by the name of Tarawati W/o Sh. Rama Shankar, C-8/429, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi and the photograph appearing at point X3 on Ex. PW5/I-5 is not her photograph. She deposed that Plot No. F-38, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 117 of 522 measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi does not belong to her and that she has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot. She deposed that she does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/I-5.
She deposed that GPA Ex. PW5/I-6, agreement to sell and purchase Ex. PW5/I-7, affidavit Ex. PW5/I-8, deed of Will Ex. PW5/I-9, possession letter Ex. PW5/I-10 with respect to Plot No. F-38, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi do not bear her handwriting, signature or thumb impression at points Q175, Q176 & Q178, Q179, Q180 & Q182, Q183, Q184 & Q185, Q187 and Q189 respectively. She deposde that the documents Ex. PW5/I-1 to Ex. PW5/I-10 are forged & fabricated documents made in her, her husband's name and address.
3.34 PW-34 Sh. Kameshwar Mehto deposed that he is residing at E-687, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 since 2004 and the said plot was allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this plot, he had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 15807 dated 10.06.2004 i.e. Ex. PW34/A and after depositing Rs. 7,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 66 dated 10.06.2004 Ex. PW34/B in respect of the said plot by Slum & JJ Department, MCD as he was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta. He deposed that before shifting to the said plot, he was residing at 319-A, Gautam Puri-II, Delhi and at this address, he was issued ration card bearing No. 163103 dated 13.12.1996 Ex. PW34/C by the Food & Supply CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 118 of 522 Department as well as election I Card by the Election Commission of India bearing No. HDS0654350 Ex. PW34/D and that at the time of shifting to E-687, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039, he had to deposit back the said ration card to the Food & Supply Department. He deposed that after shifting to E-687 he was issued a new election I Card by the Election Commission of India bearing No. KQF1994771 Ex. PW34/E on the said address. He deposed that ration card No. 03140019 dated 20.01.2002 i.e. Ex. PW34/F was issued to him when he shifted to Bawana address and that he had deposited the original of Ex. PW34/F in the Food & Supply Department office and the Food & Supply Department has issued him a new ration card bearing No. 077003319528 in place of Ex. PW34/F on the address of E-687, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 ie. Ex. PW34/G. He deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW5/A-1 was not issued to him though it bears his & his father's name, it does not bear his thumb impression at point Q1 or his handwriting or signatures and the address mentioned thereon does not belong to him. He deposed that Form G8A Ex. PW5/A-2 was not issued to him though it bears his name and address.
He deposed that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/A-4 does not belong to him and it does not bear his handwriting, signature and thumb impression at point Q2. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/A-4 is not his photograph, though Ex. PW5/A-4 bears his & his father's name.
He deposed that ration card No. 330318 dated 21.06.1997 Ex. PW5/A-3was not issued to him and it does not bear his CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 119 of 522 thumb impression at point Q3. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/A-3 is not his photograph and it does not contain the correct details of his family members. He deposed that Bhishma Devi, Vinay, Shanti and Jitender are not his family members as mentioned at point Q555.
He deposed that Ex. PW5/A-5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures & thumb impression at point Q6 & Q5 and that he does not know any person by the name of Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o C-8/310, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing at point X3 on Ex. PW5/A-5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-30, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that he has never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/A-5.
He deposed that he never executed GPA Ex. PW5/A-6, agreement to sell & purchase Ex. PW5/A-7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/A-8, deed of Will Ex. PW5/A-9 and possession letter Ex. PW5/A-10 with respect to Plot No. F-30, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi and the said documents do not bear his handwriting, signature or thumb impression at point Q7, Q8 & Q10, Q11, Q12 & Q14, Q15, Q16 & Q17, Q19 and Q21 respectively. He deposed that Ex. PW5/A-1 to Ex. PW5/A-10 are forged & fabricated documents made in his, his father's name and address.
3.35 PW-35 Sh. Anil Madhwan deposed that he has been CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 120 of 522 working in the field of designing of marriage card, print book, letter pad, visiting card etc. since the year 2000 and got training from the Capital Institute, Naharpur, Sector-7, New Delhi. He deposed that he was called by CBI officers in their office at Lodhi Road and they enquired from him about the printing of ration card and Delhi Administration I-card. He deposed that he told them that one Kamod Jha @ Panditji used to come at his shop at Mangolpur Khurd and asked him to prepare scanned copy of marriage card. He deposed that one day, he again came and asked him to prepare scanned copy of Delhi Administration I-card and ration card on butter paper. He deposed that he asked him not to bring such type of work whereupon he replied that he got authority letter on letter head, but he had forgot to bring the same from his house. He deposed that he paid Rs.1200/- for the above work, which also included previous balance payment.
Upon being shown D4 to D29 i.e. 26 ration cards and 26 I- cards of Delhi Administration Ex. PW5/A3 & Ex. PW5/A4, Ex. PW5/B3 & Ex. PW5/B4, Ex. PW5/C3 & Ex. PW5/C4, Ex. PW5/D3 & Ex. PW5/D4, Ex. PW5/E3 & Ex. PW5/E4, Ex. PW5/F3 & Ex. PW5/F4, Ex. PW5/G3 & Ex. PW5/G4, Ex. PW5/H3 & Ex. PW5/H4, Ex. PW5/I-3 & Ex. PW5/I-4, Ex. PW5/J3 & Ex. PW5/J4 & Ex. PW5/K3 & Ex. PW5/K4, Ex. PW5/L3 & Ex. PW5/L4, Ex. PW5/M3 & Ex. PW5/M4, Ex. PW5/N3 & Ex. PW5/N4, Ex. PW5/O3 & Ex. PW5/O4, Ex. PW5/P3 & Ex. PW5/P4, Ex. PW5/Q3 & Ex. PW5/Q4, Ex. PW5/R3 & Ex. PW5/R4, Ex. PW5/S3 & Ex. PW5/S4, Ex. PW5/T3 & Ex. PW5/T4, Ex. PW5/U3 & Ex. PW5/U4, Ex. PW5/V3 & Ex. PW5/V4, Ex. PW5/W3 & Ex. PW5/W4, Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 121 of 522 PW5/X3 & Ex. PW5/X4, Ex. PW5/Y3 & Ex. PW5/Y4 Ex. PW5/Z3 & Ex. PW5/Z4 respectively, he deposed that he had prepared scanned copy of one page only. He deposed that he knew the said Kamod Jha @ panditji for the last 7-8 years as he was acquainted with palmistry also.
3.36 PW-36 Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that in the year 2007, he was working as Admn. Officer in the office of LIC of India, Zonal Office, Connaught Place, New Delhi and in the year 2007, he had attended the office of CBI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road as per directions of his senior officers. He deposed that he accompanied the CBI team to Nehru Vihar, Delhi at the residential premises of Mohan Lal and there CBI officials conducted searches and certain documents were seized vide seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 Ex. PW36/A. He identified his initials on documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 (D32) mentioned in seizure memo at serial No. 114 Ex. PW36/A and document Ex. PW4/B (part of D32) mentioned in seizure memo at serial No. 114 Ex. PW36/A. 3.37 PW-37 Sh. Harish Chander Vats deposed that he was posted in SUR Slum & JJ Department, MCD from February 1972 to 30.06.2013 and he was posted as Assistant Director, SUR Section, Slum & JJ Department, Vikas Kutir from 01.05.2008 till 2009. He deposed that he is acquainted with the system and procedure adopted at the time of allotment of plots to the beneficiaries of the cluster for their relocation at various resettlement schemes of Delhi Government/Government of India.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 122 of 522 He deposed that first, an application was received from the land agencies to the Slum Department, MCD regarding the rehabilitation of beneficiaries residing in JJ Cluster, then a joint survey was carried out by the staff of land owning agency and staff of Slum Department, MCD, then a report about the joint survey was submitted to the Slum Department, MCD, then in view of the orders of the Ministry of Urban Development and as per the directions passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition, residential plots measuring 12.5 meters and 18 meters were allotted to the dwellers of JJ Cluster. He deposed that the dwellers of the JJ Clusters residing there from 1990 were allotted residential plots measuring 18 meters and the dwellers of JJ Clusters residing there from 1998 were allotted residential plots measuring 12.5 meters. He deposed that the scheme is funded from three sources namely land owning agency, plan support and beneficiaries share. He deposed that in the case of 18 sq meters plots, the land owning agency is supposed to pay Rs. 29,000/- per plot, the plan support is Rs. 10,000/- and beneficiaries share is Rs. 5,000/-, while for 12.5 sq meters plots, the land owning agency's share is Rs. 20,000/- and the plan support and beneficiaries share is the same as in the case of 18 sq meters plots and apart from this, the beneficiaries are supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as license fee for 10 years in advance @ Rs. 200/- per annum at the time of allotment. He deposed that the scheme namely relocation of squatters was formulated in the year 1992 on the basis of the guidelines of the Ministry of Urban Development. He deposed that the plan scheme was formulated by the Slum & JJ Department, wherein CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 123 of 522 broad parameters suggested by the Ministry of Urban Development and was got approved from Delhi Government on yearly basis. He deposed that Slum & JJ Department, MCD was the implementing agency of the relocation of squatters scheme on behalf of Delhi Government and under this scheme, only those squatters families are eligible whose encroached land is required by the concerned land owning agencies for implementation of project of public importance and those agencies have agreed to bear their due shares towards the cost of resettlement. He deposed that the allotment of land for relocation purpose on request of Slum & JJ Department was allotted either by DDA or directly by land and building department and the said land is taken over by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD from both the above said government departments. He deposed that after taking over, Slum & JJ Department develop the said land and after development, the said land was allotted to the beneficiaries in the form of plots measuring 18 meters and 12.5 meters. He deposed that during the joint survey by the staff of land owning agency and staff of Slum Department, MCD, information relating to name of head of family, jhuggi number, ration card number, election I card number, birth certificate and occupancy period etc was obtained and on the basis of that information, allotment was made. He deposed that Slum & JJ Department, MCD takes over the land of the beneficiaries and hand over the same to concerned land owning agency. He deposed that a committee constituted for the purpose of draw of plots conduct a draw for beneficiaries and after the computerized draw, the beneficiary has to deposit his share and Slum & JJ Department has to issue an allotment slip to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 124 of 522 the beneficiary. He deposed that the draw committee constituted, consisted of Sh. S. N. S. Sidhu, Director (SUR), Sh. Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director (SUR), Sh. S. K. Rastogi, Dy. Director (EDP), Sh. Jagbir Singh, Asstt. Director (Survey/Planning) and Concerned Dealing Asstt.
He deposed that vide letter dated 27.06.2008 alongwith its annexures (D46) i.e. Ex. PW37A (colly), written to Insp. S. S. Bhulla in reference to letter No. 4795/RC DAI 2007 A 0043 dated 01.05.2008 of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, he informed that efforts have been made to trace out the original file through which the manual draw was conducted and original allotment files/record in respect of 26 JJ dwellers of Gautam Puri and Yamuna Pushta, who have been allotted plots at F Block, Savda Ghevara are not available/ traceable. He deposed that it was also informed that original challans in respect of 26 JJ dwellers of aforesaid JJ Clusters through which an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited were enclosed with this letter. He deposed that the photocopy of the orders of draw committee and funding pattern for relocation plot were also enclosed with this letter.
He deposed that vide letter dated 07.08.2008 (D47) i.e. Ex. PW37/B, written to Insp. S. S. Bhullar in reference to letter No. F-10821/32/SUR/S&JJ/08/D149 dated 27.06.2008 he informed that inadvertently Rs. 29,000/- was typed instead of Rs. 10,000/- in item No. 3 from the plan earned from the Government of Delhi for 18.0 sq meters plot. He deposed that the same may be read as Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 29,000/-.
He deposed that vide letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith its annexures (D49) i.e. Ex. PW37/C (colly), written to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 125 of 522 SP/CBI/ACB S. K. Palsania, he informed that the original file through which the manual draw has been processed in respect of 46 persons of dwellers of Indira Nagar and others is not traceable. He deposed that he further informed that certified photocopy of noting page vide which approval had been given by the then Addl. Commissioner S&JJ, MCD dated 07.07.2006 to conduct draw of plot for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system was enclosed with the said letter.
He had identified circular No. PS/D.C.(S&JJ)/S/02/ 002/D24 dated 09.01.2002 (D51) i.e. Ex. PW37/D and note sheet (D50) Ex. PW37/E regarding the approval to conduct manual draw of plots for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system and if it is more than 50, then it should be conducted by computer cell which he had attested.
He deposed that vide letter dated 07.10.2008 (D61) i.e. Ex. PW37/F regarding the investigation of CBI case No. RC 43/07/DEI/CBI/New Delhi, written to Insp. S. S. Bhullar he informed that land owning agency of JJ Cluster removed/ relocated by Slum & JJ Department, MCD from Yamuna Pushta was DDA/PWD/L&DO and the jhuggis were removed for the purpose of rehabilitation and development of green under river Yamuna alongwith other informations.
3.38 PW-38 Sh. A. K. Verma deposed that he is posted as Assistant Law Officer in East Delhi Municipal Corporation and in December 2008 he was posted as Assistant Law Officer in Vigilance Department of Unified Corporation. He deposed that he had supplied two sets of sanction order (in original) duly CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 126 of 522 accorded by the competent authority in respect of Philip Toppo, Deputy Director and Atul Vashisht, the then UDC to the SP, CBI, ACB vide letter dated 03.03.2009 i.e. Ex. PW38/A. 3.39 PW-39 Sh. Deepak Arora deposed that he runs electronic items shop under the name & style of Arora Electronics in Ganj Bazar, Sardana, Meerut, UP since 2001. He deposed that Sh. Sanjay Jain is a friend of his younger brother Vineet Arora and that he directly does not have any relation with Ashok Jain, but he has visited his house 2-3 times. He deposed that although he is not sure about the nature of relationship between Sanjay Jain and Ashok Jain, but both of them may be relatives as both often came together at their residence. He deposed that he does not know as to what work Ashok Jain used to do. He correctly identified accused Ashok Jain the court. He deposed that in the intervening night of 15-16.08.2007, Ashok Jain had come to his residence and stated that he was going to Haridwar-Rishikesh and that there were two bags kept in his Alto car and it was not safe for him to carry those bags alongwith him to Haridwar-Rishikesh in his car, so he requested him to keep the said bags at his residence and he agreed to the same. He deposed that neither he told him nor he looked into the bags to ascertain what was there inside and he kept the bag in the store of his house. He deposed that thereafter, in September 2007, Ashok Jain again came to his house at about 10/11 AM alongwith some other persons who introduced themselves as CBI personnel and they asked him about the bags which were kept with him by Ashok Jain. He deposed that he took Ashok Jain and the CBI personnel CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 127 of 522 to the store where the bags were kept, Ashok Jain pointed out towards the said bags and stated that these were his bags and they picked them up. He deposed that they all came out in the drawing room alongwith the bags, they were opened in the drawing room and the same were containing many papers. He deposed that the CBI personnel started to check the papers and did the paper work qua the same till about 3-4 PM and thereafter, they drew the proceedings on a paper and got the same signed from him as well as Ashok Jain and others also in his presence. He deposed that thereafter, they left along with Ashok Jain as well as the papers and the bags. He identified pointing out cum seizure memo dated 07.09.2007 Ex. PW5/Y (D30) which contains the proceedings which were drawn in his presence at the time of recovery of bags and checking of the papers at his residence.
3.40 PW-40 Sh. Biri Singh deposed that presently, he is posted as Surveyor in Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi and in September 2003 he was posted as a Surveyor in Land & Development Office. He deposed that as a Surveyor, his job was to conduct survey of government land owned by Land & Development Office on the direction of competent authority. He deposed that vide Ex. PW13/A-colly (survey list of Gautam Puri-II, Hathiwalan Bagh), he was directed to conduct survey of Gautam Puri-II during the period 03.09.2003 to 19.09.2003 alongwith the officials of Sociology Division of Slum & JJ Department, MCD, Delhi. He deposed that the survey list was prepared on the spot and signed by him and the concerned officials of Sociology Division. He deposed CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 128 of 522 that the door to door survey of each jhuggi was conducted and the particulars of the jhuggi dwellers were recorded in the prescribed list of Slum & JJ Department, MCD/Sociology Division. He identified his signatures as well as that of Sh. B. L. Meena, Field Investigator on Ex. PW13/A-colly and deposed that Ex. PW13/A-colly was prepared on the spot after checking all the documents and the details are mentioned in Ex. PW13/A-colly.
3.41 PW-41 Sh. Satish Kumar Rastogi deposed that he has retired as Deputy Director, Electronic Data Processing, (EDP), DUSIB in the year 2013. He deposed that he joined MCD, Slum & JJ Department in the year 1990 as System Analyst and the post of System Analyst was later on re-designated as Deputy Director, EDP. He deposed that Slum & JJ Department was earlier with DDA and in the year 1992, it was transferred to MCD. He deposed that as Deputy Director, EDP, his job duty was the maintenance of the computers, preparation of computerized salary of employees and also the draw of plots of various resettlement schemes of MCD etc. He deposed that he had written letter dated 09.09.2008 alongwith its annexures (D54) Ex. PW41/A to Insp. of CBI S. S. Bhullar, enclosing with it the computer draw list of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II containing the names and other details of the eligible JJ dwellers as provided by SUR Section in whose names the plots were allotted at B & C block, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II and at E Block, Bawana etc. He identified his signatures as well as that of Neeru Mehandiratta and Praveen Sharma on the annexure, i.e. computer draw list as per data supplied by SUR Section.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 129 of 522 He deposed that as per the procedure adopted during the year 2007 for conducting the computerized draw in the Slum & JJ Department, MCD, the SUR Section through its Director supplied the data in respect of beneficiaries, i.e. JJ dwellers and plots to be allotted to them. He deposed that thereafter, the data was fed to the computer and the check list of beneficiaries and plots was printed separately and handed over to the SUR Section officials for checking. He deposed that thereafter, if any correction was pointed out by SUR Section in the check list, those corrections were incorporated in the computer and the final check list for beneficiaries and plots was printed out and again handed over to SUR Section for final checking/verifications & authentication and after finally checking & authentication, the check list duly signed by the SUR Section officials was supplied to computer section, the data of names of beneficiaries and plot numbers were randomized and the print out of the randomized list of beneficiaries and plots was placed before the draw committee. He deposed that the draw committee encircled and signed the initialization number for beneficiaries and plots randomly. He deposed that thereafter, the initializing random numbers of the beneficiaries and plots were fed to the computer to conduct the computerized draw. He deposed that the copies of the print outs of the draw list were placed before the draw committee members for their signatures. He deposed that thereafter, the copies of draw list duly signed by the draw committee members was handed over to the SUR Section for further necessary action at their end and the concerned file with signed draw list was sent back to Director, SUR. He deposed that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 130 of 522 as per office order dated 23.02.2005, part of Ex. PW37/A-colly, he was part of the draw committee for conducting draw of plots by SUR Cell and as per office order dated 23.02.2005, Sumer Chand Garg was not a member of the draw committee.
On being shown D32, the manual draw parchis/slips and draw list dated 09.03.2007 (Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 and Ex. PW4/B), he identified the signature of Philip Toppo at point A and Atul Vashisht at point B on all pages of D32, i.e. Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 and Ex. PW4/B, as he had worked with them and seen them writing & signing the documents.
3.42 PW-42 Sh. Jai Singh deposed that he is residing at B-585, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II, Metro Vihar, Delhi since 2004 and the said plot was allotted in his name by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. He deposed that for the allotment of this plot, he had deposited Rs. 7,000/- vide Form G8A, Serial No. 11862 dated 13.02.2004 i.e. Ex. PW42/A and after depositing Rs. 7,000/-, he was issued identification slip No. 126 dated 13.02.2004 Ex. PW42/B in respect of the said plot by Slum & JJ Department, MCD, as he was the eligible JJ dweller of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta. He deposed that before shifting to the said plot he was residing at C-8C/426/217, T- huts, Police Chowki, IP Estate, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi-2 and at this address, he was issued ration card bearing No. BPL03140565 dated 18.06.2002 Ex. PW42/C by the Food & Supply Department as well as an election I Card by the Election Commission of India bearing No. DL/01/003/192521 i.e. Ex. PW42/D and at the time of shifting to the said plot he had to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 131 of 522 deposit back the ration card issued at C-8C/426/217, Tea huts, Police Chowki, IP Estate, Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi-2 to the Food & Supply Department and election I card to the Election Commission of India and got the new election I card issued on the same address.
He deposed that after shifting to plot no. 585 he was issued a new election I Card by the Election Commission of India bearing No. XVX1094127 on the said address i.e. Ex. PW42/E. He deposed that ration card No. BPL54160062 dated 11.12.2008 Ex. PW42/F was issued to him when he shifted to Holambi Kalan.
He deposed that Delhi Administration I Card in his name bearing No. 216228 Ex. PW42/G was issued to him at the address of C-86/426, Gautam Puri-I and the same bears his signatures and photograph. He deposed that the original of the same was returned to MCD after the allotment of plot No. 585, Block No. B, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II.
He deposed that provisional identification slip Ex. PW4/C4 was not issued to him though it bears his & his father's name and it does not bear his signature, handwriting or thumb impression at point Q379 and the address mentioned therein does not belong to him.
He deposed that Form G8A Ex. PW5/S-2 was not issued to him though it bears his name and address.
He deposed that Delhi Administration I Card Ex. PW5/S-4 was not his and it does not bear his handwriting, signature & thumb impression at point Q1136. He further deposed that the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 132 of 522 photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/S-4 is not his photograph, though Ex. PW5/S-4 bears his & his father's name.
He deposed that ration card No. 364517 dated 16.06.1997 Ex. PW5/S-3,was not issued to him and it does not bear his thumb impression at point Q381. He deposed that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/S-3 is not his photograph and it does not contain the correct details of his family members as Ram Dulari is not his family member as mentioned at point Q1142.
He deposed that Ex. PW5/S-5 does not contain his handwriting, signatures and thumb impression at point Q383, Q384, Q1142 and Q1145 and that he does not know any person by the name of Naresh S/o Ram Bharose r/o 8/309, Yamuna Pushta, Delhi. He deposed that the photograph appearing at point X3 on Ex. PW5/S-5 is not his photograph and that Plot No. F-10, measuring 18 sq meters situated at F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi, does not belong to him. He deposed that he had never received Rs. 25,000/- from anybody against the sale of the above said plot and he does not know the person whose photographs are appearing on Ex. PW5/S-5.
He deposed that he did not execute GPA Ex. PW5/S-6, agreement to sell & purchase Ex. PW5/S-7, Affidavit Ex. PW5/S-8, deed of Will Ex. PW5/S-9 and possession letter Ex. PW5/S-10 with respect to Plot No. F-10, F Block, Savada Ghevara, New Delhi and they do not bear his handwriting, signature and thumb impression at point Q385, Q1148, Q386, Q1149, Q388, Q1151 & Q1152, Q389, Q1153, Q390, Q1154, Q392 & Q1156, Q393, Q1158, Q394, Q1159, Q395 & Q1160, Q397 & Q1162 and Q399 & Q1165 respectively. He deposed that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 133 of 522 Ex. PW4/C4, Ex. PW5/S2 to Ex. PW5/S-10 are forged & fabricated documents made in his name, his father's name and address.
3.43 PW-43 Sh. Deep Chand @ Titu deposed that in the year 2005-06, he was residing at H. No. 18, Patthar Market, Mangolpuri Kalan, Delhi and was working as screen printer. He deposed that he met Kamod Jha @ Panditji through Sh. Katyal for whom he used to do screen printing work and Kamod Jha @ Panditji firstly got printed from him 100 ration cards & 100 I- cards and paid Rs. 350/- for the said work and secondly 200 ration cards & 200 I-cards and he paid Rs. 1100/- for the said work, but now he does not remember the date, month and year of printing the said ration cards and I-cards. He deposed that initially, he refused to do the above said work, but he promised him that he will provide him the documents from the MCD authorizing the above said work.
Upon being shown 26 ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 (Part of D4), Ex.PW5/B3 (Part of D5), Ex.PW5/C3 (Part of D6), Ex.PW5/D3 (Part of D7), Ex.PW5/E3 (Part of D8), Ex.PW5/F3 (Part of D9), Ex.PW5/G3 (Part of D10), Ex.PW5/H3 (Part of D11), Ex.PW5/I3 (Part of D12), Ex.PW5/J3 (Part of D13), Ex.PW5/K3 (Part of D14), Ex.PW5/L3 (Part of D15), Ex.PW5/M3 (Part of D16), Ex.PW5/N3 (Part of D17), Ex.PW5/O3 (Part of D18), Ex.PW5/P3 (Part of D19), Ex.PW5/Q3 (Part of D20), Ex.PW5/R3 (Part of D21), Ex.PW5/S3 (Part of D22), Ex.PW5/T3 (Part of D23), Ex.PW5/U3 (Part of D24), Ex.PW5/V3 (Part of D25), CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 134 of 522 Ex.PW5/W3 (Part of D26), Ex.PW5/X3 (Part of D27), Ex.PW5/Y3 (Part of D28), Ex.PW5/Z3 (Part of D29) and 26 Delhi Administration Identity Cards Ex.PW5/A4 (Part of D4), Ex.PW5/B4 (Part of D5), Ex.PW5/C4 (Part of D6), Ex.PW5/D4 (Part of D7), Ex.PW5/E4 (Part of D8), Ex.PW5/F4 (Part of D9), Ex.PW5/G4 (Part of D10), Ex.PW5/H4 (Part of D11), Ex.PW5/I-4 (Part of D12), Ex.PW5/J4 (Part of D13), Ex.PW5/K4 (Part of D14), Ex.PW5/L4 (Part of D15), Ex.PW5/M4 (Part of D16), Ex.PW5/N4 (Part of D17), Ex.PW5/O4 (Part of D18), Ex.PW5/P4 (Part of D19), Ex.PW5/Q4 (Part of D20), Ex.PW5/R4 (Part of D21), Ex.PW5/S4 (Part of D22), Ex.PW5/T4 (Part of D23), Ex.PW5/U4 (Part of D24), Ex.PW5/V4 (Part of D25), Ex.PW5/W4 (Part of D26), Ex.PW5/X4 (Part of D27), Ex.PW5/Y4 (Part of D28) and Ex.PW5/Z4 (Part of D29) he deposed that said ration cards and I cards were printed by him at the instance of Kamod Jha @ Panditji.
3.44 PW-44 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao, Assistant Director & Scientist C, CFSL, Hyderabad deposed that he is post graduate in physics from Sri Venkateshwara University, Tirupati. He deposed that initially, he underwent on-the-job training for three years in the field of examination of documents, from the office of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla and possess 28 years of experience in the field of examination of documents and as an examiner of documents, he possess 15 years of experience. He deposed that as an expert witness, he has attended various Hon'ble courts of law as well as departmental CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 135 of 522 enquiries and has deposed in various cases of civil and criminal nature. He deposed that the documents of this case were examined by him when he was working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at GEQD, Hyderabad and in the year 2010, the office of GEQD merged with CFSL. He deposed that the documents in this case were forwarded by the Superintendent of Police Sh. Sumit Sharan, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter No. 8690/RC DAI 2007(A) 0043 dated 07.08.2008, to the GEQD Hyderabad, for examination and opinion. He deposed that the documents were received in the office on 13.08.2008 and later on allotted to him on the same day i.e. 13.08.2008 for his examination & opinion, after observing formalities of the office. He deposed that the documents which were examined by him were as follows:
The disputed writings marked Q547 to Q1661; the specimen writings marked S1 to S350 of various persons pertaining to RC 43(A)/2007-DLI and S145 to S192 of RC 34(A)/2007-DLI as well as S216 to S219 of RC 46(A)/2007-DLI
- as per the forwarding letter dated 07.08.2008.
S1 to S5 are of Sh. Philip Toppo, S6 to S177 are of Sh. Atul Vashisht, S178 to S229 are of Sh. Surjit Singh, S230 to S333 are of Sh. Lal Mani, S334 to S338 are of Sh. Vijay Kumar, S339 to S344 are of Sh. Lal Chand, S345 to S346 are of Sh. Rajeshwar Prasad, S347 to S350 are of Sh. Bijender Singh, S145 to S192 pertaining to RC 34(A)/2007 are of Sh. Ravinder Singh Sandhu and S216 to S219 pertaining to RC 46(A)/2007 are impressions from one small metallic machine make "CHANG CHENG 51" - as per the forwarding letter dated 07.08.2008.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 136 of 522 The said forwarding letter contains questionnaire at pages 2 to 6 as well as description of documents as Annexure A and also the details of persons at Annexure B in which there was description of specimen writings. A certificate by Sh. Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi authorizing the GEQD Hyderabad for examination of the documents is at page 7 of the said forwarding letter.
He deposed that on 01.09.2008, their office received specimen writings of Sh. Ravinder Singh Sandhu marked S145 to S192 pertaining to RC 46(A)/2007, vide letter dated 28.08.2008, forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi Sh. Vineet Agarwal, for facilitating examination of the documents. He deposed that he has examined the documents of this case utilizing lenses of various magnifications and has applied the basic principle of comparison which is 'like-with-like' comparison for examination of the disputed and standard writings. He deposed that he has independently examined the documents and arrived at his opinion which bears the number CH-165/2008 which is in 3 pages, dated 19.09.2008 and each of the 3 pages bears his signatures as well as the signature of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad, the then Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. He deposed that Sh. Y. Surya Prasad also examined the documents independently and agreed with his opinion. He deposed that the detailed reasons for his arriving at the opinion which are in 6 pages were also enclosed alongwith his opinion and each of these 6 pages bears his signatures. He deposed that after completion of his examination work, the opinion alongwith the reasons were forwarded to the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 137 of 522 Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide their office letter bearing No. CH-165/2008/3505 dated 19.09.2008, through speed post and this forwarding letter bears the signatures of the then Government Examiner of Questioned Documents Sh. Mohinder Singh. He deposed that his opinion in this case is as follows:
'The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined. Opinion on photostatic reproductions is subject to the presumption that they are the true reproductions of the originals.
1. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S5 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q548, Q580, Q612, Q644, Q677, Q709, Q741, Q774, Q806, Q839, Q872, Q905, Q938, Q971, Q1003, Q1036, Q1069, Q1102, Q1135, Q1167, Q1200, Q1233, Q1266, Q1299, Q1332, Q1364, Q1398, Q1401, Q1404, Q1407, Q1410, Q1413, Q1416, Q1419, Q1422, Q1425, Q1428, Q1431, Q1434, Q1437, Q1440, Q1443, Q1446, Q1449, Q1452, Q1455, Q1458, Q1461, Q1464, Q1467, Q1470, Q1473, Q1476, Q1479, Q1482, Q1485, Q1488, Q1491, Q1494, Q1497, Q1500, Q1503, Q1506, Q1509, Q1512, Q1515, Q1518, Q1521, Q1524, Q1527, Q1530, Q1533, Q1536, Q1539, Q1542, Q1545, Q1548, Q1551, Q1554, Q1557, Q1560, Q1561, Q1564, Q1565, Q1568, Q1569, Q1572, Q1573, Q1576, Q1577, Q1580, Q1581, Q1584, Q1585, Q1588, Q1589, Q1592, Q1593, Q1596, Q1597, Q1600, Q1601, Q1604, Q1605, Q1608, Q1609, Q1612, Q1613, Q1616, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 138 of 522 Q1617, Q1620, Q1621, Q1624, Q1625, Q1628, Q1629, Q1632, Q1633, Q1636, Q1637, Q1640, Q1641, Q1644, Q1645, Q1648, Q1649, Q1652, Q1653, Q1656, Q1657, Q1660 and Q1661.
2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S6 to S177 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q547, Q579, Q611, Q643, Q676, Q708, Q742, Q773, Q805, Q838, Q871, Q904, Q937, Q970, Q1002, Q1035, Q1068, Q1101, Q1134, Q1166, Q1199, Q1232, Q1265, Q1298, Q1331, Q1363, Q1396, Q1397, Q1399, Q1400, Q1402, Q1403, Q1405, Q1406, Q1408, Q1409, Q1411, Q1412, Q1414, Q1415, Q1417, Q1418, Q1420, Q1421, Q1423, Q1424, Q1426, Q1427, Q1429, Q1430, Q1432, Q1433, Q1435, Q1436, Q1438, Q1439, Q1441, Q1442, Q1444, Q1445, Q1447, Q1448, Q1450, Q1451, Q1453, Q1454, Q1456, Q1457, Q1459, Q1460, Q1462, Q1463, Q1465, Q1466, Q1468, Q1469, Q1471, Q1472, Q1474, Q1475, Q1477, Q1478, Q1480, Q1481, Q1483, Q1484, Q1486, Q1487, Q1489, Q1490, Q1492, Q1493, Q1495, Q1496, Q1498, Q1499, Q1501, Q1502, Q1504, Q1505, Q1507, Q1508, Q1510, Q1511, Q1513, Q1514, Q1516, Q1517, Q1519, Q1520, Q1522, Q1523, Q1525, Q1526, Q1528, Q1529, Q1531, Q1532, Q1534, Q1535, Q1537, 1538, Q1540, Q1541, Q1543, Q1544, Q1546, Q1547, Q1549, Q1550, Q1552, Q1553, Q1555, Q1556, Q1558, Q1559, Q1562, Q1563, Q1566, Q1567, Q1570, Q1571, Q1574, Q1575, Q1578, Q1579, Q1582, Q1583, Q1586, Q1587, Q1590, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 139 of 522 Q1591, Q1594, Q1595, Q1598, Q1599, Q1602, Q1603, Q1606, Q1607, Q1610, Q1611, Q1614, Q1615, Q1618, Q1619, Q1622, Q1623, Q1626, Q1627, Q1630, Q1631, Q1634, Q1635, Q1638, Q1639, Q1642, Q1643, Q1646, Q1647, Q1650, Q1651, Q1654, Q1655, Q1658 and Q1659.
3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S178 to S229 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q549, Q581, Q613, Q645, Q678, Q710, Q743, Q775, Q807, Q840, Q873, Q906, Q939, Q972, Q1004, Q1037, Q1070, Q1103, Q1136, Q1168, Q1201, Q1234, Q1267, Q1300, Q1333 and Q1365.
4. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S230 to S333 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q553, Q555, Q556, Q562, Q567, Q574, Q577, Q585, Q587, Q588, Q595, Q599, Q606, Q609, Q617, Q619, Q620, Q627, Q632, Q638, Q641, Q649, Q651, Q652, Q659, Q664, Q671, Q674, Q682, Q684, Q685, Q691, Q696, Q703, Q706, Q714, Q716, Q717, Q724, Q729, Q736, Q739, Q747, Q749, Q750, Q756, Q761, Q768, Q771, Q779, Q781, Q782, Q789, Q794, Q801, Q803, Q811, Q813, Q814, Q821, Q826, Q833, Q836, Q844, Q846, Q847, Q854, Q859, Q866, Q869, Q877, Q879, Q880, Q887, Q892, Q899, Q902, Q910, Q912, Q913, Q920, Q925, Q932, Q935, Q943, Q945, Q946, Q953, Q958, Q965, Q968, Q976, Q978, Q979, Q985, Q990, Q997, Q1000, Q1008, Q1010, Q1011, Q1018, Q1023, Q1030, Q1033, Q1041, Q1043, Q1044, Q1051, Q1056, Q1063, Q1066, Q1074, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 140 of 522 Q1076, Q1077, Q1084, Q1089, Q1096, Q1099, Q1107, Q1109, Q1110, Q1117, Q1122, Q1129, Q1132, Q1140, Q1142, Q1143, Q1150, Q1155, Q1161, Q1164, Q1172, Q1174, Q1175, Q1182, Q1187, Q1194, Q1197, Q1205, Q1207, Q1208, Q1215, Q1220, Q1227, Q1230, Q1238, Q1240, Q1241, Q1248, Q1253, Q1260, Q1263, Q1271, Q1273, Q1274, Q1281, Q1286, Q1293, Q1296, Q1304, Q1306, Q1307, Q1314, Q1319, Q1326, Q1329, Q1337, Q1339, Q1340, Q1346, Q1351, Q1358, Q1361, Q1369, Q1371, Q1372, Q1379, Q1384, Q1391 and Q1394.
5. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S334 to S338 of this case and S211 to S215 pertaining to RC-DAI-2007(A) 0046 of CBI, ACB, New Delhi (forwarded by the SP, SPE, CBI, ACB, New Delhi in this office case No. CH-153/2008) also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q687, Q693, Q698, Q702, Q705, Q785, Q791, Q796, Q800, Q949, Q955, Q960, Q964, Q967, Q1146, Q1152, Q1157, Q1163, Q1244, Q1250, Q1255, Q1259, Q1262, Q1375, Q1381, Q1386, Q1390 and Q1393.
6. The impressions in the red enclosed portions stamped and marked Q552, Q584, Q616, Q648, Q681, Q713, Q746, Q778, Q810, Q843, Q876, Q909, Q942, Q975, Q1007, Q1040, Q1073, Q1106, Q1139, Q1171, Q1204, Q1237, Q1270, Q1303, Q1336 and Q1368 do not tally with sample impressions in the blue enclosed portions similarly stamped and marked S216 to S219 pertaining to RC-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 141 of 522 DAI-2007 (A) 0046 of CBI, ACB, New Delhi (forwarded by the SP, SPE, CBI, ACB, New Delhi in this office case No. CH-153/2008).
7. It has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand.
He proved the forwarding letter written by Sh. Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI, New Delhi to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad dated 07.08.2008 alongwith Annexure A, Annexure B, certificate bearing signature and seal at point B and letter dated 17.10.2007 from Dr. M. S. Rao, Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist, New Delhi to Sh. R. S. Bhatti, Deputy IG, CBI, ACB-II as Ex. PW44/A (colly).
He proved his opinion/report bearing Case No. CH-165/2008 dated 19.09.2008 alongwith the reasons for the opinion No. CH-165/2008 dated 19.09.2008 also bearing the signatures of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad, the then Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents as Ex. PW44/B(colly).
He also proved the forwarding letter for the opinion and reasons bearing No. CH-165/2008/3505 as Ex. PW44/C. bearing the signature of Mohinder Singh, the then Government Examiner.
He also proved the forwarding letter written by Sh. Vineet Agarwal, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi bearing his signature to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad dated 28.08.2008 in case No. RC 46(A)/2007-DLI as Ex. PW44/D as was received by the GEQD Hyderabad. He deposed that the documents marked Q547 to Q1661 and S1 to S350 in 794 sheets were returned to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide their CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 142 of 522 office letter bearing No. CH-165/2008/4889 dated 26.12.2008 i.e. Ex. PW44/G. On being shown, he identified the office stamp & the markings on the sheets of the specimen writing at point X pertaining to various persons i.e. S1 to S5 of Sh. Philip Toppo bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at points X on all sheets as Ex. PW18/A-colly (D34), S6 to S177 of Sh. Atul Vashisht bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at points X on all sheets as Ex. PW18/B-colly (D35), S178 to S229 of Sh. Surjit Singh bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at points X on all sheets as Ex. PW17/A-colly (D36), S230 to S333 of Sh. Lal Mani bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at points X on all sheets as Ex. PW20/A-colly (D37), S334 to S337 of Sh. Vijay Kumar bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at points X on all sheets as Ex. PW44/H-colly (D38, 4 pages) and S338 of Sh. Vijay Kumar bearing the stamp & marking of GEQD, Hyderabad at point X as Ex. PW19/A (D38, page 1).
He identified the GEQD stamp & marking at point X in the disputed writings Q547 to Q578 on Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/A10 (D4), Q579 to Q610 on Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B10 (D5), Q611 to Q642 on Ex. PW5/C1 to Ex. PW5/C10 (D6), Q643 to Q675 on Ex. PW5/D1 to Ex. PW5/D10 (D7), Q676 to Q707 on Ex. PW5/E1 to Ex. PW5/E10 (D8), Q708 to Q740 on Ex. PW5/F1 to Ex. PW5/F10 (D9), Q741 to Q772 on Ex. PW5/G1 to Ex. PW5/G10 (D10), Q773 to Q804 on Ex. PW5/H1 to Ex. PW5/H10 (D11), Q805 to Q837 on Ex. PW5/I1 to Ex. PW5/I10 (D12), Q838 to Q870 on Ex. PW5/J1 to Ex. PW5/J10 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 143 of 522 (D13), Q871 to Q 903 on Ex. PW5/K1 to Ex. PW5/K10 (D14), Q904 to Q936 on Ex. PW5/L1 to Ex. PW5/L10 (D15), Q937 to Q969 on Ex. PW5/M1 to Ex. PW5/M10 (D16), Q970 to Q1001 on Ex. PW5/N1 to Ex. PW5/N10 (D17), Q1002 to Q1034 on Ex. PW5/O1 to Ex. PW5/O10 (D18), Q1035 to Q1067 on Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW5/P2 to Ex. PW5/P10 (D19), Q1068 to Q1100 on Ex. PW4/C2 to Ex. PW5/Q2 to Ex. PW5/Q10 (D20), Q1101 to Q1133 on Ex. PW4/C3 to Ex. PW5/R2 to Ex. PW5/R10 (D21), Q1134 to Q1165 on Ex. PW4/C4 to Ex. PW5/S2 to Ex. PW5/S10 (D22), Q1166 to Q1198 on Ex. PW4/C5 to Ex. PW5/T2 to Ex. PW5/T10 (D23), Q1199 to Q1231 on Ex. PW4/C6 to Ex. PW5/U2 to Ex. PW5/U10 (D24), Q1232 to Q1264 on Ex. PW4/C7 to Ex. PW5/V2 to Ex. PW5/V10 (D25), Q1265 to Q1297 on Ex. PW4/C8 to Ex. PW5/W2 to Ex. PW5/W10 (D26), Q1298 to Q1330 on Ex. PW4/C9 to Ex. PW5/X2 to Ex. PW5/X10 (D27), Q1331 to Q1362 on Ex. PW4/C10 to Ex. PW5/Y2 to Ex. PW5/Y10 (D28), Q1363 to Q1395 on Ex. PW4/C11 to Ex. PW5/Z2 to Ex. PW5/Z10 (D29), Q1396 to Q1551 on Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 (D32), Q1552 to Q1557 on Ex. PW4/B and Q1558 to Q1661 on Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 (D48).
3.45 PW-45 Sh. R. K. Sharma deposed that he has retired from MCD as Public Health Inspector on 31.07.2016 and in March, 2008, he was working as Public Health Inspector, office of Deputy Health Officer (DHO), Health Department, MCD, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that Vijay Kumar S/o Than Singh had given voluntarily specimen handwriting Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 144 of 522 PW44/H-colly (D38, 4 pages) on 14.03.2008 in his presence to Insp. S. S. Bhullar and he had signed the document of specimen handwriting of Vijay Kumar as an independent witness. He correctly identified accused Vijay Kumar in the court.
3.46 PW-46 Sh. Rajesh Chahal deposed that presently he is working as Addl. SP, CBI, STF, CBI HQ, New Delhi and in February 2008, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi. He deposed that he had prepared a Handing-Taking over memo dated 01.02.2008 (D31) i.e. Ex. PW46/A in this case while the documents mentioned therein from serial No. 5(i) to 5(v) were taken over by him from the then Insp. Sh. Raj Singh of CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He deposed that earlier, these documents were seized by Insp. Raj Singh in another case, i.e. RC 25(A)/2007-CBI, ACB, New Delhi and these documents were taken over by him on the instructions of the then SP Sh. Sumit Sharan of CBI, ACB, New Delhi as he was assisting the investigation of this case. He further deposed that after taking over these documents, he had further provided the same to the Investigating Officer of this case i.e. Insp. D. K. Thakur, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
3.47 PW-47 Sh. S. K. Chadha, Retired as Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi deposed that he has done B. Sc., Diploma in AIC equivalent to M. Sc. Chemistry, passed certificate course in Forensic Science, Finger Print Examination conducted by All India Board (AIB) for finger print experts from Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Calcutta. He deposed that he joined Finger Print Division of CFSL in 1984 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 145 of 522 and worked in different capacities for examination of finger prints till his retirement in April 2010. He deposed that during this period, he examined more than 2000 cases and furnished expert opinion in about 200 cases. He deposed that he had also visited approximate 150 scene of crimes and attended approximate 200 courts for expert testimony. He deposed that in this case, material submitted by Sh. S. K. Palsania, the then SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi was received in Finger Print Division on 17.04.2008 alongwith forwarding letter No. 3916/RC/DAI-2007- A0043 dated 17.04.2008, enclosing documents bearing questioned thumb impressions for comparison with specimen thumb impression received vide letter No. 12463/DLI/AC/RC 25(A)/07-DLI dated 28.09.2007 and letter No. 13363/RC/DAI 2007A 0034 dated 30.10.2007 for comparison of expert opinion in connection with case RC DAI 2007(A) 0043 of CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He deposed that documents bearing thumb impressions marked as Q1 to Q546 on possession slips, provisional identification slips, receipts, ration cards, GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Deed of Will and Possession Letters etc. pertaining to Plot No. 32, Plot No. 42 and Plot No. 5 to Plot No. 17 of F Block, Savada Ghevra, Delhi. He deposed that after examination, he submitted a report CFSL No. 2008/A-02960 dated 31.10.2008 i.e. Ex. PW47/B through forwarding letter No. CFSL-2008/A-0296/5685 dated 05.11.2008 i.e. Ex. PW47/A (D56).
He deposed that the questioned thumb impressions marked as Q67, Q72, Q73, Q76, Q77, Q83, Q84, Q88, Q104, Q109, Q112, Q114, Q121, Q123, Q125, Q139, Q142, Q146, Q147, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 146 of 522 Q151, Q163, Q165, Q166, Q214, Q217, Q219, Q223, Q224, Q226, Q235, Q244, Q245, Q247, Q256, Q261, Q264, Q272, Q277, Q282, Q283, Q289, Q293, Q294, Q340, Q347, Q349, Q352, Q364, Q366, Q373, Q375, Q377, Q378, Q382, Q390, Q394, Q424, Q427, Q429, Q435, Q436, Q437, Q440, Q456, Q473, Q475, Q476, Q478, Q479, Q480, Q529 and Q538 are identical with specimen right thumb impression of Lal Mani S/o late Sh. Chander Mani marked here as RTS 399 on the slip marked as S399.
He identified the fingers print marked as Q67 (Ex. PW5/D5), Q72 and Q73 (Ex. PW5/D6), Q76 & Q77 (Ex. PW5/D7), Q83 and Q84 (Ex. PW5/D10) (all parts of D7), Q88 (Ex. PW5/E5), Q104 (Ex. PW5/E10) (all parts of D8), Q109 (Ex. PW5/F5), Q112 & Q114 (Ex. PW5/F6), Q121 (Ex. PW5/F8), Q123 (Ex. PW5/F9) & Q125 (Ex. PW5/F10) (all parts of D9), Q139 (Ex. PW5/G7), Q142 (Ex. PW5/G8), Q146 & Q147 (Ex. PW5/G10) (all parts of D10), Q151 (Ex. PW5/H5), Q163 (Ex. PW5/H8), Q165 & Q166 (Ex. PW5/H9) (all parts of D11), Q214 (Ex. PW5/K5), Q217 & Q219 (Ex. PW5/K6), Q223 & Q224 (Ex. PW5/K7), Q226 (Ex. PW5/K8) (all parts of D14), Q235 (Ex. PW5/L5), Q244 & Q245 (Ex. PW5/L7), Q247 (Ex. PW5/L8) (all parts of D15), Q256 (Ex. PW5/M5), Q261 (Ex. PW5/M6), Q264 (Ex. PW5/M7), Q272 (Ex. PW10/M10) (all parts of D16), Q277 (Ex. PW5/N5), Q282 & Q283 (Ex. PW5/N6), Q289 (Ex. PW5/N8), Q293 & Q294 (Ex. PW5/N10) (all parts of D17), Q340 (Ex. PW5/Q5), Q347 & Q349 (Ex. PW5/Q7), Q352 (Ex. PW5/Q8) (all parts of D20), Q364 & Q366 (Ex. PW5/R6), Q373 (Ex. PW5/R8), Q375 (Ex. PW5/R9), Q377 & Q378 (Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 147 of 522 PW5/R10) (all parts of D21), Q382 (Ex. PW5/S5), Q390 (Ex. PW5/S7), Q394 (Ex. PW5/S8) (all parts of D22), Q424 (Ex. PW5/U5), Q427 & Q429 (Ex. PW5/U6), Q435, Q436 & Q437 (Ex. PW5/U8), Q440 (Ex. PW5/U10) (all parts of D24), Q456 (Ex. PW5/V8) (part of D25), Q473, Q475, Q476 (Ex. PW5/W7), Q478, Q479 (Ex. PW5/W8), Q480 (Ex. PW5/W9) (all parts of D26) and Q529 (Ex. PW5/Z5), Q538 (Ex. PW5/Z7) (all parts of D29) as were examined by him during the preparation of his report Ex. PW47/B (D56).
He deposed that he had examined the documents bearing questioned thumb impressions marked as Q1 to Q546 and specimen finger print slips marked as S398 to S400, S407 to S409, S410 to S415 and S443 to S493, which he had received vide letter No. 3916/RC DAI 2007A 0043 dated 17.04.2008, letter No. 12463/DLI/AC/RC. 25(A)/07 DLI dated 28.09.2007 and letter No. 13363/RC/DAI 2007 A 0034 dated 30.10.2007, and submitted his opinion alongwith reasoning for identical prints at Annexure 1 to 15 alongwith photographs marked with red lines and their detailed descriptions (30 sheets) i.e. Ex. PW47/B. On being shown Annexure 1 to 15 alongwith photographs marked with red lines and their detailed descriptions (30 sheets) i.e. Ex. PW47/C (colly), he identified the same as the annexures which he had submitted alongwith his expert opinion Ex. PW47/B. He deposed that all the documents bearing questioned thumb impressions marked as Q1 to Q546 and S398 to S400, S407 to S409, S410 to S415 and S443 to S493 bear his signatures/initials and finger print division seal.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 148 of 522 3.48 PW-48 Sh. Subhash Chand, Sr. Investigator, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), Govt of NCT of Delhi deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Field Investigator in Slum & JJ Department, MCD. On being shown joint memorandum dated 15.04.2008 i.e. Ex. PW48/A, he identified his signatures at point A on all pages thereon and deposed that this joint memorandum was prepared under the signature of six Field Investigators of Sociology Division, Slum & JJ Department, MCD, including himself, who were associated in conducting the joint survey of Gautam Puri, Part-I, Gautam Puri, Part-II and Players Building of Yamuna Pushta. He further deposed that after going through the complete joint survey list containing names of 2162 JJ dwellers of Gautam Puri and Players Building, JJ Cluster, all the Field Investigators of Sociology Division had found that the 26 names mentioned therein are appearing in the joint survey list but the discrepancies are noted in the remarks column.
3.49 PW-49 Sh. Surendra Singh, Deputy Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that in June 2008, he was posted as Deputy Land and Development Officer in Land & Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Urban Development. On being shown copy of letter dated 26.06.2008 i.e. Ex. PW49/A written to Insp. A. K. Sharma regarding case RC DAI 2007 (A)/0046 CBI/ACB/New Delhi, copy to Insp. S. S. Bhullar with reference to his letter No. 10390/RC DAI 2007 (A)/0051 dated 22.09.2008 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 149 of 522 and letter No. 10389/RC DAI 2007 (A)/0043 dated 22.09.2008 (original in RC 46/2007) he identified the same as the one which was written by him under his signature at point A and deposed that the letter was written regarding the clarification sought by the CBI about the status of land allotted to DDA measuring 34.2 acres of land at Yamuna river front, Ring Road, New Delhi for 30 years for the purpose of integrated development of Yamuna river front including management of leases and removal of encroachment etc. He deposed that the possession of the said land was handed over to DDA on 03.12.2004. He deposed that further information provided by this letter is that no joint survey report has been received in Land & Development Office and no amount paid by Land & Development Office to MCD for the purposes of redevelopment plan on the land.
3.50 PW-50 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh deposed that in the year 2008 he was posted as
Insp./CBI/ACB/New Delhi and he had handed over certain documents to Insp. Rajesh Chahal, Insp. CBI, ACB, New Delhi in the present case vide handing-taking over memo dated 01.02.2008 i.e. Ex. PW46/A as mentioned at serial No. 5(i) to 5(v). He also identified search cum seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 i.e. Ex. PW36/A vide which the documents mentioned at serial No. 5(i) to 5(iv) in Ex. PW46/A were seized by Insp. D. K. Thakur. He also proved statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji as Ex. PW50/A (D64) as recorded in case RC 25(A)/2007 on 02.11.2007 and of Sh. Mohan Lal @ Mone i.e. Ex. PW50/B (D65) as recorded in case CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 150 of 522 RC 25(A)/2007 on 14.08.2007 by the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
3.51 PW-51 Sh. Dilip Kumar Thakur deposed that presently he is practicing as an Advocate and in 2007-08 when he was posted as Inspector at CBI, ACB, New Delhi, he was entrusted with the case RC No. 34/2007, which was relating to fraudulent allotment of resettlement plots etc. He deposed that during the course of investigation, he had the police custody of Sh. Ashok Jain, who was one of the accused and on his disclosure, they recovered lots of documents from Sardhana, UP. He deposed that after scrutiny of those documents and with due discussion with their senior officers, he filed 9 complaints which resulted into registration of 9 FIRs/RCs against Sumer Chand Garg, Atul Vashisht, Ashok Malhotra, Ashok Chikara, Ashok Jain & others and these 9 FIRs were entrusted to other officers of CBI for investigation and he handed over the relevant documents to the respective IOs.
He identified complaint dated 28.11.2007 i.e. Ex. PW51/A (D2) made to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi for registration of regular case U/s 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the aforesaid persons regarding fraudulent allotment of plots under F Block Savda Ghevara, New Delhi and deposed that on the basis of the said complaint FIR i.e. Ex. PW51/B was registered vide RC DAI 2007-A 0043 on 29.11.2007 by Sh. Sumit Sharan, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and the same was marked to Insp. Rajesh Chahal for investigation.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 151 of 522 He deposed that the relevant documents, as mentioned at serial No. 5(i) to 5(xxvii) of handing/taking over memo dated 29.01.2008 i.e. Ex. PW51/C (D3) of this particular FIR were taken over by Insp. Rajesh Chahal.
He proved the disclosure statement of Ashok Jain as Ex. PW5/X and pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.2007 as Ex. PW5/Y and identified his signatures as well as that of S. S. Bhullar, Ashok Jain, Ved Prakash and V.S. Chauhan, independent witnesses on the same.
He proved the proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. dated 31.08.2007 i.e. Ex. PW51/D (D66) [original in RC 34(A)/2007] as conducted by the then Ld. Spl. Judge vide which confessional statement of accused Ravinder Singh Sandhu was recorded and deposed that on account of clerical mistake RC 25(A)/2007 was mentioned on Ex. PW51/D. He deposed that vide search cum seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 i.e. Ex. PW36/A he conducted the search at the residential premises of Mohan Lal @ Mone at ground floor B-59, Nehru Vihar, PS Timarpur, Delhi alongwith Insp. Prem Nath, SI Manoj Kumar and independent witness Sh. Devendra Kumar.
3.52 PW-52 Sh. Surinder Singh Bhullar deposed that presently he is posted as DSP, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh and in the year 2007-08, he was posted in CBI, ACB, New Delhi as Inspector. He deposed that this case was transferred to him from Sh. Rajesh Chahal, Insp. CBI, ACB, New Delhi by the then SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and during investigation of this case, he had examined number of witnesses, recorded their statements and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 152 of 522 collected documents. He deposed that he had also seized certain documents during investigation and taken specimen handwriting/signature of accused persons. He deposed that he had marked the questioned documents and sent the same for expert opinion through letters signed by the then SPs. He deposed that he had also received expert opinion on the questioned documents and after receiving the sanction for prosecution for accused public servants, he had filed chargesheet in the instant case against the accused persons.
He identified complaint dated 28.11.2007 as Ex. PW51/A made by the then Insp. of Police, CBI, ACB D. K. Thakur as was received by him during the course of investigation.
He identified FIR dated 29.11.2007 as Ex. PW51/B registered against S. N. S. Sidhu & ors which was marked to the then Insp. Rajesh Chahal for investigation by the then SP Sh. Sumit Sharan and was received by him during the course of investigation.
He further deposed that Sh. Kundan Lal, Sh. H.V. Vats, Sh. Balbir Singh Mann, Sh. Sanjeev Handa, Sh. Raju Punaji Sirsikar, S. Vijayan, Sh. Rama Chandran V., Sh. A. P. Mitra, Sh. Ved Prakash, Sh. Vinod Singh Chauhan, Sh. Deepak Arora, Sh. Biri Singh, Sh. Sangam Lal Shukla, Sh Lal Chand, Sh. Bijender Singh Sehrawat, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Sh. Nabor Beck, Sh. Hari Om Sharma, Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Sh. Sumer Singh, Sh. Shankar Miglani, Sh. Kamod Jha @ Panditji, Sh. Darshan Lal, Sh. Chob Singh, Sh. Anil Madhwan, Sh. Deep Chand @ Tittoo, Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh, Sh. Devender Kumar, Sh. Jai Singh, Sh. Kameshwar Mehto, Mohd. Arif, Smt. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 153 of 522 Kalawati, Sh. Ansar Ahmed, Sh. Prabhu Dayal, Sh. Sabir, Sh. Bees Ram, Sh. Shanti Swaroop and Sh. Satish Kumar Rastogi as well as that of Sh. B.L. Meena were examined by him during the course of investigation and their statements i.e. Ex. PW52/A1, PW52/A2, PW52/A3, PW52/A4, Ex. PW10/DA, Ex. PW52/A5, Ex. PW52/A6, Ex. PW52/A7, Ex. PW5/DA, Ex. PW52/A8, Ex. PW52/A9, Ex. PW52/A10, Ex. PW52/A11, Ex. PW52/A12, Ex. PW52/A13, Ex. PW52/A14, Ex. PW52/A15, Ex. PW52/A16, Ex. PW52/A17, Ex. PW52/A18, Ex. PW52/A19, Ex. PW52/A20, Ex. PW52/A21, Ex. PW52/A22, Ex. PW52/A23, Ex. PW52/24, Ex. PW52/25, Ex. PW52/26, Ex. PW52/27, Ex. PW52/28, Ex. PW52/29, Ex. PW52/A30, Ex. PW52/A31, Ex. PW52/A32, Ex. PW52/A34, Ex. PW52/A35, Ex. PW52/A36, Ex. PW52/A37 Ex. PW52/A38 and Ex. PW13/C u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by him.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW42/A to Ex. PW42/G bearing the original signatures of Jai Singh were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A28.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW34/A to Ex. PW34/F bearing the original signatures of Kamlesh Mehto were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A29.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW28/A to Ex. PW28/E bearing the original signatures of Mohd. Arif were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A30.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 154 of 522 He deposed that the documents Ex. PW33/A to Ex. PW33/C bearing the original signatures of Smt. Kalawati were given by her when her statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A31.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW/52/A-33 (colly) bearing thumb impression of Ansar Ahmed were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A32.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW31/A to Ex. PW31/D bearing the original signatures of Prabhu Dayal were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A34.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW29/A to Ex. PW29/D bearing the original signatures of Sabir were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A35.
He deposed that the documents Ex. PW30/A, Ex. PW30/B, Ex. PW30/D to Ex. PW30/F bearing the original signatures of Bees Ram were given by him when his statement was recorded by him and the same are annexed with his statement Ex. PW52/A36.
He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he seized certain documents and also prepared seizure memo, handing over taking over memo and also took specimen writings of different accused persons. He deposed that he also sent some documents to CFSL, CBI as well GEQD, Hyderabad for obtaining expert opinion on questioned documents.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 155 of 522 He proved the handing taking over memo dated 29.01.2008 Ex.PW51/C (D3) and deposed that vide the same the documents mentioned in it from Sl. No. 5(i) to 5 (xxvii) D-4 to D-30 were received by him during the course of investigation.
He proved the handing taking over memo dated 01.02.2008 Ex.PW46/A (D31) and deposed that vide the same the document mentioned in it at S.No.5(i) i.e. 52 draw slips all dated 09.03.2007 in respect of plot no.5 to 17 and 30 to 42 i.e. D-32 Ex.PW4/A-1 to Ex.PW4/A-52 were received by him.
He proved the handing taking over memo Ex.PW46/A and deposed that vide the same the document mentioned in it at S.No.5(ii) i.e. original list of draw of plots conducted through parchi system (manual) in respect of dwellers of Yamuna Pushta i.e. D-32 Ex.PW4/B were received by him.
He proved the search cum seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 Ex.PW36/A D-33 and deposed that vide the same search was carried out at the residential premises of accused Mohan Lal @ Mone in RC No.25(A)/2007 and the said memo was received by him during the course of investigation.
He proved that vide Ex.PW18/A (colly.) (D34), Ex. PW18/B (colly) (D35), Ex. PW21/A (colly) (D35), Ex. PW17/A (colly) (D36), Ex. PW20/A (D27) and Ex. PW44/H (D38) specimen handwritings (S-1 to S-6, S-6 to S-10, S-11 to S-177, S-178 to S-229, S-230 to S-333, S-334 to S-338 of accused Philip Toppo (since deceased), Atul Vashisht & Surjeet Singh were taken, which were given voluntarily by them during the course of investigation in the presence of independent witness Sumer CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 156 of 522 Singh, Shankar Miglani, Hari Om Sharma, Rajeev Kapoor and R.K. Sharma respectively.
He proved the production cum seizure memo dated 11.04.2008 Ex.PW13/B (D39) and deposed that vide the same documents mentioned in it from S.No. 1 to 4 were seized by him from the then Field Investigator Sh. B.L.Meena.
He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW13/B vide which original survey list of Gautam Puri (Part-I and Part-II) i.e. Mark- PW13/2 (colly.) and Mark-PW13/3 (colly.) (D40) were seized by him.
He proved the joint Memorandum dated 15.04.2008 pertaining to Joint Survey list of Gautam Puri Part-II as Ex.PW48/A (D-41) and deposed that the same was prepared in the presence of officials of Sociology Division and bears his signatures as well as that of the then Field Investigators namely Sh.Subhash Chand, Sh.B.L.Meena, Ms.Madhu Sharma, Ms.Bina Thapliyal, Sh.M.R.Bunkar and Sh. Jagir Singh.
He proved the letter dated 17.04.2008 i.e. Ex. PW52/A39 (colly) (D42) addressed to the Director CFSL, CBI for obtaining expert opinion on finger prints in the present matter as was sent by the then SP Sh. S.K.Palsania. He deposed that the description of documents at Annexure-A bears his initials at point B from page no.7 to 11 and his signature at point B-1 on page no.12 of Annexure-A. He proved letter dated 12.06.2008 i.e. Ex. PW2/A (D-43) addressed to him by the then Executive Engineer Sayed Hamid Ali and deposed that vide the same he had sent an attested copy of numbering plan to him.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 157 of 522 He proved letter dated 18.06.2008 i.e. Ex. PW6/A (D-44) sent to him by the then Food & Supply Officer Jitender Kumar Singh and deposed that vide the same he had informed that the questioned ration cards had not been issued by the Office of Circle No.3, Minto road, New Delhi and the certified photocopies of relevant pages of MRs were also enclosed with the said letter i.e. Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C (colly.) respectively.
He proved various documents which he deposed that he received during the course of investigation i.e. letter dated 16.05.2008 i.e. Ex. PW52/A-40 (D-45) addressed to him by the then Dy.Director (SUR), Slum and J.J.Department of MCD and deposed that vide the same copy of circular dated 13.10.2000 Mark-PW13/1 was sent to him; letter dated 27.06.2008 Ex.PW37/A (colly.) (D-46) addressed to him by the then Assistant Director (SUR) Slum & J.J.Department of MCD, letter dated 07.08.2008 i.e. Ex. PW37/B (D-47) received from the then Assistant Director (SUR) Slum and J.J.Department of MCD; the original challan forms in the names of persons mentioned in it for remittance of Rs.7,000/- each with Slum & J.J. Department of MCD as Ex.PW4/D-1 to Ex.PW4/D-26 (D-48); letter dated 01.07.2008 i.e. Ex. PW37/C (D-49) addressed to the then SP CBI Sh.S.K.Palsania by the then Asstt. Director (SUR) Slum & J.J.Department of MCD namely Sh.H.C.Vats; attested copy of noting page vide which approval had been given for conducting draw of plot for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system as Ex.PW37/E (D-50); the attested copy of letter No. PS/DC(S&JJ)/S/02/002/D-24 dated 09.01.2002 as Ex. PW37/D (D-51) regarding guidelines for relocation scheme of jhuggi CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 158 of 522 dwellers attested by Sh. H. C. Vats; letter No. AO(Hqrs)/2008- 09/S-783 dated 11.07.2008 i.e. Ex. PW8/A (D-52) of Sh. Ramachandran V., Senior AO(Hqrs), Slum & JJ Department and the annexure to the aforesaid document Ex. PW26/A-colly (Mark PW8/1-colly); letter No. 8690/RC DAI 2007 (A) 0043 dated 07.08.2008 i.e. Ex. PW52/A-41 (D-53) which was addressed to the GEQD, CFI's Complex, Hyderabad for their expert opinion by the then SP Sh. Sumit Sharan; letter No. Comp.div./2008/D-109 dated 09.09.2008 Ex. PW41/A (colly) (D-54) of Sh. S.K. Rastogi, Deputy Director, S&JJ Department; letter dated 19.09.2008 Ex. PW44/C of Sh. Mohinder Singh, GEQD, Hyderabad alongwith opinion/report Ex.PW44/B (colly) (D55) of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad, GEQD and Sh. P. Venugopala Rao, Assistant, GEQD; letter dated 05.11.2008 Ex. PW47/A of Director, CFSL, alongwith opinion/report dated 31.10.2008 Ex.PW47/B of Sh. S.K. Chaddha, SSO-I (FP), CFSL, CBI; the extract taken from Annual Plan 2004-05 Vol. II, Planning Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Ex.PW1/A (D57); letter dated 26.06.2008 Ex. PW49/A (D58) of Sh. Surender Singh, Dy. L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, which was addressed to the then Insp. A. K. Sharma; office order dated 17.10.2000 attested by Sh. Kundan Lal Ex. PW11/A (D59); office order dated 18.12.2001 Ex. PW11/B (D60) of Sh. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Commissioner, S&JJ, MCD & attested by Sh. Kundan Lal; letter dated 07.10.2008 Ex. PW37/F (D61) of Sh. H. C. Vats, AD (SUR); letter dated 03.12.2008 Ex. PW22/A-colly (D62) of Sh. Shanti Swaroop, EE (S), CD-II, S&JJ Department, MCD; letter dated 26.11.2008 Ex. PW3/A (D63) of Sh. T. R. Rawal, Assistant CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 159 of 522 Engineer, MCD; statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Ram Chander Arora in case RC 25(A)/07 Ex. PW50/A (D64); statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Mohan Lal in case RC 25(A)/07 Ex. PW50/B (D65); statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Ravinder Singh Sandhu in case RC 34(A)/07 Ex. PW51/D (D66); letter No. F-10821/32/SOF/S&JJ/MCD/2008/D-459 dated 24.09.2008 Ex. 52/A-42 (D67) of Sh. H. C. Vats and letter dated 03.03.2009 Ex. PW38/A (D68) of Assistant Law Officer Sh. A. K. Verma vide which sanction order in respect of Philip Toppo & Atul Vashisht were supplied to the CBI for taking further necessary action in the present matter.
He deposed that after completion of investigation in the present matter, he found that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons namely Philip Toppo (since deceased), Atul Vashisht, Ashok Malhotra (since deceased), Ashok Jain, Lal Mani, Ram Chander Arora, R. S. Sandhu, Vijay Kumar, Surjeet Singh and Mohan Lal and therefore he filed chargesheet against them before the Court. He correctly identified all the accused persons in the court except Ram Chander Arora, who was exempted from personal appearance.
Statement of accused persons
4. Thereafter statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded vide proceedings dated 04.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 24.04.2023, 17.07.2023 wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and having been falsely implicated. Accused Atul Vashisht examined three witnesses in his defence.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 160 of 522 Remaining accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence despite due opportunity.
Defence Evidence
5. DW1 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Kanojia, Assistant Director in Planning and Monitoring Section (DUSIB) produced the original summoned record i.e. reply bearing ID No. P&M/ID-28/2011/D-96 dated 26.09.2011 of Sh. Rajbir Singh, Director, P&M Section (DUSIB) on the RTI application dated 15.09.2011 filed by applicant Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW1/A-colly (running into 21 sheets).
He also produced the original summoned record i.e. reply bearing ID No. 08/P&M/2012/D-111 dated 05.10.2012 of Sh. Rajbir Singh Director, P&M Section (DUSIB) RTI upon application dated 27.09.2012 filed by applicant Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW1//B-colly. He deposed that the aforesaid documents were attested and signed by Sh. Rajbir Singh in his presence.
5.1 DW2 Sh. Hira Lal deposed that he has retired as Assistant Director from DUSIB on 30.09.2012 and in the year 2011, he was posted as Assistant Director, Rehabilitation/APIO and he proved the reply bearing no. D-967/ DD(Rehab./DUSIB/11 dated 26.8.2011 of Assistant Director (Rehab)/APIO and office copy of application bearing ID no. 386/DD (Rehab.)/DUSIB/11 dated 09.8.2007 which were collectively exhibited as Ex. DW1/G (colly) in RC No. 51(A)/2007, CC No. 88/2019 as Ex. DW2/A (colly).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 161 of 522 He also proved reply dated 08.09.2011 of Deputy Director Sh. Harish Vats to RTI application filed by Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW2/B and reply dated 29.09.2011 of Deputy Director Sh. Harish Vats to RTI application filed by Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW2/C as well as reply dated 26.8.2011 to application filed by Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW2/D (colly). (All documents part of RC No. 51(A)/2007).
5.2 DW3 Sh. Gulzari Lal Kateja, Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), SUR, DUSIB, Punarwas Bhawan, Vikas Kutir, IP Estate, New Delhi proved letter No. D-434/JD(SUR) dated 07.10.2002 and copy of Preamble regarding policy to provide alternative plots to the jhuggi dwellers which were provided to Atul Vashisht in response to application filed by him under RTI Act vide ID No. 785 dated 26.09.2012 vide letter No. D-1326/DD(Rehab)DUSIB/12 dated 22.10.2012 as Ex. DW3/A- (colly).
He proved reply No. D-1111/DD (Rehb)/ DUSIB/11 dated 08.09.2011 given by Assistant Director (Rehb) to Atul Vashisht on his RTI application bearing No. 407/ID/DD(Rehb)/11 dated 30.08.2011 of Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW3/B (colly).
He also proved reply No. DY.DIR (Reh)/ PIO/2012/D-1249 dated 05.10.2012 given by Assistant Director (Rehb) to Atul Vashisht on his RTI application bearing ID No. RTI 763 dated 19.09.2012 of Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW3/C (colly).
He proved the office copy of letter No. F.02/ Rohini/OSD(SUR)/S&JJ/2007/D-33 dated 28.09.2007 issued by CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 162 of 522 Sh. Kundan Lal, OSD, SUR alongwith its annexures as Ex. DW3/D (colly) (running into 17 pages).
He also proved reply bearing No. D-967/ DD(Rehab)/DUSIB/11 dated 26.08.2011 of Assistant Director (Rehab)/APIO and office copy of application bearing ID No. 386/DD(Rehab)/DUSIB/11 dated 09.08.2011 of Atul Vashisht, while deposing that some annexures mentioned in the RTI reply dated 26.08.2011 running into 300 pages are not traceable in their office record, along with circular bearing No. D280/ DD(SUR)/DUSIB/2023/ dated 11.10.2023 alongwith copy of dispatch/receipt register (running into 2 pages) as Ex. DW3/E (running into 3 pages).
He proved the reply No. D-407/DD(SUR) DUSIB/ 2013 dated 06.5.2013 alongwith its annexures and the RTI application applied by Atul Vashisht as Ex. DW3/F (colly).
Arguments
6. I have heard the rival contentions raised at bar by Ld. Public Prosecutors Ms. Bindu and Ms. Jyoti Solanki for the CBI as well as the Ld. Defence Counsels, carefully considered & examined the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case. I have also gone through the detailed written arguments filed by the Ld. Defence Counsels as well as the Ld. Public Prosecutors and the supporting case laws relied upon by the respective parties.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 163 of 522 6.1 Ld. Counsel Sh. Hitender Kapur for accused Lal Mani and R.S. Sandhu relied upon Maghavendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 915/2016 dated 24.04.2023, Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2773, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ram Swaroop Chandel Crl. Rev P 1100/2019, Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 902/2023, S.C., Kailash Gaur and ors Vs. State of Assam AIR 2012 SC 786, Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 1066/2010 SC, Mageem Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MGR Enterprises and ors. on 24th May 2019 Delhi High Court in support of his arguments.
6.2 Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Baljinder Singh for accused Surjeet Singh relied upon Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana (2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 345 in support of his arguments.
6.3 Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Ms. Nazima Siddiqui for accused Vijay Kumar relied upon Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha 2022 Live Law (SC) 297 in support of her arguments.
6.4 Ld. Counsel Sh. Manjeet Godara for accused Atul Vashisht relied upon Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 3474 in support of his arguments.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 164 of 522 6.5 Ld. Public Prosecutors have relied upon Prem Chand v. State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC 168), Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana dated 23.5.2014 SC, Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 Live Law (SC 60), Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana dated 04.11.2015 SC, Dhanpat v. Sheoram (deceased) through LRs SC 2020, Surinderkaur v. Mehalsingh and ors. Dated 04/12/2013, Punjab and Haryana High court, Ashok Dulichand Vs. Madahavial Dube (1975) 4 SCC 664, State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh AIR 2003 SC 3609, Vijay v. Union of India 2023 SC, Murari Lal v. State of MP 1980 AIR 539, Madi Ganga v. State Of Orissa dated 19 February, 1981, Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan dated 08.12.2004, SC, Balbir Singh v. State Of Punjab dated 27 September1956, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48, Bhogni Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 759, State of Haryana v. Teksingh dated 03.05.1999 SC, Faquira v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 915, Iqbal Musa Patel v. State of Gujarat 2011 SCC (Cri.) 654, Gurubachan Singh v. Satpal Singh 1990 SCC (Cri) 151, Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi 1988 3 SCC, State through S.P. v. Nalini, C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 2 SCC, Sathyan v. State of Kerala 2023 live Law (SC627), J.S. Sharma v. CBI 2010 Delhi High Court, N M Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 SC 1174 and Hema Versus State through Inspector of Police Madras SC dated 07.01.2013 in support of their arguments.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 165 of 522 Findings
7. The present prosecution was lodged on the basis of complaint dated 28.11.2007 i.e. Ex. PW51/A, of the then Insp. CBI ACB Sh. Dilip Kumar Thakur (PW51) which resulted in registration of the case FIR i.e. Ex. PW51/B on 29.11.2007.
7.1 Complaint Ex. PW51/A was filed by Insp. D.K. Thakur (PW51) after recovery of certain documents from Sardhana, Uttar Pradesh, which documents were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of Ashok Jain, who was in police custody in RC no. 34/2007, which case also related to fraudulent allotments of resettlement plots. Upon scrutiny of these documents as well as after discussion with senior officers PW51 filed 9 complaints including Ex. PW51/A. Complaint Ex. PW51/A
8. According to complaint Ex. PW51/A, investigation in RC-DAI-2007-A-0034 revealed that the Slum and JJ Department of MCD decided to allot resettlement plots to erstwhile dwellers of JJ Clusters of Yamuna Pustha in village Savda-Ghevra, Delhi. A beneficiary of resettlement plot had to fulfill two conditions to be eligible for a resettlement plot of size 18 square meters i.e. his name should figure in the joint survey list of Yamuna Pushta JJ Clusters and he should be a resident of Delhi as on 31.01.1990. The officials of Slum Up-gradation & Rehabilitation Division (SUR), Slum & JJ Department of MCD were further required to verify the documents relating to identity, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 166 of 522 residence etc., namely Ration Cards, Identity Cards issued by Delhi Administration, Demolition Slips (in original), Survey Report etc., while examining an application for allotment of resettlement plots.
8.1 Further, as per Ex. PW51/A, it was disclosed that during 2006-07, Sh. SNS Siddhu, Director (not charge sheeted); deceased Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director; deceased Sumer Chand Garg, Asstt Director; accused Atul Vashisht, UDC while being posted & functioning in the SUR, Slum & JJ Department of MCD entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and with Sh. Ashok Malhotra (since deceased) & Sh. Ashok Jain (since deceased) and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, fake/forged documents like ration cards, identity cards etc. were prepared and used in the names of fake/fictitious persons for the allotment of plots under the said resettlement scheme. The said officials of MCD by abusing their official position and in criminal conspiracy with Ashok Malhotra & Ashok Jain cheated MCD and dishonestly allotted plots, in the names of fake/fictitious persons on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, on 09.03.2007. These resettlement plots were allotted to JJ dwellers on licence fee basis and the same could not be sold/transferred. Further, the Provisional Identification Slips which were used as the proof of allotment and other official records of such plots were knowingly passed on by the said MCD officials to Ashok Malhotra & Ashok Jain, which were recovered at the instance of Ashok Jain during the course of investigation of RC-DAI-2007-A-0034. Moreover, the official records of SUR, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 167 of 522 Slum & JJ Department i.e. the Draw list and Draw parchies of the said plots were also recovered from House No B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi where they had been kept on the directions of Ashok Malhotra. Ashok Malhotra & Ashok Jain in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy prepared fake & forged documents with the intention to illegally sell the said plots in the open market at exorbitant price for causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to Government.
Fraudulent allotment of 26 plots
9. It is the prosecution case that 26 plots bearing plots no. 5 to 17 and 30 to 42 at F Block Savda Ghevra (hereinafter referred to as the 26 questioned plots) were fraudulently allotted on 09.03.2007, in the names of fake/fictitious persons on the basis of forged & fabricated documents.
9.1 The process of relocation of the dwellers of the JJ cluster, Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta, New Delhi was explained by PW11 Sh. Kundan Lal who retired as Joint Director (SUR), Slum and JJ Department MCD when he deposed as under:-
"Slum & JJ Department relocates those JJ Clusters, for which the request of land agency is received and they agree to bear the expenditure of relocation. After receiving written request from the land agency, Slum Department requests the land agency to depute their representatives to conduct the joint survey of the concerned JJ Cluster. The Joint Survey Team as per the order of the survey incharge of the joint survey team, conducts joint survey of the concerned JJ Cluster. During the survey, the Joint Survey CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 168 of 522 Team notes the information in respect of name of the jhuggi dwellers, father name, ration card no., election I card no. and occupation in the prescribed format. After completing the survey, the team finalizes the survey report and classifies the information as under:
1. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued before 31.01.1990.
2. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued post 1990 and upto December 1998.
3. Number of jhuggi dwellers possessing ration card issued after 1998.
4. Number of locked cases.
5. Number of worship places.
The final survey report is submitted to the survey officer for further action. On availability of land, the allotment section organizes the relocation programme as per the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further mentioned that, in pursuance of the order issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the year December 2001, the department setup a committee namely Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee to deal and disposal cases of the concerned JJ Cluster.
The allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- as beneficiary share with the cashier, after receiving challan from the dealing assistant. Thereafter, the draw of lots is conducted in respect of those jhuggi dwellers who deposited their share money. On the basis of the draw, the dealing assistant issues provisional allotment slips and gives plot numbers and advises the jhuggi dwellers to report the area JE for taking possession of the plot alloted to him. Two copies of the provisional allotment slips are prepared and one is retained by the dealing assistant and the original slip is given to the jhuggi dwellers."
9.2 PW37 Sh. Harish Chander Vats in this regard deposed as under:-
"I was posted in SUR Slum & JJ Department, MCD from February 1972 to 30.06.2013. I was posted as Assistant Director, SUR Section, Slum & JJ Department, Vikas Kutir from 01.05.2008 till 2009. I am acquainted with the system and procedure adopted at the time of allotment of plots to the beneficiaries of the cluster to their relocated at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 169 of 522 various resettlement schemes of Delhi Government/Government of India.
First, an application was received from the land agencies to the Slum Department, MCD regarding the rehabilitation of beneficiaries residing in JJ Cluster. Then A joint survey was carried out by the staff of land owning agency and staff of Slum Department, MCD. Then a report about the joint survey was submitted to the Slum Department, MCD. Then in view of the orders of the Ministry of Urban Development and as per the directions passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition, residential plots measuring 12.5 meters and 18 meters were allotted to the dwellers of JJ Cluster. The dwellers of the JJ Clusters residing there from 1990 were allotted residential plots measuring 18 meters and the dwellers of JJ Clusters residing there from 1998 were allotted residential plots measuring 12.5 meters.
The scheme is funded from three sources namely land owning agency, plan support and beneficiaries share. In the case of 18 sq meters plots, the land owning agency is supposed to pay Rs. 29,000/- per plot, the plan support is Rs. 10,000/- and beneficiaries share is Rs. 5,000/-, while for 12.5 sq meters plots, the land owning agency share is Rs. 20,000/- and the plan support and beneficiaries share is the same as in the case of 18 sq meters plots. Apart from this, the beneficiaries are supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as license fee for 10 years in advance @ Rs. 200 per annum at the time of allotment.
The scheme namely relocation of squatters was formulated in the year 1992 on the basis of the guidelines of the Ministry of Urban Development. The plan scheme was formulated by the Slum & JJ Department, wherein broad parameters suggested by the Ministry of Urban Development and was got approved from Delhi Government on yearly basis.
Slum & JJ Department, MCD was the implementing agency of the relocation of squatters scheme on behalf of Delhi Government. Under this scheme, only those squatters families are eligible whose encroached land is required by the concerned land owning agencies for implementation of project of public importance and those agencies have agreed to bear their due shares towards the cost of resettlement.
The allotment of land for relocation purpose on request of Slum & JJ Department was allotted either by DDA or directly by land and building department. The said land is taken over by the Slum & JJ Department, MCD from both the above said government departments. After taking over Slum & JJ Department develop the said land. After development, the said land was allotted to the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 170 of 522 beneficiaries in the form of plots measuring 18 meters and 12.5 meters. During the joint survey by the staff of land owning agency and staff of Slum Department, MCD, information relating to name of head of family, jhuggi number, ration card number, election I card number, birth certificate and occupancy period etc was obtained and on the basis of that information, allotment was made. Slum & JJ Department, MCD takes over the land of the beneficiaries and hand over the same to concerned land owning agency. A committee constituted for the purpose of draw of plots conduct a draw for beneficiaries......."
Survey list Ex. PW13/A
10. Hence the foremost step for relocation of the dwellers of the JJ cluster was the preparation of the survey list. According to the prosecution, the joint survey of Gautam Puri-II, Yamuna Pushta, New Delhi was conducted in September 2003 by Field Investigator Sh. B.L. Meena (PW13) of the Slum and JJ Department along with Sh. Biri Singh (PW40) who was posted as Surveyor in Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. The list prepared after the said survey is on record as Ex. PW13/A (colly) and it along with other documents was handed over by PW13 to CBI vide Ex. PW13/B. 10.1 As far as the survey list is concened, Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that PW13, who along with PW40 had conducted the survey, stated that he was only deputed to conduct the survey and as far as eligibility or non eligibility of the person mentioned in the survey list is concerned, same was not supposed to be done by him. He further stated that there was no question of him giving any comments/remark to the CBI qua the aforesaid entries in Ex. PW13/A (colly). Same was his stand CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 171 of 522 during his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the CBI and he disowned his statement dated 26.09.2008 i.e. Ex. PW13/C recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the CBI to that effect. It was argued that all this creates serious doubts upon the survey list Ex. PW13/A. 10.2 I have gone through the survey list. Though there are certain writings in the column "remarks" against certain entries in the survey list, however, those writings have absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility or non eligibility of the person found in occupation of the jhuggi at the time of survey. The column "remarks" does not contain any observation as regards the eligibility or the non eligibility, rather at the bottom of the survey list except for 1 or 2 pages it is categorically mentioned as "eligibility subject to verification of documents at the time of relocation". This remark at point C on Ex. PW13/A (colly) was written by PW13 at the time of carrying out the survey itself, as proved by him. PW13 explained the purpose of the said remark when he, during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, stated as "The purpose of giving the above remarks at point C on each page of the survey list was that the eligibility of the persons mentioned in the survey list was to be determined after verification of documents at the time of allotment of alternate plots/land to them. The said remarks at point C were mentioned while carrying out the survey itself and not afterwards". In fact PW13 during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel had categorically stated that "I did not know the purpose for which survey was got done. Even after conducting of the survey, I did CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 172 of 522 not know the purpose of the same........The Sociology Division used to carry out surveys for numerous reasons as and when required". Once PW13 was not even aware about the purpose of survey how could he make any remark about the eligibility. As rightly stated by PW13 the eligibility for allotment of alternate plot/land was to be decided at the time of allotment only by SUR Section.
10.3 It was also argued by Ld. Defence counsels that survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) is a fabricated document and no survey was ever conducted. It was argued that the survey list was prepared while sitting in the office and in reality no survey was ever conducted by PW13 and PW40. Ld. Defence counsels also pointed out the cross-examination of PW40 to highlight the discrepancy in the survey list. It was argued that as per survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) the survey of jhuggi no. B-37 was conducted on 04.09.2003 but the next day's survey started from jhuggi no. B-42. Similarly, during the survey conducted on 08.09.2003 the serial numbers B-38 to B-41 have been mentioned. However, I find no merits in their arguments.
10.4 To begin with, all the entries in the survey list were made by PW13 as was proved by PW40. During the cross- examination of PW13, who had made the entries in the survey list, no question was put to him as to why the entries in the above manner were made. PW40 having not made the entries in the survey list, questioning him as regards the entries did not serve any purpose. No doubt PW40 had jointly conducted the survey CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 173 of 522 with PW13 but the questions as regards the entries should have been put to PW13 and not to PW40, in case defence wanted to prove its case that the survey list was forged & fabricated. Furthermore, I find no reasons why PW13 and PW40 officials of two different departments would forge and fabricate the survey list. Defence has miserably failed to assign in fact allege or attribute any motive to PW13 and PW40 for forging or fabricating the survey list.
10.5 Most importantly, it is also to be seen that it was on the basis of survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) that the allotment of alternate plots was made to the JJ dwellers in the year 2004 i.e. much before registration of the present FIR as has been discussed in detail herein below. Therefore no question of the list being forged and fabricated arises.
Manual Draw Ex. PW4/B
11. The 26 questioned plots were allotted, on the basis of manual draw Ex. PW4/B, to those JJ dwellers whose names appear at Sl. No. 589 (PW34 Kameshwar Mehto), 592 (Kubutddin), 595 (Samsuddin), 597 (PW29 Sabir), 611 (Ravinder Kumar), 615 (PW30 Bis Ram), 624 (Harihar), 627 ( Kishan Lal), 630 (Hari Shankar), 632 (PW33 Kalawati), 641 (Salik Ram), 643 (Kushma Devi), 686 (Ansar Ahmed), 687 (PW28 Mohd. Arif), 697 (Mohd. Wasim), 699 (PW31 Prabhu Dayal), 706 (Rambir), 714 (Ashok Kumar), 735 (Tarawati), 744 (Harinder Mehto), 749 (Sita), 765 (PW42 Jai Singh), 782 (Arun Kumar), 784 (Salim), CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 174 of 522 867 (Mahavir Pandit) and 868 (Mohd. Mukhtiyar) in survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly). Their names appear in the manual draw Ex. PW4/B at Sl. No. 3 (Ansar Ahmed) 7 (Arun Kumar), 8 (Kameshwar Mehto), 9 (Ravinder Kumar), 10 (Hari Shankar), 14 (Mahavir Pandir), 17 (Kushma Devi), 18 (Prabhu Dayal), 22 (Samsuddin), 24 (Salik), 26 (Harinder Mehto), 28 (Sabir), 29 (Harihar), 31 (Salim), 33 (Kishan Lal), 34 (Arif), 35 (Ashok Kumar), 38 (Kutubuddin), 39 (Bis Ram), 40 (Kalawati), 41 (Mohd. Wasim), 42 (Tarawati), 43 (Jai Singh) 44 (Mohd. Mukhtiyar), 45 (Rambir) and 46 (Sita Ram).
11.1 However, none of these dwellers could have been allotted the 26 questioned plots for the reason that most of them (17) had already been allotted alternate plots in the year 1999, 2004 and out of the remaining 9, 5 JJ dwellers were not eligibile for any allotment as they did not meet the eligibility creteria and 4 JJ dwellers did not have any documents which could entitle them for allotment. Furthermore the entire allotment procedure vide which the questioned plots were allotted was a fraud/sham and based upon forged & fabricated documents.
11.2 Though it emerges from the testimony of PW11 as well as the charge sheet that before the draw of lots/plots is conducted, the JJ dwellers have to deposit the beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/- with the cashier and the relevant portion of testimony of PW11 and the charge sheet are reproduced hereunder in this regard:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 175 of 522 PW11 "The allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- as beneficiary share with the cashier, after receiving challan from the dealing assistant. Thereafter, the draw of lots is conducted in respect of those jhuggi dwellers who deposited their share money. On the basis of the draw, the dealing assistant issues provisional allotment slips and gives plot numbers and advises the jhuggi dwellers to report the area JE for taking possession of the plot alloted to him. Two copies of the provisional allotment slips are prepared and one is retained by the dealing assistant and the original slip is given to the jhuggi dwellers."
Charge sheet "After the survey, the land owning agency deposits prescribed amount as relocation charges with Slum & JJ Department. Each prospective allottee of resettlement plot is required to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- with the Cash Section of Slum & JJ Department. This includes Rs. 2000/- as licence fee for the plot for a period of 10 years and Rs. 5,000/- as contribution of the beneficiary. A draw of plots is held by the Draw Committee and provisional identification slips are issued to the JJ dwellers...........Investigation revealed that 26 nos. of Challans were prepared by Shri Atul Vashisht and were signed by Sh. Philip Toppo and they deposited share money of Rs. 7,000/- per dweller with the cashier and obtained cash receipt in duplicate. On the basis of false/forged documents Shri Philip Toppo and Atul Vashisht conducted manual draw (parchi system) of plots in the name of 46 dwellers on 09.3.07, who were residents of Gautam Puri-II."
,however, it stands proved on record that first draw of plots was held and only thereafter the beneficiary share was deposited. This share otherwise, as stands proved on record was not deposited by the allottees of the 26 questioned plots.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 176 of 522 11.3 It is not disputed that a manual draw was held on 09.03.2007, the draw of plots list/draw list Ex. PW4/B was prepared pursuant to the draw and the same bears the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo. Admittedly, not only the said list but even the draw parchies/draw slips Ex.
PW4/A-1 to A-52, all dated 09.03.2007, are in their handwriting. The FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly), para 1 & 2, as well as deposition of PW44, which has been discussed in the later part of this judgment, corroborates the said fact. The G8 receipts i.e. Ex. PW5/A-2 to Z-2 vide which the beneficiary share was deposited were issued on 12.07.2007 i.e. after more than 4 months and these receipts were issued on the basis the challans i.e. Ex. PW4/D1 to D26, all dated 12.07.2007, which leaves absolutely no doubt that first the draw was held and thereafter the beneficiary share was deposited. It is also an admitted position that all the challans bear the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo and are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht.
11.4 The fact that draw of plot list/draw list Ex. PW4/B conducted through parchi system (manual) bears the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo stands also proved not only from the testimony of PW4 Sh. Balbir Singh who retired as Deputy Director, DUSIB and who identified their signatures at point Q1553 & Q1556 and Q1554 & Q1557 respectively but also from the FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly), which has been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 177 of 522 11.5 PW4 had also identified the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo on the draw slips Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 at points Q1397, Q1403, Q1406, Q1409, Q1412, Q1415, Q1418, Q1421, Q1424, Q1427, Q1430, Q1433, Q1436, Q1439, Q1442, Q1445, Q1448, Q1451, Q1454, Q1457, Q1460, Q1463, Q1466, Q1469, Q1472, Q1475, Q1478, Q1481, Q1484, Q1487, Q1490, Q1493, Q1496, Q1499, Q1502, Q1505, Q1508, Q1511, Q1514, Q1517, Q1520, Q1523, Q1526, Q1529, Q1532, Q1535, Q1538, Q1541, Q1544, Q1547, Q1550 and Q1398, Q1401, Q1404, Q1407, Q1410, Q1413, Q1416, Q1419, Q1422, Q1425, Q1428, Q1431, Q1434, Q1437, Q1440, Q1443, Q1446, Q1449, Q1452, Q1455, Q1458, Q1461, Q1464, Q1467, Q1470, Q1473, Q1476, Q1479, Q1482, Q1485, Q1488, Q1491, Q1494, Q1497, Q1500, Q1503, Q1506, Q1509, Q1512, Q1515, Q1518, Q1521, Q1524, Q1527, Q1530, Q1533, Q1536, Q1539, Q1542, Q1545, Q1548, Q1551 respectively.
11.6 PW4 also identified handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo on challans Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 at points Q1558, Q1559, Q1562, Q1563, Q1566, Q1567, Q1570, Q1571, Q1574, Q1575, Q1578, Q1579, Q1582, Q1583, Q1586, Q1587, Q1590, Q1591, Q1594, Q1595, Q1598, Q1599, Q1602, Q1603, Q1606, Q1607, Q1610, Q1611, Q1614, Q1615, Q1618, Q1619, Q1622, Q1623, Q1626, Q1627, Q1630, Q1631, Q1634, Q1635, Q1638, Q1639, Q1642, Q1643, Q1646, Q1647, Q1650, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 178 of 522 Q1651, Q1654, Q1655, Q1658, Q1659 and Q1560, Q1561, Q1564, Q1565, Q1568, Q1569, Q1572, Q1573, Q1576, Q1577, Q1580, Q1581, Q1584, Q1585, Q1588, Q1589, Q1592, Q1593, Q1596, Q1597, Q1600, Q1601, Q1604, Q1605, Q1608, Q1609, Q1612, Q1613, Q1616, Q1617, Q1620, Q1621, Q1624, Q1625, Q1628, Q1629, Q1632, Q1633, Q1636, Q1637, Q1640, Q1641, Q1644, Q1645, Q1648, Q1649, Q1652, Q1653, Q1656, Q1657, Q1660, Q1661 respectively.
11.7 PW4 further identified the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo on the Provisional Identification Slips Ex. PW4/C1 to C11 at points Q1036, Q1069 Q1102, Q1135, Q1167, Q1200, Q1233, Q1266, Q1299, Q1332, Q1364. He also identified the signatures/handwriting as he had worked with both of them as was duly proved by him. No doubt PW4, during his cross- examination by Ld. Defence counsels, stated that he cannot definitely say that the documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C11 and Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 are the same documents as were shown to him during the investigation by CBI in the office of Deputy Director but he did state that the documents are/were similar. Moreover during his further cross-examination he categorically denied the defence's suggestion that Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C11 and Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 were never shown to him by the IO during the investigation. The fact that it is the same set of documents as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 179 of 522 were shown to him during the investigation stands duly proved through the testimony of PW52 Insp. S.S. Bhullar.
11.8 It also makes no difference that the above documents were never prepared in the presence of PW4 or that he did not know when those documents were executed or the fact that accused Atul Vashisht had not put his signatures on the said documents in his presence. It is not the prosecution's case that the documents were prepared or executed in PW4's presence or that accused Atul Vashisht had put his signatures in PW4's presence. The fact that PW4 did not know from where CBI had obtained these documents is also irrelevant as he was not a witness to the recovery of these documents and thus he was not supposed to know this fact. Role of PW4 was confined to identifying the signatures on the above documents and he duly identified the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo on the same. He having worked with them as was duly proved by him and seen them writing & signing during the course of their official duty it was but natural that he identified their signatures and handwriting. The defence not only could not prove that PW4 had not so worked with accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo but also failed to assign any motive as to why PW4 would falsely depose or identify the writing & signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo.
11.9 Though it was suggested to PW4 that he had falsely identified signatures on Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 as that of Atul Vashisht on account of service rivalry but except for this CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 180 of 522 isolated suggestion the defence miserably failed to prove as to what service rivalry PW4 was having with accused Atul Vashisht, when it started and what was the basis of the same etc. Most importantly, the FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly) duly corroborates the testimony of PW4.
11.10 No doubt PW4 also stated, during his cross- examination, that there is some variation in the signatures appearing at point Q1397 on Ex. PW4/A1, Q1469 on Ex. PW4/A25 and Q1517 on Ex. PW4/A41 and that there may be some variation in the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht on the draw slips Ex. PW4/A1 to A52, however, these variations in the signatures/handwriting are bound to occur, are natural. Furthermore, CFSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly) clinches the issue in this regard. Moreover PW4 had categorically stated "Th ere is some variation in the signatures appearing at aforesaid Q numbers but the same appear to be of Atul Vashisht." He also categorically denied that the existence of variation reflects forgery of signatures of accused Atul Vashisht.
11.11 Similarly, though Ex. PW4/A1 to A52 do not bear any stamp of Slum and JJ Department nor the word "Draw Slip"
is mentioned on them, as was also admitted by PW4, but let that be the case it is not disputed by the defence that these documents are the draw slips and that they bear the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo. In fact & most importantly, it is not disputed and is rather an admitted position that these documents i.e. draw list Ex. PW4/B, draw CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 181 of 522 slips/parchies Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52, challans Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 and PIS Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/O1 & Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C11, which documents have been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment, bears the handwriting & signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo. Moreover, during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Atul Vashisht, when the incriminating material i.e. the draw list, draw slips/parchis, PIS prepared by him/bearing his handwriting/signatures was put to him, he stated "It is a matter of record" .
11.12 Apart from PW4, PW41 Sh. S.K. Rastogi also identified the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo at point B and C respectively on the manual draw/parchis/slips Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 as well as on the draw list Ex. PW4/B. He so identified them as he proved that he had worked with them as well as seen them writing & signing the documents. During the cross-examination of PW41 not even a single suggestion was given to him that Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 and Ex. PW4/B do not bear the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht or for that matter that of deceased Philip Toppo or that he had deposed falsely to that extent.
11.13 Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that PW7 S. Vijayan, Head Clerk, SUR Section, who had worked with accused Atul Vashsihst and deceased Phillip Toppo in the said Section failed to identify the handwriting & signatures of either of them on Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/O1 & Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 182 of 522 PW4/C11, Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 and Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26. It was argued that the said witness having not supported the prosecution case itself create further doubt upon the prosecution case that the handwriting, signatures on the above documents are of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo. However, I find no merits in the said arguments. It stands squarely proved from the testimony of PW4, as discussed above in detail as well as CFSL result Ex. Ex. PW44/B (colly), which has been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment that the handwriting, signatures on the above documents are indeed of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo. In fact it is not disputed that these documents bear the signatures & handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo and therefore the fact that PW7 turned hostile has not affected the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. In fact as already discussed above, despite the admitted position that these documents bear the handwriting & signatures of deceased Philip Toppo and accused Atul Vashisht, the PWs were unnecessarily grilled, questioned/cross-examined on the aspect of their handwriting, signatures for reasons best known to the defence.
11.14 Coming back to the manual draw, it stands proved on record that for the purpose of relocation, allotment of JJ dwellers of Gautam Puri-II a committee was constituted for the purpose of draw of plots. It was to be a computerized draw as proved by PW37 whose deposition as has been reproduced CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 183 of 522 hereunder further proves that first the draw was to be held and then the beneficiary share was to be deposited:-
"A committee constituted for the purpose of draw of plots conduct a draw for beneficiaries. After the computerized draw, the beneficiary has to deposit his share and Slum & JJ Department has to issue an allotment slip to the beneficiary.
The draw committee was constituted as under:
1. Sh. S. N. S. Sidhu, Director (SUR)
2. Sh. Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director (SUR)
3. Sh. S. K. Rastogi, Dy. Director (EDP)
4. Sh. Jagbir Singh, Asstt. Director (Survey/Planning)
5. Concerned Dealing Asstt."
11.15 However, in the case at hand, no computerized draw was held and rather a manual draw was held vide Ex. PW4/B. PW37's deposition in this regard read as under:-
"He has further informed that certified photocopy of noting page vide which approval had been given by the then Addl. Commissioner S&JJ, MCD dated 07.07.2006 to conduct draw of plot for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system is enclosed with the said letter. The witness has identified his signature and seal on the letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith its annexures at point A. The letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith its annexures (D49) is now Ex. PW37/C-colly.
On being shown circular No. PS/D.C.(S&JJ)/S/02/002/D24 dated 09.01.2002 (D51), the witness has identified the same as the one which he has attested and which bears his signatures and official seal at point A on all pages. The circular dated 09.01.2002 (D51) is now Ex. PW37/D. On being shown note sheet (D50) regarding the approval to conduct manual draw of plots for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system and if it is more than 50, then it should be conducted by computer cell. The witness has identified the same which he has attested as true copy and which bears his signatures and official seal at point A. The said note sheet (D50) is now Ex.
PW37/E."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 184 of 522 11.16 It stands proved on record that a note dated 05.07.2006 i.e. Ex. PW37/E, which document was handed over to the IO vide Ex. PW37/C (colly), was initiated by deceased Phillip Toppo for conducting manual draw. Same is reproduced hereunder:-
"It is to bring in your kind notice that lot of cases are pending for draw. The main reason being the computerized draw to be conducted by computer section. In fact, the formalities to be completed for conducting computerized draw in respect of 1 dweller or 100 dwellers is same. This has resulted in delay. Thus dwellers are visiting this office time and again for getting plot numbers.
Needless to mention, Hon'ble Mayor has also expressed concern over delay in conducting draw. Thus to dispose off pending issues regarding draw, I am of the view to conduct draw of manual basis (parchi system).
It is further stated that draw by parchi system is more transparent and liked by dwellers also as it is conducted in their presence... In one of the enquiry conducted by Vigilance Section, draw by parchi system was given preference over computerized draw.
Thus approval be given to conduct draw of plot for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system and if it is more than 50 then it should be conducted by computer cell."
11.17 The permission for manual draw was granted by the Additional Commissioner, Slum and JJ Department as stands proved from the testimony of PW37 and Ex. PW37/C (colly). As discussed above, prior to note Ex. PW37/E a committee was already constituted for conducting computerized draw of plots and the Members of this committee were Sh. S. N. S. Sidhu, Director (SUR), deceased Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director (SUR), Sh. S. K. Rastogi, Dy. Director (EDP), Sh. Jagbir Singh, Asstt. Director (Survey/Planning) and Concerned Dealing Asstt i.e. accused Atul Vashisht. Image of office order dated 23.02.2005, which is part of Ex. PW37/A (colly), is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 185 of 522 11.18 According to this office order to complete the quorum for conducting draw, presence of any four members as mentioned in the above office order was required. During the cross-examination of PW37, he was confronted with one office order dated 07.08.2006 i.e. Ex. PW37/D3 on which the said witness identified the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo. The CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 186 of 522 relevant portion of the deposition of PW37 in this regard read as under:-
"The witness is shown the copy of the office order dated 07.08.2006 issued by Phillip Toppo, Dy. Director, SUR obtained by accused Atul Vashisht under RTI whereupon the witness identifies the signatures of Phillip Toppo on the said order and the copy of the said order is Ex. PW37/D3."
11.19 The image of the said office order Ex. PW37/D3 is reproduced hereunder:-
11.20 Copy of this order was also placed on record by accused Atul Vashisht during his defence evidence at the time of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 187 of 522 examination of DW3 and is part of Ex. DW3/F (colly) and it's image is reproduced hereunder:
11.21 A bare glace at Ex. PW37/D3 and Ex. DW3/F (colly) reveals that the said office order dated 07.08.2006 are forged and fabricated. The forgery becomes apparent when one carefully looks at the dates i.e. 07.08.2006, file/order No. 769 and the signatures of Philip Toppo on these office orders. "7" is CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 188 of 522 written in a completely different manner in the date 07.8.2006 in both the office orders. Similarly, the font of "6" in file/order no.
769 is completely different. In Ex. PW37/D3, "6" reaches below 7 &9 in 769. Whereas, in Ex. DW3/F (colly) "6" stops way above "7 & 9" in 769. The sign of Philip Toppo is different in both the office orders not only as regards the place where they begin & end, above the name of Philip Toppo and also the circle/alphabet "O" at the end of the sign is completely different. If both office orders were the same, copy of each other, were genuine then these differences would not have been there in these office orders. It requires no expert to point out these glaring differences and even a layman can easily point them out on a bare look.
11.22 Similarly in complete contrast to office order dated 23.02.2005 which is part of Ex. PW37/A (colly) there is no file number mentioned in Ex. PW37/D3 or Ex. DW3/F. Similarly, in the earlier office order members were mentioned by their name and designation both, whereas in Ex. PW37/D3 and Ex. DW3/F only the designation is mentioned. Notings/endorsements for approval, circulation etc. as are there on office order dated 23.02.2005 are missing in Ex. PW37/D3 or Ex. DW3/F. Had they been genuine documents, copy of the same office order was obtained under RTI, then there would have been no occasion for these discrepancies.
11.23 It is to be noted that PW37 had merely identified the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo on the said office order Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 189 of 522 PW37/D3. The contents of the office order were never put to the witness nor the witness was even once asked whether the said office order was indeed issued or whether it is part of/available in the office record. In fact he had also stated that he had handed over noting sheets pertaining to the manual draw to the CBI officials. With that being the case if office order Ex. PW37/D3 was a genuine order then same would have also been handed over by PW37 to CBI. The fact that it was not done so itself proves that the said office order is not a genuine one and was never part of the office record. PW37's deposition and Ex. PW37/A (colly) and Ex. PW37/C (colly), as has been discussed herein below, proves that the original file through which manual draw was held was not available. Once it was not available in the office how copy of office order dated 07.08.2006 could be obtained by accused Atul Vashisht cannot be explained and is not palpable. The fact that it bears the signatures of one of the main accused i.e. deceased Philip Toppo made it easier for the accused persons to create this document subsequently merely to benefit themselves.
11.24 It will be pertinent to highlight that as far as this office order dated 07.08.2006 is concerned, it is the case of accused Atul Vashisht that he had obtained the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, that does not appear to be the case and it somewhere appears that very clandestinely, in a very clever, cunning, crafty manner, accused Atul Vashisht brought that office order on record to give an impression that he had obtained the same through RTI and to prove that the manual CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 190 of 522 draw held by him and deceased Philip Toppo did not suffer from any irregularity. The manner in which these documents were tendered, the same was done so as to give an impression that these documents were obtained by accused Atul Vashisht through RTI, however, a careful scrutiny of these documents would reveal that rather it was accused Atul Vashisht who had annexed those documents with his RTI application. Vide his RTI application which is part of Ex. DW3/F (colly) while seeking the information mentioned therein, he had annexed copy of order dated 07.08.2006 while claiming that he had obtained the same on his RTI application/against ID No. 386/10. The image of the said RTI application is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 191 of 522 11.25 Reply of the said application was also brought on record at the time of examination of DW3 as part of Ex. DW3/F (colly) and its image is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 192 of 522 11.26 The said RTI application/ID no. 386/11 vide which accused Atul Vashisht claims to have obtained copy of order dated 07.08.2006 and its reply are on record as part of Ex.
DW2/A (colly) and their images are reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 193 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 194 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 195 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 196 of 522 11.27 Neither in the said RTI application nor in the reply there is any reference whatsoever to office order dated 07.08.2006. No doubt as per the RTI reply accused Atul Vashisht was provided 300 photocopies of documents which were in the custody of the office but whether office order dated 07.08.2006 is/was part of those 300 photocopies is highly doubtful. Exactly which 300 copies were obtained by accused Atul Vashisht cannot be ascertained either from the application or the reply.
Furthermore the RTI application would reveal that accused Atul Vashisht had carried out the inspection himself and confirmed the documents which he requires. As discussed above, the two office orders being completely different as regards the manner in which the date has been written, the office order number and the signatures, it strongly appears that the said forged document was slipped in between and tried to be given an impression that it was also obtained by him under RTI amongst 300 photocopies of the documents he received from the department. It will be further pertinent to point out that in the office order dated 07.08.2006 i.e. Ex. PW37/D3, which otherwise is a photocopy, the ID no. as mentioned on the stamp is 952/2013 and it bears the signatures of the then Assistant Director dated 26.04.2013 whereas office order dated 07.08.2006 which is part of Ex. DW3/F, the ID no. as mentioned on the stamp is 386/10 and it bears the signatures of the then Assistant Director again dated 26.04.2013 but both the signatures are different/ of different person. It could not be explained and absolutely sans logic as to why the same document was allegedly obtained vide two different RTI applications and how despite being allegedly signed on the same day i.e. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 197 of 522 26.04.2013 they bear completely different signatures of Assistant Director. As far as RTI application upon which information Ex. PW37/B was allegedly provided has not been placed on record. Furthermore, Ld. Public Prosecutors for CBI during the arguments pointed out that the note sheet dated 05.07.2006 part of Ex. DW3/F bears the CBI/prosecution numbering D-53 which proves that it was accused Atul Vashisht who himself had provided the said document to the department and sought their endorsement under RTI or else there was no occasion for the said document to bear the description D-53. In a similar manner Ex. PW37/D3 and Ex. DW3/F were brought on record after creating them.
11.28 It will also be worthwhile to point out that DW3 during his deposition categorically stated as under:-
"I have also brought reply bearing No. D-967/DD(Rehab)/DUSIB/11 dated 26.08.2011 of Assistant Director (Rehab)/APIO and office copy of application bearing ID No. 386/DD(Rehab)/DUSIB/11 dated 09.08.2011 of Atul Vashisht. At this stage, it is stated by the witness that some annexures mentioned in the RTI reply dated 26.08.2011 running into 300 pages are not traceable in our office record. In this regard, I am placing on record circular bearing No. D280/DD(SUR)/DUSIB/2023/ dated 11.10.2023, which bears my signature at point A. The said circular alongwith copy of dispatch/receipt register (running into 2 pages) is now exhibited as Ex. DW3/E (running into 3 pages) (OSR)."
11.29 It has already been discussed above that office order dated 07.08.2006 i.e. Ex. PW37/D3 and the one which is part of Ex. DW3/F had not been specifically sought vide RTI application Ex. DW2/A (colly) and there is nothing on record which proves that the said office order was also part of 300 odd photocopies supplied to accused Atul Vashisht. The fact that the documents CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 198 of 522 were not traceable in the office record further creates doubt upon the genuineness of the documents placed on record during the defence evidence and while confronting the prosecution witnesses. More over, these documents specially Ex. PW37/D3 and Ex. DW3/F were allegedly obtained in the year 2012-13, however, none of the prosecution witnesses especially those appearing from the Slum and JJ Department were confronted with the said documents, despite the fact that the prosecution evidence started in the year 2013 itself and it was only PW37 who was shown the said document and that to for identifying the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo without putting the contents of the documents to him. Though Ld. Defence Counsels also placed on record copy of W.P.(CRL) 781/2013 & Crl.M.A.7844/2013 Shiv Narain Singh Sidhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation and argued that office order dated 07.8.2006 was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while allowing the writ petition, however, suffice would be to say that in the said proceedings, the order on charge dated 07.11.2012 in RC No. DIA-2007-A-0050 was assailed by the petitioner/accused. It was not a case where office order dated 07.8.2006 discussed in para 39 of the said judgment was appreciated after a trial, after the parties adduced their respective evidence. Furthermore, as discussed above, the case at hand, two copies of the said order have been placed on record, which copies are strikingly different which can solely be on account of the fact that they are forged.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 199 of 522 11.30 Having discussed the above, it also could not be explained by the accused persons as to why the quorum, if office order dated 07.08.2006 was indeed issued by deceased Philip Toppo, was reduced to two members, though as per Ex. PW37/A (colly) four members were required to complete the quorum. Not only the members of the draw committee were reduced from five to four but even the quorum was reduced from four to two. Fact remains that permission for holding manual draw was sought to further the conspiracy, give effect to the conspiracy and for the same reason the quorum was reduced, that too if indeed the office order dated 07.08.2006 is a genuine one which I highly doubt. The said office order if at all it was issued, it was issued by deceased Philip Toppo in a clandestine manner just to cover up the misdeeds. Had the computerized draw been held, the plots would not have been allotted to those JJ dwellers who had already been allotted plots. The accused persons would not have been able to make fraudulent allotments as their misdeeds would have been detected by the computer. Reduction of quorum and deceased Philip Toppo & accused Atul Vashisht being the only members who conducted the draw/completed the quorum of the draw committee was all part of the conspiracy.
11.31 The office note, which was duly approved by Additional Commissioner i.e. Ex. PW37/E at best gave permission to hold manual draw and no permission was sought or given to reduce the quorum. The permission to reduce the quorum could have only been given by the Additional Commissioner and not deceased Phillip Toppo. The language CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 200 of 522 used in office order dated 23.02.2005 which is part of Ex. PW37/A (colly) is "Additional Commissioner (S&JJ) has been pleased to accord his approval vide his order dated 21/02/2005 for constitution of Draw Committee for conducting draw of plots by SUR Cell (on file bearing No. F.20(1)/S(S)/20/95)........."......... "This order is issued in supersession of all earlier orders in respect of constitution of Draw Committee." Whereas the language used in Ex. PW37/D3 and Ex. DW3/F is "Additional Commissioner (S&JJ) vide his orders dt. 07/07/06 on file titled 'Some basic issues related to Relocation Policy" has been pleased to accord his approval to conduct draw of plots on manual basis through Parchi System for 50 dwellers or less than 50 dwellers in numbers.............". Hence neither in the office note Ex. PW37/E nor in Ex. PW37/D3 (also Ex. DW3/F) it is anywhere mentioned that the Additional Commissioner gave approval for reconstitution of the committee. Furthermore as against Ex. PW37/A (colly) no file number is mentioned in Ex. PW37/D3 (also Ex. DW3/F) and it is also not mentioned in Ex. PW37/D3 (also Ex. DW3/F) that the said office order has been issued in supersession of all previous office orders as was the language used in Ex. PW37/A (colly). At this stage, it will be worthwhile to highlight the following statement of PW52:-
"It is not clear from office order dated 23.02.2005 that the Committee which was formed vide the above said order had to conduct the draw of plots by way of computer or manual draw. As per the note sheet Ex. PW37/E (D50), the approval of the manual draw was sought in July 2006 and as such vide order dated 23.02.2005, the same was meant for computerized draw. As per the said note sheet, there is no mention of the draw committee and as such, the committee constituted for computerized draw was in force."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 201 of 522 11.32 Also if indeed defence wanted to prove that the permission for reconstitution of the draw committee and reduction of the quorum was given by the then Additional Commissioner Sh. R.M. Pillai nothing stopped the defence from examining him in support of their case. Having not done so and considering the above discussion I have more than grave doubts about the genuineness of Ex. PW37/D3 (also Ex. DW3/F). Infact to none of the prosecution witnesses especially the one appearing from the Slum and JJ Department any question regarding reduction of the quorum was put to them. It was not even once suggested that the committee was reconstituted and the quorum was reduced or that the same was done after seeking permission from Sh. R.M. Pillai. In fact PW41 Sh. S.K. Rastogi had categorically stated during his cross-examination as " The Addl. Commissioner, Slum & JJ Department was the competent authority under the rules to constitute the draw committee" . Hence deceased Phillip Toppo could not have reconstituted the committee as he was not the competent authority. This further proves that Ex. PW37/D3 (also Ex. DW3/F) was forged & fabricted document.
Recovery of the draw list and the draw parchis/slips from the house of accused Mohan Lal
12. The original draw list and the draw parchis/slips i.e. Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/A1 to A52 respectively, which admittedly are in the handwriting of deceased Philip Toppo and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 202 of 522 accused Atul Vashisht, were not seized from the Slum & JJ Department but were rather recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal. PW37 categorically proved that he had informed the IO, during the investigation, that the original file through which manual draw was conducted and the original allotment files/records in respect of 26 JJ dwellers of Gautam Puri and Yamuna Pushta, who have been allotted plots at F block Savda Ghevra are not available/traceable. The relevant portion of his testimony in this regard read as under:-
"On being shown letter dated 27.06.2008 alongwith its annexures (D46), the witness has identified the same as the one which he has written to Insp. S. S. Bhulla in reference to letter No. 4795/RC DAI 2007 A 0043 dated 01.05.2008 of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Vide this letter, he has informed that efforts have been made to trace out the original file through which the manual draw was conducted and original allotment files/record in respect of 26 JJ dwellers of Gautam Puri and Yamuna Pushta, who have been allotted plots at F Block, Savda Ghevara are not available/ traceable. It was also informed that original challans in respect of 26 JJ dwellers of aforesaid JJ Clusters through which an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited are enclosed with this letter. The photocopy of the orders of draw committee and funding pattern for relocation plot are also enclosed with this letter. The witness has identified his signatures and seal on the above said letter as well as on its annexures (annexures attested by him) at point A on all pages. The said letter dated 27.06.2008 alongwith its annexures (D46, 20 pages) is now Ex. PW37/A-colly...
On being shown letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith its annexures, the witness has stated that he has written the said letter to SP/CBI/ACB S. K. Palsania, informing that the original file through which the manual draw has been processed in respect of 46 persons of dwellers of Indira Nagar and others is not traceable. He has further informed that certified photocopy of noting page vide which approval had been given by the then Addl. Commissioner S&JJ, MCD dated 07.07.2006 to conduct draw of plot for 50 or less than 50 dwellers by parchi system is enclosed with the said letter. The witness has identified his signature and seal on the letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 203 of 522 its annexures at point A. The letter dated 01.07.2008 alongwith its annexures (D49) is now Ex. PW37/C-colly.
12.1 No doubt PW37, during his cross-examination, stated as under:-
"The file of the draw used to be in the custody of store keeper. I do not recollect who was the store keeper at the relevant time. I do not recollect whether CBI ever demanded the file of draw from me. During the investigation of this case, I had not seen the file of draw nor did I make any enquiry about the said file in my department. Again said, my staff had told me that the said file was not traceable in my office. Even after coming to my notice, the fact regarding the draw file not traceable in my office, no enquiry or police investigation was got initiated. I did not tell CBI during investigation regarding the person in whose custody the file was last found to be.
,however, the fact remains that some of the original documents pertaining to the allotment i.e. draw lists, draw slips/parchis were recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal and the remaining documents/files went missing, so as to not only avoid the misdeeds coming to fore but also to further purpose of the conspiracy which was to sell the allotted plots in the open market.
12.2 It is the prosecution case that on the basis of source information a raid was conducted at the house of accused Mohan Lal bearing no. B-62, Nehru Vihar and the draw lists as well as the draw slips i.e. Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/A1 to A52 respectively were recovered from the said house vide seizure memo Ex. PW36/A. This raid was conducted by Insp. D.K. Thakur (PW51) in the presence of independent witness Sh. Devender Kumar (PW36) apart from other CBI officials. The CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 204 of 522 very fact that these documents, which bear the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo, were recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal itself sufficiently proves not only the involvement of accused Atul Vashisht in the conspiracy but also of accused Mohan Lal or else there was no occasion for recovery of these documents from the house of accused Mohan Lal.
12.3 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that there are grave doubts upon the alleged search & seizure proceedings in view of the highly contradictory, inconsistent testimony of Insp. D.K. Thakur who had allegedly conducted the search. It was argued that his deposition completely contradicts and create immense doubts upon the prosecution case viz-a-viz the recovery proceedings. It was argued that as per the examination in chief of Insp. D.K. Thakur he had conducted the search at the residential premises of accused Mohan Lal @ Monu at ground floor B-59, Nehru Vihar and seized number of documents vide Ex. PW36/A. It was argued that he did not even once state that he had carried out the search at B-62, Nehru Vihar and even as per seizure memo Ex. PW36/A the place of search has been mentioned as " residential premises of Shri Mohan Lal @ Mone at Ground Floor B-59, Nehru Vihar, PS, Timar Pur, Delhi". It was further argued that even from the statement made by Insp. D.K. Thakur, during his cross-examination, no search was carried out at B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. Not only this PW51 Insp. D.K. Thakur admittedly did not verify the ownership of premises bearing no. B-59 and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 205 of 522 B-62 i.e. whether they belonged to Mohan Lal or not and also whether he was in possession of the same or not. It was argued that admittedly he had not sealed house no. B-59 after completion of search & seizure and also had never handed over the possession of the premises where he had carried out the search to Mohan Lal at any point of time. Ld. Defence Counsels pointed out that PW51 had admittedly verified the address of accused Mohan Lal i.e. B-59 before carrying out the search and it was the same municipal number written on the premises where the search was conducted. It was argued that that being the case, the search according to PW51 was conducted at B-59 and not B-62 as is otherwise the prosecution case. It was argued that independent witness Narender Singh Chokkar of Jan Kalyan Sudhar Samiti, in whose presence lock of premises bearing no. B-59 was broken, was not cited as a witness and accordingly was never examined which further renders the prosecution story highly doubtful more so when the other CBI officials Insp. Prem Nath and SI Manoj Kumar whose signatures appear on seizure memo Ex. PW36/A were also not examined. It was argued that the prosecution could not even remotely substantiate its claim regarding search & seizure proceedings as allegedly conducted vide Ex. PW36/A. 12.4 No doubt according to Ex. PW36/A and the examination in chief of PW51 Insp. D.K. Thakur it emerges that search & seizure proceedings were carried out at B-59, Nehru Vihar, however, it stands proved on record that the said search & seizure proceedings were in fact carried out at B-62, Nehru Vihar CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 206 of 522 and not B-59. Though PW51 during his examination in chief deposed as under:-
"On being shown photocopy of search cum seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 already Ex. PW36/A, the witness has stated that he has conducted the search at the residential premises of Mohan Lal @ Mone at ground floor B-59, Nehru Vihar, PS Timarpur, Delhi alongwith Insp. Prem Nath, SI Manoj Kumar and independent witness Sh. Devendra Kumar."
however, during his cross-examination, he had stated as under:-
"At the time when I had filed the complaint Ex.PW51/A, I came to know the address of Mohan Lal as B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. I had gone to the said address once for carrying out search as there was a search authorization in respect of the said premises in RC 25(A)/2007. ...........(vol. it was an inadvertent mistake on my part recorded in the complaint Ex.PW51/A wherein I had mentioned that search was carried out in the residential premises of Mohan Lal at B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. Although I had to write the address of Mohan Lal where the search was carried out by me as B-59 as well as B-70, Nehru Vihar, Delhi)."
12.5 The above statement leaves no doubt that a search was carried out at B-62, Nehru Vihar and what emerges from a careful reading of the statement of PW51 coupled with that of other prosecution witnesses is that the search & seizure proceedings were carried out at B-62 and not at B-59, Nehru Vihar or else there was no occasion for the address to be mentioned as B-62 in complaint Ex. PW51/A which formed the basis of the present FIR. This document itself sufficiently proved that the search was carried out at B-62 and not at B-59. The relevant portion of Ex. PW51/A regarding the search & seizure proceedings is reproduced hereunder:-
".........Moreover, the official records of SUR, Slum & JJ Department i.e. the Draw list and Draw parchies of the said plots were also recovered from House No B-62, Nehru Vihar, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 207 of 522 Delhi where they had been kept on the directions of Sh. Ashok Malhotra................"
12.6 No doubt PW51 had also stated " It is correct that no search was carried out at B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.", however immediately thereafter he had also stated " I had never visited the said premises i.e. B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi again after carrying out the search" which proves that he had carried out search at premises bearing no. B-62. Why PW51's testimony remained shaky and inconsistent is easily understandable from the fact that at the time when his testimony was recorded he was no longer in service as he had been removed from service on the charges that certain documents went missing in RC no. 34/2007 which is a connected matter. Furthermore, one RC 2(A)/2008 was registered against him at CBI/AC-1 for demanding bribe from one Smt. Kusum Sehgal who was known to accused Atul Vashisht. With this being the background, having grudges against the CBI, the department he served, it was but natural for PW51 to not to support the CBI case whole heartedly and this is why his testimony remained shaky and inconsistent. The relevant portion of his cross-examination in this regard read as under:-
"It is correct that I have been removed from the service. The charges against me on the basis of which I removed from my service were that certain documents were missing in case RC 34/2007 (Vol. FIR was registered against me in the year 2012, which was subsequently closed on the grounds that no document was missing and the said closure report was accepted by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts)................It is correct that RC 2(A)/2008 was registered against me at CBI, AC-I, New Delhi on the complaint of Smt. Kusum Sehgal. It is correct that the said complainant was known to Sh. Atul Vashisht who is an accused in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that there were allegations against me in the said RC that in order to save CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 208 of 522 or dilute the cases against accused Atul Vashisht registered by the CBI and for helping him in getting bail in the said cases. The allegation in the said RC was that I had demanded Rs. 2 lacs for the bail which was already granted to Atul Vashisht by the Hon'ble High Court."
12.7 It is also a matter of record that in RC 2(A)/2008 PW51/D.K. Thakur was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.10.2014 and one of the main reason for acquittal was that accused Atul Vashisht who was the prime witness in the said matter was dropped, not examined by CBI. Though Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that the CBI deliberately & malafidely in connivance with PW51/D.K. Thakur dropped Atul Vashisht as a witness in order to save D.K. Thakur, however, this court considering judicial propriety cannot/shouldn't comment upon the said matter, nonetheless it is to be seen that D.K. Thakur was acquitted in the said matter on 30.10.2014 and his deposition before this court was recorded on 15.02.2019 and it cannot be completely ruled out that D.K. Thakur, the manner in which he deposed before this court was a quid pro quo. Atul Vahisht having been dropped in the said RC which gave direct benefit to D.K. Thakur, D.K. Thakur extended the courtesy in the present matter by deposing in the most callous, irresponsible manner bringing on record immense inconsistencies in his deposition viz- a-viz the prosecution case.
12.8 Such was the extent of inconsistency of PW51 that despite having repeatedly claimed in his examination in chief as well as cross-examination that he had carried out the search at B-59, during the later part of his cross-examination he stated " I did not receive any instructions from Insp. Raj Singh for conducting CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 209 of 522 search at B-59, Nehru Vihar. The search authorization was signed by Insp. Raj Singh".
12.9 No doubt PW51 admitted "It is correct that in the absence of search authorization, no search can be carried out. It is correct that there is no search authorization in respect of B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi in RC 25(A)/2007", however, the fact remains that search was carried out at B-62 which fact stands further established from the other material on record.
12.10 As regards PW51's claim that municipal number i.e. B-59 Nehru Vihar was written on the premises where the search was carried out suffice would be to say that he was making a false claim to that extent and there is no material whatsoever on record to substantiate the said claim. Having stated during his cross-examination as " I had verified the address of Mohan Lal given to me in the search warrant from the neighbourhood before conducting the search. On verification, I came to know that B-59, Nehru Vihar is the address of Mohan Lal..........", he immediately thereafter stated "As I had not verified the said fact regarding possession and ownership of Mohan Lal in respect of property No. B-59, Nehru Vihar, therefore, I cannot say whether he was owner or was in possession of the said property, nor did I try to find out about the same at any point after the search proceedings".
12.11 As far as statement made by PW51, during his cross- examination i.e. "Vol. Somebody claiming himself to be the owner of the property had also arrived by that time. The person who came there claiming himself to be the owner of the property was not the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 210 of 522 accused Mohan Lal. I do not know as to whom the possession of the property was handed over by the constable left there. It is correct that I had not handed over the possession of the premises where we had carried out the search to Mohan Lal at any point of time" is concerned, it stands proved on record that property no. B-62, Nehru Vihar was sealed after the search-cum-seizure proceedings and thereafter it was desealed. During the course of arguments, accused Mohan Lal himself produced one original document bearing the signatures of Insp. D.K. Thakur (PW51) which coupled with the other material on record proves that his property was duly sealed after the search-cum-seizure proceedings. The image of said document is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 211 of 522 12.12 According to the above document accused Mohan Lal was called at the time of search but he did not turn up, hence the lock was broken and thereafter it was locked & sealed. He was also asked to collect the key from Insp. Raj Singh (PW50).
Same is also duly reflected in Ex. PW36/A, which lends due genuineness to the document produced by accused Mohan Lal. The relevant portion of Ex. PW36/A is reproduced hereunder:-
"........After efforts, Shri Mohan Lal was contacted over his mobile phone and was asked to come to the above premises immediately. But he did not turn up. After a long wait, Shri Mohan Lal was again contacted over his mobile phone but the same was found in switched off mode. The entire team remained present on the spot. When Shri Mohan Lal @ Mone did not turn up and no other relative/family members also did not report on the spot. Then it was decided to break open the said premises and to conduct search."
12.13 Alongwith the written arguments, Ld. PPs for the CBI, also placed on record certified copy of one application dated 24.09.2007 moved by accused Mohan Lal in RC no. 25(A)/2007, where he was cited as a witness & not arrayed as an CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 212 of 522 accused, praying for return of his personal papers and in the said application he had specifically mentioned that " the CBI had conducted a raid at my residence B-62, Ground Floor, Nehru Vihar, Delhi on 01.08.2007". The image of the certified copy of the said application is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 213 of 522 12.14 Reply was filed by the CBI to the said application and thereupon a judicial order was passed on 26.09.2007 on the said application. The images of the certified copy of the reply and the judicial order as placed on record by the Ld. PPs for the CBI are reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 214 of 522 Reply CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 215 of 522 Judicial Order 12.15 In fact Ld. PPs for the CBI also placed on record certified copy of desealing memo Ex. PW21/B in CC no.
72/2019 titled as CBI Vs. Kheman Singh and ors in RC No. 25(A)/2007 which bears the signatures and stamp of Insp. D.K. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 216 of 522 Thakur as well as signatures of Mohan Lal which leaves absolutely no doubt that it was property no. B-62 where the search & seizure proceedings were carried out vide Ex. PW36/A and not at B-59. The image of desealing memo is reproduced hereunder:-
12.16 It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that on comparison of the signatures appearing on the application and the desealing memo, it becomes apparent that the two signatures are different and not of accused Mohan Lal. It was further argued that these are infact forged and fabricated documents filed by the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 217 of 522 prosecution alongwith their written arguments. However, I find no merits in the said arguments. On comparison with naked eye, I find no dissimilarity in the signatures of accused Mohan Lal appearing on these two documents. In fact, not only the signatures are similar on these two documents, but they are also similar with the signatures appearing on judicial order dated 26.9.2007 whose image has been reproduced above. It is not just the application of accused Mohan Lal but there is a reply of the CBI, desealing memo as well as the judicial order. I find no reasons why the prosecution would forge or fabricate these documents and I find absolutely no reason to doubt the judicial proceedings. The sanctity attached to judicial proceedings, judicial order, which order bears the signatures of accused Mohan Lal, which cannot be called in question under any circumstances is itself sufficient proof of the above facts. Most importantly, if these documents were indeed forged & fabricated, then in my considered opinion, accused Mohan Lal would have initiated appropriate action for forging his signatures, judicial record. Though undoubtedly these documents were not proved during the trial, at the time of recording testimony of the prosecution witnesses, however, it is not as if that these are the only documents and there is no other evidence regarding search and seizure from house no. B-62. The evidence in detail has been discussed above. Further more, what necessitated the prosecution to file certified copy of the above documents on record was the document produced by accused Mohan Lal himself during the course of arguments. More over, the court can always take notice of judicial record/order. Also the above proceedings, documents CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 218 of 522 are in connected cases wherein, most of the accused persons are common. There is no question of they be taken by surprise or any prejudice being caused to them.
12.17 The fact that desealing of house of accused Mohan Lal had taken place stands further proved from the following statement made by PW51 during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel:-
" I do not remember whether de-sealing of the house of Mohan Lal had been done prior to registration of RC 34(A)/2007 or not."
12.18 In fact multiple raids were conducted, multiple search and seizure proceedings were carried out and the same explains the mix-up, inconsistent testimony of PW51, in addition to the fact that PW51 for reasons as discussed above did not depose whole-heartedly as was otherwise expected of him. PW51's testimony proves that he had also accompanied Sh. R.C. Sharma at the time of search of premises bearing no. B-70, Nehru Vihar. The relevant portion of his cross-examination in this regard read as under:-
"I do not remember whether I had visited the premises No. B-62, Nehru Vihar (vol. I had visited one more premises in B Block, Nehru Vihar i.e. other residence of Mohan Lal for search purpose, but I do not remember the exact address of the said premises). Both the addresses of Mohan Lal were mentioned in the separate search authorization.
Firstly, upon receipt of search authorization qua Mohan Lal received by R.C. Sharma, we had gone for search in premises bearing No. B-70, Nehru Vihar in which we did not find anything incriminating and thereafter we stayed there only in Nehru Vihar and on receipt of the second search authorization qua Mohan Lal assigned to me in respect of B-59, Nehru Vihar, we had gone there and conducted search. I had also accompanied Sh. R. C. Sharma at premises No. B-70, Nehru Vihar for conducting search, but nothing found.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 219 of 522 A lady was present there in the premises who claimed that she is wife of Mohan Lal and that gave the reason to us to believe that the premises belong to Mohan Lal. The search authorization was received by Sh. R. C. Sharma on 01.08.2007. The search authorization was executed on the same day in the evening and it took around 1½ to 2 hours to search the said premises and it was in the afternoon and concluded prior to the sunset. I am not aware as to when Sh. R. C. Sharma submitted the execution report to Insp. Raj Singh. The second search authorization was received on that very day on 01.08.2007 in the evening and it took entire night of 01.08.2007 to execute the said search authorization. Insp. R. C. Sharma informed to Insp. Raj Singh and Supervisory Officer about the result of the search conducted at premises No. B-70, Nehru Vihar. I cannot say whether Insp. Raj Singh was aware of the premises No. B-70, Nehru Vihar prior to the issuance of search authorization qua premises No. B-59, Nehru Vihar. It is correct that the search authorization in respect of both the premises was given by Insp. Raj Singh. So far as I remember, Insp. R. C. Sharma was not part of the search team which conducted search in premises No. B-59, Nehru Vihar. The search team which carried out the search at premises No. B-70 comprises Insp. R. C. Sharma, myself, SI Manoj Kumar and ASI Smt. Sunita Chamoli, apart from the independent witnesses and some constables. The search teams are usually constituted by the Supervisory Officers of the rank of SP and the same was the case with regard to authorization of these two searches. During the aforesaid two searches, no other address of Mohan Lal came to my notice. After completing the search at premises No. B-59, Nehru Vihar, the representative of Jan Kalyan Sudhar Samiti Mr. Narender Singh Chhokar was present when we broke open the lock of the premises No. B-59, Nehru Vihar and thereafter he went away and again came there on the next day when we were about to leave. Second time, police official called him. I never came to know whether the persons to whom I handed over the charge of B-59, Nehru Vihar ever handed over the possession of the said premises to Mohan Lal or not. I had never issued any notice/letter to Mohan Lal for taking the keys of the premises i.e. B-59, Nehru Vihar either from me or from Inspector Raj Singh at any point of time.
I had decided of my own to adopt this course to call the owner of the premises so that the keys/possession may be handed over........................
I did not verify or ask for any documents from the person who came to premises bearing No. B-59, Nehru Vihar, claiming himself to be the owner of the same. As we were in a hurry to wind up the proceedings and the keys of the house was already handed over to the area beat officer, therefore we did not entertain the claim of the person to be the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 220 of 522 owner of the above-said house as that was left to the local police. It is correct that I never came to know as to who was the owner and in possession of house No. B-59, Nehru Vihar (vol. after execution of search, I had not conducted nor part of any proceedings qua house No. B-59, Nehru Vihar).....................
Que: I suggest you that you had never conducted any search and seizure at the premises owned and possessed by Mohan Lal at any point of time. What do you have to say? Ans: It is wrong. We had searched the premises No. B-70, Nehru Vihar knowing that it was under the possession of Sh. Mohan Lal as his wife was present there. We also conducted search at premises No. B-59, Nehru Vihar having definite circumstantial evidence it belongs to Mohan Lal.
Enquiries from the neighbourhood and from the local police and their feedback were the circumstances which made us believe that premises No. B-59 belonged to Mohan Lal."
12.19 The fact that there was a mix-up as regards the address of accused Mohan Lal becomes further evident from the cross examination of PW50 DSP Raj Singh who had issued the search authorization. The statement made by him during his cross-examination also leaves no doubt that Mohan Lal's house was indeed sealed after the search & seizure proceedings and thereafter it was desealed. The relevant portion of his cross- examination is reproduced hereunder:-
"I had visited B-62, Nehru Vihar and not B-59 where the search was being actually conducted, there was some mix-up initially with regard to the premises number, which I came to know later after the conclusion of the search. I came to know about the exact address of Mohan Lal when Mohan Lal joined the investigation. However, it was before the recording of statement of Mohan Lal U/s 164 Cr.P.C................... Que: Whether you can affirm that the address of Mohan Lal, i.e. B-59, Nehru Vihar, PS Timarpur, Delhi is the correct address of the said person or not. What do you have to say? Ans: I cannot affirm the above mentioned address of Mohan Lal as mentioned in Ex. PW36/A. Vol. So far as I remember, the search was conducted at the residential premises of Sh. Mohan Lal situated at Nehru Vihar.................. The statement of Mohan Lal under section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by me after the search and seizure which was CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 221 of 522 conducted vide Ex.PW36/A. I had gone through Ex.PW36/A prior to recording of statement of Mohan Lal under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Que: Who prepared the application for recording of statement of Mohan Lal under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ans. I had prepared the said application.
Que: Whether in the said application you had written the address of Mohan Lal or not?
Ans. Yes, I had mentioned his address..........
Que: Whether the address mentioned in Ex. PW36/A was the same address which was written by you in application for recording of statement of Mohan Lal U/s 164 Cr.P.C. or not. What do you have to say?
Ans: No. I had written the address of Mohan Lal as B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi in the said application as I came to know about the address of Mohan Lal during the course of investigation.
The address mentioned in Ex. PW36/A of Mohan Lal was verified by me during investigation as after his house search by Sh. D. K. Thakur, Insp., the house of Sh. Mohan Lal was sealed as he was not present at that time and during the desealing of the said premises, the house number was confirmed. As far as I remember, the desealing of the premises of Mohan Lal was done by me or Sh. D. K. Thakur. The desealing of the premises of Mohan Lal may have been done after 15-20 days of sealing of the premises."
12.20 However, at the same time I am of the considered opinion that the kind of answers PW50 gave during his cross- examination aren't and cannot be acceptable from a person holding the rank DSP CBI. The manner in which he issued the search authorization without even verifying the address of accused Mohan Lal which ultimately resulted in all this mix-up does not reflect well upon PW50 DSP Raj Singh. It was absolutely unprofessional and sloppy. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW50 in this regard read as under:-
" I do not now remember whether I had verified the address of Mohan Lal before granting the authorization for conducting search cum seizure at his residence. I do not now remember CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 222 of 522 which address was mentioned by me while granting authorization for conducting search at the premises of Mohan Lal........ I do not remember as to when I had visited the spot of search and seizure during the course of search which was being carried out by Sh. D. K. Thakur........... As far as I remember we were having only one address of accused Mohan Lal at the time when I had issued the search authorization for conducing the search at the house of Mohan Lal. I do not remember as to how many search authorizations were issued by me for conducting search at the premises of accused Mohan Lal nor do I remember whether I had issued search authorization in respect of Mohan Lal of different addresses on the same day or not. I do not remember whether I had authorized any other officer except Inspector D.K. Thakur for conducting searches at the premises of Mohan Lal............
I had not investigated the fact regarding ownership or possession of H. No. B-59, Nehru Vihar and of B-62, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
Que: I put it to you that Mohan Lal was neither the owner of H. No. B-59, Nehru Vihar nor was ever in possession of the said premises. What do you have to say?
Ans: I had not investigated the fact whether Mohan Lal was owner of H. No. B-59, Nehru Vihar or he was ever in possession of the said premises."
12.21 Had he done his job carefully, diligently and verified the exact address of accused Mohan Lal before issuing search authorization no mix-up would have occurred.
12.22 It has already been discussed above that property bearing no. B-62 was sealed after the search and seizure proceedings by Insp. D.K. Thakur and he had desealed the same and handed over the possession of the same to accused Mohan Lal. The desealing order, as discussed above, cut shorts the controversy in this regard. Moreover a suggestion was put to PW51 that at the time of recording statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of accused Mohan Lal he had mentioned his address as B-62 Nehru Vihar. This suggestion further proves that there was a mix-up CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 223 of 522 with regard to the address of accused Mohan Lal and after the search and seizure proceedings it was revealed that the exact address of accused Mohan Lal where the search and seizure proceedings were carried out is B-62 and B-59. The said suggestion/question-answer is reproduced hereunder:-
"Que: I suggest you that you had recorded the statement of Mohan Lal U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in RC 34(A)/2007 wherein his address is shown as B-62, Nehru Vihar. What do you have to say?
Ans: I do not now remember whether I recorded the statement of Mohan Lal nor do I remember whether I recorded his residential address as B-62, Nehru Vihar."
12.23 Apart from the above PW50 Raj Singh, DSP CBI proved the application for recording of the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Mohan Lal as well as the statement recorded in RC no. 25(A)/2007 as Ex. PW50/B and in the said application as well as the statement the address of Mohan Lal is mentioned as B-62, Nehru Vihar. This statement was recorded on 14.08.2007 i.e. within two weeks of the search & seizure proceedings and much before complaint dated 28.11.2007 was given by PW51. This coupled with the desealing order explains why in the complaint the address was mentioned as B-62 and B-59. No doubt statement Ex. PW50/B cannot be read in evidence in the present matter as the same was recorded in RC No. 25(A)/2007 and the other accused persons did not have the opportunity to cross examine accused Mohan Lal viz-a-viz the said statement, however, this court has not gone into the statement, its context but only the aspect as to how & when it was recorded and the address mentioned on the same.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 224 of 522 12.24 It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that for reasons best known to the CBI/IO neither any statement of Sh. Narender Singh Chokkar was ever recorded nor he was examined as a witness in the present matter. It was argued that his non examination as well as non examination of other witnesses allegedly associated with the search & seizure proceedings i.e. Insp. Prem Nath, SI Manoj Kumar, the Beat Constable of the local police station and non joining of independent witnesses from the locality itself creates doubt upon the entire search & seizure proceedings. It was argued that according to PW51 keys of the premises bearing no. B-59 were handed over by him to area Beat officer, however, neither there is any such averment in the charge sheet nor any beat officer has been examined in this regard. It was argued that no locksmith was examined nor his statement was recorded during the investigation regarding breaking open of locks and sealing of the premises. As far as these arguments are concerned, suffice would be to say that in view of the above discussion, non examination of these individuals/officials has not affected the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever. The law is well settled that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity/number of witnesses that matters. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact ( Sunil Kumar V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SC 2004 (1) Criminal CC 524, Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6SCC 81).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 225 of 522 12.25 In Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (2) FAC 131, it was held as under:
"In our system of administration of justice no particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove or disprove a fact. If the testimony of a single witness is found worth reliance, conviction of an accused may safely be based on such testimony. In our system we follow the maxim that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. It is the "quality" and not the "quantity" of the evidence which matters in our system. This cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence in a case has been given a statutory recognition in Section 134 of the Evidence Act of 1872."
12.26 Further reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Ambika Prasad and others Vs. State, (2002) 2 CRIMES 63 SC) and (AIR 1988 SC 696), Jawahar v. State (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 336, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998.
12.27 Merely because the above individuals they were not examined does not mean that the above individuals/officials were not part of the search & seizure proceedings. Ex. PW36/A i.e. search-cum-seizure memo duly records the presence of above individuals at the time of the search & seizure proceedings. If these individuals were not part of search & seizure proceedings, the IO would not have mentioned their details/particulars in Ex. PW36/A. Presence of Inspector Prem Nath, SI Manoj Kumar, Narender Singh Chokar with his complete particulars, address etc., Beat Constable. from PS Timar Pur, locksmith Vijender Singh with his complete particulars, address etc. is duly recorded in Ex. PW36/A. Such details of private individuals can be there only if they are/were part of the search proceedings. Furthermore, if the defence wanted to prove that these CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 226 of 522 individuals were not present at the time of search & seizure proceedings nothing stopped the defence from examining these witnesses to dislodge the prosecution case in this regard.
12.28 It has also been discussed above that the premises was indeed sealed after the search-cum-seizure proceedings as is evident from the copy of de-sealing memo, application of accused Mohan Lal, his own document which he produced during the arguments etc. Therefore, no doubt remains that search & seizure proceedings were indeed carried out at the house/premises of accused Mohan Lal. Furthermore the said proceedings stands duly proved by independent witness Sh. Devender Kumar who was examined as PW36 and whose deposition leaves no doubt that search was carried out at the residence of accused Mohan Lal and number of documents were seized vide Ex. PW36/A which included the draw slips and the draw parchis pertaining to the present case.
12.29 PW36 proved that in the year 2007 while he was working as Admn. Officer in LIC of India he had attended the office of CBI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road as per directions of his senior officers and accompanied the CBI team to Nehru Vihar, Delhi at the residential premises of Mohan Lal where CBI officials conducted searches and certain documents were seized. He identified seizure memo dated 01.08.2007 as Ex. PW36/A as well as documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 and Ex. PW4/B as mentioned in seizure memo at serial No. 114.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 227 of 522 12.30 No doubt, during his cross-examination, PW36 stated that he does not remember the municipal/serial number of the house which they visited for the purpose of search and also stated that he does not recollect whether any municipal/serial number or any name plate etc. was mentioned/installed the house where the search was conduced, however, merely because PW36 failed to give such minute details that by itself does not render his testimony unreliable or untrustworthy. With such huge passage of time i.e. almost 11 years since he had participated in the search & seizure proceedings and the day when his deposition was recorded it was but natural for PW36 to forget these minute details. In fact his failure to give these minute details proves that he was deposing truthfully and was not a tutored witness. At best, doubts were created by PW51 as regards the premises where the search & seizure proceedings were carried out which doubts stands quelled in view of the detailed discussion above but the defence could not create any doubts as regards the recovery of documents vide Ex. PW36/A. 12.31 It makes no difference that no video or still photography of the search was done by the CBI officials or that the CBI officials and the independent witness did not offer their personal search to the public persons who had gathered there for the simple reason that the above discussion leaves absolutely no doubt that the search & seizure proceedings were indeed carried out at the house of accused Mohan Lal and the voluminous documents recovered vide Ex. PW36/A could not have been carried by the CBI officials on their persons. No question arises CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 228 of 522 whatsoever of planting these documents at the house of accused Mohan Lal.
12.32 It was also one of the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsels that according to PW51 he had conducted search at B-70, Nehru Vihar but nothing was found there and that at the time of search one lady was present in the house who claimed herself to be the wife of Mohan Lal. It was argued that the story of B-70 has been introduced for the first time in the deposition of PW51 which further create doubts upon the prosecution case. However, I find no merits in the said arguments. To begin with after PW51 categorically stated that he had carried out search at B-70 where he met the wife of accused Mohan Lal, not even a single suggestion was given to PW51 that he had not carried out any such search or that he never met the wife of accused Mohan Lal. Accordingly, I find no reason to disbelieve PW51. Furthermore during the course of arguments, Ld. PPs for CBI showed certified copy of documents relating to search conducted at B-70 in RC no. 25(A)/2007 according to which at the time of search Ms. Asha Rani Verma i.e. accused Mohan Lal's wife was met at the said premises. The said documents bear the signatures of Ms. Asha Rani Verma who was also handed over the copy of proceedings and who signed the same as an acknowledgment of the receiving. Moreover nothing stopped accused Mohan Lal from examining his wife to contradict the prosecution case in this regard and having not done so I find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Last but not the least it will be pertinent to point out that nothing incriminating whatsoever was recovered CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 229 of 522 from premises no. B-70, hence the entire arguments have no bearing whatsoever.
12.33 Ld. Defence Counsels also pointed out discrepancies in the statements of PW51 and PW36 to argue that the recovery proceedings are sham and bogus. It was argued that PW51 had claimed that "The documents which were seized were kept in a number of airbags.......... Those bags were got deposited by me in the malkhana. Those bags are not mentioned in the chargesheet of this case" whereas PW36 had stated "The documents which were seized from the house of Mohan Lal were kept in an almirah and a trunk". It was also argued that though PW51 claimed that the airbags/bags were got deposited by him in malkhana, however, the said airbags were never deposited in the malkhana as is evident from proceedings dated 20.02.2014 of this court. Herein again suffice would be to say that what is important and proved on record is the recovery from the house of accused Mohan Lal and not whether they were kept in airbags or trunk/almirah. Airbags were not material piece of evidence and only the recovered documents were material. Non-production of airbags has not dented the prosecution case in any manner. As far as discrepancies are concerned, these minor discrepancies are bound to occur with such huge passage of time between the date of incident and date of deposition. Nonetheless, these minor/frivolous discrepancies do not render the search & seizure proceedings even remotely doubtful. It is also to be kept in mind that voluminous documents were recovered vide Ex. PW36/A and thereafter they were segregated as proved by PW51, which segregation was done under the instructions and supervision of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 230 of 522 Branch SP. Not only segregation was done but separate complaints were filed for smooth, expeditious investigation.
12.34 I have gone through Maghavendra Pratap Singh (Supra) as relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel. The said case law is based upon completely distinct facts altogether. In the case at hand the owner of the house/the premises where the search was conducted is accused Mohan Lal himself. The documents on record, as discussed above in detail, leaves no doubt that he was called to the premises at the time of search proceedings but he did not deliberately turn up. The mix up in the house number has also been discussed above, which was on account of the multiple searches carried out on the same day. Independent witness of the search and seizure proceedings i.e. PW36 has been examined in the present matter unlike the above relied upon case. There is no cutting or alternation in the seizure memo which was prepared by PW51/Insp. D.K. Thakur and which bears his signatures and that of independent witness PW36, which might create even a remotest of doubt upon its authenticity or genuineness. Though the testimony of PW51/Insp. D.K. Thakur remained shaky, however, the reason behind the same has already been discussed above in detail. In addition to his testimony there is enough documentary evidence in support of the search & seizure proceedings, Ex. PW36/A which has also been discussed above in detail and which includes document produced by accused Mohan Lal himself apart from the documents placed on record by the Ld. Prosecutors. Additionally there is testimony of Insp. Raj Singh (PW50) who had issued the search authorization and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 231 of 522 most importantly the testimony of independent witness PW36. Also the law is quite well settled now that the accused cannot be given benefit of defective, sloppy investigation or else it would tantamount to playing in the hands of the investigating agencies if the investigation is designedly defective.
12.35 It was also one of the argument of Ld. Defence Counsels that there is interpolation on Ex. PW4/A1 as malkhana stamp bearing initial number "RC No. 25" has been cut, deleted and instead "RC No. 43" has been mentioned/written over the same. Similarly, there is alteration, cutting in the Memo number which has been altered from "13" to "1". Similarly, though list of draw i.e. Ex. PW4/B is alleged to have been recovered during the investigation of RC no. 34/A/2007, however, the malkhana stamp on the said document is of RC No. 43. It was argued that these alterations & interpolations themselves create serious doubt upon the prosecution case as far as recovery of documents is concerned. It was also argued that as per Section 165 Cr.P.C. the list of the articles recovered during the search are required to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate and they are to be kept in the safe custody in the original form. Furthermore, no article/document can be handed over by the IO to any person or authority without seeking permission of the concerned Magistrate. It was argued that none of the documents which have been placed on record in the present matter can be connected to the alleged search in RC no. 25 or RC no. 34. However, I find no merits in the said arguments.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 232 of 522 12.36 It is a matter of record that documents Ex. PW4/A1 to A52 along with the list of draw i.e. Ex. PW4/B were recovered during the investigation of RC no. 25(A)/2007, which recovery has been discussed in detail above. These documents were seized vide Ex. PW36/A from the house of accused Mohan Lal. Their description is mentioned at Sl. no. 114 of Ex. PW36/A which reads as "One bunch of papers containing details of draw of plots conducted through parchi system in respect of dwellers of Yamuna Pushta along with papers slips (parchis) in the name of different persons". These proceedings as discussed above were duly proved by PW36 as well as PW51. After their recovery the documents were handed over by PW51 to Insp. Raj Singh (PW50), who had issued the search authorization as proved by PW51. The documents were retained by PW50 after taking permission from Ld. Special Judge, Delhi vide proceedings dated 21.8.2007. Thereafter these documents were collected by Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW46), to whom the investigation of the present RC was marked, vide Ex. PW46/A i.e. handing-taking over memo and the details of these documents appear at Sl. No. 5(i) and (ii) of the said memo. As the documents were recovered during the investigation of RC No. 25(A)/2007 the stamp appearing on the said document i.e. Ex. PW4/A1 to A52 bear the particulars of the said matter. Subsequently, as these documents were collected in the present RC may be the IO striked out RC no. 25 and mentioned RC no. 43 above it. Same must have been done for the memo number. These cuttings/striking out are not alterations, interpolations and were merely carried out for convenience sake, so as to avoid any confusion. If there was any CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 233 of 522 other intention, the IO would have completely deleted, obliterated the number 25 appearing on Ex. PW4/A1. A bare glance at Ex. PW4/A1 would reveal that both the numbers i.e. 25 and 43 are clearly visible on the said document. Furthermore, no such questions regarding the alleged interpolations or alterations were put to either PW46, PW50 or PW51 during their cross- examination. Had the same been done, it would have clarified the same. Most importantly, defence has completely failed to explain as to how the said cutting/striking out has prejudiced the accused persons or created doubt upon the prosecution case.
12.37 As regards the arguments that the documents were not submitted before the concerned Magistrate, suffice would be to say that judicial proceedings dated 21.8.2007 leaves no doubt that the said documents were produced before the Ld. Special Judge and retained with the permission of the court by the IO. Infact, PW23, independent witness of recovery had categorically stated that after completion of the search proceedings they reached at Delhi and appeared before the Court. Though RC no. 43 is mentioned on the list of draw i.e. Ex. PW4/B, however, it stands proved on record that the said list was recovered vide Ex. PW36/A in RC no. 25(A)/2007 and how RC no. 43 came to be mentioned has already been discussed above.
12.38 Ld. Defence Counsels also argued that as per Sl. No. 5 (iii) of Ex. PW46/A, 26 carbon copies of G8 receipts are/were mentioned, however, Ex. PW46/A does not speak as to from where these receipts were seized. As far as this argument is CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 234 of 522 concerned, suffice would be to say that Ex. PW46/A is merely a handing-taking over memo in respect of the documents handed over to Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW46) by Insp. Raj Singh (PW50) and the seizure of the documents so handed over vide Ex. PW46/A was vide Ex. PW36/A. As already discussed above it is mentioned at Sl. No. 114 of Ex. PW36/A as " One bunch of papers containing details of draw of plots conducted through parchi system in respect of dwellers of Yamuna Pushta along with papers slips (parchis) in the name of different persons", without mentioning the complete details, which details were mentioned in Ex. PW46/A. 12.39 It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that PW 51 Insp. D.K. Thakur despite being the complainant had also investigated the matter. It was argued that one cannot investigate the matter wherein one is the complainant as the same is against the basic canons of fair and impartial investigation. It was also argued on behalf of accused Vijay Kumar that as Inspector D.K. Thakur himself carried out the alleged recovery at Sardhana, from where the documents have been shown to have been recovered, it cannot be completely ruled out that he himself manufactured & planted the questioned documents so as to falsely implicate the accused persons with the intention to extract money as well as to settle personal scores with them. In support of the said arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels laid much emphasis on the following statement of PW51:-
"I had investigated the facts narrated in my complaint Ex.PW51/A before filing my complaint with the CBI. I was the Investigating Officer of RC 34/2007. The segregation of documents which is alleged to have been recovered during CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 235 of 522 the course of investigation of RC 34/2007, was done by me under the instruction and supervision of Branch SP. The complaint Ex.PW51/A was got registered by me after discussion with my Branch SP Sh. Sumit Saran and Sh. S.K. Palsania."
12.40 As far as the said arguments are concerned, I find no merits whatsoever in the same. What PW51 had stated is that he had investigated the facts narrated in the complaint Ex. PW51/A before filing the complaint with CBI i.e. a preliminary enquiry was conducted and not an investigation as such. It is a matter of record that on his complaint FIR Ex. PW51/B was registered, which was marked to Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW46) for investigation. The investigation started after registration of the FIR. As far as PW51 is concerned, he was the IO of RC No. 34/2007 and not the present FIR. The recovery of the questioned documents i.e. PISs, G8 receipts, sale documents etc. from Sardhana, which has been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment, was during the course of investigation of RC No. 34/2007 and the present FIR was registered much after the recovery. More over, Ld. Defence Counsels completely failed to explain what grudges PW51 had against any of the accused persons, what were the personal scores PW51 wanted to settle with them. The arguments being absolutely hollow and when there is nothing on record to suggest that PW51 or the other prosecution witnesses had any axe to grind against the accused persons, I find no merits in the same.
12.41 Hence, the manual draw was held in a fraudulent manner and the 26 questioned plots were allotted. Draw list Ex. PW4/B and draw slips/parchis Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 236 of 522 were prepared. These documents were recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal, which recovery sufficiently establishes the complicity of these two accused persons in the conspiracy or else it cannot be explained as to how these documents/ government documents bearing the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht were recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal.
Earlier draw and allotments vide Ex. PW3/F
13. The draw was held in a fraudulent manner so as to make allotments in favour of ineligible JJ dwellers. As discussed above, none of the JJ dwellers who were allotted the questioned plots could have been allotted the 26 questioned plots for the reason that most of them (17) had already been allotted alternate plots in the year 1999, 2004 and out of the remaining 9, 5 JJ dwellers were not eligibile for any allotment as they did not meet the eligibility creteria and 4 JJ dwellers did not have any documents which could entitle them for allotment. These facts stand duly proved on record.
13.1 On the basis of survey list Ex. PW13/A, a computerized draw Ex. PW3/F, as proved by PW3 Insp. T.R. Naval, was held on 14.06.2004 and the dwellers whose name/entries appear at Sl. No. 589 (Kameshwar Mehto) & 687 (Mohd. Arif) in survey list Ex. PW13/A were allotted alternate plots. Hence, once these dwellers were already allotted alternate plots, they could not have been again allotted any alternate plot but still they were allotted questioned plots bearing no. F-30 & CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 237 of 522 F-41, Savda Ghevra vide manual draw Ex. PW4/B which was held on 09.3.2007 i.e. after three years of draw Ex. PW3/F. 13.2 Copy of Ex. PW3/F was provided to the CBI vide letter dated 26.11.2008 i.e. Ex. PW3/A through which PW3 had also supplied attested copy of the allotment/possession register maintained for Block E, SRS Bawana i.e. Ex. PW3/B, identification slip of plot no. 687 in the name of Kameshwar Mehto & 735 in the name of Mohd. Arif i.e. Ex. PW3/C1 & C2 respectively as well as photocopy of the ration card of Kameshwar Mehto along with his voter I card and receipt of Rs. 7000/- issued by the Slum and JJ Department i.e. Mark PW3/D1, Ex. PW3/D2 and Mark PW3/D3. PW3 had also provided photocopy of Mohd. Arif's ration card, his Voter Card and receipt of Rs. 7000/- issued by the Slum and JJ Department i.e. Mark PW3/E1, Ex. PW3/E2, Mark PW3/E3.
13.3 These documents unambiguously prove that vide the computerized draw Ex. PW3/F, the alternate plots were allotted and their possession handed over to Kameshwar Mehto and Mohd. Arif whose names appear in the survey list Ex. PW13/A at Sl. No. 589 & 687 respectively. It will be pertinent to point out that this computerized draw list bears the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo, SNS Sidhu and Sh. S.K. Rastogi. Once Kameshwar Mehto and Mohd. Arif were already allotted alternate plots as per the resettlement scheme there was no occasion for any fresh allotment in their names on the basis of manual draw i.e. Ex. PW4/B conducted by deceased Phillip CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 238 of 522 Toppo and accused Atul Vashisht. It also stands established on record, from the testimony of prosecution witnesses and Ex. PW1/A, that once the PIS was issued, the jhuggi in lieu of which the alternate plot was allotted was demolished at the time of issuing PIS or before shifting to the alternate plot. Hence when Kameshwar Mehto & Mohd. Arif were again allotted alternate plots vide Ex. PW4/B, their jhuggi was nowhere in the existence.
13.4 The fact that Kameshwar Mehto (PW34) and Mohd. Arif (PW28) were already allotted the alternate plots as per the resettlement scheme was further proved by these JJ dwellers who also proved that the documents furnished at the time of manual draw i.e. Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 and Ex. PW5/L-1 to L-10 were forged & fabricated.
13.5 PW34 Kameshwar Mehto proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. E-687 JJ Colony Bawana since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department. He proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 15807 dated 10.06.2004 as Ex. PW34/A as well as identification slip no. 66 as Ex. PW34/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to E-687 he was residing at 319A, Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. E-687, which address/jhuggi no. is duly mentioned in Ex. PW13/A and that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. 163103 dated 13.12.1996 i.e. Ex. PW34/C and election I card bearing no. HDS0654350 i.e. Ex. PW34/D. He also proved that once he shifted to E-687 i.e. alternate allotted plot as per CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 239 of 522 computerized draw Ex. PW3/F he was issued new election I card bearing no. KQF1994771 i.e. Ex. PW34/E and ration card bearing no. 03140019 dated 20.01.2002 i.e. Ex. PW34/F and thereafter a fresh ration card bearing no. 077003319528 i.e. Ex. PW34/G in lieu of Ex. PW34/F. 13.6 He proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/A-1 was never issued to him, though it bears his & his father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his handwriting, signatures or thumb impression at point X bearing the marking of Q1 and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to him. His deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
13.7 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW5/A-1 is F-30, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number vide Ex. PW4/B, however, as discussed above it stands proved that Kameshwar Mehto was already allotted plot no. E-687 vide Ex. PW3/B on the basis of computerized draw i.e. Ex. PW3/F in 2004. The details in Ex. PW5/A-1 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q547 and it has been signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q548 which facts stand established from FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly), which has been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment as well as from the deposition of PW10 Raju Punaji Sirsikar who had worked with both of them in the Slum & JJ Department and who duly identified their signatures and handwriting. In fact it is not disputed and is rather an admitted position of the defence, as was CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 240 of 522 duly admitted during the course of arguments, that the details on the PIS Ex. PW5/A1 are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht.
13.8 Same was PW34's response to Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 330318 dated 21.06.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/A-4 and A-3 respectively. He proved that the photographs on these documents is not his and the handwriting, signature & thumb impressions at point X bearing the marking of Q2 & Q3 are not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/A-3 does not contain the correct details of his family members at point C bearing the marking of Q555 as Bhishma Devi, Vinay, Shanti & Jitender are not his family members. The particulars, details in the ration card at point B and C bearing marking Q553 & Q555 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly). The fact that the said ration card is a forged & fabricated document and rather all the ration cards submitted as proof of eligibility qua the questioned plots are also forged & fabricated stands proved from the deposition of PW6 and his report Ex. PW6/B which has also been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment, where it has also been discussed as to by whom and how these ration cards were got prepared.
13.9 As far as the Delhi Administration card is concerned, the details in the same at point Q549 were filled by accused Surjeet Singh which fact stands proved in view of the FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly), which has also been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment where it has also been discussed as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 241 of 522 to by whom and how these I cards were got prepared. In addition to the above, the testimony of PW12 which has also been discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment leaves no doubt that the said I card along with 25 other I cards pertaining to the questioned plots were not issued by Delhi Administration and are rather forged & fabricated documents.
13.10 PW34 categorically stated that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/A-2 was not issued to him. Vide Ex. PW5/A-2 sum of Rs. 7000/- was deposited in cash with the Slum and JJ Department. This amount was to be deposited by the JJ dwellers who were eligible for allotment under the resettlement scheme. The amount was never deposited by Kameshwar Mehto, as proved by him and it is the prosecution case that the said amount was deposited by accused Atul Vashisht for which there is no direct evidence but enough circumstantial evidence pointing towards the same.
13.11 PW34 also denied knowing any person by the name of Ravinder Kumar s/o Kishan Singh or having executed any sale documents Ex. PW5/A-5 to A-10, wherein one Ravinder Kumar is a witness. He also denied having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression on these documents are not his, the photograph appearing at point X3 on Ex. PW5/A-5 is also not his and he does not know the person whose photograph appear on the said document. He further proved that plot no. F-30 regarding which the sale documents were executed does not belong to him.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 242 of 522 13.12 The details mentioned in receipt Ex. PW5/A-5 at point Q556 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved from FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly) which further proves that the handwriting/purported signatures of witness Ravinder Kumar at point Q562 on the General Power of Attorney Ex. PW5/A6 and at point Q567 on the agreement to sell and purchase Ex. PW5/A7 are also of accused Lal Mani. Similarly it is accused Lal Mani who had signed as Ravinder Kumar on deed of will Ex. PW5/A9 and possession letter Ex. PW5/A10 at point Q574 and Q577 respectively.
13.13 These sale documents are in respect of the questioned/allotted plot i.e. F-30, Savda Ghevra and it is the prosecution case, which stands substantiated/corroborated on record as has been discussed in the later part of the judgment that these documents were got prepared, in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to sell the allotted plots in the open market and cause unlawful gain to themselves while causing unlawful loss to not only the Slum and JJ Department MCD but also to the rightful JJ dwellers.
13.14 The said sale documents Ex. PW5/A-5 to A-10 were got prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee from PW14 Lal Chand & accused Vijay Kumar as stands duly proved on record through the deposition of PW16 Sushil Kumar and PW14 which has been dealt in detail in the later part of this judgment. In fact all the sale documents in respect to the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 243 of 522 questioned plots were got prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee from PW14 and accused Vijay Kumar.
13.15 Though these sale documents Ex. PW5/A-5 to A-10 bear the seal of notary public Advocate Bijender Singh and are allegedly shown to have been attested by him, however, Advocate Bijender Singh who was examined as PW15 categorically denied having attested these documents and proved that the seal of the notary public appearing on these documents is not his seal. PW15's detailed deposition, evidence has been discussed in the later part of this judgment while dealing with these documents in detail. Some of the sale documents pertaining to the questioned plots were notarized by accused Vijay Kumar which aspect has also been dealt at length in the later part of the judgment.
13.16 It will be pertinent to point out that the identification slip Ex. PW3/C-1 in the name of Kameshwar Mehto whereby he was allotted plot no. 687 bears his signatures whereas the forged PIS slip Ex. PW5/A-1 does not bear the thumb impression of PW34, as was categorically proved by him. The particulars of his family members as mentioned in his genuine ration card Mark PW3/D-1 is different from the particulars mentioned in the forged ration card Ex. PW5/A-3 as was categorically proved by PW34. Even the photograph appearing on the ration card Mark PW3/D-1 and the election I card Mark PW3/D-2 is different from the photograph appearing on the forged ration card and Delhi administration card Ex. PW5/A-3 and A-4. All this sufficiently CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 244 of 522 proves that the documents Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 are forged & fabricated documents.
13.17 Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that PW34, during his cross-examination, categorically stated that he resided at C-8C/319A, T Huts Gautam Puri-II, New Delhi, admitted that there were other jhuggi colonies in Yamuna Pushta and that since he is not aware whether C-8/319A existed in Gautam Puri Part I he will not be able to say whether the said address as mentioned in Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 is correct or not. It was argued that in view of the above statement it cannot be completely ruled out that documents Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 are correct documents in respect of some other individual and not pertaining to PW34. However, I find no merits in his arguments. It is too much of a coincidence that not only the address is almost the same i.e. 319, the locality is the same i.e. Yamuna Pushta and the individual's name and his father's name is also the same. In all these documents the name of the purchaser/second party is blank. All these documents have been prepared on the same day i.e. 18.07.2007. Such coincidence is not only in respect of PW34's documents i.e. Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 but also in the documents of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW42 whose evidence have been discussed in detail herein below. Furthermore, all these individuals are the ones who were allotted plots through manual draw despite the fact that they were already allotted plots through the computerized draw. This is no coincidence but on account of conspiracy hatched by the accused persons.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 245 of 522 13.18 No question arises of the said documents or the ration card, I card, the PIS or G8 receipt being in respect of some other JJ dweller/allottee. These documents were fraudulently, purposely prepared purportedly in the name of PW34 and the allotment was made in PW34's name only. In addition to the above documents, the challan Ex. PW4/D1, which has been dealt in detail in the later part of this judgment, was also prepared in the name of PW34 which admittedly is in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and bears the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo, which fact also stands proved vide FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly), and in the said challan, the demand notice number "589" is the same number/serial number at which PW34's name appear in survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly). Hence the allotment vide Ex. PW4/B was made in the name of PW34 and not any other individual/JJ dweller. Same is the position qua the other JJ dwellers to whom the 26 questioned plots were allotted.
13.19 As regards the arguments that PW34, during his cross-examination, stated that contents of Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 were not explained to him at the time of recording his statement and even at that time when his examination in chief was recorded which statement according to Ld. Defence counsel greatly reduces/affects the value of PW34's deposition, suffice would be to say that the testimony of PW34 coupled with other material available on record, as discussed above in detail and which also includes the FSL result leaves absolutely no doubt that documents Ex. PW5/A-1 to A-10 are indeed forged & fabricated CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 246 of 522 documents. These documents were created only to further the conspiracy, make fake allotments and thereafter sell the allotted plots to unsuspecting buyers. What was required of PW34 to prove is that the above documents were forged & fabricated which was duly proved by him.
13.20 Exactly same is the position with the JJ dweller whose name appears at Sl. No. 687 in survey list Ex. PW13/A i.e. Mohd. Arif was who examined as PW28. He proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. E-735, Block No. E, JJ Colony Bawana since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department and he proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 16556 dated 04.08.2004 as Ex. PW28/A as well as identification slip no. 77 as Ex. PW28/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to E-735 he was residing at C-8/230, Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. E-735 vide Ex. PW3/F and which address/jhuggi no. is duly mentioned in Ex. PW13/A. He proved that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. 38935 dated 26.04.1991 i.e. Ex. PW28/C and election I card bearing no. HDS0651661 i.e. Ex. PW28/D. He also proved that once he shifted to E-735 i.e. the alternate allotted plot as per computerized draw Ex. PW3/F he was issued ration card bearing no. APL22610256 dated 27.02.2007 i.e. Ex. PW28/E. 13.21 It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that as far as Ex. PW28/C and Ex. PW28/D are concerned, the original of these documents i.e. ration card and the voter I card were never CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 247 of 522 produced during the trial and accordingly objection was taken at the time of their tendering/exhibition. It was further argued that Ex. PW28/C and Ex. PW28/D cannot be said to be proved on record, however, I find no merits in their arguments. Ex. PW28/C and Ex. PW28/D belonged to PW28 who not only identified his photograph on the said documents but also identified his signatures on the same. Additionally he identified the signatures of his son Mohd. Harish on Ex. PW28/C. Once PW28 identified his photograph and signatures that was sufficient proof of the genuineness, authenticity of these documents. This is more so when the defence could not bring any material on record which could even remotely create doubt upon the genuineness of these documents. Additionally these documents, their attested true copies were duly proved by PW3 as Mark PW3/E1 and Mark PW3/E2. In fact as far as Ex. PW28/D is concerned, PW28 had categorically stated "He had to deposit back the original voter I card to the election commission when he shifted to Bawana from Gautam Puri". If the defence wanted to create doubt upon the genuineness, authenticity of Ex. PW28/D nothing stopped the defence from summoning the record from the office of election commission. Having not done so I find no merits in the arguments or the objections so raised. Though objection was also raised qua Ex. PW28/B as well, however, it is to be seen that the original of the said document was duly proved on record by PW3 as Ex. PW3/C2.
13.22 PW28 further proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/L-1 was never issued to him, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 248 of 522 though it bears his & his father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his handwriting, signature or thumb impression and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to him. His deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
13.23 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW5/L-1 is F-41, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above it stands proved that Mohd. Arif was already allotted plot no. E-735 vide computerized draw i.e. Ex. PW3/F in 2004. The details in Ex. PW5/L-1 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q904 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q905 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly) as well as from the deposition of PW10 Raju Punaji Sirsikar and other prosecution witnesses. Infact that's an undisputed position.
13.24 Same was PW28's response to Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 205633 dated 05.03.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/L-4 and L-3. He proved that the photographs on these documents are not his and the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression at point X bearing the marking Q233 and Q234 are not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/L-3 does not contain the correct details of his family members as Shakeela and Farida, the names appearing at point A on Ex. PW5/L-3 are not his family members. He proved that he does not know the person whose photograph appear on documents Ex. PW5/L-3 to L-5. The said ration card Ex. PW5/L3 is a forged & fabricated document just CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 249 of 522 like Kameshwar Mahto's. The details, particulars in Ex. PW5/L-3 at point A & B bearing the marking Q912 & Q910 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as Ex. PW44/B (colly) proved on record.
13.25 As far as the Delhi Administration card is concerned, the details in the same at point Q906 were filled by accused Surjeet Singh which fact stands proved in view of FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly).
13.26 PW28 also categorically stated that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/L-2 was not issued to him. Vide Ex. PW5/L-2 sum of Rs. 7000/- was deposited in cash with the Slum and JJ Department.
13.27 PW28 also denied knowing any person by the name of Salim s/o Rashid or having executed sale documents Ex. PW5/L-5 to L-10 or having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression on the above documents are not his, the photograph on Ex. PW5/L5 is not his. He further proved that plot no. F-41 regarding which the sale documents were executed does not belong to him.
13.28 The details mentioned in receipt Ex. PW5/L-5 at point Q913 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved from FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly) which further proves CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 250 of 522 that the handwriting/purported signatures of witness Salim at point Q920 on General Power of Attorney Ex. PW5/L6, Q925 on Agreement to Sell and purchase Ex. PW5/L7, Q932 on deed of will Ex. PW5/L9 and Q935 on possession letter Ex. PW5/L10 are also of accused Lal Mani. Furthermore, the thumb impressions appearing on receipt Ex. PW5/L5 at point Q235 & Q236, on Ex. PW5/L6 at point Q240, Ex. PW5/L7 at point Q244 & Q245 and Ex. PW5/L8 at point Q247 are also of accused Lal Mani as proved vide FSL result Ex. PW47/B (colly) which report has been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.
13.29 These sale documents are in respect of the allotted plot bearing no. F-41 and it is the prosecution case, which stands substantiated/corroborated on record, as has been discussed in the later part of the judgment, that these documents were got prepared, in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, to sell the questioned/allotted plots in the open market and cause unlawful gain to themselves while causing unlawful loss to not only the Slum and JJ Department MCD but also to the eligible JJ dwellers.
13.30 The said sale documents Ex. PW5/L-5 to L-10 were got also prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Master jee in the same manner in which sale documents in the name of Kameshwar Mahto were got prepared as well as attested & notarized in the similar fashion.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 251 of 522 13.31 Just like PW34, the identification slip Ex. PW3/C-2 in the name of Mohd. Arif whereby he was allotted plot no. 735 bears his signatures whereas the forged PIS slip Ex. PW5/L-1 bears the thumb impression which PW28, as discussed above in detail, categorically proved are not his. The particulars of his family members as mentioned in his genuine ration card Mark PW3/E-1 is different from the particulars mentioned in the forged ration card Ex. PW5/L-3 which PW28 categorically proved. Even the photograph appearing on the ration card Mark PW3/E-1 and the election I card Mark PW3/E-2 is different from the photograph appearing on the forged ration card and Delhi administration card Ex. PW5/L-3 and L-4. All this sufficiently proves that the documents Ex. PW5/L1 to L10 are forged & fabricated documents.
13.32 Though Ld. Defence Counsels while highlighting the cross-examination of PW28 vehemently argued that the word "Gautam Puri-II" is not mentioned in the ration card Ex. PW28/C of PW28 and only the address "230 Gautam Puri" is mentioned and that PW28 also admitted that apart from Gautam Puri-II, Gautam Puri-I was also a jhuggi jhopri cluster in Yamuna Pushta and therefore it cannot be completely ruled out that the documents Ex. PW5/L-1 to L-11 pertained to a different individual and not PW28, however, the said argument has already been dealt with above in detail as similar argument was raised qua PW34. There cannot be such major coincidences as the Ld. Defence Counsel wants this court to believe. Fact remains that all these documents are forged & fabricated ones which were CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 252 of 522 prepared to give design to the conspiracy. Just like PW34, in the challan prepared in the name of PW28 i.e. Ex. PW4/D12, for the purpose of this fraudulent allotment, the demand notice no. 687 is the same number/serial number at which Mohd. Arif/PW28's name appear in the survey list Ex. PW13/A which leaves no doubt that the allotment was fraudulently made in the name of PW28 though he had never applied for any allotment as he had already been allotted alternate plot way back in the year 2004.
13.33 Though Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that the list of draw Ex. PW3/F is/was a forged & fabricated document and so is the allotment/possession register Ex. PW3/B, however, I find no merits in their arguments. Except for the bald arguments and suggestion to PW3 that PW3/F is a forged & fabricated document defence failed explain as to how exactly the said document is a forged & fabricated one. It was for the defence to explain the same and having not done so, the defence arguments loose their substance. Furthermore the very fact that PW34 and PW28 were allotted alternate plots wherein they started residing, after the allotment, which facts stand corroborated from the ration card, voter I card & other documents which were prepared in their names at the said address & which has been discussed in detail above, is itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of Ex. PW3/F. But for the allotment & possession neither PW34 and PW28 could have come in possession of the allotted plots but even the documents like ration card, Voter I card etc. would not have been prepared in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 253 of 522 their names bearing the details of the said addresses/allotted plots.
13.34 Merely because PW3 failed to give details of the person who gave physical possession of the allotted plot to PW34, the same does not affect the prosecution story in any manner for the simple reason that possession of PW34 viz-a-viz the allotted plot, as discussed above in detail, stands duly proved. Most importantly, why PW3 failed to give the name of person who gave physical possession to the allottees was for the fact that he was not posted in the said branch at that particular time as was duly explained by him. The possession to PW34 & PW28 were handed over on 15.07.2004 & 10.08.2004 whereas, as proved by PW3, he was posted in the said branch w.e.f. 26.07.2007. In fact as per Ex. PW3/B the possession of PW28 and PW34 was handed over by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, who as proved by PW3, was the JE Incharge at Bawana site and responsible for handing over the possession to the allottees.
13.35 The fact, as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels that possession of plot no. E-731 was handed over on 24.05.2006, that of E-730 on 20.10.2005 whereas the possession of plot no. E-735 was handed over on 10.08.2004 though as per the allotment/possession register the entire plot numbers to be allotted are mentioned in seriatim is also of no consequence for the reasons as discussed above. The list of draw Ex. PW3/F and the allotment/possession made vide Ex. PW3/B is not a subject matter of dispute before this court, is not the concern of this CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 254 of 522 court. Nonetheless PW3 did state that the plots were allotted to the allottees as & when they appeared along with relevant documents before the JE concerned and in case the allottee did not approach the Engineering section for allotment the entry against his allotment would be normally blank. It is to be noted that the number of the allotted plot is duly mentioned at the time of draw itself as well as on the PIS and therefore it hardly makes any difference that plot numbers are not mentioned in seriatim in the allotment/possession register. As explained by PW3, as and when JJ dweller appears along with relevant documents, the entries are made in the allotment/possession register and the possession is handed over to him.
13.36 Merely because PW3 failed to give the details of the persons who might have handed over Ex. PW3/F in the engineering branch/section in which PW3 was posted is of no consequence. With such huge passage of time, of almost 10 years, a witness is bound to forget these minute details more so when one considers the nature of work, amount of public dealing, number of files, documents etc. coming across PW3 in the daily course of duties. Nonetheless PW3 did state that the list must have been handed over to Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, the JE Incharge at Bawana site office. He further proved that the list used to be handed over by the Assistant Director, SUR to the first allottee who used to come to the site, after the draw, with his belongings for taking possession of the plot allotted to him. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW3 in this regard read as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 255 of 522 "The original of Ex.PW3/F bearing the signatures of the officers in original was received in the Engineering Branch from SUR (Slum Upgradation and Resettlement). The said draw of plots Ex.PW3/F was not received through Dak but was generally received through the allottees who brought the same from the SUR Section.
Court Q:Are you aware as to which person had brought the original of list Ex.PW3/F in your Section and to whom it was handed over?
Ans: I am not aware of the same but the same must have been handed over to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, the then JE In- Charge at Bawana site office at aforesaid time.
The Assistant Director (SUR) used to hand over the said original draw list to the first allottee who used to come to the site and hand over the same to the JE In-Charge. By "first allottee", I mean the first person who visited the site first after the draw along with his household goods for purpose of taking possession of the plot allotted to him."
13.37 No doubt PW3 could not tell the name of the first allottee who might have handed over Ex. PW3/F to the JE but as discussed above it was for the reason that he was not posted in the said branch at the relevant time. In case of questioned plots, as discussed above in detail and has also been discussed in the later part of this judgment the entire allotment was fraudulent based on forged & fabricated documents and accordingly the list was never handed over to the allottees for taking possession of the allotted plots as the allottees were not even aware of the allotment. The list/draw list instead of being sent to the concerned department/engineering branch for handing over the possession was rather recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal which has been discussed in detail above and the PIS alongwith other documents was recovered from Sardhana, which recovery has been discussed in the later part of this judgment.
Had the list, PIS been sent to the engineering branch the entire conspiracy would have unfolded then & there as it would have CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 256 of 522 been revealed that the allotment has been made fraudulently in case of non eligible JJ dwellers. As discussed above, the jhuggis of these JJ dwellers, to whom alternate plots were already allotted, were demolished, non-existent & had the draw list, PIS pertaining to the allotment of the questioned plots been sent to the engineering section, the entire conspiracy would have come to fore as there was no jhuggi to be demolished, no JJ dweller to be shifted.
13.38 It stands proved from the deposition of PW2 Sh. Syed Hamid Ali, that the possession of the questioned plots was never handed over to the allottees as his division i.e. Engineering Branch did not receive any provisional ID Slip or any draw list in respect of allotment of these plots from SUR Division, Slum & JJ Department, MCD. As against the present case when allotment was made vide computerized draw Ex. PW3/F, as proved by PW3, the original of Ex. PW3/F was duly received in the Engineering Branch from SUR.
13.39 PW2 Syed Hamid Ali's deposition, who was posted as Executive Engineer in the Engineering Wing of the Slum & JJ Department and Ex. PW2/A dated 12.06.2008 establishes on record that the 26 questioned plots no. 5 to 17 and 30 to 42, F Block, Savda Ghevra were lying vacant at the site. Why the plots were so lying vacant was for the reason as detailed in Ex. PW2/A relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-
"This is further in continuation of the detailed discussions held with you by Asstt. Engineer concerned on 11 th June, 2008 during the course of your visit to relocation site at Sawda Ghevra.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 257 of 522 As desired by you, the para-wise reply to your query/information sought for is as under:-F-BLOCK SAVDA GHEVRA (PLOT NOS. 5 TO 17 & 30
TO 42 - TOTAL - 26 PLOTS) It is confirmed that as on date, all the aforementioned plots are lying vacant at site as this Division has not received any provisional ID Slip or any draw list in respect of allotment of these plots from SUR Division, Slum & JJ Department, MCD."
13.40 During the course of arguments, it was argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that admittedly PW2 did not have any meeting or discussion with the IO and had merely forwarded the site plan, furnished information vide the above letter to him. Further more, he was not aware whether the AE concerned, whose detailed discussion with the IO he is referring to in the said letter indeed had any meeting with the IO, as the said discussion/meeting did not take place in his presence. Also PW2 failed to give the name of the said AE and also stated that he does not recollect on what basis he had given the information as referred in Ex. PW2/A. It was further argued that though PW2 claimed that he might have written the said letter in response to a letter which might have been written by Insp. S.S. Bhullar but he failed to bring the said letter on record. Also PW2 did not visit the site i.e. F Block Savda Ghevra where the alternate plots were allotted/situated along with Insp. S.S. Bhullar nor was he aware whether his AE had visited it on 11.06.2008 and admittedly the discussion between the AE and the IO did not take place in his presence and thus he was not aware about the nature of said disussion they might have had. It was argued that therefore when PW2 failed to give these essential details, his statement cannot be relied upon as not only he gave evasive answers, as above, but CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 258 of 522 also failed to give the source of the information on the basis of which he wrote Ex. PW2/A. 13.41 No doubt PW2 failed to give the name of AE concerned or the source of information and his testimony remained bit shaky but that by itself does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. Failure on the part of PW2 to give the above details has not dented the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever for the simple reason that it is the admitted position that the possession of these plots was not handed over to/obtained by the JJ dwellers to whom they were allotted. It is to be seen that the letter Ex. PW2/A was written on 12.06.2008 and the deposition of the PW2 was recorded on 23.08.2013. With such huge passage of time it is natural for PW2 to forget the name of the AE concerned or the source of information as provided vide Ex. PW2/A. In fact PW2 had at almost the inception of his cross-examination stated that he does not recollect the facts of the case. Considering the enormous time gap of almost 5 years since the furnishing of information and recording of deposition as well as the age of the witness, it was but natural for PW2 to forget those details/facts.
13.42 The sole purpose of bringing Ex. PW2/A on record was to prove that the possession of the questioned plots was not handed over to the allottees of those plots and they were lying vacant. This fact is not disputed by the defence and is rather an admitted position that the physical possession of the questioned plots was never handed over to the allottees. The relevant portion CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 259 of 522 of cross-examination of PW2 Syed Hamid Ali in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
"It is correct that I had written letter Ex. PW2/A since it was disclosed by the AE that he had discussion with the IO as referred in said letter.................
..........Q: On what basis you had written in the letter Ex.PW2/A that this division has not received any communication/instruction regarding cancellation of these plots by the Management Wing of the Slum & JJ Department? Ans: My AE had informed after discussion that no such communication had been received.
Q: On what basis you had written in letter Ex.PW2/A to the effect "it is confirmed that as on date, all the aforementioned plots are lying vacant at site as this Division has not received any provisional ID Slip or any draw list in respect of allotment of these plots from SUR Division, Slum & JJ Department, MCD"? Ans: The same was communicated on the basis of the position as existing at site at aforesaid time."
13.43 The relevant portion of the cross-examination of IO DSP S.S. Bhullar (PW52) in this regard is reproduced hereunder:
"I had visited the plots in question in this case to verify the status of physical possession on the said plots during the course of investigation and the same were found vacant. Question: I put it to you that the provisional allotment of plots in question in this case had already been cancelled by the Slum and J.J. Department vide order dated 07.09.2007 even prior to the registration of the present case and the possession of the said plots was with the Department. What you have to say? Answer: I cannot say whether the provisional allotment of plots in question in this case had already been cancelled by the Slum and J.J. Department vide order dated 07.09.2007 even prior to the registration of the present case. I further state that as per letter dated 12.06.2008 already Ex. PW2/A (D43), the said plots were lying vacant.
Que: I put it to you that the physical possession of the plots in question was already with the department prior to registration of the present FIR. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is correct that as per record, the physical possession of the plots in question in this case was already with the department and the same were lying vacant as informed by XEN vide his letter dated 12.06.2008 already Ex. PW2/A. However, the plots in question were allotted to the alleged allottees by the accused persons through manual draw."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 260 of 522 13.44 The work of engineering department as emerges on record, especially from the testimony of PW2 and PW3, was to give possession of the allotted plots and the possession could be handed over only once the allottee appeared before concerned JE/AE of the engineering department along with relevant documents i.e. draw list, PIS, G8 receipt etc. to take the possession of the allotted plots. Not only the allottees of the 26 questioned plots were not aware of the allotment in their names, as they had not applied for allotment but the fact that the relevant documents pertaining to the allotment including the draw slips, the draw list, PIS etc. were not received in the engineering section/concerned department and were rather recovered from accused Mohan Lal and from Sardana, at the instance of Ashok Jain, which has been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment is itself sufficient proof of the fraudulent allotment done in pursuant to the conspiracy. If the allotment was genuine, the documents i.e. draw list, PIS, G8 receitps etc. would have been with the allottees instead of being recovered from Sardhana and the house of accused Mohan Lal. The entire allotment of the 26 questioned plots took place behind the back, without it being in the knowledge of the allottees of these plots. None of the allottees of the 26 questioned plots would have ever turned up for taking possession of the plots.
13.45 The defence could not prove anything to the contrary and Ex. PW2/A leaves no doubt that the possession of the questioned plots was not handed over and they were lying vacant at site as the concerned department which was to hand CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 261 of 522 over the possession did not receive any provisional ID Slip or any draw list in respect of allotment of these plots from SUR Division, Slum & JJ Department, MCD. If indeed entire allotment process was fair & transparent, the manual draw was fair and held for eligible JJ dwellers, the PIS were issued to genuine JJ dwellers who were eligible for allotment then why the draw list, PIS and other documents were not sent to the concerned department by accused Atul Vashisht and Philip Toppo (since deceased) who were working in the allotment section could not be explained by the defence. The fact remains that the same was not done so because the allotment was absolutely fraudulent. The JJ dwellers to whom the 26 questioned plots were allotted had not applied for any allotment and some of them were not eligible, were not having requisite documents regarding their eligibility.
13.46 Coming back to the deposition of PW3, PW3 during his cross-examination stated as under:-
"I am aware of the procedure followed for the purpose of handing over of possession of plot at site to the allottee. The allottee appears before the JE along with provisional identification slip provided by the SUR section and further produces his ration card, election card and the original receipt depositing amount of Rs.7,000/- by the allottee. The said provisional identification slip along with other documents referred to above were required to be produced before the JE and not before me..................It is correct that Engineering Section generally maintains a site office wherein the possession of plots is to be handed over to the allottees. The allottee is required to produce original ration card along with voter's ID card and receipt of Rs.7,000/- in addition to the identification slip issued by SUR branch at the time of taking over of possession of plot allotted to him. Photocopies of ration card, voter's ID card, receipt of Rs.7,000/- and original of identification slip is retained in the Engineering Section by CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 262 of 522 the concerned JE at the time of handing over of possession to the allottee".
13.47 This was the reason why the draw list was not sent to the engineering branch/section and why the allottees did not appear for taking possession of the allotted plots because the entire allotment was fraudulent and would have come to light/fore in case the list was so sent. The documents i.e. ration cards, Delhi Administration I cards being forged & fabricated documents, the photographs affixed on them were of some random/unknown individuals and not of the real/eligible JJ dwellers, no question arose of the persons whose photographs appear in the ration card/Delhi Administration I card approaching the JE/Engineering Section for taking possession of the allotted plots. Photographs of random/unknown persons were pasted on these documents and the persons whose photographs appear on these documents would have never approached the concerned department/engineering branch for taking possession.
13.48 It is also of no consequence, as was pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels, that some of the plots as per list of draw Ex. PW3/F were not handed over within 15 days or were handed over after a gap of 2 and ½ years for example plot no. E-761 at Sl. no. 89 of Ex. PW3/F for the simple reason that allotment in terms of draw Ex. PW3/F is not in question before this court. No doubt the deposit receipt in respect of E-761 bears the date 05.01.07 as per the allotment/possession register whereas it was allotted on 14.06.04 & the possession was handed over on 10.01.07, however, suffice would be to say that the genuineness CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 263 of 522 of the said draw or the said allotment is not a matter of trial and therefore of no concern to this court. Merely on account of some anomaly in the allotment/possession date and date of deposit of beneficiary share in respect of plot no. E-761, which plot is not the subject matter of the present dispute, I find no reasons whatsoever to believe that Ex. PW3/F is a forged & fabricated document. If defence wanted this court to believe the same then nothing stopped the defence from leading positive evidence in this regard. It will also be worthwhile to point out that except for the statement made by PW3 during his cross-examination regarding plot no. E-761, the relevant documents pertaining to the said plot are not before this court. The relevant page of the allotment/possession register or the copy of the deposit receipt/G8 receipt is also not available on record, was not retained or exhibited during the testimony of PW3. Therefore unless the entire material is/was made available to the court and in the absence of concrete defence evidence no aspersions can be cast upon Ex. PW3/F more so when testimony of PW28 and PW34 completely/sufficiently corroborates the prosecution story based upon Ex. PW3/F. Furthermore, it also stands established on record that at times, the allotment was made, the PIS etc. were issued at the time of demolition, shifting of the jhuggis i.e. at the spot itself.
13.49 The only purpose of bringing Ex. PW3/F and related documents, as discussed above, on record is/was to prove that Kameshwar Mehto and Mohd. Arif were already allotted plots in 2004 and the subsequent/re-allotment through manual draw was CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 264 of 522 not permissible and the same was done on the basis of forged & fabricated documents pursuant to the conspiracy. The allotment and possession in favour of PW28 & PW34 on the basis of earlier draw stands duly proved on record.
13.50 No doubt Ex. PW3/F was not shown to PW41 Sh. S.K. Rastogi whose signatures also appear on Ex. PW3/F, however, once PW3 identified the signatures of PW41 on the said list at point C, prosecution was no further obligated to put the said list to PW41 again. It is the quality of evidence which matters and not the quantity and it is not necessary to prove a particular document through a particular number of witnesses. May be on account of oversight that Ex. PW3/F was not put to PW41. Moreover during the cross-examination of PW3 it was not even once suggested to him that PW3/F does not bear the signatures of PW41 Sh. S.K. Rastogi. Similarly, PW3/F was not shown to PW41 during his cross-examination. In case the defence doubted the prosecution claim and wanted to establish that PW3/F did not bear the signatures of PW41 or was a forged & fabricated document, nothing stopped the defence from confronting PW41 with Ex. PW3/F or from leading any positive evidence in this regard. In fact according to PW3 signatures of Sh. S.K. Rastogi, DD (System), SNS Sidhu, Director and deceased Philip Toppo, Assistant Director, SUR were necessary on Ex. PW3/F before it was acted upon.
13.51 Similarly the defence could not create any doubt upon the genuineness of Ex. PW3/B i.e. the attested copy of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 265 of 522 allotment/possession register. The said register, as explained by PW3, though not prepared him but is/was maintained in the official course of duties and the same is countersigned against the respective plots by the JE concerned who hands over the possession and the opening first page is also signed by the concerned AE and he duly proved that Ex. PW3/B does bear the signatures of the JE and AE concerned on the opening page.
13.52 The draw list Ex. PW3/F bears the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo in addition to Sh. SNS Sidhu and PW41 Sh. S.K. Rastogi. The designation of deceased Phillip Toppo as per Ex. PW3/F is/was Assistant Director SUR at that relevant time. Though it was suggested to PW3 that Philip Toppo was posted as Deputy Director, however, except for the bald suggestion, the defence miserably failed to prove the same.
13.53 Last but not the least, PW3's role is confined only to handing over of documents i.e. Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C1, Ex. PW3/C2, Mark PW3/D1, Ex. PW3/D2, Mark PW3/D3, Mark PW3/E1, Ex. PW3/E2, Mark Ex. PW3/E3 and Ex. PW3/F to the IO and as explained by PW3 he was not aware of the steps involved in allotment of plots by Slum Department as he had not been posted in the section related to rehabilitation of Slum clusters/JJ dwellers and was posted in the Engineering Section of Slum and JJ Department which looks after building work, provision of facilities in the slum clusters and handing over of possession by the concerned JE. He had not worked in SUR Section and his testimony as regards the working of SUR CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 266 of 522 Department is based upon his general knowledge, awareness and not on account of the fact that he had worked in the said department. This is the reason why when PW3, during his cross- examination by Ld. Defence counsel, stated " It is correct that the identification slip is issued by SUR Department to the allottee on the day of shifting when his belongings are kept in the truck provided by the Slum & JJ Department. The deposit receipt of Rs.7,000/- is also issued at times at the spot to the allottee at the time of shifting as the concerned staff of SUR Department is deputed at site" that a court question was put to the witness and he answered as follows:-
"Court Q: Are you stating the aforesaid facts on the basis of your personal knowledge and having worked in the concerned department or the same is your opinion? Ans: I have not worked in the concerned SUR Section but I am aware of the aforesaid procedure which is adopted in the SUR Section."
Earlier draw and allotment as proved vide Ex. PW41/A
14. In addition to PW28 and PW34, 15 other JJ dwellers were already allotted alternate plots in the year 1999 & 2004 nonetheless they were again allotted questioned plots vide manual draw Ex. PW4/B. This fact was duly proved by PW41.
14.1 PW41 Sh. Satish Kumar proved that he was posted as Deputy Director, EDP, Slum and JJ Department and his job was to maintain computers, preparation of computerized salary of employees as well as the draw of plots of various resettlement schemes of MCD. He proved that along with letter dated 09.09.2008 i.e. Ex. PW41/A (colly), written to Insp. S.S. Bhullar, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 267 of 522 he had enclosed with it the computer draw list of JJ Cluster, Gautam Puri-II containing the names and other details of the eligible JJ dwellers as provided by SUR Section in whose names the plots were allotted at B & C block, Holambi Kalan, Phase-II and at E Block, Bawana etc. He identified not only his signatures but that of other officials namely Neeru Mehandiratta and Praveen Sharma on the same. No doubt the draw list vide which the plots were allotted to JJ dwellers as detailed in Ex. PW41/A (colly) was not produced by the prosecution, however, PW41/A (colly) even in the absence of draw list is a sufficient proof of allotment in favour of those JJ dwellers as detailed in Ex. PW41/A (colly).
14.2 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels while relying upon, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra), vehemently argued that though list Ex. PW41/A (colly) is a computerized list, however, same is not accompanied with any certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and therefore the same was not proved on record as per the rule of evidence. However, I find no merits in their arguments. The law is well settled now that as far as objection regarding certificate u/s 65B is concerned, same should be taken at the time when the document is being tendered in evidence and not subsequently. (R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 752). Once the objection is not taken at the relevant time then the defence has no reason to agitate as regards the admissibility of the document/computer record for want of certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. Reliance in this CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 268 of 522 regard may be placed upon the law laid down in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2017 SC 3441 wherein it has been held as under:-
"26. That an electronic record is not admissible unless it is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated under Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act is no more res integra. The question that falls for our consideration in this case is the permissibility of an objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage. Admittedly, no objection was taken when the CDRs were adduced in evidence before the Trial Court. It does not appear from the record that any such objection was taken even at the appellate stage before the High Court. In Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83, it was held that:
"Where the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of Appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof." In RVE Venkatachala Gounder, this Court held as follows:
"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 into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in 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 before 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 allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later 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 tendering 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:
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 269 of 522 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 later 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 superior Court." [Emphasis supplied] It would be relevant to refer to another case decided by this Court in PC Purshothama Reddiar v. S Perumal, (1972) 1 SCC
9. The earlier cases referred to are civil cases while this case pertains to police reports being admitted in evidence without objection during the trial. This Court did not permit such an objection to be taken at the appellate stage by holding that:
"Before leaving this case it is necessary to refer to one of the contentions taken by Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the respondent. He contended that the police reports referred to earlier are inadmissible in evidence as the Head-constables who covered those meetings have not been examined in the case. Those reports were marked without any objection. Hence it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility."
14.3 Furthermore during the cross-examination of PW41 not even a single suggestion was given to him that Ex. PW41/A (colly) is a forged & fabricated document or that no plots were allotted to JJ dwellers as detailed in Ex. PW41/A. Therefore I find no reasons to doubt the genuineness, veracity of PW41/A. 14.4 Some of these JJ dwellers whose names find mention at Sl. No. 4, 8, 9, 11, 13 in Ex. PW41/A (colly) were examined during the trial as Bis Ram (PW30), Kalawati (PW33), Sabir (PW29), Jai Singh (PW42) & Prabhu Dayal (PW31) CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 270 of 522 respectively and their deposition leaves no doubt that not only they were allotted alternate plots in the year 2004 but that they had not applied, for that matter could not have applied for reallotment again. Testimony of these witnesses has lend due corroboration to Ex. PW41/A. It will be worthwhile to mention that names of PW28 and PW34, as discussed above, also find mention at Sl. No. 15 and 16 of Ex. PW41/A (colly). Remaining JJ dwellers could not be traced during the investigation and one of them expired.
14.5 PW29 Sabir, to whom questioned plot bearing no. F-12 was allotted, proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. B-1035, Holambi Kalan, Metro Vihar, Delhi since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department and he proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 11765 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW29/A as well as identification slip no. 94 as Ex. PW29/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to B-1035 he was residing at C-8/222, Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. B-1035 and that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. BPL03141133 dated 18.06.2002 i.e. Ex. PW29/C and Delhi Administration I card bearing no. 036907 i.e. Ex. PW29/D. Though objections were raised regarding the mode of proof of these documents, however, once PW29 identified his photographs on the said documents as well as his signatures and thumb impression on the same, it was sufficient proof of the genuineness of these documents. It is well settled that the purpose of exhibiting or marking the document is only for the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 271 of 522 purpose of its identification and the mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. The admissibility, genuineness, authenticity of the document is to be considered upon appreciation of overall evidence, material on record. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box, it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. In the case at hand, the defence could not bring any material on record to any doubt upon the genuineness of these documents. Moreover Ex. PW29/C and Ex. PW29/D were also proved by PW22 as Ex. PW22/A (colly) who proved the attested copies of the said documents. As far as objection regarding Ex. PW29/B is concerned, the said document was also proved by PW22 as Ex. PW22/A (colly). Though no doubt objection was also raised at the time when the said documents were tendered in evidence by PW22, however, PW22 had categorically stated "I had got the aforesaid documents copied in my office and had compared the copies with the originals at my office before putting my signatures and handing over the same to CBI. The said letter, alongwith the copies of documents annexed thereto, are now Ex. PW22/A-colly (75 sheets, including letter)". Defence could not bring any material on record which could coutner, contradict the said claim of PW22 or which could create even remotest of doubt upon these documents. Even otherwise, I fail to understand why PW22 or for that matter PW28, PW29 etc. would create and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 272 of 522 bring false, fabricated documents on record. This absolutely sans logic.
14.6 He proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW4/C-6 was never issued to him, though it bears his & his father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his handwriting, signatures or thumb impression and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to him. His deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
14.7 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW4/C-6 is F-12, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above, it stands proved vide Ex. PW41/A (colly) that Sabir was already allotted plot no. B-1035 in 2004. Just like PW28 and PW34, the details in Ex. PW4/C-6 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q1199 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q1200 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.8 PW29 also proved that Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 117582 dated 03.02.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/U-4 and U-3 are not his, photographs on these documents is not his and the thumb impression at point Q422 & Q423 on the these documents are not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/U-3 does not contain the correct details of his family members at point A bearing the marking of Q1207 as Rukhsana and Chand are not his family members. The details at point Q1201 on Ex. PW5/U-4 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 273 of 522 have been filled by accused Surjeet Singh as stands proved from Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.9 PW29 further proved that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/U-2 was not issued to him and he had not deposited sum of Rs. 7000/- in cash with the Slum and JJ Department.
14.10 PW29 also denied knowing any person by the name of Mohar Ali s/o Sh. Shehzad or having executed sale documents i.e. Ex. PW5/U-5 to U-10 or having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression on the above documents are not his.
14.11 The details at point Q1208 on Ex. PW5/U-5 have been filled by accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly) whose thumb impression also appears at point Q424 on the said document as stands proved vide Ex. PW47/B (colly), which report further proves that the thumb impression appearing at point Q427 & Q429 on Ex. PW5/U-6 and the handwriting at point Q1215 are again of accused Lal Mani on the said document. Similarly, the handwriting at point Q1220 on agreement to sell & purchase i.e. Ex. PW5/U-7 and at point Q1227 on Ex. PW5/U-9 as well as at point Q1230 on Ex. PW5/U-10 are of accused Lal Mani. It is accused Lal Mani's thumb impression which also appear on affidavit Ex. PW5/U-8 at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 274 of 522 point Q435 to Q437 and on possession letter Ex. PW5/U-10 at point Q440.
14.12 For the same purpose for which PW28 and PW34's documents were prepared, the above sale documents were also prepared for sale of the allotted plot bearing no. F-12, Savda Ghevra and they were got prepared as well as notarized in the same fashion. Similarly challan Ex. PW4/D21 bearing demand notice number 597 which is the same number at which the entry of PW29 appears in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) was prepared in respect of PW29.
14.13 It will be worthwhile to highlight that the testimony of this witness remained unchallenged, uncontroverted during the trial as despite due opportunity he was not cross examined.
14.14 PW30 Bis Ram, to whom questioned plot bearing no. F-35 was allotted, proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. B-819, Holambi Kalan since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department and he proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 10806 dated 22.10.2004 as Ex. PW30/A as well as identification slip no. 98 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW30/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to B-819 he was residing at 305/145, Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. B-819 and that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. 085296 dated 22.12.1995 i.e. Ex. PW30/C. He also proved that once he shifted to B-819 i.e. alternate allotted CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 275 of 522 plot as per computerized draw Ex. PW3/F he was issued new ration card bearing no. APL54471354 i.e. Ex. PW30/D and he proved the electricity bill, application for connection at the said address as Ex. PW30/E and Ex. PW30/F. 14.15 He proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/F-1 was never issued to him, though it bears his & his father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his thumb impression at point Q106 and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to him. His deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
14.16 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW5/F-1 is F-35, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above Ex. PW41/A (colly) proves that Bis Ram was already allotted plot no. B-819 in 2004. The details in Ex. PW5/F-1 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q708 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q709 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly) and which otherwise the admitted position of the defence.
14.17 PW30 proved that Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 117527 dated 22.02.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/F-4 and F-3 are not his. He proved that the photographs on these documents are not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/F-3 does not contain the correct details of his family members at point B bearing the marking of Q716 as Kanta is not his family member.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 276 of 522 14.18 As far as the Delhi Administration card is concerned, the details in the same at point Q710 are in the handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh as proved vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B. 14.19 The thumb impression at point Q108 on ration card Ex. PW5/F-3 are not of PW30, as proved by him and the details in the same are point Q714 & 716 have been filled by, are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as proved vide FSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.20 PW30 also categorically proved that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/F-2 was not issued to him and that he had not deposited the beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/-.
14.21 PW30 also denied knowing any person by the name of Bhim Yadav s/o Sh. Ram Lal or having executed sale documents i.e. Ex. PW5/F-5 to F-11. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression on the above documents are not his. It stands proved from his testimony as well as Ex. PW44/B (colly) and Ex. PW47/B (colly) that the thumb impressions at points Q109, Q112, Q114, Q121, Q123, Q125 and the handwriting at points Q717, Q724, Q729, Q736, Q739 on these sets of documents are not of PW30 but of accused Lal Mani. The purpose of preparation of these documents was again for selling the questioned plot in the open market.
14.22 Also challan Ex. PW4/D6 bearing demand notice number 615 which is the same number at which the entry of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 277 of 522 PW30 appears in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) was prepared in respect of PW30.
14.23 The testimony of this witness too remained unchallenged, uncontroverted during the trial as despite due opportunity he was not cross examined.
14.24 PW31 Prabhu Dayal, to whom questioned plot bearing no. F-31 was allotted, proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. C-299, Holambi Kalan since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department and he proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 11860 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW31/A as well as identification slip no. 151 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW31/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to C-299 he was residing at C-8A/476 Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. C-299 and that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. BPL03250084 dated 18.06.2002 i.e. Ex. PW31/C and Voter I card bearing no. DL/01/003/192639 i.e. Ex. PW31/D and that once he shifted to C-299 i.e. alternate allotted plot he was issued new ration card bearing no. BPL54560376 i.e. Ex. PW31/E. 14.25 He proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/B1 was never issued to him, though it bears his & his father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his handwriting, thumb impression at point Q22 or signatures and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to him. Rather CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 278 of 522 the thumb impression at point Q22 is of accused Mohan Lal as proved vide Ex. PW47/B (colly).
14.26 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW5/B1 is F-31, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above it stands proved vide Ex. PW41/A (colly) that Prabhu Dayal was already allotted plot no. C-299 in 2004. The details in Ex. PW5/B1 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q579 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q580 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. Ex. PW44/B (colly) and which fact is otherwise not disputed.
14.27 PW31 further proved that Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 330347 dated 15.06.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/B4 and B3 do not belong to him and that the thumb impression at point Q23 on Ex. PW5/B-4 and at point Q24 on Ex. PW5/B-3 are not his. He proved that the photographs on these documents is also not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/B3 does not contain the correct details of his family members at point A bearing the marking of Q587 as Shanti, Inderjeet and Sunder are not his family members.
14.28 The details at point Q585 and 587 on Ex. PW5/B-3 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B. 14.29 As far as the Delhi Administration card is concerned, the details in the same at point Q581 were filled by accused CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 279 of 522 Surjeet Singh as stands proved vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.30 He categorically proved that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/B2 was not issued to him and that he does not know the person whose photographs appear on Ex. PW5/B3 to B5 and that the photograph appearing on Ex. PW5/B5 is not his. He proved that plot no. F-31 does not belong to him and that he does not know any person by the name of Suresh s/o Bachu.
14.31 PW31 denied having executed any sale documents Ex. PW5/B6 to B10 or having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression on the above documents are not his. The thumb impressions at point Q26 are of deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee as stands proved vide Ex. PW47/B (colly). In fact it stands proved on record that all sale documents in respect of the questioned plots were got prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee. The manner in which these sale documents were prepared has been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment.
14.32 In addition to deceased Ram Chander Arora's thumb impression appearing at point Q26 on Ex. PW5/B-5, the handwriting at point Q588 is of accused Lal Mani which further proves that both these individuals were part of conspiracy, in addition to the other accused persons. The other sale documents CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 280 of 522 pertaining to plot no. F-31 i.e. Ex. PW5/B-6 to B-10 also bear the thumb impression of deceased Ram Chander Arora at point Q28, Q29, Q31, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q37, Q38, Q39, Q40, Q41 & Q42 and the details at points Q595, Q599, Q606 & Q609 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW47/B (colly) and Ex. PW44/B (colly) respectively.
14.33 Challan Ex. PW4/D3 bearing demand notice number 699 which is the same number at which the entry of PW31 appears in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) was prepared in respect of PW31.
14.34 PW31's testimony too remained unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted.
14.35 PW33 Kalawati, to whom questioned plot bearing no. F-38 was allotted, proved that she has been residing at house/plot no. 1095, B Block, Holambi Kalan since 2004, as the same was allotted in her name by the Slum and JJ Department and she proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 12055 dated 19.02.2004 as Ex. PW33/A as well as identification slip no. 103 dated 19.02.2004 as Ex. PW33/B in this regard. She further proved that before shifting to 1095 she was residing at C8-332 Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which she was allotted alternate plot no. 1095. She proved that once she shifted to 1095 i.e. alternate allotted plot she was issued ration card bearing no. APL54470948 i.e. Ex. PW33/C. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 281 of 522 14.36 She proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW5/I-1 was never issued to her, though it bears her & her husband's name. She further proved that it does not bear her handwriting, signatures or thumb impression at point X bearing the marking of Q169 and that the address mentioned on it does not belong to her. Her deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
14.37 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW5/I-1 is F-38, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above it stands proved vide Ex. PW41/A (colly) that Kalawati was already allotted plot no. 1095 in 2004. The details in Ex. PW5/I-1 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q805 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q806 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. PW44/B (colly) and the other evidence on record.
14.38 Same was PW33's response to Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 294841 dated 12.01.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/I-4 and I-3. She proved that the photographs on these documents is not her and the thumb impression at point X bearing the marking of Q170 & Q171 are not hers.
14.39 The details at point Q811 & Q 813 on Ex. PW5/I-3 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 282 of 522 14.40 As far as the Delhi Administration card is concerned, the details in the same at point Q807 are in the handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh which fact stand proved in view of FSL report Ex. Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.41 She categorically stated that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/I-2 was not issued to her and she had never deposited a sum of Rs. 7000/-.
14.42 PW33 also denied knowing any person by the name of Tara Wati w/o Rama Shankar or having executed any sale documents i.e. Ex. PW5/I-5 to I-10 or having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. She proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression at point X, X1, X2, X3 bearing the marking of Q173 to Q189 are not hers and that photograph appearing at point X3 on Ex. PW5/I-5 is not hers and she does not know the person whose photograph appear on the said document. She further proved that plot no. F-38, regarding which the sale documents were executed does not belong to her. Though Ld. Defence Counsels pointed out that PW33, during her cross-examination, had stated that she had not understood the contents of Ex. PW5/I-1 to Ex. PW5/I-10 while deposing during her examination in chief, however the said statement is of no consequence. PW33 had categorically stated that the photographs appearing on the said documents are not hers nor does these documents bear her handwriting, signatures or thumb impressions. In fact though not recorded in her deposition as a CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 283 of 522 court observation, however, the fact that these documents do not bear her photographs would have been writ large, apparent once the said witness appeared in the witness box. Furthermore it was not suggested to PW33 that the said photographs as appearing on Ex. PW5/I-5 to I-10 are hers. The documents being forged & fabricated there was no need to understand the contents of the same. What she was required to prove is that the documents did not belong to her, are forged & fabricated which she categorically proved and which otherwise stands proved in view of the enormous material available on record. For similar reasoning the arguments that PW34 also was not aware about the contents of Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/A10, loose their significance.
14.43 In the said sale documents Ex. PW5/I-5 to I-10 the details, the names of the witness at point Q814, Q821, Q826, Q833, Q836 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.44 These sale documents Ex. PW5/I-5 to I-10 were also got prepared by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee which aspect has been dealt in detail in the later part of this judgment.
14.45 Challan Ex. PW4/D9 bearing demand notice number 632 which is the same number at which the entry of PW33 appears in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) was prepared in respect of PW33.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 284 of 522 14.46 PW33's testimony too remained unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted.
14.47 PW42 Jai Singh, to whom questioned plot bearing no. F-10 was allotted, proved that he has been residing at house/plot no. B-585, Holambi Kalan since 2004, as the same was allotted in his name by the Slum and JJ Department and he proved the G-8 receipt bearing Sl. No. 11862 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW42/A as well as identification slip no. 126 dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. PW42/B in this regard. He further proved that before shifting to B-585 he was residing at C-8C/426/217 T Huts Police Chowki, IP Estate, Gautam Puri-II i.e. JJ cluster in lieu of which he was allotted alternate plot no. B-585 and that at the said address he was issued ration card bearing no. BPL03140565 dated 18.06.2002 i.e. Ex. PW42/C, election I card bearing no. DL/01/003/192521 i.e. Ex. PW42/D and Delhi Administration card bearing no. 216228 all of which he deposited back with the concerned departments. He also proved that once he shifted to B-585 i.e. alternate allotted plot he was issued new election I card bearing no. XVX1094127 i.e. Ex. PW42/E and a new ration card bearing no. BPL54160062 i.e. Ex. PW42/F. 14.48 He proved that the provisional identification slip i.e. Ex. PW4/C-4 was never issued to him, though it bears his & father's name. He further proved that it does not bear his handwriting, signatures or thumb impression at point X bearing the marking Q379 and that the address mentioned on it does not CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 285 of 522 belong to him. His deposition sufficiently proves that the said document is a forged & fabricated one.
14.49 The address as mentioned on Ex. PW4/C-4 is F-10, Savda Ghevra i.e. the allotted plot number, however, as discussed above it stands proved vide Ex. PW41/A (colly) that Jai Singh was already allotted plot no. B-585 in 2004. The details in Ex. PW4/C-4 have been filled by accused Atul Vashisht at point Q1134 and signed/issued under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo at point Q1135 as stands established vide FSL report Ex. Ex. PW44/B. 14.50 Same was PW42's response to Delhi Administration I card and ration card no. 364517 dated 16.06.1997 i.e. Ex. PW5/S-4 and S-3. He proved that the photographs on these documents is not his and the thumb impressions at point X bearing the marking of Q380 & Q381 are not his. He further proved that Ex. PW5/S-3 does not contain the correct details of his family members at point C bearing the marking of Q1142 as Ram Dulari is not his family members.
14.51 The details at point Q1136 on Ex. PW5/S-4 and at point Q1140 & Q1142 on Ex. PW5/S-3 have been filled by Lal Mani as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly).
14.52 He categorically stated that Form G8A i.e. Ex. PW5/S-2 was not issued to him and he never deposited any sum of Rs. 7000/- vide Ex. PW5/S-2.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 286 of 522 14.53 PW42 also denied knowing any person by the name of Naresh s/o Ram Bharose or having executed any sale documents i.e. Ex. PW5/S-5 to S-10 wherein said Naresh appears as a witness or having received sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and categorically stated that the said documents are forged & fabricated. He proved that the handwriting, signatures & thumb impression at X, X1, X2, X3 bearing the marking of Q383 to Q399 & Q1142 to Q1165 are not his.
14.54 The details at point Q1143, Q1150, Q1155, Q1161, Q1164 on Ex. PW5/S-5 to S-10 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani. Furthermore details at points Q1146, Q1152, Q1157, Q1163 on these documents are in the handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar. Accused Vijay Kumar and his role in the preparation of these documents has been dealt in detail in the later part of this judgment. In addition to the forged handwriting, even the thumb impression on these documents are forged and the thumb impression at points Q382, Q390 and Q394 are of accused Lal Mani which Ex. PW47/B (colly) squarely proves.
14.55 These sale documents Ex. PW5/S-5 to F-10 were got prepared in the same fashion like that of the other allottees of the 26 questioned plots. Also the challan Ex. PW4/D19 bearing demand notice number 765 which is the same number at which the entry of PW42 appears in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) was prepared in respect of PW42 which squarely proves that the allotment was made in favour of PW42 and not any other CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 287 of 522 individual and which also puts to rest the defence's contentions that as PW42 was not aware whether any address/jhuggi no. C-8/426 also existed in the Gautam Puri-I therefore it cannot be ruled out that the address as mentioned in the sale documents and the PIS pertained to some other individual. No doubt that in Ex. PW42/A the address of PW42 has been mentioned as C-8C/426, Gautam Puri-II whereas in Ex. PW42/C & Ex. PW42/D the address is shown as C-8C/426/217 T Hut, Police Chowki, Gautam Puri-II, however, I have absolutely no doubt that it is the same address. It is only that in Ex. PW42/C & Ex. PW42/D the complete address is mentioned viz-a-viz Ex. PW42/A. Both these addresses are same, belonged to PW42 and were of Gautam Puri- II.
14.56 Unwanted, undeserving emphasis has been laid on 217, T Hut Police Chowki and for that matter on other minute missing details in the addresses of PW28 & PW34 on different documents pertaining to them i.e. ration card etc. just to create confusion when none exists. No question arises of the allotment of the 26 questioned plots being made in favour of some other individuals and not in favour of those individuals who were already allotted alternate plots including PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42. Ex. PW3/F & Ex. PW41/A (colly) in addition to the testimony of the above prosecution witnesses clinches the issue in this regard.
14.57 Ld. Defence Counsels also pointed out the testimony of PW1 wherein, he stated as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 288 of 522 "It is correct that provisional identification slip and allotments letters issued to the allottees are two separate documents. Provisional identification slip was issued to the jhuggi dweller at the time of demolition of the jhuggi. Allotment letter is issued after the verification of documents of the allottee......It is correct that the allotted plot cannot be sold by the allottee after allotment. It is correct that if it comes to the notice of the department that the plot has been sold by the allottee, the same can be taken over by the department."
and vehemently argued that it stands proved from his testimony as well as other prosecution witnesses that no verification was to be conducted at the time of issuance of the PIS and the allotment being provisional, it could be cancelled at any stage. Merely because the allotted plots could not be sold by the allottees and if it came to the notice of the department that the plots have been sold by the allottees, the same could be taken over by the department, I completely fail to understand that how does the said factual position comes to the aid & rescue of the accused persons. It is one thing that the allotted plots could not be sold as they were allotted on license basis & if so sold then the department could take back the possession, but that did not stop the accused persons from hatching a conspiracy to sell those plots. Sale documents, as discussed above in detail, were prepared only for the purpose of sale of the allotted plots which was the ultimate aim/objective of the conspiracy. Had the plots been sold, the accused persons would have enriched themselves, caused wrongful gain to themselves while wrongful loss would have been caused not only to the Slum & JJ department but also to the rightful/eligible JJ dwellers.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 289 of 522 14.58 No doubt from the testimony of PW1 and other prosecution witnesses it stands established on record that at the time of provisional allotment, issuance of provisional identification slips, no verification of the documents of the allottees/JJ dwellers was to be done and the same was to be done at the time of final allotment, however, after the manual draw the next step in the scheme of relocation was the generation of the challan in favour of the eligible JJ dwellers. As per Ex. PW1/A and the testimony of prosecution witnesses from the Slum & JJ Department only those JJ dwellers who were residing at the project site/cluster, which was to be demolished, as on 31.01.1990 were entitled to allotment of 18 sq. meter plots. The JJ dwellers had to furnish their ration card as proof of the fact that they had been residing at the project site/cluster as on 31.01.1990. Furthermore those JJ dwellers who were possessing ration cards post 1990 and upto December 1998 were entitled to 12.5 sq. meter plot. The challans could not have been issued/ generated in favour of all the JJ dwellers who were found in occupation of the jhuggis at the time of survey but could be generated/issued to only those JJ dwellers who fulfilled the above basic criteria. On the basis of challans the JJ dwellers were to deposit their beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/-. Beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/- included Rs. 5000/- as security amount and advance license fee of Rs. 2000/- for ten years. Out of 26 questioned plots 17 JJ dwellers were already allotted plots, 5 JJ dwellers were not eligible for allotment of 18 sq. meter plots as they did not fulfill the criteria as discussed above and 4 JJ dwellers did not have the requites documents i.e. ration card etc. Despite the said fact CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 290 of 522 challans were generated in their favour, which challan as discussed above, are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and bears the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo. Furthermore it stands established from the deposition of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42 that not only they had not applied for any fresh allotment as they had already been allotted alternate plots but the ration cards, which were allegedly submitted & which were recovered along with other documents including the PIS, G8 receipts, Delhi Administration I card etc., did not bear their photographs. These are fraudulent/forged ration cards. Not only these JJ dwellers did not pay any beneficiary share, did not appear before the cashier for deposit of the beneficiary share/amount but they had also not appeared at the time when challans, on the basis of which the beneficiary share was deposited, were prepared in their name. Everything was happening behind their back in a fraudulent manner. Forged documents prepared in their names were used for the allotment of questioned plots. Had they appeared, for which as discussed above they had no reasons as they had not applied, the fact that the ration cards contain a different photograph and not of real JJ dweller would have come to fore. It is not as if the challan used to be prepared and provisional allotment made, the PIS issued without checking the basic eligibility documents i.e. ration cards, Delhi Administration I card. Verification of documents is one aspect, which ofcourse as stands proved was to be done at the time of final allotment but the documents showing prima facie eligibility i.e. ration card, Delhi Administration I card were to be submitted by JJ dwellers and only on the basis of these CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 291 of 522 documents that the eligible JJ dwellers were issued challans on the basis of which beneficiary share was to be deposited. But the 26 questioned plots were allotted in a fraudulent manner as the documents purportedly submitted on behalf of those JJ dwellers, to whom the plots were allotted, were forged & fabricated documents.
14.59 In addition to the above detailed discussion, it stands further established from the testimony of PW22 Shanti Swaroop that the documents furnished at the time of allotment of the 26 questioned plots were forged & fabricated documents. PW22 proved that he had handed over to Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW52) documents pertaining to handing over of the possession of 13 plots to some of the dwellers in Squatter Resettlement Scheme Holambi Kalan Phase II Block B and C vide his letter dated 01- 03.12.2008 Ex. PW22/A (colly).
14.60 He further proved that during the course of investigation he was also shown 12 other sets of documents i.e. D5 (Ex.PW5/B1 to B10 in the name of PW31 Prabhu Dayal), D7 (Ex. PW5/D1 to D10 in the name of Hari Shankar), D9 (Ex.
PW5/F1 to F10 in the name of PW30 Bis Ram), D12 (Ex. PW5/I1 to I10 in the name of PW33 Kalawati), D13 (Ex. PW5/J1 to J10 in the name of Tarawati), D18 (Ex. PW5/O1 to O10 in the name of Kushma Devi), D20 (Ex. PW5/Q1 to Q10 in the name of Salim), D21 (Ex. PW4/C3 & Ex. PW5/R2 to R10 in the name of Kubutbuddin) D22 (Ex. PW4/C4 & Ex. PW5/S2 to S10 in the name of PW42 Jai Singh), D24 (Ex. PW4/C6 & Ex. PW5/U2 to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 292 of 522 U10 in the name of PW29 Sabir), D26 (Ex. PW4/C8 & PW5/W2 to W10 in the name of Ashok Kumar) & D29 (Ex. PW4/C11 & Ex. PW5/Z2 to Z10 in the name of Ansar) pertaining to allotment at Savda Ghevra and upon comparison of these two sets of documents he found out that the said set of documents were having the same names, father's/husband's name and address of the allottees as documents furnished by him vide Ex. PW22/A (colly) but the photographs appearing on the documents were different. This further proves that the documents furnished at the time of allotment of the 26 questioned plots were forged & fabricated which fact was otherwise duly proved by some of these examined allottees/witnesses i.e. PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33 and PW42. Had the documents furnished at the time of allotment of questioned plots been genuine, the photograph appearing on them would have been same as appearing on the documents furnished at the time when allotment in their names was made at Holambi Kalan. The fact that there were different photographs on Ex. PW22/A (colly) viz-a-viz the questioned documents, as discussed above, squarely proves that the said/questioned documents were forged & fabricated. Once these JJ dwellers were already allotted the alternate plots at Holambi Kalan Phase II, as per the resettlement scheme there was no occasion for fresh allotment in their names at Savda Ghevra.
14.61 It will also be pertinent to point out that the fact that the allotment at Holambi Kalan and Savda Ghevra were in the name of the same individuals stands further proved from the fact that in the identification slips which are part of Ex. PW22/A CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 293 of 522 (colly) the serial number is exactly the same at which the name of the JJ dweller appear in the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly). As discussed above in the challans prepared in the name of PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33 and PW42, apart from other JJ dwellers, same serial number is mentioned at which number names of these allottees/JJ dwellers in survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly).
14.62 PW22 further proved that the possession at Holambi Kalan, for which he proved Ex. PW22/A, must have been handed over after duly scrutinizing & verifying the documents as well as after establishing the identity of the allottees concerned as mentioned in letter Ex. PW22/A i.e. after ensuring the genuineness of the allottees and their documents. It has already been discussed above that in the case at hand the stage of possession did not reach, the possession was never handed over and the plots are/were still lying vacant.
14.63 No doubt PW22 admitted that he was not posted in Construction Division-II when the possession of the plots at Holambi Kalan was handed over (though he was posted in the said division at the time of handing over of Ex. PW22/A) and was instead posted as Executive Engineer Development Division-IV, however, the fact that the possession was duly handed over to PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33 and PW42 stands duly proved, as discussed above in detail. In view of deposition of these witnesses, I find no reason whatsoever to doubt the genuineness of Ex. PW22/A (colly). Moreover the role of PW22 was confined to furnishing of documents sought by the IO which CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 294 of 522 he did vide Ex. PW22/A (colly) and comparison of those documents with the documents as were shown to him, during the investigation, pertaining to allotment of 26 questioned plots which comparison and deposition of PW22 leaves no doubt that the documents in questioned are indeed forged & fabricated.
14.64 Though Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that PW22 had not received any notice from the CBI to join the investigation, however, issuing of the notice is not mandatory. A witness can be summoned, examined orally and information sought without issuing a notice. PW22 had categorically stated that he was contacted by Insp. Bhullar telephonically and provided the details, plot numbers of which he needed the information. The said fact is evident from Ex. PW22/A (colly) which begins with "As discussed telephonically........". Similarly because PW22's signatures were not obtained on documents shown to him, will also not make any difference as during the trial PW22 duly identified the said documents, as has been discussed above in detail.
14.65 PW22 admittedly had not visited the site/Holambi Kalan at the time of handing over of the possession of the plots and also admitted that it is the job of the Junior Engineer concerned to verify & ascertain the genuineness as well as the persons concerned at the site & then handover the possession to them and that he is not aware as to what documents were collected by the Junior Engineer at the site or the name of Junior Engineer who had handed over the possession at Holambi Kalan CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 295 of 522 and from whom he had taken the possession register, however, the same has not affected the prosecution story in any manner. To begin with, lapse of 9 years since the handing over of the documents and the day of recording of the testimony is a long period for the witness to forget the name of JE concerned. It is not as if PW22 would have/had worked with only one JE during his entire career/tenure. Furthermore, PW22 categorically stated that the possession register whose copies were furnished by him to the CBI vide Ex. PW22/A remained in the custody of the JE/AE of the Sub Division under his Division. Moreover PW22 categorically stated that he had got the documents, annexed with covering letter i.e. Ex. PW22/A (colly), copied in his office, compared the copies with the original at his office before affixing his signatures and handing over the same to CBI. This statement of PW22, even in the absence of the original possession register sufficiently established the authenticity, genuineness of document Ex. PW22/A (colly) and takes care of the defence objections raised at the time of tendering of those documents. Moreover he had stated that the original possession register is available in the division office and if the defence doubted the said statement of PW22 or the authenticity of Ex. PW22/A (colly), nothing stopped the defence from summoning the original possession register to impeach the credit of this witness or to discredit the prosecution's case based upon Ex. PW22/A (colly). The relevant portion of his examination in chief in this regard is reproduced here under:-
"At this stage, Ld. PP for CBI has shown to the witness D62 comprising of one letter dated 01-03.12.08 purported to have been written by the witness to Insp. S. S. Bhullar of CBI, ACB, New Delhi and copies of certain documents relating to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 296 of 522 13 plots as mentioned in the said letter (total 75 sheets, including letter), whereupon the witness states that it is the same covering letter vide which he had handed over the copies of documents attached thereto in D-62 to Insp. S. S. Bhullar. Witness also identifies his signatures on the said letter as well as copies of documents attached thereto in D65 at points A on each page. I had got the aforesaid documents copied in my office and had compared the copies with the originals at my office before putting my signatures and handing over the same to CBI. The said letter, alongwith the copies of documents annexed thereto, are now Ex. PW22/A- colly......
At this stage, Ld. PP for CBI has shown to the witness bunches D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29, whereupon the witness states that these are the same bunches of documents which were shown to him in the CBI office by Insp. S. S. Bhullar and he was asked to compare these documents with the copies of documents submitted by him, i.e. Ex. PW22/A-colly.
On comparison of the aforesaid bunches with the copies of documents submitted by me, I found that the said documents pertained to allotment of plots in Savda Ghewra area. I also noticed that the names, father's/husband's name and addresses mentioned in the 12 sets of documents shown to me by CBI were same as those mentioned in the copies of documents (Ex. PW22/A-colly) submitted by me to CBI, except one which pertain to plot no. C-282, which was allotted to Manikant S/o Sudama Verma. I also noticed that the name, father's name and address mentioned in the documents shown to me by CBI and those handed over by me to CBI were one and the same, but the photographs appearing on the documents differed. I have compared the aforesaid sets of documents D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29 again with copies of documents Ex. PW22/A-colly (D62) handed over by me to CBI and I state that the names, father's names as well as addresses appearing in the aforesaid sets of documents are same as mentioned in documents Ex. PW22/A-colly handed over by me to CBI, although the photographs in the aforesaid sets of documents D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 and D29 are different."
14.66 Merely because PW22 admitted that he cannot say whether the persons named in the documents furnished by him vide Ex. PW22/A and the documents D5, D7, D9, D12, D13, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 297 of 522 D18, D20, D21, D22, D24, D26 & D29 were the same persons or not is of no significance as it stands duly proved on record especially through the testimony of PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33 and PW42 that they were completely different persons. Moreover PW22 had categorically deposed during his examination in chief that photographs on two sets of documents are entirely different and the coincidence which the defence wants this court to believe that these individuals were having the same name, parentage, address etc. is too much to digest and is absolutely unpalatable.
14.67 The facts which duly stands proved on record are that PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42 as well as the other JJ dwellers, to whom the questioned plots were allotted, had already been allotted alternate plots. Ex. PW3/F, Ex. PW41/A and Ex. PW22/A (colly) clinches the issue in this regard. The examined allottees/witnesses, as above, have not only proved that they were already allotted the plots but that at the time when they were allotted plots on the basis of Ex. PW4/B, they had not applied for any allotment, did not pay the amount of Rs. 7000/- and the documents furnished at that time were not theirs but were rather forged & fabricated. The defence could not bring any material on record to discredit the prosecution case or the claims of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42 in this regard. Most importantly, the allotment to these witnesses or the allotment based upon Ex. PW3/F and as proved by Ex. PW41/A as well as Ex. PW22/A is not under challenge, trial before this court. What is on trial before this court is the fraudulent allotment based on Ex. PW4/B. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 298 of 522 14.68 As regards the defence arguments based upon Ex. PW22/A and D5 (Ex. PW5/B2 & B3) pertaining to Prabhu Dayal and the admission by PW22 that the address as mentioned in Ex. PW22/A i.e. C8C/476, Gautam Puri-II whereas the address as mentioned in documents D5 is C8/476 Gautam Puri Yamuna Pushta, the said aspect has already been dealt with in detail above. There cannot be so much coincidence and the documents D5 are indeed forged & fabricated documents. Both these sets of documents pertained to the same person, however, one is genuine i.e. Ex. PW22/A (colly) and the other i.e. PW5/B2 & B3 are forged & fabricated.
14.69 As far as the remaining allottees of the 26 questioned plots are concerned, despite being not eligible, not having the requisite documents showing their eligibility, alternate plots were allotted to them on the basis of forged & fabricated documents.
14.70 Much emphasis was laid by Ld. Defence Counsels on the statement made by PW22 during his cross-examination i.e. "I cannot now say whether the documents except the possession register were available in original in the office or not. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the original of identification slip, G8A receipt, ration card and Delhi Administration I-Card were not available in my office or that copies thereof were only available in the office" to create doubt upon Ex. PW22/A (colly), however, what the witness stated was that " I cannot now CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 299 of 522 say........" i.e. the day when the deposition of witness was recorded and not about the time when he had compared the two sets of documents. As already discussed above, the witness had categorically stated during his examination in chief as " I had got the aforesaid documents copied in my office and had compared the copies with the originals at my office before putting my signatures and handing over the same to CBI ". Hence during the investigation the witness had duly compared the copies with the original at his office before handing over the same to CBI. Moreover the witness, as discussed above, had categorically stated "The original possession register is available in the division office". If the defence doubted the prosecution case nothing stopped the defence from summoning the said witness and having not done so I find no reasons to doubt the prosecution story.
14.71 It will be pertinent to point out here that after the FIR was registered and during the course of investigation a joint memorandum Ex. PW48/A was prepared, as was proved by Sh. Subhash Chand (PW48), with the aid & assistance of six Field Investigators including PW13 who is also a signatory along with other Field Investigators to Ex. PW48/A. During this joint memorandum when the details of those individuals whose name appear in the survey list, as discussed above and to whom the questioned plots were allotted were checked/verified the details did not tally. The discrepancies as noted in the remarks column of the joint memorandum are/were to the effect that "Name/father name & jhuggi no. tallied, the ration card nos. do not tally";
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 300 of 522 "Name/husband name & juggi no. tallied the ration card nos. do not tally"; "Name/father name & juggi no. tallied, the ration card & Delhi Admn ID Card nos. do not tally"; "The name of Salik Ram S/o Ram Ajor in Jt. Survey list but as per document it is Salik s/o Ram, juggi no. C-8/50 which is same in both records, Ration card & Delhi Admn ID card nos. do not tally";
"Name/father name & juggi no. tallied, the ration card & Delhi Admn ID card nos. do not tally"; "Name/father name tallied but no documents were available at the time of survey". Merely because PW48, during his cross-examination, stated that " The joint memorandum was prepared by the CBI, but I do not now remember the date of the same.... It is correct that Ex. PW48/A was prepared on the instructions of the CBI officers and I had signed on the instructions of the said officers" is of no consequence. Things would have been entirely different had it been suggested to PW48 that Ex. PW48/A was a false, fabricated record or incorrect record prepared at the instance of the CBI. It makes no difference that Ex. PW48/A was prepared at the instructions of the CBI. What is material is that this document was prepared during the investigation with the aid and assistance of 6 Field Investigators and most importantly, the defence could not create any doubt upon the genuineness of the joint memorandum, it's contents.
Forged Ration Cards and Identity Cards
15. In addition to the above discussion, it stands further established from the testimony of PW6 Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 301 of 522 that the ration cards as were seized vide Ex. PW5/Y were forged & fabricated as they were never issued by the Food & Supply Department. PW6 proved that 26 ration cards, relating to the questioned plots, were sent for verification to him which he got verified through the inspectors of the concerned area, all falling in circle no. 3 and vide letter dated 18.06.2008 Ex. PW6/A, which was accompanied with list containing details of 26 ration cards, he forwarded his report Ex. PW6/B in this regard. PW6 proved that the verification was done and the report submitted by him on the basis of entries contained in Master Registers of different Fair Price Shops falling in the concerned circle, which entries are made at the time of issuance of new ration cards. He proved the Master Registers, copy of which he forwarded along with his letter Ex. PW6/A, as Ex. PW6/C (colly) & Ex. PW6/D (colly) respectively. He categorically proved that none of the above 26 ration cards i.e. Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 were issued from his office as no entry of any of these cards could be found in the concerned Master Registers of the two fair price shops with which these ration cards were claimed to be registered/enrolled.
15.1 No doubt PW6 during his cross-examination admitted that no circle number and FPS number is mentioned on Ex. PW6/C (colly) and that he did not provide any document to the IO regarding the fact that the copies of the Master Registers which have been supplied by him are of the FPS & Circle Number which was required to be verified by him. Furthermore he stated that the IO had never asked him to supply copy of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 302 of 522 Master Register in respect of the circle and FPS (Fair Price Shop) which was verified by him and admitted that after looking at Ex. PW6/C-colly, it cannot be verified whether the same are of which circle and FPS number, however, there is absolutely no doubt that the ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 are forged & fabricated documents. To begin with PW6 during his examination in chief had categorically deposed that out of 26 ration cards, 10 cards pertained to shop having license no. 1108 and remaining 16 pertained to shop having license no. 6390. The ration cards bearing shop having license no. 1108 are Ex. PW5/A3, Ex. PW5/B3, Ex. PW5/C3, Ex. PW5/D3, Ex. PW5E3, Ex. PW5/F3, Ex. PW5/S3, Ex. PW5/U3, Ex. PW5/V3 & Ex. PW5/W3 and the ration cards bearing shop license no. 6390 are Ex. PW5/G3, Ex. PW5/H3, Ex. PW5/I3, Ex. PW5/J3, Ex. PW5/K3, Ex. PW5/L3, Ex. PW5/M3, Ex. PW5/N3, Ex. PW5/O3, Ex. PW5/P3, Ex. PW5/Q3, Ex. PW5/R3, Ex. PW5/T3, Ex. PW5/X3, Ex. PW5/Y3 & Ex. PW5/Z3. All these ration cards bear the circle number 3. The shop license numbers and circle number were so mentioned on the ration cards so as to give an impression that these ration cards were issued from the said shops, circle. It was merely to provide genuineness to these forged ration cards that the circle number and FPS number was mentioned on them.
15.2 As per Ex. PW6/B ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to H3 as well as Ex. PW5/J3, K3, L3, N3, O3, R3 to Z3 are concerned, they were issued in the names of different individuals and not in the name of JJ dwellers to whom the questioned plots were CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 303 of 522 allotted. As far as ration cards Ex. PW5/I3, M3, P3 and Q3 are concerned they were not issued to anyone.
15.3 Though PW6 had stated during the cross-
examination that after looking at Ex. PW6/C it cannot be verified as to of which circle and FPS the ration cards are of, however, he had also categorically stated that at the time of verification, the number i.e. shop license number was written on the said documents which is in fact the case as is evident from a bare glance at these documents. Last but not the least the defence could not even remotely prove that the said ration cards are genuine. It could not be even remotely proved that the ration cards were issued issue by the Food & Supply Department. If the defence wanted to prove that the ration cards were genuine or that their entries are contained in other master registers and not the one produced by PW6, the defence could have summoned, examined the original record to prove its case and rebut the prosecution case based upon Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D. 15.4 No doubt PW6 during his cross-examination admitted that Ex. PW5/B3 is concerning circle no. 30 and the same was not in his jurisdiction, however, he had also stated that the Fair Price Shop mentioned on Ex. PW5/B3 is 1108 and the same is in circle number 3 i.e. not in circle no. 30. Moreover a bare glance at Ex. PW5/B3 would reveal that there has been cutting/overwriting/manipulation at the place where the circle number is mentioned and this is on account of the fact that the said ration card is forged & fabricated document.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 304 of 522 15.5 Though PW6 had also stated that he cannot say whether the entries in Ex. PW6/C i.e. Master Register pertaining to Fair Price Shop having license no. 1108 are correct or not, however, reasons for the same as explained by PW6 is that he had not prepared the register and therefore cannot comment upon the correctness of entries made in the said register. What PW6 had basically submitted to the IO and proved on record is the fact that ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 were never issued by the Food & Supply Department with shop license no. 1108 and 6390 which fair price shops fell in circle no. 3. If defence wanted to prove that the entries in Ex. PW6/C and for that matter in Ex. PW6/D are incorrect, nothing stopped the defence from leading any positive evidence to that effect. Having not done so, I find no reasons to doubt the genuineness of Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D. Similarly, merely because PW6 stated that there was more than one Master Register in respect of FPS 1108 in circle no. 3 and that he cannot say how many registers are so maintained also does not alter the factual position that the ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Z3 are forged & fabricated documents. At the cost of repetition if the defence wanted to prove that the said ration cards were genuine and their entries were there in other Master Registers, nothing stopped the defence from seeking direction to PW6 to produce the said registers or from leading defence evidence to that effect. Having not done so the entire defence's arguments loose their weightage. Most importantly, as discussed above, it stands established from the testimony of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34, PW42 that the ration CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 305 of 522 cards Ex. PW5/L3, Ex. PW5/U3, Ex. PW5/F3, Ex. PW5/B3, Ex. PW5/I3, Ex. PW5/A3 and Ex. PW5/S3 do not belong to them, they are forged & fabricated documents as not only the photographs appearing on the ration card do not belong to these allottees but even they do not contain the correct details of their family members. These allottees proved their genuine, original ration cards which has been discussed in detail above where testimony of PW22 has also been dealt with as regards the genuine ration cards viz-a-viz the forged ration cards.
15.6 Though Ld. Defence Counsels also laid much emphasis on the following statement made by PW6 during his cross-examination:-
"I cannot say after going through Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 (D4 to D29) whether the photocopies of ration cards which were supplied to us for verification were the photocopies of the above documents or not."
,nonetheless, it is to be seen that the said cross- examination was recorded after a gap of more than 11 years since this witness had given his report Ex. PW6/B and after almost 4 years of his examination in chief wherein he had stated as under:-
"I have been shown the original 26 ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 (D4 to 29) on record and on the basis of the entries contained in the above list Ex. PW6/B (part of D44), I can say that these are the same ration cards of which photocopies of were sent to us for verification."
15.7 With such huge passage of time these minor, trivial discrepancies are bound to occur and they do not deserve much weightage or consideration more so when the testimony of the witness is not only consistent on material particulars but is CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 306 of 522 corroborated by other material on record. It has been held in Mahavir Singh (supra) as under:-
"11. This Court in A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 held:
"17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions."
The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.
(See also: State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 2554; State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334; Vijay alias Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324; Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P., CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 307 of 522 AIR 2011 SC 280; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC
657)."
15.8 Though Ld. Defence Counsels also argued that the official who had prepared the report Ex. PW6/B i.e. Insp. Amar Singh was not examined, however, once PW6 categorically proved that the verification was done by him and the same was done on the basis of the entries contained in the master registers there was no necessity to examine Insp. Amar Singh. This is more so when the report Ex. PW6/B was sent to the CBI by PW6 along with covering letter Ex. PW6/A. 15.9 In addition to the testimony of PW6, PW22 and the allottees, the fact that the ration cards and the I cards are forged & fabricated documents also stands proved in view of the testimony of PW24, PW32, PW35, PW43 which has been discussed in detail herein below.
15.10 As far as the I cards are concerned, when the photographs appearing on ID card Ex. PW5/A4 in the name of Kameshwar Mehto issued by Delhi Administration and one consumer/ration card Ex. PW5/A3 were shown to PW12 Sangam Lal Shukla, who had worked as LDC with Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) & whose office was given the work of preparing of ID cards meant for jhuggi clusters of the Slum & JJ Department of Govt. of Delhi which work was to be done in collaboration with Food & Supply Department, he proved that the said photographs do not appear to be of a CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 308 of 522 Polaroid camera as in a Polaroid camera, the photo generally comes in light shade due to the reflection of light on the face.
15.11 In fact according to PW12 printed ID cards with names and other particulars of the concerned jhuggi dwellers already written therein were provided to them by the F&S Department and their job was only to visit the concerned clusters, to take the photographs of the jhuggi dwellers and to paste the same on the ID cards. He also proved that the above ID cards were then given to the concerned jhuggi dwellers at the spot itself as the signatures and stamp of the concerned issuing officer/authority of the F&S Department used to be already there on these ID cards provided to them by the above department. The relevant portion of examination in chief of PW12 in this regard read as under:-
"Printed ID cards with names and other particulars of the concerned jhuggi dwellers already written therein were provided to us by the F&S Department and our job was only to visit the concerned clusters, to take the photographs of the jhuggi dwellers and to paste the same on the ID cards...........The above ID cards were then given to the concerned jhuggi dwellers at the spot itself as the signatures and stamp of the concerned issuing officer/authority of the F&S Department used to be already there on these ID cards provided to us by the above department."
15.12 However, from a bare look at the ID cards it is evident there is no stamp or signature of concerned issuing officer/authority of the Food & Supply Department on the said I cards which further proves that these I cards are forged & fabricated documents. In fact as stands proved vide Ex. PW44/B (colly), the details on the I cards of all the 26 questioned plots have been filled by, are in the handwriting of accused Surjeet CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 309 of 522 Singh i.e. the details of the concerned JJ dwellers in the I cards were not filled by the Food & Supply Department but by accused Surjeet Singh.
15.13 Furthermore, according to PW12, the I cards were given to the concerned JJ dwellers at the spot itself, however, it stands proved on record that the said I cards with other original documents were recovered from Sardhana at the instance of deceased Ashok Jain, which recovery has been dealt in detail in the later part of the judgment, i.e. they were not handed over to the JJ dwellers in whose names they were prepared. The recovery of these I cards from Sardhana, the fact that they were not handed over to the JJ dwellers, which otherwise they could not have been as the JJ dwellers in whose name these forged I cards were prepared had never applied for any allotment, were not aware about the preparation of these forged I cards, is itself sufficient proof of these documents being forged & fabricated.
15.14 Just because PW12 admitted that he is not an expert in the field of photography nor has done any special course in that field will not alter the factual position that the I cards were forged & fabricated as there is sufficient evidence on record pointing towards the said fact.
15.15 PW32 Sh. Kamod Jha's deposition lend further credence to the prosecution case that the rations cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 as well as Delhi Administration Cards Ex. PW5/A4 to Ex. PW5/Z4 are forged & fabricated when he CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 310 of 522 proved that the said ration cards and Delhi Administration Cards were got printed by him from the printing press of one Sh. Titu, at the instance of PW24 Sh. Chob Singh. PW32's deposition coupled with that of PW24, PW35 and PW43 leaves no doubt that these ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were not prepared, issued by the concerned government department/ authority but were prepared in a fraudulent manner. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW32 in this regard reads as under:
I know one Chob Singh who used to visit in the above Mandir regularly as a devotee. He used to reside in Sector 24, Rohini and I visited his house only once in connection with performing some puja (hawan) in the year 2003/2004. Around the year 2006/2007, the above Chob Singh approached me for getting photocopied one blank ration card of old format (The witness states that during the said year the above format of ration card was not in use). I took Chob Singh and the above blank ration card to some photocopiest, who told that it was not possible to get the above ration card copied as it was in a booklet format. Then I went to one computer shop, from where I was getting my printing work designed, and the person on computer shop told me that he will scan the above ration card and give a copy thereof on butter paper and then I could get that ration card printed from screen printing press. The name of the computer shop owner was Anil and he was running his shop in Mangolpuri Khurd area, but I do not now remember the name of his shop.
After getting a copy of the above format of ration card printed on butter paper from the above shop of Anil, I went to the shop of one Titu who was running a screen printing press in Mangolpuri Kalan. I got printed around 100 copies of the above ration card through screen printing and handed over the same to Sh. Chob Singh. After around 2-3 months thereof, I also got some more copies of the above ration card printed from the above screen printing shop of Titu at the instance of Sh. Chob Singh and thus, I had got printed around 350-400 copies of ration card in total. I used to pay around Rs.20/- per ration card to Titu and I used to charge around Rs.25/- per card from Chob Singh.
The serial numbers on some ration cards were also initially put by me with the help of a small metallic numbering machine, but since this process was not clean CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 311 of 522 and effective, I asked Chob Singh to get the serial numbers printed on the said cards himself. I had initially asked Chob Singh as to how he was getting printed the above ration cards, which were government documents, but he gave me an excuse that some jhuggies had been burnt in fire and the jhuggi dwellers are not able to get ration and some officer in the Food and Supply Deptt had asked him to get those ration cards printed. (In reply to a court query about the job or work of above Chob Singh, the witness states that he was told by Chob Singh that he was working in some Food and Supply office near ITO.) On being asked by Ld. PP for CBI, the witness states that besides the above ration card, he had also got printed some blank Delhi Administration Identity Cards for Sh. Chob Singh from the above screen printing press from Mr. Titu. I can identify the above ration cards as well as Delhi Administration Identity Cards, if the same are shown to me.
15.16 PW32 identified rations cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex.
PW5/Z3 as well as Delhi Administration Cards Ex. PW5/A4 to Ex. PW5/Z4 as were got prepared/printed by him, which according to him was done at the instance of Chob Singh (PW24). Though at the same time I am of the considered opinion that considering PW32's active role, involvement in preparation/printing of ration cards & Delhi Administration I cards it cannot be completely ruled out that somewhere down the line, he was also part of the conspiracy. It cannot be completely ruled out that he might have been hand in gloves with the accused persons, was part of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, got the ration cards and the Delhi Administration Cards printed.
15.17 PW32 was not authorized, had no authority whatsoever to get the ration cards or the Delhi Administration Cards prepared/printed. His statement/claim that " I had initially CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 312 of 522 asked Chob Singh as to how he was getting printed the above ration cards, which were government documents, but he gave me an excuse that some jhuggies had been burnt in fire and the jhuggi dwellers are not able to get ration and some officer in the Food and Supply Deptt had asked him to get those ration cards printed. (In reply to a court query about the job or work of above Chob Singh, the witness states that he was told by Chob Singh that he was working in some Food and Supply office near ITO.) "
does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that he claimed to have put serial numbers on the ration cards as were provided by Sh. Chob Singh. The above statement was made by him merely to avoid the criminal liability. The statement made by him, during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, further leaves no doubt that at the time when he got the above ration cards printed, he was aware that the same were in so many manner different from the original ration cards i.e. the type of print, the quality of the paper, cover of the ration cards etc. and thus he was well aware that the documents which he was getting prepared/printed were indeed forged & fabricated documents. The relevant portion of his cross-examination in this regard is reproduced as under:
"Titu had never asked me about any authorization letter qua the printing of aforesaid ration cards and I-cards. I was aware at the time when Chob Singh had asked me for getting the aforesaid ration cards and I-cards printed that permission of the government was required for printing of ration cards and I-cards. I was aware of the similarities as well as dissimilarities between the original ration cards and the ones got printed by me. The original ration cards were printed through offset printing whereas the ration cards got printed by me were screen printed ones. There was also difference of the cover on both types of ration cards. There was a difference in the quality of the papers used in printing of both types of ration cards, the one which got printed by CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 313 of 522 me was on newsprint quality paper whereas the original ration cards were printed on a different paper."
15.18 In fact PW32 upon a court query stated "(In reply to a court query about the job or work of above Chob Singh, the witness states that he was told by Chob Singh that he was working in some Food and Supply office near ITO.)" however, the said statement is not believable at all for the simple reason that he knew Chob Singh quite well as according to him Chob Singh used to regularly visit the mandir where he was a priest, he had also performed puja/hawan at Chob Singh's house and therefore he would have been aware about the occupation, job of Chob Singh. The fact that PW32 was getting paid by PW24 for these ration cards and PW32 was not getting paid by any government department/authority for preparation of these ration cards further points towards the fact that PW32 was well aware that the ration cards and the Delhi Administration I cards were being fraudulently prepared. Moreover, PW35 whose testimony has been discussed hereunder also stated that " I asked him (PW32) that not to bring to me such type of work whereupon he replied that he got authority letter on letter head, but he had forgot to bring the same from his house". Similarly, PW43 stated that "Initially, I refused to do the above said work, but he (PW32) promised me that he will provide me the documents from the MCD authorizing the above said work". That means PW32 lied to PW35 & PW43 in this regard and also lied before this court. He was well aware at the time of preparation of those documents that he was committing forgery, fraud and same was done at the instance of Chob Singh. But for the reasons best known to the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 314 of 522 investigating agency, PW32 Sh. Kamod Jha was cited as a witness and not arrayed as an accused. In fact even the role of Chob Singh, if not that of PW35 and PW43, is highly suspicious and they being part of the conspiracy cannot be completely ruled out. Let that be the case it stands established on record that PW32 had played an active role in preparation/printing of forged ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards.
15.19 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that there are major missing links in the prosecution story and its claim that PW32 had got the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards prepared/printed at the behest of Chob Singh, which lacunas according to Ld. Defence Counsels casts serious doubts upon the prosecution story as regards the preparation/printing of ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards. It was argued that though PW32 claimed that he had got the papers for printing the ration cards from a shop at Mangolpuri, however, he failed to give the name and address of that shop. Furthermore, he stated that CBI did not ask him, at the time of investigation, about the shop from where he procured the papers for printing the ration cards. It was argued that according to the prosecution, PW32 had put serial numbers on the ration cards with the help of a small metallic machine which he purchased from Chandni Chowk, however, during his cross examination he admitted that the serial numbers on the ration cards Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3 have been printed through a printing machine and have not been put with the use of machine which he claimed to have bought from Chandni Chowk CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 315 of 522 and that none of the serial numbers on the ration cards or the Delhi Administration I cards have been put by him with the help of said machine. It was further argued that as per statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 16.05.2008 of PW32, the said machine was seized by Insp. D.K. Thakur on 17.09.2007, however, no such seizure memo was proved on record and even the machine was not produced, exhibited during the trial. It was argued that the said lacunas, inconsistency in the statement of PW32 renders the entire prosecution story unbelievable. However, I find no merits in the arguments of Ld. Defence counsels. To begin with, the forged ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards in question were prepared/printed by PW32 almost 11 years before his deposition was recorded in the court. It is an extremely long time to forget minute details like from where PW32 got the papers for printing the ration cards more so when he was into printing business on commission basis and thus would have got numerous documents, cards etc. printed for which he would have purchased printing papers on number of occasions from different shops/vendors etc. Nonetheless he did state that the said shop was in Mangolpuri. No doubt he did not give the said details even in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex. PW52/A21, however, merely because this detail is missing in the said statement as well is not sufficient to discredit the entire testimony of PW32 when there is ample evidence, as has been discussed in detail above, which leaves no doubt that he had prepared/printed the ration cards & Delhi Administration I cards in question, which are forged & fabricated. Moreover, there is ample CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 316 of 522 independent corroboration to PW32's statement in the form of testimony of PW24, PW35 and PW43.
15.20 Failure on the part of the IO to have gathered these details and investigate accordingly cannot be made a basis for disbelieving the prosecution case. The law is now well settled that benefit of lapses in investigation should not be given to the accused persons or else it will lead to travesty of justice. For similar reasons failure on the part of the IO to make seizure memo vide which small metallic machine which was used for putting serial numbers on the ration cards or the non production of machine itself cannot be made a basis to throw away the prosecution case. Nonetheless it is to be seen that as per Ex. PW52/A21 the machine "was seized by Insp. D.K. Thakur in his case" i.e. case of which he was the IO and not in the present case which has been investigated by Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW52). May be on account of this fact i.e. preparation of seizure memo and seizure of machine in other case and on account of oversight that the seizure memo and the machine were not produced during the trial of the present case. Moreover, when Ld. PP for the CBI, during the recording of testimony of PW32, pointed out that the said machine might be lying in the malkhana of CBI, Ld. Defence Counsel categorically stated that he is not insisting upon the production of the machine. If indeed Ld. Defence Counsels doubted the seizure proceedings or the seizure of the machine they should have allowed Ld. PP an opportunity to produce the said machine and only if the Ld. PP/CBI failed to do so then things would have been entirely different. Having not done so it CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 317 of 522 is not now open to Ld. Defence Counsels to agitate that the seizure memo and the machine were not produced during the trial.
15.21 As far as putting up of serial numbers on the ration cards is concerned, PW32 in his examination in chief PW32 had stated as under:-
"The serial numbers on some ration cards were also initially put by me with the help of a small metallic numbering machine, but since this process was not clean and effective, I asked Chob Singh to get the serial numbers printed on the said cards himself."
15.22 This was a general statement made by PW32 as not only ration cards pertaining to the present case, 26 questioned plots were prepared/printed by him but he had got prepared hundreds of other ration cards. In some ration cards he had put the serial numbers but as also explained, stated by him as the process was not clean and effective he asked Chob Singh to put the serial numbers himself.
15.23 When ration cards of the present case were shown to PW32 he did not even once state that he had put the serial numbers on these ration cards as well. Upon being shown the ration cards in question, he had merely identified the ration cards and stated "that the above mentioned ration cards are the ones which were got printed by him". Things would have been entirely different had while identifying the ration cards he had also stated that the serial numbers on the same were also put by him. Even in Ex. PW52/A21 he had stated that he had got hundreds of ration cards prepared/printed and as regards the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 318 of 522 questioned ration cards of the present case, there is nothing in the said statement which suggests that he had put serial numbers on these particulars ration cards i.e. Ex. PW5/A3 to Ex. PW5/Z3. Infact in his statement Ex. PW52/A21 he had also stated that he had not affixed serial numbers on the Delhi Administration I cards. It was for these reasons i.e. having prepared hundreds of ration cards and he having put serial numbers only on some ration cards and the others being put by Chob Singh and when he had not put the serial numbers on the I cards that he during his cross-examination stated that none of the serial numbers appearing on the questioned ration cards or the Delhi Administration I cards were put by him. He having not put the serial numbers on the questioned ration cards, would not have known that the serial numbers were not put on the questioned ration cards ie. Ex. PW5/A3 to Z3 with the help of metallic machine or were simply printed on them. It will also be worthwhile to point out that as stated by PW32, it was Chob Singh who used to provide him the numbers to be put on the ration cards and the I cards and therefore & when PW32 categorically stated that after initially putting serial numbers on the ration cards he asked Chob Singh to put the serial numbers "printed" on the said cards himself, same explains why PW32 stated that the serial numbers on the questioned cards were printed and not put with the help of metallic machine.
15.24 No doubt PW24 Chob Singh, at whose instance, PW32 had got the ration cards prepared/printed did not support the prosecution case on all material counts nonetheless he CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 319 of 522 admitted certain crucial facts. He admitted knowing & meeting Darshan Lal as well as PW32 Kamod Jha @ Panditji. According to him, Darshan Lal had asked him to get about 150/200 ration cards printed from Kamod Jha @ Panditji for which Darshan Lal used to pay Rs. 60/- to him out of which, Rs. 40/- was paid to Kamod Jha @ Panditji and Rs. 20/- was kept by him as commission per card. He further proved that Darshan Lal used to give him slips containing the serial numbers which were to be put on the ration cards and he used to forward those slips to PW32 who then used to put serial number on the said ration cards with the help of a machine. The relevant portion of examination in chief of PW24 in this regard read as under:-
"I know one Darshan Lal who used to frequent Amar Jyoti Colony near Samai Pur Badli during that period. I had also been allotted one plot no. A-79 in Amar Jyoti Colony in resettlement of JJ Cluster from Okhla and Darshan Lal used to meet me there only.....................I know one Kamod Jha @ Panditji since the year 2007. He used to work as a pandit/priest in a temple at Budh Vihar, Phase-I and was also operating one printing press at Budh Vihar near the said mandir. He used to print wedding cards etc. During that period, Darshan Lal had asked me to get about 150/200 ration cards printed from aforesaid Kamod Jha @ Panditji while stating that sometimes, jhuggies get burnt and the ration cards issued to the jhuggi dwellers also get burnt in the fire and so new ration cards were required to be issued to the jhuggi dwellers. He had paid me Rs.60/- per card out of which Rs.40/- was paid to Kamod Jha @ Panditji and Rs.20/- was my commission per card. The serial no. was also put on the said ration cards by Kamod Jha @ Panditji himself. Infact, Darshan Lal used to give me slips containing the serial numbers to be put on the ration cards and I forwarded the same to Kamod Jha @ Panditji who put the same on ration card with the help of a machine. I then collected the ration cards from Kamod Jha @ Panditji and handed them over to Darshan Lal."
15.25 As discussed above, PW32 had similarly stated that the serial numbers which were to be put on the ration cards and I CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 320 of 522 cards were provided by PW24 Chob Singh. The relevant portion of PW32's cross-examination in this regard read as " Again said, I was told by Chob Singh to put a particular number on a particular ration card. Chob Singh had given me the number of one ration card in a written form and asked me to put the number in the sequence."
15.26 PW24 further proved that he used to collect the ration cards from PW32 and hand them over to Darshan Lal. This sufficiently proves that the ration cards were got printed in a fraudulent manner and they were used in the resettlement schemes/allotment of alternate plots by the Slum & JJ Department.
15.27 No doubt PW24 failed to support the prosecution case on material count and he denied personally knowing accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo or other employees of Slum & JJ Department i.e. Purshottam, S.C. Garg etc. and also failed to identify accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo in the court. Similarly he disowned his statement Mark PW24/1 wherein it is recorded that Darshan Lal who used to work for Ashok Malhotra used to visit Slum & JJ Department frequently or that accused Atul Vashisht used to charge Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- for preparation of challan of allottees or that during investigation he had identified the ration cards which were got printed by him and which he had made old/made to appear old by pouring tea on them and rather during his examination in chief had stated that the ration cards which he handed over to Darshan CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 321 of 522 Lal were in new condition, however, the law is fairly well settled now as regards the weightage to be attached to the testimony of a witness who has been declared hostile. Evidence of such a witness need not be totally rejected or treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether. It can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable and is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence on a careful scrutiny thereof. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the law laid down in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Crl.) 112 , Shamsher Singh @ Rameshwar v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 867, Nisar Khan @ Guddu v. State of Uttaranchal (SC) 2006(1) Apex Criminal 340, Manoj Kumar v. State of Punjab (P&H) (D.B.) 2005(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 813 and Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal)
762. 15.28 In T. Shankar Prasad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1242 it has been held as under:-
"The fact that PW-1 did not stick to his statement made during investigation does not totally obliterate his evidence. Even in criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law be treated as washed off record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken he may after reading and considering the evidence of the said witness, accept in the light of other evidence on record that part of his testimony which he found to be creditworthy and act upon it. As noted above, PW-1 did not totally resile from his earlier statement. There was only a half- hearted attempt to partially shield A-
...............................In State of U.P. v. Dr. G.K.Ghosh (AIR 1984 SC 1453) it was observed that in case of an offence of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 322 of 522 demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction."
15.29 In Attar Singh vs State of Maharashtra AIRONLINE 2012 SC 466 it was held as under:-
"13. .......... It could not be ignored that when a witness is declared hostile and when his testimony is not shaken on material points in the cross-examination, there is no ground to reject his testimony in toto as it is well-settled by a catena of decisions that the Court is not precluded from taking into account the statement of a hostile witness altogether and it is not necessary to discard the same in toto and can be relied upon partly. If some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. He cannot be thrown out as wholly unreliable. This was the view expressed by this court in the case of Syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1979 SC 1848 whereby the learned Judges of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had discarded the evidence of a hostile witness in its entirety. Similarly, other High Courts in the matter of Gulshan Kumar vs. State (1993) Crl.L.J. 1525 as also Kunwar vs. State of U.P. (1993) Crl.L.J. 3421 as also Haneefa vs. State (1993) Crl.L.J. 2125 have held that it is not necessary to discard the evidence of the hostile witness in toto and can be relied upon partly. So also, in the matter of State of U.P. vs. Chet Ram reported in AIR 1989 SC 1543 = (1989) Crl.L.J. 1785; it was held that if some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence it can be relied upon and the witness cannot be termed as wholly unreliable. It was further categorically held in the case of Shatrughan vs. State of M.P. (1993) Crl.L.J. 3120 that hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness. Granting of a permission by the Court to cross-examine his own witness does not amount to adjudication by the Court as to the veracity of a witness. It only means a declaration that the witness is adverse or unfriendly to the party calling him and not that the witness is untruthful. This was the view expressed by this Court in the matter of Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC
294. Thus, merely because a witness becomes hostile it would not result in throwing out the prosecution case, but the Court must see the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 323 of 522 hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused. Thus testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to the Court to consider the evidence and there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the accused."
15.30 In Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 it has been held as under:-
"52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross- examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross- examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto."
67. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."
15.31 There is ample evidence on record which squarely proves that the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were fraudulently prepared, these are forged & fabricated CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 324 of 522 documents. Moreover I have no hesitation in concluding that PW24 had turned hostile, retracted from his statement Mark PW24/1 and did not support the prosecution story on material counts as he was won over by the accused persons. Nonetheless the crucial facts admitted by him, as discussed in detail above, sufficiently corroborates the prosecution case regarding the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards. In fact PW24 had also admitted "It is correct that in my above statement, I told the CBI that I was a frequent visitor to the SLUM and JJ Department." and though he denied having got about 400-500 ration cards printed but he did state "only about 100 Delhi Administration Cards were got printed by me from Kamod Jha @ Panditji at the asking of Darshan Lal".
15.32 As far as Darshan Lal is concerned though he was cited as a witness by CBI, however, unfortunately before he could be examined, he expired. His statement as was recorded by Insp. S. S. Bhullar is on record as Ex. PW52/A22. It is the prosecution case that hundreds of ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were got arranged by Darshan Lal, through PW24, on the asking of deceased Ashok Malhotra who used to pay Darshan lal Rs. 100/- per set of ration card and Delhi Administration I card and Darshan Lal in turn used to pay Rs. 60-70/- per set to Chob Singh. All this finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW24, PW32 and other prosecution witnesses.
15.33 Prosecution case got further strengthened through the deposition of PW35 Anil Madhwan who corroborated PW32's CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 325 of 522 statement that he had approached PW35 for the purpose of preparation of the questioned ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards. PW35 proved that he prepared the scanned copy of the ration card and Delhi Administration I card on butter paper at the instance of PW32 who was known to him for last 7-8 years.
15.34 After PW35 had prepared the scanned copy on butter paper, the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were got printed from screen printing press of PW43 by PW32. PW35 proved that he was paid Rs. 1200/- for the said work, which included some previous/balance payment, as PW32 used to come to the shop of PW35 for preparation of scanned copy of marriage cards. PW35 identified the ration cards and Delhi Administration I card i.e. Ex. PW5/A3 to Z3 and Ex. PW5/A4 to Z4 respectively as the same whose scanned copy was prepared by him.
15.35 During the course of arguments Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that though PW35 stated that he used to maintain bill books for the job/work done by him but no such bill was proved on record by the prosecution which could prove that indeed PW35 had prepared the scanned copy of ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards for PW32. As far as this argument is concerned, PW35 had categorically stated that he used to issue bills only on the demand of customers and that he had never issued any bills for the work got done by PW32. When no bill was demanded, raised there was no occasion for any bill to be proved on record. Even in the absence of bill, there is sufficient CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 326 of 522 corroboration in the form of testimony of PW32 as regards preparation of scanned copy by PW35. Infact, as forged & fabricated rations cards were got prepared/printed, it is but natural that no bill was/would have been demanded or raised because those involved would not have wanted to create evidence against themselves.
15.36 No doubt PW35 had stated, during his cross- examination, that at the time of investigation he was only shown one ration card and one Delhi Administration I card and that he does not remember which particular ration card, Delhi Administration I card was shown to him. Furthermore he stated that he cannot say if the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards shown to him during investigation are amongst the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards shown to him at the time of his testimony, however, not only did he state that the I card and the ration card shown to him at the time of investigation resembles with the ration card and Delhi Administration I card shown to him during his testimony but once he had already duly identified the ration card and Delhi Administration I card during his examination in chief, the said statement made during the cross-examination looses its significance more so, when he had reiterated "I can say that the printed copies of the above ration cards and Delhi Administration I-cards shown to me today in this court were made from the scanned copies on butter paper, which were prepared by me". At the cost of repetition, there is ample corroboration in the form of testimony of PW32, PW24 & other prosecution witnesses as regards preparation of these forged CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 327 of 522 ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards in terms of the prosecution story.
15.37 Failure on the part of the IO to seize the hard drive of PW35's computer where copy of the butter paper prepared by him used to be saved has not affected the prosecution case. No doubt IO should have been more professional, diligent and should have seized the hard drive which would have immensely boosted the prosecution case but because of his failure to do so no benefit can be given to the accused persons when the prosecution story as a whole inspires confidence.
15.38 It will be pertinent to highlight that PW35 had also stated, during his cross-examination, " The contents filled in ink were not present at the time when I had scanned the said card. It contained only the printed part", which contents as stands proved on record vide Ex. PW44/B (colly) are in the handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh.
15.39 PW43 Deep Chand @ Titu duly identified the ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards i.e. Ex. PW5/A3 to Z3 and Ex. PW5/A4 to Z4 respectively as having been printed by him at the instance of, upon being approached by PW32. His testimony completed the chain as to how these forged & fabricated documents came into existence.
15.40 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that according to PW43 he was approached CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 328 of 522 by PW32 through one Mr. Katyal for whom he used to do screen printing work, however, prosecution did not examine said Mr. Katyal which itself creates immense doubt upon the prosecution story. It was also argued that admittedly PW32 was not known to PW43 nor he was aware about his shop's location. As far as this argument is concerned, suffice would be to say that testimony of PW24, PW32, PW35 and PW43 sufficiently proves as to how the forged ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were prepared and there was no need to examine Mr. Katyal as well. Mr. Katyal had no role except for introducing PW32 to PW43.
15.41 Nonetheless PW43, during his cross-examination, had given details of the shop of Mr. Katyal, whose shop was located at Shopping Complex, Avantika Rohini. If defence wanted to discredit prosecution case in this regard or create doubts upon PW43's claim nothing stopped the defence from examining Mr. Katyal. Having not done so, I find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve PW43.
15.42 Just because PW43 was not carrying on the work of screen printing under the name of any firm or company or there was no written rent agreement, lease deed in respect of the premises where he carried out the said work or the fact that he was not issuing any bills for printing work is of no significance. There is no requirement of law that an individual can carry on a business only under a firm or company's name. An individual, for that matter, can carry a business in his sole name or without any name also. Similarly there is no law that the premises can be CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 329 of 522 taken on rent only via written lease deed. Oral tenancies also exist. As far as bills are concerned, raising of bills is also not required and the bills are raised only to maintain sanctity in business transactions.
15.43 No doubt PW43 during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel stated that Ex. PW5/A3 to Z3 and Ex. PW5/A4 to Z4 were not printed by him, however, it is to be seen that during his examination in chief he had duly identified the said ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards as having been printed by him. Undoubtedly once he retracted from his statement made during the examination in chief, gave inconsistent, contrary versions he should have been re-examined and may be cross examined by the then Ld. Prosecutor but in this particular matter as is quite apparent from the record, number of witnesses despite having not supported the prosecution case, despite having retracted from their statements made in their examination in chief and given contrary statements during their cross-examination were not cross examined by the then Ld. Public Prosecutors for reasons best known to them. The Ld. Public Prosecutors undoubtedly failed in their duty to diligently pursue the prosecution/CBI's case. It was expected of the then Ld. Public Prosecutors to have ensured that the witnesses deposed in terms of the prosecution story, in terms of their statements recorded during the course of investigation and if they did not, then to cross examine them. It is not as if the the Ld. Public Prosecutors were expected to put their own words into the mouth of the witness or to compel a witness speak untruthfully CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 330 of 522 but a prosecution witness is expected to depose in terms of the prosecution story and in case he does not then Ld. Prosecutor is expected to, is rather duty bound to take recourse to law, which includes re-examination, cross-examination etc. This is the basic role of the Ld. Public Prosecutor. I am constrained to observe that the then Ld. Public Prosecutors did not live up to their duty, professional obligations, especially during the examination of PW10, PW43 and PW51.
15.44 Before parting with the evidence of PW43 it will be worthwhile to point out that PW43 did state, during his cross- examination, that "The ration cards and the identity cards which were shown to me by the CBI officials during the course of investigation, were not having any photo pasted upon them nor the same contained any particulars of a person". As already discussed above the particulars on these documents have been filled by accused Surjeet Singh and the photographs are not of the allottees. Hence there is more than ample evidence which proves that these documents are forged & fabricated.
Sale documents preparation
16. In addition to the ration cards & Delhi Administration I Cards, forged sale documents i.e. agreement to sell, receipt, Will etc. were also prepared in the name of the allottees of the 26 questioned plots for the purpose of sale of these plots which was the ultimate aim, objective of the conspiracy.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 331 of 522 16.1 PW9 Mukesh Kumar proved that in the year 2007 he was working as a Stamp Vendor and knew Advocate Sushil Kumar (PW16) as well as his employees Lal Chand (PW14), accused Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar who were working at Old Court Compound Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He proved that above individuals used to visit him for purchasing stamp papers for which sometimes payment used to be made by Advocate Sushil Kumar and at times by his above employees/above individuals. He proved that the name of the persons in whose name the stamp papers used to be purchased, their father, addresses & the purpose for which these papers were purchased, were written on the reverse side of the stamp papers and the above particulars were also noted down by him in the register kept by him with regard to the sale of the stamp papers and it was being done in routine. He duly identified documents Ex. PW5/A6 to A8, Ex. PW5/B6 to B8, Ex. PW5/C6 to C8,Ex. PW5/D6 to D8, Ex. PW5/E6 to E8, Ex. PW5/F6 to F8, Ex. PW5/G6 to G8, Ex. PW5/H6 to H8, Ex. PW5/I6 to I8, Ex. PW5/J6 to J8, Ex. PW5/K6 to K8, Ex. PW5/L6 to L8, Ex. PW5/M6 to M8, Ex. PW5/N6 to N8, Ex. PW5/O6 to O8, Ex. PW5/P6 to P8, Ex. PW5/Q6 to Q8, Ex. PW5/R6 to R8, Ex. PW5/S6 to S8, Ex. PW5/T6 to T8, Ex. PW5/U6 to U8, Ex. PW5/V6 to V8, Ex. PW5/X6 to X8, Ex. PW5/Y6 to Y8 and Ex. PW5/Z6 to Z8 and categorically stated that these stamp papers were sold by him to Ashok Kumar and the particulars appearing on the reverse side of these stamp papers are in his handwriting and bears his rubber stamp.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 332 of 522 16.2 He proved that all the above stamp papers were purchased from him by Ashok Kumar and he proved his stamp vendor register, having relevant entries at page no. 291 to 294 as Ex. PW9/A in this regard. He proved the signatures of said Ashok Kumar in the relevant column of the register.
16.3 During the course of the arguments, it was vehemently argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that the said Ashok Kumar who allegedly purchased stamp papers from PW9 and whose signatures appear on the stamp vendor register Ex. PW9/A was not examined by the prosecution which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution case. It was argued that except for the oral statement of PW9, PW14 & PW16, there is nothing on record to suggest i.e. no documentary evidence etc. that it was indeed Ashok Kumar who had purchased stamp papers from PW9 and signed the stamp vendor register Ex. PW9/A. It was argued that the said Ashok Kumar is an accused in connected matter i.e. CC No. 46/07 and therefore nothing stopped the prosecution from arraying him as an accused in the present matter and having not done so, having not examined him as a witness either, itself creates grave doubt upon the prosecution case. It was argued that though PW9 claimed that it can be possible to tell the name of the person who had purchased the stamp papers by simply looking at the stamp papers, however, in the stamp affixed on the back side of these stamp papers, the column pertaining to the person to whom these stamp papers were sold is blank and only name of the person in whose name the stamp papers were CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 333 of 522 purchased has been written/mentioned. It was argued that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW52/A14 dated 17.03.2008, PW9 had not even once taken the name of Ashok Kumar which itself proves that Ashok Kumar had never purchased the stamp papers and whatever, was deposed by PW9 was not only a material improvement, but an absolute falsehood as well. It was argued that if according to Ex. PW52/A14, Ashok Kumar had never come to purchase stamp papers and only Lal Chand & accused Vijay Kumar used to purchase the stamp papers from PW9 as well as make payment for the same, then it was for the prosecution to explain that how come Ashok Kumar's signature appear on the stamp vendor register Ex. PW9/A. It was argued that prosecution could not bring any material on record to prove that Ashok Kumar was ever employed by or worked with PW16. It was thus argued that the prosecution story that it was Ashok Kumar who had purchased the stamp papers could not be even remotely proved and is merely a figment of imagination.
16.4 As far as the above arguments are concerned, no doubt prosecution did not examine Ashok Kumar nor any document to prove that he was an employee of PW16 was placed on record and even from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, actual identity of Ashok Kumar is not ascertainable as neither his parentage, nor his proper address has been brought on record by the prosecution, however, that by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. Register Ex. PW9/A and deposition of PW9 leaves no doubt that the stamp papers in question were indeed purchased by Ashok Kumar who was an employee of Advocate CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 334 of 522 Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW16). Not even once during the cross- examination of PW9, it was suggested to him that Ashok Kumar was never an employee of Advocate Sushil Kumar or that he had never come to him for purchasing the stamp papers. Similarly, it was not even once suggested to PW9 that register Ex. PW9/A was a forged and fabricated document. The defence could not prove that the said register was a forged or fabricated document or that the name of Ashok Kumar was subsequently added in the register Ex. PW9/A. 16.5 No doubt, PW9 did not take the name of Ashok Kumar in his statement Ex. PW52/A14 but merely because he did not do so, does not render the deposition of PW9 as an improvement or falsehood. Why he did not take the name of Ashok Kumar in statement Ex. PW52/A14 was duly explained by PW9 when during his cross-examination he stated as under:
"In my statement dated 17.03.2008 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the CBI, I have not stated to them that the stamp papers pertaining to this case and shown to me at that time were sold by me only to Ashok Kumar. I was shown the register containing the entries Ex.PW9/A by the CBI at the time of recording of my above statement, which has also been shown to me today in the court. I cannot tell the reason for not telling the name of Shri Ashok Kumar only as the person to whom the above 26 bunches of stamp papers were sold by me in my above statement and also including the names of Vijay Kumar and Lal Chand in the said statement was that at that time I was shown by the CBI officer all the bunches of the stamp papers of different cases and some of those stamp papers were sold by me to either Shri Lal Chand or Shri Vijay Kumar or Shri Ashok Kumar. Vol. that, however, the stamp papers of 26 bunches shown to me today by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI were sold only to Ashok Kumar."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 335 of 522 16.6 It was merely on account of oversight that this witness did not take the name of Ashok Kumar at the time when his statement Ex. PW52/A14 was recorded and as explained by him, stamp papers of different cases were shown to him at that time, some of which were purchased by Lal Chand & accused Vijay Kumar. As these two individuals had also purchased the stamp papers which is evident from the first page of Ex. PW9/A as their name appears on the said page, PW9 rightly took their name in his statement Ex. PW52/A14 and merely forgot to take the name of Ashok Kumar. It was for this reason i.e. his name missing in Ex. PW52/A14 that Ashok Kumar was not joined in the investigation and neither arrayed as a witness or made an accused.
16.7 As regards the arguments that column pertaining to person to whom the stamp papers were sold are blank and only the name of a person in whose name the stamp papers were purchased are found written suffice to be to say that Ex. PW9/A leaves no doubt that stamp papers in question were indeed purchased by Ashok Kumar. Furthermore, PW9 explained why the columns were left blank when he stated as under:
"However, the witness has explained by volunteering that the above columns were left blank for the reason that these three stamp papers formed part of the bunch of the stamp papers sold by him to the above Ashok Kumar and the name of Ashok Kumar might have been written by him on the first stamp paper of the above bunch. He further volunteers that this fact may also be corroborated from the details entered in his above register."
16.8 The fact that Ashok Kumar was his employee was duly proved by PW16 Advocate Sh. Sushil Kumar who CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 336 of 522 categorically stated that he has been practicing at Old Court Kashmere Gate, Delhi since 1999 and dealt in drafting & registration of legal documents. He proved that Ashok Kumar alongwith Lal Chand & accused Vijay Kumar used to sit outside his chamber and did typing & other miscellaneous work connected with registration of documents. He further proved that he knew accused Ram Chander Arora @ Masterji (since deceased) who was a property dealer in the area of Gandhi Vihar near Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and often visited him in connection with preparation of sale documents of properties, their registration etc. He proved that Lal Chand (PW14) & accused Vijay were mainly doing the typing work and Ashok Kumar was doing the miscellaneous job for them like giving water to the customers, collecting & depositing the documents etc. in the office of Sub-Registrar and they all also used to get the documents notarized/attested from the Notaries and Oath Commissioners sitting in the complex, as and when required. He identified the sale documents Ex. PW5/A5 to Ex. PW5/A10, Ex. PW5/B5 to Ex. PW5/B10, Ex. PW5/C5 to Ex. PW5/C10, Ex. PW5/D5 to Ex. PW5/D10, Ex. PW5/E5 to Ex. PW5/E10, Ex. PW5/F5 to Ex. PW5/F10, Ex. PW5/G5 to Ex. PW5/G10, Ex. PW5/H5 to Ex. PW5/H10, Ex. PW5/I5 to Ex. PW5/I10, Ex. PW5/J5 to Ex. PW5/J10, Ex. PW5/K5 to Ex. PW5/K10, Ex. PW5/L5 to Ex. PW5/L10, Ex. PW5/M5 to Ex. PW5/M10, Ex. PW5/N5 to Ex. PW5/N10, Ex. PW5/O5 to Ex. PW5/O10, Ex. PW5/P5 to Ex. PW5/P10, Ex. PW5/Q5 to Ex. PW5/Q10, Ex. PW5/R5 to Ex. PW5/R10, Ex. PW5/S5 to Ex. PW5/S10, Ex. PW5/T5 to Ex. PW5/T10, Ex. PW5/U5 to Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 337 of 522 PW5/U10, Ex. PW5/V5 to Ex. PW5/V10, Ex. PW5/W5 to Ex. PW5/W10, Ex. PW5/X5 to Ex. PW5/X10, Ex. PW5/Y5 to Ex. PW5/Y10, Ex. PW5/Z5 to Ex. PW5/Z10 as having been typed on his computer by Lal Chand (PW14) & accused Vijay Kumar. He further proved that Lal Chand (PW14), accused Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar used to get these documents notarized and the maximum documents were notarized by Notary Public, Advocate Bijender Singh (PW15) who used to sit in the same court complex, where he having his chamber and did work for him on priority basis. He further proved that Lal Chand (PW14), accused Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar used to purchase the stamp papers for the purpose of registration of documents and also got the same notarized and the same was done by them in respect of documents notarized and registered at the instance of accused Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee. He proved that he used to pay Vijay, Lal Chand & Ashok Kumar according to the work that he gave them every month and that accused Vijay Kumar & Lal Chand (PW14) shifted to the Chamber of another Advocate since the last one year while Ashok Kumar had worked with him till 2009, whereafter he shifted to another Advocate. His deposition leaves absolutely no doubt that Ashok Kumar was employed by him and he was doing miscellaneous job for him which included collection & depositing documents in the office of Sub-Registrar as well as their notarization & attention. PW16 thus corroborated PW9 on this material aspect.
16.9 During the course of arguments, it was vehemently argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that during his CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 338 of 522 cross-examination, PW16 categorically stated that he had never stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Mark PW16/1 (also Ex. PW52/A15) that Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar were his employees or that he used to pay them salary of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 3000/- & Rs. 1500/- respectively, therefore, the prosecution story that Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar were employees of PW16 was rendered unbelievable moreso when no document proving the said employment or payment of salary etc. could be brought on record by the prosecution. However, I find no merits in the arguments. Just because PW16 disowned certain part of his statement Mark PW16/1 does not render the prosecution story unbelievable or unreliable. Though PW16 disowned the above part of the statement Mark Pw16/1, however, he had categorically deposed in his examination in chief that the said individuals used to sit outside his chamber and did typing & miscellaneous work related to registration of documents. He categorically deposed that Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar were merely doing the typing work while Ashok Kumar was doing the miscellaneous job like giving water to the customers as well as collecting & depositing the documents in the office of sub-registrar and all of them used to give the documents notarized /attested from the Notaries and Oath Commissioners sitting in the complex. In fact during his cross- examination he reiterated that "Accused Vijay Kumar and Lal Chand were working with me till the year 2015".
16.10 No doubt PW16 had admitted that none of the above documents were got typed or attested by him personally, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 339 of 522 the same were not signed by the executants or witnesses in his presence nor the documents were notarized in his presence and that he had no personal interaction with Sh. Bijender Singh, Advocate, Notary Public, had never met him or sought his personal service as a Notary, however, the fact remains that the documents in question were indeed prepared by Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar, which fact stands duly proved from the testimony of PW16, PW9 and PW14 (Lal Chand).
16.11 As far as the arguments that the said documents were admittedly not signed by the executants or the witnesses thereof, in the presence of PW16, suffice would be to say that not only the executants but even the witnesses were fake. It stands established that the executants i.e. the purported allottees had never got the said documents prepared. These documents pertained to the allotted/questioned plots, however, the allottees of the said plots had never applied for any allotment, much least subsequently got the said documents executed to sell the allotted plots. The detailed testimony of PW 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 42 clinches the issue in this regard. Infact it's an admitted position that these plots could be legally sold.
16.12 Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Vijay Kumar vehemently argued that the sale documents in question are not infact "documents" in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and are mere piece of paper which cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever. It was argued that these documents having been allegedly prepared in the name of non-existing CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 340 of 522 persons, fictitious persons and the name of the party in whose favours these documents were prepared being blank, these documents do not qualify as document as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, I find no merits in the said arguments and infact the said arguments are absolutely ill- founded, misconceived. The sale documents are indeed documents and come within the definition of "document" as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to this Section, "Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter". According to the illustration attached to this Section, "A writing is a document; Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents". The sale documents in question which contains the printed/typed words, the details of the allottees i.e. their name, address etc., questioned plot numbers etc. more than qualify as documents irrespective of the facts that the details of the person in whose name the documents have been executed are blank/missing. This only makes the document more forged & fabricated in addition to the other forgeries, fabrications as has been discussed above in detail. These documents were prepared in a manner to give an effect that they were indeed prepared by the allottees of the questioned plots.
16.13 It was also argued by Ld. Defence counsels that except for the bald statement of PW16, there is no material on record to prove that the above documents were indeed CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 341 of 522 typed/prepared by Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar. It was argued that admittedly PW16 did not maintain any record regarding the documents, as were allegedly prepared in his computer, failed to give the details of the computer in which the said documents were allegedly typed, saved and the CBI officials had never seized the computer or the hard disk wherein the documents prepared by Vijay Kumar and Lal Chand were saved. As far as the said argument is concerned, even in the absence of the computer or the hard drive, the oral testimony of PW9, PW14 and PW16 leaves no doubt that the documents were indeed got typed, prepared by Vijay Kumar, Lal Chand and Ashok Kumar. No doubt had the CBI officials/IO seized the computer/hard disc the same would have substantially boosted the prosecution case, but merely because the IO failed to do so, failed in his duty to act diligently cannot be made a basis for disbelieving the prosecution case. Not only the CFSL result Ex. PW44/B directly connects Vijay Kumar with the sale documents but it is equally well settled law that benefit of sloppy, shoddy investigation should not be given to the accused persons or else it will lead to travesty of justice.
16.14 I have considered the judgment Kailash Gaur (supra) relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsels. Ineffective and indifferent investigation as a result of acts of omission or commission, deliberate or otherwise, by the Investigating Officers is absolutely unacceptable. However, the question to be considered is whether the lapses in the investigation are mere irregularity or an illegality which would adversely affect the case CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 342 of 522 of the prosecution. What is to be considered is whether such default and/or acts of omission and commission have adversely affected the case of the prosecution and whether such default and acts were deliberate, unintentional or resulted from unavoidable circumstances of a given case. (Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263) What the court is required to see is the prosecution evidence in its entirety and weigh whether defective or irresponsible investigation has rendered the said evidence shaky or unreliable. When the investigation is perfunctory it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence on record minus the lapses is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective it was held in Dhanraj Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 3 SCC 654 as under:-
"5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
16.15 Dealing with the cases of omission and commission it was held in Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar (1999) 2 SCC 126 as under:-
"...........that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 343 of 522 16.16 In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 it was held as under:
"42. Legislative measures to emphasise prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day. Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before the courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There should not be any undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the accused. That would be unfair, as noted above, to the needs of the society. On the contrary, efforts should be to ensure a fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair deal. Public interest in proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not more, as the interest of the individual accused. In this courts have a vital role to play."
16.17 In Hema Vs. State (2013) 10 SCC 192 it was held that if the evidence adduced is reliable, the contaminated conduct of the police officers and the defective investigation would not entitled the accused for acquittal. It was observed as under:
"14. It is also settled law that for certain defects in investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567], the following discussion and conclusions are relevant which are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para
55) ―55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by 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 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 344 of 522 conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
16.18 In Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 9 SCC 532 it was held "A defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused, should not be an aspect of material consideration by the court."
16.19 In Zindar Ali SK vs State of West Bangal Ors. MANU/SC/0141/2009 it has categorically held that defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation, when there is a clinching evidence. It is also settled proposition of law that minor contradictions in prosecution case can be ignored if cogent evidences are available on record for conviction of the accused. (Girwar Singh & Ors. Vs CBI MANU/DE/4551/2015).
16.20 When certain factual aspects have been held back and have not been brought on record creating grave suspicion, the Court must examine whether the lack of or improper investigation has resulted in incompleteness or uncertainty. If the investigation leaves a number of queries unanswered and creates confusion or ambiguity, conviction should not be ordered/sustained. However, in every case of defective investigation, an accused cannot be acquitted, if the reliable evidence produced, dehors the defective investigation, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In such matters, the accused cannot take advantage of defective investigation unless the defective investigation causes reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. The law is well settled that an accused should not be allowed to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 345 of 522 go scott free or the prosecution be disbelieved for defective investigation (Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1995 A.I.R. (SC) 84 and Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh 2003 AIR SCW 717). Every faulty investigation or padding in evidence cannot by itself lead to total demolition of prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring these fallacies. (Lakshmi v. State of UP (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 82). Mere faulty investigation cannot be made basis of acquitting the accused when sufficient evidence is available to nail him (Ram Parshad v. State of Haryana, (P & H) (DB) 1992(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 231).
16.21 As far as reliance upon CBI Vs. Ram Swaroop Chandel (supra) by Ld. Defence Counsel is concerned, the defence miserably failed to explain as to which documents were withheld by the prosecution, how they favoured the accused persons and how withholding of those documents has prejudiced the accused persons. As far as the documents produced at the time of defence evidence and at the time of confronting the prosecution witnesses are concerned, the said documents have been dealt with in detail. Most of the documents, as has already been discussed above, have absolutely no bearing on the present trial and some of the documents relied by accused Atul Vashisht are forged & fabricated.
16.22 Furthermore, PW16 had categorically stated that he identified these sale documents as having been typed on his computer "........because of the standard typical language used in the said documents, the proforma of which was already saved CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 346 of 522 in his computer". Infact at this stage, it will be worthwhile to highlight that though it was claimed that accused Vijay Kumar did not prepare the sale documents and during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Vijay Kumar stated as under:-
Ques : 301 It is in evidence against you and your co- accused as per deposition of PW-14 that he and you had prepared documents D-4 to D-29 relating to allotment of 26 plots in F Block, Savda Ghevra as per the list provided by Ram Chander @ Masterjee and also used to affix the photographs of the parties on said document, some time the photographs were provided by the parties concerned and some time the same were provided by your co-accused Ram Chander @ Masterjee. What you have to say?
Ans : I have never done the same. I never purchased such documents, as I was doing typing job work, on manual type-writer machine, while the said documents are computer typing. So the question of typing, preparation or affixation of photographs by me thereon, does not arise at all.
Ques 302: It is in evidence against you and your co-accused as per deposition of PW-14 that you used to get the aforesaid documents attested from Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand, who used to sit in Old Court, Kashmiri Gate, on the instruction of Adv. Sushil Kumar and mostly Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand used to sign the documents himself. What you have to say?
Ans. I never got any document attested, as Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate, was giving me manual typing work only.
,however, no such suggestion i.e. accused Vijay Kumar was doing typing work on manual typewriter and not on computer was ever given to PW16, during his cross-examination or for that matter to other prosecution witnesses which itself proves the hollowness of the defence claim as well as the fact that the explanation furnished by accused Vijay Kumar to the incriminating material appearing against him was absolute CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 347 of 522 falsehood. Rather as discussed above, the cross-examination was confined to non-seizure of computer and hard disk.
16.23 It was further argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that as per statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW16 i.e. Ex. PW52/A15 the stamp papers were purchased from PW9 Mukesh Kumar through Vijay Kumar & Lal Chand and he did not even once state that the stamp papers were also purchased through Ashok Kumar as against what was deposed by him in the court. Furthermore, as per Ex. PW52/A15 Ashok Kumar was also doing the typing work whereas PW15 deposed in the court that Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar were mainly doing the typing work and Ashok Kumar was doing the miscellaneous work like giving water to the customers and collecting & depositing the documents etc. in the Sub-Registrar office. It was argued that all these discrepancies prove the falsity of the prosecution case and that the witnesses were making false & frivolous claims at the behest of investigating agency. However, I find no merits in these arguments. As far as the discrepancies are concerned, they are bound to occur with the passage of time. The fact remains that Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar were employees of PW16 and they were preparing/typing documents pertaining to sale & purchase of properties as well as their and notarization/attestation. Who exactly did the typing work, who exactly purchased the stamp papers or got them notarized is immaterial. What is material is that the same was done by them as employees of PW16 who was approached by deceased Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee for preparation of aforesaid documents. Furthermore, the fact that it was Ashok Kumar who CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 348 of 522 had purchased the stamp papers in question was duly proved by PW9, as discussed above in detail. There is evidence in the form of Ex. PW44/B that it was accused Vijay Kumar who had notarized some of the sale documents which has been discussed in the later part of this judgment.
16.24 In addition to PW16, PW14 Lal Chand proved that he was working as a typist with Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate since 1996 on salary basis and he knew deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee who resided at Gandhi Vihar, Delhi and often used to visit Sushil Kumar for the purpose of preparation of documents qua sale, purchase, transfer, etc. of properties, and also affidavits, applications etc. for the said purpose. He proved that his work was to type the said documents only and after typing the same he handed over the same to Sushil Kumar, Advocate. He further proved that deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee used to provide the names, particulars & the photographs of the persons whose documents were to be prepared to Sushil Kumar.
16.25 No doubt as against PW9's deposition who had stated that Lal Chand (PW14), Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar who were employees of Sushil Kumar used to visit him for purchasing the stamp papers as was also similarly deposed by PW16, PW14 claimed that the stamp papers required for the purpose of preparing affidavits etc. were either provided by the party or were purchased by Sh. Sushil Kumar from stamp vendor Mukesh (PW9) who used to sit near his office at Old Court and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 349 of 522 he further stated that he had never went to Mukesh Kumar for purchase of stamp papers, however, irrespective of the said contradiction, which otherwise is of trivial nature, it stands duly established on record that the stamp papers were purchased from PW9. These stamp papers were purchased in respect of the documents which were prepared by PW14 and Vijay Kumar who were employees of Advocate Sushil Kumar, who was approached by deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee for preparation of said documents. Who exactly purchased the stamp papers and who paid for the same is irrelevant because PW9 had categorically stated that sometimes payment for the stamp papers was made by Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar and at times by Advocate Sushil Kumar.
16.26 Furthermore though having stated during his examination that the stamp papers required for the purpose of preparing affidavits etc. were either provided by the party or were purchased by Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate from Mukesh (PW9) and that he had never went to Mukesh Kumar for purchase of stamp papers, PW14 during his cross-examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor for the CBI had categorically admitted as under:-
"It is correct that I was interrogated by CBI on 14.03.08. It is correct that my statement was recorded by them on the said date. It is correct that Insp. S.S. Bhullar had recorded my statement as told by me. It is also correct that I had told, whatever was asked from me, in Hindi which was translated and typed by him in English. It is also correct that he had also read over my statement dated 14.03.08 to me. It is also correct that I had deposed before CBI that I and one Vijay Kumar, employee of Sushil Kumar, used to purchase stamp papers in the name of the persons as mentioned in the list provided to us by Masterjee. It is also correct that we used to purchase the stamp papers from Mukesh Kumar, Stamp Vendor, who CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 350 of 522 used to sit in the Old Court, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It is also correct that I and Vijay Kumar used to sign the register maintained by Mukesh Kumar in respect of the stamp papers purchased from him................"
16.27 It has already been discussed above that the entries, signatures in the register Ex. PW9/A is not only of Ashok Kumar but also of Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar. The entries pertaining to the present matter are signed by Ashok Kumar, as proved by PW9 and the entries qua the other matters are signed by Lal Chand and Vijay Kumar. PW14 had also admitted as under:-
"It is also correct that I and Vijay Kumar had prepared the documents in D4 to D29 which relate to allotment of 26 plots in F-Block, Savda Ghevra as per the list provided by Ram Chander @ Masterjee. It is also correct that I and Vijay Kumar used to affix the photographs on the said documents if the same were provided to us by the concerned parties. It is correct that sometimes, the photographs of parties were provided by Ram Chander @ Masterjee."
16.28 When the stamp vendor register Ex. PW9/A {(also Ex. PW14/A) fresh copy} was shown to PW14 he stated that the entries in the said register were signed either by him or by Vijay Kumar. PW14 during his examination in chief had also stated as "No record was being maintained by me for the stamp papers being purchased for the purpose of preparing documents of various parties. I do not know whether any such record was being maintained by Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate. No register was there in the office of Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate for this purpose. Stamp vendor Mukesh was maintaining a register for recording the particulars of the parties in whose name the stamp papers were being sold by him. I do not know who signed on the register of Mukesh Kumar for the stamp papers purchased at the instance of Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate" .
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 351 of 522 16.29 It is the prosecution case that that PW14 and accused Vijay Kumar used to get the above documents attested from one Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand who was also working as an advocate for Advocate Bijender Singh (PW15) and though PW14 denied that he used to get the above documents attested from the said Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand, however, during his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, he did admit that Vijay Kumar used to get the aforesaid documents attested from Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand. He further admitted that PW15 Bijender Singh had instructed them to get the documents attested from Ashok Kumar @ Hari Chand who used to sign these documents.
16.30 It is further the prosecution case that at times PW14 used to sign/attest these documents and so did Vijay Kumar whenever Ashok Verma @ Hari Chand was busy or not available and though these facts were denied by PW14, during his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, but he denied these facts for the simple reason that the above acts of PW14 and for that matter Vijay Kumar were illegal, unlawful. They had absolutely no authority to attest the documents and the same could only be attested by Notary Public i.e. PW15 or for that matter any other Notary Public. It is an admitted position that this witness is an accused in RC no. 46(A)/2007 and RC No. 53(A)/2007 which explains why he disowned certain part of his statement and did not fully support the prosecution case. The fact that PW14 during his cross-examination admitted as " It is correct that while getting the documents attested I used to affix the stamps on the stamp papers or documents to be attested..........It is correct that I CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 352 of 522 and Vijay Kumar used to write in the names and addresses of the persons as well as those of the witnesses in the documents to be attested as per the list provided by Masterjee", sufficiently proves that in addition to the above acts, he was also signing the documents for the purpose of attestation.
16.31 It was on account of his involvement in the above RCs that PW14 kept on changing his stand during his examination as well as cross-examination. While initially stating, during his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, that the relevant entries in Ex. PW9/A were signed by him or Vijay Kumar, the said witness, during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, stated that he cannot say which entry has been signed by him and which entry has been signed by Vijay Kumar, that he cannot identify the signatures against the said entries, that he does not know advocate Bijender Singh, that he was never shown Ex. PW9/A during the investigation, that the entries in Ex. PW14/A (also Ex. PW9/A) neither bears his signatures nor of Vijay Kumar and that the stamp papers in question as mentioned in the register were not purchased by him or Vijay Kumar from PW9. This repeated change of stand by PW14 was for the obvious reasons, as discussed above and speaks a volume about his demeanor. However he had duly admitted that the documents in question were typed on the computer of PW16 on his instructions.
16.32 PW14 had further admitted "It is correct that Masterjee used to pay Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per set of documentation to Sushil Kumar, Advocate, who used to pay me CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 353 of 522 salary of Rs.3000-4000 per month" and during his cross- examination by Ld. Defence counsel stated that apart from him Vijay and Ashok Kumar used to work with PW16 Sushil Kumar which statement leaves no doubt that he was an employee of, working with Sushil Kumar as also stands proved from the deposition of PW9 and PW16.
16.33 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that PW14, during his cross- examination, had admitted that Ashok Kumar was being summoned to the CBI office and though Ex. PW9/A the stamp vendor register bears his signatures/receiving in column of purchaser but despite the same he was not cited/examined as a witness. It was argued that his non examination, particularly in view of the discrepancy in the statement of PW9, PW14 and PW16 has further dented the prosecution case. However, I find no merits in his arguments. As already discussed above, the law is well settled that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses which matters. Furthermore, irrespective of the discrepancies in the statements of PW9, PW14, PW15 and PW16, which discrepancies are otherwise bound to occur with the passage of time and the reason for which discrepancies has been discussed above in detail, the fact which stands unambiguously established on record is that deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee was getting the documents prepared, typed and attested as well as the stamp papers qua these documents purchased from the above witnesses as well as accused Vijay Kumar. The CFSL results Ex. PW44/B and Ex.PW47/B which CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 354 of 522 have been discussed in detail in the later part of this judgment leaves no doubt that these documents are forged & fabricated and that some of them bears the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar as the attesting notary public.
16.34 As far as notarization of the documents are concerned, PW15 Advocate Bijender Singh proved that above sale documents are neither signed by him nor bear his seal as Notary Public and though the seal of Notary Public affixed on the said documents does bear his name "Bijender Singh" but the same does not bear his appointment number as Notary Public nor do these documents bear the entry number vide which the same have been purported to be attested. He further proved that he does not know any Ashok Verma or Hari Chand nor had any such person worked for him nor had he authorized the said persons to attest legal documents on his behalf.
16.35 Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that IO did not seize the seal of PW15, accordingly no such seal was sent for forensic examination, comparison and except for the bald claim of PW15 there is no concrete evidence on record that the seal on these documents is not of PW15. It was argued that the register which PW15 was maintaining as a Notary Public was also not seized by the IO nor the same was proved on record. It was also argued that even the appointment number as Notary Public of PW15 was not brought on record for proving that the number appearing on these documents is indeed not of PW15. It was argued that admittedly PW15 did not file any complaint even CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 355 of 522 after coming to know that his seal & signatures have been forged which itself proves that he was making a false claim. However, I find no merits in the said arguments.
16.36 Undoubtedly, for reasons best known to the IO, he did not seize PW15's seal, which was being used by him for attestation of documents as Notary Public and had the same been done and the seal been sent for forensic examination, expert opinion, it would have drastically cut short the controversy as to whether the seal on the documents was his or not. Simiarly, IO also did not bother to seize the register maintained by PW15 or bring on record the appointment number of PW15 as Notary Public for comparison between his number and the number appearing on the sale documents. These no doubt are shortcomings in the investigation and the IO should have seized the seal of PW15, sent it for forensic examination as well as should have seized his register and also collected the record pertaining to PW15's appointment, his entry number on record but merely because IO failed to do so, that by itself has not affected the prosecution story. There is ample material on record which proves that the IO failed to carry on a diligent investigation but if benefit of shortcomings in his investigation is given to the accused persons it will lead to failure of justice. Furthermore, these shortcomings have not affected the prosecution case on material aspect. Once PW15 categorically stated that the sale documents were neither signed by him nor bear his seal of Notary Public, nothing stopped the defence from asking PW15 to bring his seal on record. Having not done so, I CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 356 of 522 find no reason to disbelieve PW15 more so when the CFSL result Ex. PW44/B which has been discussed in detail in later part of this judgment proves that it is Vijay Kumar who had signed as/whose signatures/handwriting appear at the place where Bijender Singh's/PW15's name/signatures appears i.e. Q687, Q693, Q698, Q702, Q705, Q785, Q791, Q796, Q800, Q949, Q955, Q960, Q964, Q967, Q1152, Q1157, Q1163, Q1244, Q1250, Q1255, Q1259, Q1262, Q1375, Q1381, Q1386, Q1390 and Q1393. It will be pertinent to point out that though the specimen signatures of PW15 were obtained i.e. Ex. PW52/A41 (colly), however, no opinion could be obtained on the said signatures viz-a-viz the signatures appearing on the sale documents. If indeed Ex. PW44/B would have a manipulated report, given at the behest of CBI and not a genuine report, the report would have positively stated that the signatures on sale documents do not tally with the specimen signatures of PW15 Bijender Singh.
16.37 As far as difference in the seal is concerned, according to statement Ex. PW52/A13 of PW15, as was proved by Insp. S.S. Bhullar who had recorded the said statement, the basic difference between PW15's seal and the seal used in the above documents is that the original seal contains PW15's serial number 2756 which serial number does not appear on the seal affixed on the aforesaid documents. As far as the register maintained by PW15 is concerned, just because the same was not seized during the investigation that by itself did not stop the defence from summoning the said register through PW15. If CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 357 of 522 defence indeed wanted to prove that the documents bore PW15's seal and signatures, the defence could have sought directions to PW15 to produce the register and made efforts to prove the entries pertaining to notarization of these documents in the said register, if the defence believed that they did exist i.e. the documents were notarized by PW15 and none else. Having opted to not to do so, the defence arguments loose their entire force.
16.38 Admittedly, PW15 did not file any complaint even after coming to know that his seal and signatures have been forged but just because he did not do so does not cast any aspersions on his claim/testimony. It is to be seen that the present matter being already registered, investigated by CBI and one crucial aspect of the investigation being forging of the sale documents, there was no need for PW15 to lodge any separate complaint. Moreover it is an individual's absolute personal choice whether he intends to take any action on any wrongdoing, illegality committed in relation to him but merely because he does not initiate any action does not mean that he was not wronged.
16.39 Ld. Defence Counsels also argued that PW15 in fact claimed that he does not know any person by the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW16) Advocate having his seat at Old Court Compound, Kashmere Gate or any person by the name of Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar. It was argued that the same is contrary to the prosecution case, especially deposition of PW16 who stated that he was knowing PW15 who was sitting in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 358 of 522 the court complex where he was having his chamber and maximum documents were attested by him as those bore his stamps. It was argued that these inconsistent claims create further doubt upon the prosecution case. However, I find no such inconsistency. PW15, during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, had categorically stated " I do not know any person by the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Advocate having his seat at Old Court Compound, Kashmere Gate. I do not know any person by the name of Lal Chand, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar". As far as PW16 is concerned, what he basically stated was "One Bijender Singh, Notary Public used to sit in the Court Complex where I was having my Chamber and maximum documents were attested by him as those bore his stamps" i.e. a general statement which he made upon seeing the documents as they were allegedly bearing his stamp, name. The fact that they were not personally known to each other stands further proved from the following statement of PW15 "I have no personal interaction with Shri Bijender Singh, Advocate, Notary Public and I have never met him or sought his professional services as Notary".
16.40 The fact remains that the sale documents were prepared at the instance of deceased Ram Chander @ Masterjee. He had approached PW16 for preparation of these documents which PW16 got prepared through his employees i.e. PW14, accused Vijay Kumar and one Ashok Kumar. Preparation of documents perse is/was not an offence more so when there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that PW16 was aware CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 359 of 522 as to the purpose behind preparation of these documents. Similarly, stamp papers for these documents were purchased from PW9. There was also no illegality on the part of PW9 in selling the stamp papers used in these documents but the moment accused Vijay Kumar signed these documents as Bijender Singh/Notary he committed forgery. As an employee of Sh. Susheel Kumar, Advocate, he was getting paid for preparation of documents i.e. GPA, sale deed, Will etc. and not for forging them, not for preparing forged documents and if he was doing so, he alone is/was liable. Accused Vijay Kumar signatures connects him directly to the sale documents even in the absence of any other material. Not only he typed the documents for the purpose of being used in the conspiracy but he also fraudulently, in an illegal manner notarized them.
16.41 Further, forgery was committed when accused Lal Mani and deceased Ram Chander Arora affixed their thumb impressions on these documents as is evident from FSL results Ex. PW44/B and Ex. PW47/B as has been discussed in detail here in below.
Corroboration of forgery by CFSL Results
17. The fact that the documents i.e. ration cards, Delhi Administration I card and the sale documents etc. are forged & fabricated stands further proved from the FSL results Ex. PW44/B (colly) & Ex. PW47/B (colly) on record. These are detailed reports and when one carefully examines the reports it CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 360 of 522 becomes evident that the experts had carried out meticulous, thorough examination and gave reasons to support their findings, opinion.
17.1 During the course of investigation specimen writings S-178 to S-229 of accused Surjeet Singh were obtained i.e. Ex. PW17/A (colly) and they were sent to CFSL for comparison with the handwriting appearing on the above documents. As per the deposition of PW44 and his report Ex. PW44/B the writings at points Q549, Q581, Q613, Q645, Q678, Q710, Q743, Q775, Q807, Q840, Q873, Q906, Q939, Q972, Q1004, Q1037, Q1070, Q1103, Q1136, Q1168, Q1201, Q1234, Q1267, Q1300, Q1333 and Q1365 on all the Delhi Administration I cards in question is of accused Surjeet Singh. The very fact that the details on these I cards are in the handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh sufficiently proves that these I cards are forged & fabricated documents. Accused Surjeet Singh cannot explain as to why the details on these Delhi Administration I cards are in his handwriting. The testimony of PW6 & PW12, which has already been discussed above in detail, also squarely establishes that these documents are forged & fabricated.
17.2 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Surjeet Singh vehemently argued that no reliance can be placed upon the CFSL result as there are serious doubts that the alleged specimen handwritings S-178 to S-229 are of accused Surjeet Singh. It was argued that PW17 in whose presence the said alleged specimen handwritings were obtained CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 361 of 522 categorically stated that the same were not taken in his presence. It was argued that according to PW17, when he reached the CBI office he had affixed his signatures as a witness on 3-4 sets of documents/sheets on which some addresses were already written. Furthermore, PW17 had categorically stated that the said writings or addresses on the said sheets were not taken in his presence and hence he cannot say by whom the same were written. It was argued that according to PW17 when he had put his signatures on the said documents, handwritten as well as typed matter was already there and most importantly, he failed to identify accused Surjeet Singh in the court. It was argued that the testimony of PW17 discredits the prosecution case to a great extent and creates grave doubts upon the same. It was also argued that as PW44 Sh. P. Venugopal Rao categorically admitted that the specimen handwritings were not taken in his presence, therefore, he being not acquainted with the handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh, no reliance can be placed upon his report. However, I find no merits in the said arguments.
17.3 No doubt PW17 did not support the prosecution story, failed to identify accused Surjeet Singh, stated that the specimen handwriting Ex. PW17/A were not taken in his presence and claimed that when he had affixed his signatures as a witness on the said document the matter was already written/typed, however, I have no hesitation in concluding that the said witness was deposing falsely for reasons best known to him or/and most probably on account of having been won over by the accused persons. At the outset, it is a matter of record that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 362 of 522 PW17 had identified the specimen handwritings, documents as Ex. PW17/A. PW17 was a senior government officer, posted as Inspector in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Holding such a senior rank I am absolutely not inclined to believe that he would have merely signed Ex. PW17/A blindly on the asking of the CBI officials. During his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the CBI he admitted that at point A on Ex. PW17/A, where his signatures appears the words " in my presence" are also typed, just above his signatures. If the specimen handwriting was not taken in his presence, PW17 would have objected then & there and not affixed his signatures on Ex. PW17/A, more so, when it is categorically mentioned at the point where he put his signatures as "in my presence". Admittedly no such objection was raised by him at the CBI office, as he admitted during his cross-examination. Even after coming back to his office he did not take up the said matter with his office, senior officers, did not complain that he was wrongly asked to affix his signatures on certain documents, which were not created in his presence. If not at the CBI office then after coming back to his office he would have definitely informed his seniors if he was indeed made to sign the documents in a wrongful, incorrect manner. Having not done so sufficiently proves that not only he deposed falsely in the court but also that the specimen handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh was taken in his presence. PW17 had also admitted that besides him Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW52) had also affixed his signatures on these documents. Insp. S.S. Bhullar during his deposition categorically deposed that the specimen handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh was taken in the presence of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 363 of 522 independent witness PW17. Not even a single suggestion was given to Insp. S.S. Bhullar and no such specimen handwriting was obtained by him or that the same was not obtained in the presence of independent witness PW17. Insp. S.S. Bhullar's deposition having remained unrebutted on this material aspect I find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story accordingly.
17.4 Furthermore accused Surjeet Singh during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. when the incriminating material regarding his specimen handwriting was put to him he answered as under:-
Ques 369: It is in evidence against you and your co-accused as per deposition of PW-17 that his signatures were taken as a witness by Inspector S.S. Bhullar of CBI on D-36 part of Ex. PW17/A(colly) containing specimen handwritings of Sh. Surjit Singh, s/o Sh. Waryam Singh. What do you have to say? Ans: It is incorrect.
Ques 555: It is in evidence against you and your co-accused as per deposition of PW-44 that specimen writings S1 to S5 are of co- accused Philip Toppo (since deceased) at point X on all sheets already Ex. PW18/A (Colly), S6 to S177 are pertaining to co- accused Atul Vashisht at point X on the sheets Ex. PW18/B, S-178 to S 229 are pertaining to you at point X of all the sheets Ex. PW17/A, and that of yours on S230 to S333 at point X on all the sheets Ex. PW20/A (colly), S334 to S337 are of co-accused Vijay Kumar at point X on all the sheets Ex. PW44/H (colly) and at point S-338 at point X on the sheet Ex. PW19/A. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is incorrect.
Ques 656: It is in evidence against you and your co-accused as per deposition of PW-52 that Ex. PW17/A are the specimen handwriting of co-accused Surjit Singh which were given by him to the IO PW-52 voluntarily in the presence of independent witnesses Hari Om Sharma and same bears signature of PW-52 at point C, that of independent witness Hari Om Sharma at point A and that of co- accused Surjit Singh signature at point B on all pages S-178 to S-229. What you have to say? Ans. It is incorrect and the said alleged independent witnesses does not say so in his deposition.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 364 of 522 17.5 Not even once did accused Surjeet Singh state that his specimen handwriting/Ex.PW17/A was not taken by Insp.
S.S. Bhullar or that Ex. PW17/A is not his handwriting. Merely stating "It is incorrect" or that the independent witness/PW17 did not state so is no explanation. If indeed his specimen handwriting was not obtained, accused Surjeet Singh should have specifically stated so. What matters is the obtaining of specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison, analysis by expert and the same being taken in the presence of independent witness is merely a matter of abundant caution, to provide more genuineness/authenticity to the proceedings whereby the specimen handwriting is obtained. Even if there was no independent witness and once the accused does not specifically state that his specimen handwriting was not obtained, it will not alter the factual position or render the proceedings untrustworthy, unbelievable.
17.6 As regards the arguments that the specimen writings were not taken in the presence of PW44 Sh. P. Venugopal Rao and reliance upon Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is concerned, suffice would be to say that Section 47 is on completely different footing as against Section 45 of the said Act. Section 47 deals with opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting of another person and the evidentiary value of his statement regarding the said fact. Whereas, Section 45 deals with the opinion of an Expert, which opinion is expressed after comparison of the questioned handwriting vis-a-vis specimen CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 365 of 522 handwriting. There is no requirement of law that the specimen handwriting should be taken in the presence of an Expert. In fact, if it is so taken and the Expert is already aware as to whose handwriting he is examining, the opinion of the Expert losses it's significance altogether. Therefore, the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel finds no merit.
17.7 As far as ration cards in question are concerned, it stands established from the testimony of PW44 and his report Ex. PW44/B (colly) that the details in the ration cards at points Q553, Q555, Q585, Q587, Q617, Q619, Q649, Q651, Q682, Q684, Q714, Q716, Q747, Q749, Q779, Q781, Q811, Q813, Q844, Q846, Q877, Q879, Q910, Q912, Q943, Q945, Q976, Q978, Q1008, Q1010, Q1041, Q1043, Q1074, Q1076, Q1107, Q1109, Q1140, Q1142, Q1172, Q1174, Q1205, Q1207, Q1238, Q1240, Q1271, Q1273, Q1304, Q1306, Q1337, Q1339, Q1369 and Q1371 are in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani. As per Ex. PW44/B (colly) the person who wrote the specimen handwriting S-230 to S-333 also wrote the above details. These specimen handwriting are of accused Lal Mani as were obtained during the course of investigation as was duly proved by PW20 Rajeev Kapoor and Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW52).
17.8 PW20 proved that accused Lal Mani had given his specimen handwritings i.e. S230 to S289 dated 21.04.2008 & S290 to S333 dated 22.04.2008 Ex. PW20/A (colly) voluntarily in his presence and had also appended his signatures on the same. During his cross-examination defence failed to bring anything on CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 366 of 522 record which could create any iota of doubt upon the proceeding whereby the specimen handwriting of accused Lal Mani was obtained. In fact PW20 not only stated that the specimen handwriting was voluntarily given by accused Lal Mani but during his cross-examination he went on to state as " As far as I recollect, the accused himself was writing on the above documents and he was not being dictated by the IO and was also not made to copy any document". Merely because prosecution failed to produce any independent witness acquainted with the handwriting & signatures of accused Lal Mani nor any admitted documents were referred by the CBI to the experts is of no consequence in view of the above deposition of PW20 who is an independent witness and in whose presence accused Lal Mani voluntarily gave specimen of his handwriting. Once positive finding was given by the expert upon comparison of the specimen handwriting & the questioned handwriting and the defence failed to bring any evidence to contradict, create doubt upon the expert's report or failed to explain why PW20 would depose falsely, the defence's arguments loose their teeth.
17.9 There was no occasion for the details in the ration cards to be in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani but for the fact that these documents are forged & fabricated and prepared in furtherance of the conspiracy, to give effect to the conspiracy. In addition to the ration cards, report Ex. PW44/B (colly) proves that the details on most of the sale documents in question, as discussed above in detail & which were prepared for sale of the 26 questioned plots, at points Q556, Q562, Q567, Q574, Q577, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 367 of 522 Q588, Q595, Q599, Q606, Q609, Q620, Q627, Q632, Q638, Q641, Q652, Q659, Q664, Q671, Q674, Q685, Q691, Q696, Q703, Q706, Q717, Q724, Q729, Q736, Q739, Q750, Q756, Q761, Q768, Q771, Q782, Q789, Q794, Q801, Q803, Q814, Q821, Q826, Q833, Q836, Q847, Q854, Q859, Q866, Q869, Q880, Q887, Q892, Q899, Q902, Q913, Q920, Q925, Q932, Q935, Q946, Q953, Q958, Q965, Q968, Q979, Q985, Q990, Q997, Q1000, Q1011, Q1018, Q1023, Q1030, Q1033, Q1044, Q1051, Q1056, Q1063, Q1066, Q1077, Q1084, Q1089, Q1096, Q1099, Q1110, Q1117, Q1122, Q1129, Q1132, Q1143, Q1150, Q1155, Q1161, Q1164, Q1175, Q1182, Q1187, Q1194, Q1197, Q1208, Q1215, Q1220, Q1227, Q1230, Q1241, Q1248, Q1253, Q1260, Q1263, Q1274, Q1281, Q1286, Q1293, Q1296, Q1307, Q1314, Q1319, Q1326, Q1329, Q1340, Q1346, Q1351, Q1358, Q1361, Q1372, Q1379, Q1384, Q1391 and Q1394 are also in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani.
17.10 When the incriminating material in the form of CFSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly) and its analysis with his specimen handwriting Ex. PW20/A (colly) was put to accused Lal Mani, he answered as under:-
Ques 370: It is in evidence against you and your co- accused as per deposition of PW-20 Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, posted as Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, RT Nagar, Bangalore that you had given your specimen handwritings from S230 to S286 dated 21.4.2008 and S290 to S333 dated 22.4.2008 on sheets Ex. PW20/A collectively in his (PW-20) presence. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is incorrect.
Ques : 546 It is in evidence against you as per deposition of PW-44 that the questioned writing/signature/stamp marked Q553, Q555, Q556, Q562, Q567, Q574, Q577, Q585, Q587, Q588, Q595, Q599, Q606, Q609, Q617, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 368 of 522 Q619, Q620, Q627, Q632, Q638, Q641, Q649, Q651, Q652, Q659, Q664, Q671, Q674, Q682, Q684, Q685, Q691, Q696, Q703, Q706, Q714, Q716, Q717, Q724, Q729, Q736, Q739, Q747, Q749, Q750, Q756, Q761, Q768, Q771, Q779, Q781, Q782, Q789, Q794, Q801, Q803, Q811, Q813, Q814, Q821, Q826, Q833, Q836, Q844, Q846, Q847, Q854, Q859, Q866, Q869, Q877, Q879, Q880, Q887, Q892, Q899, Q902, Q910, Q912, Q913, Q920, Q925, Q932, Q935, Q943, Q945, Q946, Q953, Q958, Q965, Q968, Q976, Q978, Q979, Q985, Q990, Q997, Q1000, Q1008, Q1010, Q1011, Q1018, Q1023, Q1030, Q1033, Q1041, Q1043, Q1044, Q1051, Q1056, Q1063, Q1066, Q1074, Q1076, Q1077, Q1084, Q1089, Q1096, Q1099, Q1107, Q1109, Q1110, Q1117, Q1122, Q1129, Q1132, Q1140, Q1142, Q1143, Q1150, Q1155, Q1161, Q1164, Q1172, Q1174, Q1175, Q1182, Q1187, Q1194, Q1197, Q1205, Q1207, Q1208, Q1215, Q1220, Q1227, Q1230, Q1238, Q1240, Q1241, Q1248, Q1253, Q1260, Q1263, Q1271, Q1273, Q1274, Q1281, Q1286, Q1293, Q1296, Q1304, Q1306, Q1307, Q1314, Q1319, Q1326, Q1329, Q1337, Q1339, Q1340, Q1346, Q1351, Q1358, Q1361, Q1369, Q1371, Q1372, Q1379, Q1384, Q1391 and Q1394 are attributable to your (Lal Mani's) specimen writing/signature/stamp marked S230 to S333. What you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Ques :655 It is in evidence against you and your co- accused as per deposition of PW-52 that Ex. PW20/A are your specimen handwriting which were given by you to the IO PW-52 voluntarily in the presence of independent witnesses Rajeev Kapoor and same bears signature of PW-52 at point C, that of independent witness Rajeev Kapoor at point A and that of your signature at point B on all pages S-230 to S-333 What you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
17.11 The purpose of recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating material as appearing against him and merely stating " It is incorrect" is no explanation at all. It is just denial without explaining as to how the said evidence is false, incorrect. It has been held in Prem Chand (supra) as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 369 of 522 ".......However, judicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like 'false', 'I don't know', 'incorrect', etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances."
17.12 In addition to the details in the sale documents being in the handwriting of accused Lal Mani, his thumb/finger impressions also appear on most of the sale documents at points Q67, Q72, Q73, Q76, Q77, Q83, Q84, Q88, Q104, Q109, Q112, Q114, Q121, Q123, Q125, Q139, Q142, Q146, Q147, Q151, Q163, Q165, Q166, Q214, Q217, Q219, Q223, Q224, Q226, Q235, Q244, Q245, Q247, Q256, Q261, Q264, Q272, Q277, Q282, Q283, Q289, Q293, Q294, Q340, Q347, Q349, Q352, Q364, Q366, Q373, Q375, Q377, Q378, Q382, Q390, Q394, Q424, Q427, Q429, Q435, Q436, Q437, Q440, Q456, Q473, Q475, Q476, Q478, Q479, Q480, Q529 & Q538 as well as at points 202 & 311 as was proved by PW47 Sh. S.K. Chadha, Principal Scientific Officer (Retd) CFSL Delhi who proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW47/B (colly).
17.13 According to Ex. PW47/B (colly) the above questioned thumb impressions appearing on the sale documents were found to be identical with the specimen thumb/finger impression of accused Lal Mani i.e. S-399 and S-400. These specimen thumb/finger impressions of accused Lal Mani were available CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 370 of 522 with the CFSL as is evident from Ex. PW52/A39 (colly) and ex.
PW47/B (colly).
17.14 Furthermore, the writing, signatures at points Q687, Q693, Q698, Q702, Q705, Q785, Q791, Q796, Q800, Q949, Q955, Q960, Q964, Q967, Q1146, Q1152, Q1157, Q1163, Q1244, Q1250, Q1255, Q1259, Q1262, Q1375, Q1381, Q1386, Q1390 and Q1393 on some of the sale documents in question are of accused Vijay Kumar which fact stands duly established vide report Ex. PW44/B (colly) and the testimony of PW44 in this regard. PW44 and his report Ex. PW44/B (colly) proves that the person who wrote specimen writing S-334 to S-338 i.e. accused Vijay Kumar also wrote the above writing on the sale documents.
17.15 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that PW19, in whose presence the alleged specimen handwriting/signatures S-338 i.e. Ex. PW19/A were obtained, did not support the prosecution case and his testimony creates grave doubt upon the prosecution story in this regard. It was argued that according to PW19 the documents on which his signatures were obtained i.e. Ex. PW19/A, something was already written on those documents and the specimen writing/signatures were not taken in his physical presence, thereby rendering the prosecution case highly unreliable.
17.16 No doubt during his examination in chief he had stated that there was something already written on those documents i.e. Ex. PW19/A when his signatures were taken, specimen CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 371 of 522 handwriting/signatures were already written and same were not written in his physical presence, nonetheless, during his cross- examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, he stated as under:-
"The words 'in my presence' are mentioned above my signatures at point A on the aforesaid sheet. To me, the words 'in my presence' mean that the above specimen writings/signatures were taken in my presence."
17.17 Furthermore on account of ambiguity, conflicting statement made by PW19 a court question was put to him and he answered as under:-
"Court que: How you reconcile your depositions to the effect that the above specimen writings/signatures were taken in your presence when you have earlier stated in your examination before lunch that the same were not taken in your presence and there was also no other person in the said room, except you and the CBI official?
Ans: Perhaps, the above specimen writings/signatures were put in my presence by the CBI official himself and my previous depositions that the same were not taken in my presence are not correct and these were made due to lapse of time."
17.18 Apart from Ex. PW19/A, specimen handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar i.e. S-334 to S-337 were obtained vide Ex. PW44/H (colly) in the presence of independent witness PW45 Sh. R.K. Sharma who categorically proved that the said specimen handwriting was given by accused Vijay Kumar voluntarily, in his presence. Though Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that PW45, during his cross-examination, stated that he did not inquire whether the accused had given his specimen handwriting voluntarily or otherwise, however, PW45 had categorically stated during his examination in chief ".........the witness identifies the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 372 of 522 same as the specimen handwriting of Vijay Kumar which he had given voluntarily in his presence........".
17.19 It makes no difference that PW45 stated that the accused was asked to write, give specimen of his handwriting with the help of a written material given to him. What is material is that specimen handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar was obtained, which he had given voluntarily and which on analysis by the expert gave a positive finding viz-a-viz the writing on the sale documents in question.
17.20 Furthermore accused Vijay Kumar during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated as under:-
"Ques 370: It is in evidence against you and your co- accused as per deposition of PW-19 Sh. Nabor Beck retired as Public Relation Inspector, Head Post office Kalkaji, New Delhi that your specimen writings/signatures S338 were taken on 22.7.2008 on sheet Ex. PW19/A by CBI officials in his (PW-19) presence. What do you have to say? Ans: I do not know about it.
Ques :554 It is in evidence against you and your co-accused as per deposition of PW-44 that specimen writings S1 to S5 are of co-accused Philip Toppo (since deceased) at point X on all sheets already Ex. PW18/A (Colly), S6 to S177 are pertaining to co-accused Atul Vashisht at point X on the sheets Ex. PW18/B, S-178 to S 229 are pertaining to co- accused Surjeet Singh at point X of all the sheets Ex. PW17/A, and that of yours on S230 to S333 at point X on all the sheets Ex. PW20/A (colly), S334 to S337 are of yours at point X on all the sheets Ex. PW44/H (colly) and at point S-338 at point X on the sheet Ex. PW19/A. What do you have to say?
Ans: I do not know about it."
17.21 The above evasive answers/explanation and no categoric answer/statement that his specimen handwriting/ CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 373 of 522 signatures were not obtained, are not his, does not help the cause of the accused.
17.22 The fact that the specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Vijay Kumar were obtained in the presence of independent witness PW19 was further proved by Insp. S.S. Bhullar, whose testimony in this regard remained unchallenged, uncontroverted.
17.23 It will be pertinent to remember that the purpose of joining the independent witness at the time when the specimen handwriting/signatures etc. is obtained is to lend more credibility to those proceedings. There is absolutely no requirement of law that when the Investigating Officer obtains the specimen handwriting/signatures, he has to necessarily joins an independent witness. Same is done as an abundant caution, to give more credibility, genuineness to those proceedings. There is no law that in the absence of any independent witness, those proceedings cannot be believed or are rendered unreliable. The defence could not assign any motive to the IO/Insp. S.S. Bhullar who had obtained the specimen handwriting /signatures as to why he would record/conduct false proceedings. The very fact that he had joined independent witnesses every time the specimen handwriting/signatures were obtained is itself a proof that Insp. S.S. Bhullar was acting/conducting himself in a fair, transparent manner or else he would not have joined independent witnesses at all.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 374 of 522 17.24 Apart from the handwriting & thumb impression of accused Lal Mani and handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar, some of these sale documents in question bear the thumb impression of deceased Ram Chander Arora as stands proved vide report Ex. PW47/B (colly) as proved by PW47. According to PW47's report the questioned thumb impressions at points Q26, Q28, Q29, Q31, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q37, Q38, Q39, Q40, Q41, Q42, Q60, Q62, Q328, Q330, Q331, Q335, Q403, Q406, Q407, Q410, Q411, Q412, Q413, Q414, Q415, Q416, Q417, Q419, Q491, Q498, Q500, Q501 & Q502 and the questioned thumb impression at points Q49, Q50, Q54, Q56, Q58 are the thumb impressions, right middle finger impressions of deceased Ram Chander Arora. PW47/B is based upon comparison of these questioned thumb impressions with the specimen thumb/finger impression as were available with the CFSL as stands proved vide Ex. PW52/A39.
17.25 As far as Provisional Identification Slips are concerned i.e. Ex. PW5/A1, Ex. PW5/B1, Ex. PW5/C1, Ex. PW5/D1, Ex. PW5/E1, Ex. PW5/F1, Ex. PW5/G1, Ex. PW5/H1, Ex. PW5/I1, Ex. PW5/J1, Ex. PW5/K1, Ex. PW5/L1, Ex. PW5/M1, Ex. PW5/N1, Ex. PW5/O1, Ex. PW4/C1, Ex. PW4/C2, Ex. PW4/C3, Ex. PW4/C4, Ex. PW4/C5, Ex. PW4/C6, Ex. PW4/C7, Ex. PW4/C8, Ex. PW4/C9, Ex. PW4/C10 and Ex. PW4/C11, these Provisional Identification Slips are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and the signatures appearing on them are of deceased Phillip Toppo. The CFSL result Ex. PW44/B categorically proves that the handwriting at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 375 of 522 points Q547, Q579, Q611, Q643, Q676, Q708, Q742, Q773, Q805, Q838, Q871, Q904, Q937, Q970, Q1002, Q1035, Q1068, Q1101, Q1134, Q1166, Q1199, Q1232, Q1265, Q1298, Q1331 & Q1363 are of accused Atul Vashisht and the signatures at points Q548, Q580, Q612, Q644, Q677, Q709, Q741, Q774, Q806, Q839, Q872, Q905, Q938, Q971, Q1003, Q1036, Q1069, Q1102, Q1135, Q1167, Q1200, Q1233, Q1266, Q1299, Q1332 & Q1364 are of deceased Phillip Toppo which facts stand further corroborated from the testimony of PW4, PW5, PW10 etc. who identified the handwriting and signatures as being of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo respectively. Even otherwise it is not disputed and is rather an admitted position of the defence that the handwriting and signatures belong to them. Same is the position qua the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo appering on the challans in question i.e. Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26. As per Ex. PW44/B the handwriting at points Q1558, Q1559, Q1562, Q1563, Q1566, Q1567, Q1570, Q1571, Q1574, Q1575, Q1578, Q1579, Q1582, Q1583, Q1586, Q1587, Q1590, Q1591, Q1594, Q1595, Q1598, Q1599, Q1602, Q1603, Q1606, Q1607, Q1610, Q1611, Q1614, Q1615, Q1618, Q1619, Q1622, Q1623, Q1626, Q1627, Q1630, Q1631, Q1634, Q1635, Q1638, Q1639, Q1642, Q1643, Q1646, Q1647, Q1650, Q1651, Q1654, Q1655, Q1658, Q1659 and signatures at points Q1560, Q1561, Q1564, Q1565, Q1568, Q1569, Q1572, Q1573, Q1576, Q1577, Q1580, Q1581, Q1584, Q1585, Q1588, Q1589, Q1592, Q1593, Q1596, Q1597, Q1600, Q1601, Q1604, Q1605, Q1608, Q1609, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 376 of 522 Q1612, Q1613, Q1616, Q1617, Q1620, Q1621, Q1624, Q1625, Q1628, Q1629, Q1632, Q1633, Q1636, Q1637, Q1640, Q1641, Q1644, Q1645, Q1648, Q1649, Q1652, Q1653, Q1656, Q1657, Q1660, Q1661 are of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo respectively. Ex. PW44/B also leaves no doubt that it is the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo which appears on the draw slips/parchis i.e. Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52.
17.26 Though it is an admitted position that the PIS, the draw list, draw slips/parchis and challans bear the handwriting/signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo, nonetheless, prosecution did examine the independent witnesses in whose presence the specimen signatures/handwritings of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo were taken. PW18 Sumer Singh UDC from the Horticulture Department proved that specimen handwritings/ signatures S-1 to S-5 Ex. PW18/A (colly) & S-6 to S-10 Ex. PW18/B (colly) of deceased Phillip Toppo and accused Atul Vashisht respectively were taken in his presence. He proved that both of them had tendered their specimen handwriting/signatures on Ex. PW18/A & Ex. PW18/B voluntarily in his presence and he had also signed the said exhibits/documents as a witness. No doubt PW18, during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, stated that he did not ask accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo if they are tendering their writings and signatures voluntarily or not, however, let that be the case what was required is that the specimen writing and signatures were CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 377 of 522 tendered in the presence of PW18, without use of any force, pressure etc. It was not even once suggested to PW18 that the specimen handwriting and signatures were not voluntarily given by them or that they were pressurized, compelled to give the same. Having not given any such suggestion and there being no other material to create any doubt whatsoever that the specimen handwriting was forcibly taken, I find no reasons to doubt the genuineness, authenticity of the proceedings vide which the specimen handwriting, signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo were taken. Similarly, PW21 Shankar Miglani, independent witness, Malaria Inspector, MCD, Central Zone proved that the specimen signatures/handwriting S-11 to S-177 Ex. PW21/A (colly) were given by accused Atul Vashisht voluntarily, without any kind of pressure or influence, in his presence. PW21 proved that the contents of Ex. PW21/A were written by accused Atul Vashisht on his own without any instructions.
17.27 It will also be pertinent to highlight, as has been discussed above also, that the thumb impressions at point Q22 on PIS Ex. PW5/B1 and Q253 on PIS Ex. PW5/M1 are that of accused Mohan Lal as stands proved vide Ex. PW47/B. There was no occasion for Mohan Lal's thumb impression to appear on these two PIS belonging to Prabhu Dayal and Mohd. Mukhtar. If these PISs were genuine, same ought to have been bearing the thumb impressions or for that matter the signatures of Sh. Prabhu Dayal and Mohd. Mukhtar and not accused Mohan Lal. Prabhu Dayal's (PW31) testimony which has been discussed above in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 378 of 522 detail leaves no doubt that the PIS does not bear his thumb impression. The very fact that accused Mohan Lal's thumb impression appear on these PISs proves that they were created in a fraudulent manner as part of, pursuant to conspiracy. It has already been discussed above that the allottees of the questioned plots had never applied for allotment, never deposited the beneficiary share and the PIS in question were never issued to them. They were rather issued in their names fraudulently. These PISs being in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht, bearing the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo and the thumb impression on them being of accused Mohan Lal and not of Prabhu Dayal and Mohd. Mukhtar itself proves that these PISs were created in a fraudulent manner. Having prepared and issued the PIS under the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo accused Atul Vahisht cannot explain as to how accused Mohan Lal's thumb impression appears on these PISs. No further proof of forgery or conspiracy is required. These PISs links all the above individuals and squarely proves that they were all part of the conspiracy. The forged ration cards, Delhi Administration I Cards, which were used in the allotment process and the sale documents prepared in the name of the allottee of the 26 questioned plots connects all the accused persons to the conspiracy. The role played by these individuals in holding the draw, making fraudulent allotments, using forged & fabricated documents prepared by the co-accused persons, co-conspirators for/during the allotment, which has been discussed above in detail, not only proves the conspiracy but that they were all part of the same.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 379 of 522 17.28 It was argued by the Ld. Defence Counsels that for the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established, which is missing against the accused persons. It was argued that there is no evidence nor any witness has stated that there was any such agreement between any of the accused persons. It was further argued that where the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies upon should be wholly consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
17.29 As far as the above arguments and reliance upon Raja Naykar (supra) is concerned, it is not very often that in conspiracy of the present nature that direct evidence is available. Conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. (Ram Narayan Popli Vs. CBIAIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2748). It will be worthwhile to go through the following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Through Superintendent of Police, CBI/Sit vs. Nalini and others 1999 ACR SC 2 1012, as regards the offence of criminal conspiracy:-
"564. In Yash Pal Committal v. State Of Punjab . (1977) 4 SCC 540 the Court said as under:
"9. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120- A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V- A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 380 of 522 all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy."
565. In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465 this Court said that it was manifest "that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design".
566. In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443 this Court again asserted:
"30. It is true that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication."
567. In State of H.P v. Krishan Lal Pardhan (1987) 2 SCC 17 the Court said that every one of the conspirators need not have taken active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts for the offence of conspiracy to be made out. It added that:
"The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences."
568. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988) 3 SCC 609 the Court said that the most important ingredient of the offence CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 381 of 522 of conspiracy is agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable. It further added as under:
"275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy require some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. Gerald Orchard of University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains the limited nature of this proposition:
'Although it is not in doubt that the offence requires some physical manifestation of agreement, it is important to note the limited nature of this proposition. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the parties "actually came together and agreed in terms" to pursue the unlawful object; there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was "a tacit understanding between conspirators as to what should be done".' "
569. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609 this Court considering the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy said:
"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: (1) agreement (2) between CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 382 of 522 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."...........
582. In Bhagwandas Keshwani v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 4 SCC 611 (SCC at p. 613), this Court said that in cases of conspiracy better evidence than acts and statements of co- conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy is hardly ever available.
583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
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.
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, any 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 enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella- spoke enrolment, 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 single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 383 of 522 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 every one who joins in the agreement. There has 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 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".
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 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 384 of 522 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, 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.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime."
17.30 At this stage, it will be worthwhile to highlight the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy vs Manmohan Singh & Ors.
MANU/SC/0067/2012:
"Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 385 of 522 preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
17.31 It is well settled law that though proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, however, it is not necessary that the same should be perfect. In fact there cannot ever be a perfect proof in any criminal trial. Perfect proof can only exist in ideal situations which hardly exists. Investigation and collection of evidence is a cumbersome process and there are bound to be minor loopholes and lacunas even in the best of the investigation. But if the minor loopholes, contradictions, lacunas do not shake the basic foundation and there is sufficient material/substantive evidence, those loopholes and contradictions can be and rather should be easily ignored or else it will defeat the ends of justice. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to highlight the following observations made in Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) 1978 AIR 1091:-
"Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is, too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many, guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up ? Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true ? No, we CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 386 of 522 must be realistic.
"We are satisfied that the broad features of the case, the general trend of the testimony and the convincing array of facts which are indisputable, converge to the only conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, namely, that the accused are guilty. Theoretical possibilities may not shake up, fancied weaknesses may not defeat, when verdicts are rested on sure foundations. Stray chances of innocence haunting the corridors of the court cannot topple concurrent findings of guilt.
We feel unhappy that, while infirmity in some aspect or other of this prosecution case should not invalidate the culpability which is otherwise, veraciously made out, tragic occurrences like this one......"
17.32 It has been held in Gurubachan Singh (supra) as under:-
"There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. See the observations of Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 AER 458 at 459 but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fancilful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
17.33 It has been held in Iqbal Musa Patel (supra) as under:-
"It is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. The principle as to what degree of proof is required is stated by Lord Denning in his inimitable style in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 272:
"That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 387 of 522 permitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with sentence `of course, it is possible but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.... It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in a criminal matter, we have to proceed with presumption of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of the land."
14. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 where this Court has reiterated the principle in the following words:
".......Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish."
17.34 It has been held in State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh (supra) as under:-
"A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998)."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 388 of 522 17.35 For the offence of conspiracy, it is well settled law that it is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and expressed agreement between the accused persons. What is required to be established is some kind of physical manifestation of the agreement and the expressed agreement need not be proved. There should be evidence to infer that the acts of the accused persons were done in reference to their common intention. What connects all the accused persons and what provides evidence in support of the criminal conspiracy hatched by them is; holding of Manual Draw in favour of ineligible allottees and ultimately preparation of PIS by accused Atul Vashisht; preparation of forged & fabricated ration cards and Delhi Administration I-Cards in the name of these very allotteess which bears the handwriting, signatures, thumb impressions of accused Lal Mani & Surjeet Singh for the purpose of this allotment; use of these documents for the purpose of allotment by accused Atul Vashisht fully knowing that these documents are forged and fabricated; thumb impressions of accused Mohan Lal on two PISs, prepared by accused Atul Vashisht, as well as recovery of allotment documents i.e. list of Manual Draw and Manual Parchis bearing handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht from Mohan Lal's house; preparation of sale documents in respect of the allotted/questioned plots in the name of the allotteess which were notarized by accused Vijay Kumar. Hence, since the beginning of the process of allotment, in the entire process and till the last chain i.e. preparation of sale documents for the purpose of sale of the questioned plots, which was the ultimate aim, objective of the criminal conspiracy, all these CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 389 of 522 accused persons played their respective roles in the conspiracy. There is ample evidence of their active role as has been discussed in this judgment and needs no reiteration. Though Ld. Defence Counsels relied upon Kali Ram (supra) and Ram Sharan Chaturvedi (supra), however, in the case at hand when the entire evidence is considered in totality the only view possible is the one which point towards the guilt of the accused persons. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons and inconsistent with their innocence.
17.36 It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that as far as accused Mohan Lal & R.S. Sandhu are concerned, the only evidence appearing against them is their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C and it is well settled law that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, which otherwise were not recorded in the present matter, cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence. It was also argued that the alleged additional evidence against accused Mohan Lal is the opinion of the handwriting expert and as far as accused Lal Mani & Vijay Kumar are concerned, the only evidence against them is the opinion of the Experts. It was argued that it is well settled law that no conviction can be made out solely on the basis of opinion of an Expert and, therefore, there is no evidence against these accused persons.
17.37 As far as arguments regarding statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C is concerned, it is indeed well settled law that the said statements are not substantive piece of evidence. No reliance can be placed on these statements solely to base a CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 390 of 522 conviction. (R. Shaji Vs. State of Karela AIR 2013 SC 651 and Priya Swami Vs. State 15.01.2015 Criminal Appeal no. 299/2000). However, as far as the opinion of the handwriting expert is concerned, though Ld. Defence Counsels relied upon Mageem Bihari Lal (supra) to argue that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration, however, it has been held in Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 as under:-
"The above extracted passage, undoubtedly, contains some sweeping general observations. But we do not think that the observations were meant to be observations of general application or as laying down any legal principle. It was plainly intended to be a rule of caution and not a rule of law as is clear from the statement `it has almost become a rule of law'. "Almost", we presume, means "not quite". It was said by the Court there was a "profusion of presidential authority" which insisted upon corroboration and reference was made to Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammed Isa, Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. (supra). We have already discussed these cases and observed that none of them supports the proposition that corroboration must invariably be sought before opinion evidence can be accepted.
There appears to be some mistake in the last sentence of the above extracted passage because we are unable to find in Fakhruddin v. State of M. P. (supra) any statement such as the one attributed. In fact, in that case, the learned Judges acted upon the sole testimony of the expert after satisfying themselves about the correctness of the opinion by comparing the writings themselves. We do think that the observations in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (supra) must be understood as referring to the facts of the particular case.
We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 391 of 522 analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under:-
"..........We begin with observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses-the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses-, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non- existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty `is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence'. (vide Lord President Cooper in Dacie v. Edinbeagh Magistrate : 1953 S. C. 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his Evidence)...........
Expert testimony is made relevant by s. 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person `specially skilled' `in questions as to identity of handwriting' is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to s. 114 which entitles the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 392 of 522 Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (s. 3) tells us that `a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the Evidence Act lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under s. 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that s. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. Apart from principle, let us examine if precedents justify invariable insistence on corroboration. We have referred to Phipson on Evidence, Cross on Evidence, Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, Archibald on Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice and Halsbury's Laws of England but we were unable to find a single sentence hinting at such a rule. We may now refer to some of the decisions of this Court. In Ram Chander v. U.P. State,(1) Jagannatha Das, J. observed : "It may be that normally it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction" (emphasis ours) "May" and "normally" make our point about the absence of an inflexible rule. In Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammed Isa,(2) Gajendragadkar, J. observed : "Evidence given by experts can never conclusive, because after all it is opinion evidence", a statement which carries us nowhere on the question now under consideration. Nor, can the statement be disputed because it is not so provided by the Evidence Act and, on the contrary, s. 46 expressly makes opinion evidence challengeable by facts, otherwise irrelevant. And as Lord President Cooper observed in Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrate : "The parties have invoked the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 393 of 522 decision of a judicial tribunal and not an oracular pronouncement by an expert".
In Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar,(3) Wanchoo, J., after noticing various features of the opinion of the expert said :
"We do not consider in the circumstances of this case that the evidence of the expert is conclusive and can falsify the evidence of the attesting witnesses and also the circumstances which go to show that this will must have been signed in 1943 as it purports to be. Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly inconsistent with it".
So, there was acceptable direct testimony which was destructive of the expert's opinion; there are other features also which made the expert's opinion unreliable. The observation regarding corroboration must be read in that context and it is worthy of note that even so the expression used was `it is usual' and not "it is necessary'.
In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh,(4) Hidayatullah, J. said :
"Both under s. 45 and s. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This the admitted or proved writing and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness."
These observations lend no support to any requirement as to corroboration of expert testimony. On the other hand, the facts show that the Court ultimately did act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the expert though these Judges took the precaution CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 394 of 522 of comparing the writings themselves........
17.38 So the law is well settled that there is no requirement of independent corroboration before the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert can be acted upon. Nonetheless there is ample additional evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, as has been discussed in this judgment, which corroborates the opinion of the expert.
17.39 In the case at hand what the prosecution has placed on record is the expert opinion of not one but two experts i.e. PW44 Sh. P. Venugopal Rao and PW47 Sh. S.K. Chadha. The defence did not bring any material whatsoever on record which could even remotely create any doubt upon the genuineness or authenticity of the reports nor could they convincingly explain as to why the experts would give a false, incorrect report. As has been discussed in this judgment, the genuineness, authenticity of the reports Ex. PW44/B (colly) Ex. PW47/B (colly) is evident from the fact that the experts could not give opinion on all the questioned writings and thumb impressions. As far as the expertise is concerned, I have absolutely no doubt that both the experts possessed the requisite experience and expertise to examine, compare and give reports on the questioned signatures, handwriting, thumb impressions viz-a-viz the specimen signatures, handwriting, thumb impressions respectively.
17.40 During the course of arguments, it was also vehemently argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that not much reliance can be placed upon reports Ex. PW44/B (colly) & Ex.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 395 of 522 PW47/B (colly) which otherwise have only corroborative value. It was argued that as far as PW44 and his report Ex. PW44/B (colly) is concerned, PW44 admitted that the specimen handwriting were not taken in his presence and also stated that he cannot differentiate between handwriting given under stress and a normal handwriting of an individual, therefore, when the accused persons did not voluntarily give their specimen handwritings and same were obtained under duress, while they were in custody of the CBI, not much reliance can be placed upon report Ex. PW44/B (colly). It was also argued that the specimen handwritings being aided & guided, by the CBI officials, their examination/comparison with the questioned handwritings was much to the prejudice of the accused persons and nothing but a farce. It was argued that PW44 only applied the like-with-like principle for comparison of the specimen handwriting with the questioned handwriting and no video spectral comparators were used by the experts. It was also argued that no notes of examination were produced by PW44 and admittedly he did not take any photograph for comparison purposes. It was also argued that according to PW44 apart from him Sh. Y. Suryaprasad had also examined the documents, however, CBI not only failed to examine Sh. Y. Suryaprasad but even his report is not available on record. It was also argued that as far as metallic machine make "CHANG CHENG 51" is concerned, PW44, during his cross-examination, stated that he had never heard about the said machine or its functioning or the purpose for which same is used and that he cannot say that specimen handwriting at Sl. No. 13 of Annexure B part of Ex. PW44/A (colly) was taken from the said CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 396 of 522 machine or not which further creates doubt upon the prosecution case that the said machine was used for printing the numbers on the back side of the Delhi Administration I cards in question.
17.41 As far as PW47 Sh. S.K. Chadha is concerned, it was argued that he admittedly did not take print out/photograph of unidentical fingerprints. Furthermore though he stated that prior to giving opinion on Q186, Q187, Q200 and Q47, Q53 and Q61, he had taken photographs of the questioned thumb impressions, but the said photographs are not part of the opinion Ex.PW47/B. It was argued that for reasons best known Automated Fingerprint Identification System was not used for examination/comparison of the questioned thumb impression and the specimen thumb impression. Furthermore PW47 admitted that the CFSL he was working with is under the control of CBI, therefore, the report in all likelihood was manipulated, given at the instance of CBI without examination of the questioned documents/thumb impressions and the specimen thumb impressions.
17.42 As far as PW44's expertise is concerned, I have absolutely no doubt that he was an experienced examiner, an expert to examine the questioned documents and give his opinion upon their comparison with the specimen handwritings of the accused persons. As proved by PW44, at the beginning of his career, he had undergone on-the-job training for 3 years in the field of examination of documents, from the office of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla. He CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 397 of 522 possessed 28 years of experience in the field of examination of documents, at the time of his deposition and as an examiner of documents, he possessed 15 years of experience. During his cross-examination he stated as "I presented papers in the conferences on document examination related matters. In All India Forensic Science Conferences, I presented papers. The papers were regarding Illusions of Traced Imitations; Writing Habits Affected by profession as observed in the writings of various individuals pertaining to various professions; Quasi Accidentals." That's more than enough experience.
17.43 As far as the technique applied by PW44 for examination, comparison of the questioned documents, PW44 categorically deposed as under:-
17.44 It is the only principle which is like-with-like comparison and there is no other technique to identify the handwritings.
"Que:What are the different tests applied for comparison of handwriting and signatures in Forensic Science? Ans: It is the like-with-like comparison principle which is applied for examination of disputed and standard writings. The Writing Habits of the individual are examined.
............I prepared notes of my examination. Yes, I have my notes in the case file. Lenses of various magnifications were used by me for comparison."
17.45 As far as use of video spectral comparators is concerned, PW44, during his cross-examination, stated as " I do not know video spectral comparator 4C. Vol. I know video spectral comparator-I (VSC-I), VSC-4, VSC-2000 and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 398 of 522 VSC-5000. These video spectral comparators are used for specific cases only such as examination of passports, currency notes as well as to know about the differences, if any, present between various inks, alterations/additions/obliterations etc in a document.........
"Que: Do you use any software for comparison and examination handwriting?
Ans: No. It is wrong to suggest that my report is not based on any scientific examination."
17.46 Hence according to PW44 the only principle i.e. like-with-like comparison is used to identify the handwritings and there is no other technique. The defence could not bring on record any material to contradict the said statement of PW44.
17.47 It has been discussed above in detail that the specimen handwritings of the accused persons were given by them voluntarily. They were given/obtained in the presence of independent witnesses. Not even once during the cross- examination of independent witnesses or Insp. S. S. Bhullar it was suggested to them that the specimen handwriting was obtained under duress or stress or pressure. No such stand was taken, explanation given by accused persons even during their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the specimen handwriting was aided or guided one. PW44 categorically stated during his cross- examination that there is no scientific parameter to say whether a particular writing was executed under the stress or not and that specimen handwritings examined by him were neither aided nor guided. There is no requirement that the specimen handwriting CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 399 of 522 has to be taken in the presence of an expert. The specimen handwriting is collected during the investigation and it being not taken in the presence of an expert but in the presence of independent witnesses itself ensures the genuineness of the examination, report. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW44 in this regard read as under:-
"No, there is no specific parameter to say whether a particular writing was executed under stress, or not. I cannot say the difference between the hand writing given under stress and a normal handwriting of an individual.
Que: Can you tell what are the correct sampling techniques for taking specimen handwritings and signatures?
Ans: Specimen writings of the persons concerned are to be obtained on dictation on a number of sheets, say 4-5 sheets. These writings may be taken repeatedly in order to study the natural variations in the writings of a person. No specific guidelines have been issued for obtaining specimen or standard writings for the purpose of forensic examination of documents.
........Que: Is it correct that there is difference between normal handwriting which has been written in normal course and a handwriting which has been guided or aided handwriting?
Ans: Without actually examining the case, it is not possible for me to reply to the question.
Que: Can you define aided and guided handwritings? Ans:When a physical support of another hand is given for writing, it is an aided or guided handwriting. Que: Can you after examining the documents on which you have given opinion in the present case tell whether the specimen handwritings are guided or aided handwritings or not?
Ans: The specimen handwritings in the present case which have been examined by me are neither guided nor aided handwritings.
Que: Can you tell what are the external factors which affect the handwriting of a person?
Ans: It depends on the nature of the case. Support/back is one of the external factors. Non-smoothly flowing pen/a defective writing instrument may be another external CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 400 of 522 factor. Physical disturbance to the hand of the writer by any other person is also one of the external factors. Que: Is it correct that writing position, writing surface, visibility, lighting conditions, guided and assisted handwritings are also some of the external factors affecting the handwriting of a person?
Ans: Yes, infact in my previous answer I covered the element of support which is nothing but writing surface."
17.48 Just because PW44 did not take any photograph of documents for comparison purposes does not create any doubt upon his report/opinion. He had categorically stated that he had prepared notes of his examinations which he has in the case file. If the defence doubted his statement, the defence could have asked him to produce the said notes. Having not done so, I find no reasons to disbelieve PW44. Though he did not take photographs for comparison purposes but as stated by him he had used lenses of various magnifications for comparison.
17.49 As far as submissions regarding Sh. Y. Surya Prasad are concerned, PW44 proved on record that Y. Surya Prasad had independently, separately examined the documents. No doubt there is no separate opinion of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad, however, his signatures do appear on report Ex. PW44/B (colly) and according to PW44 Sh. Y. Surya Prasad had not simply endorsed his opinion. During his examination in chief, PW44 had categorically deposed as under:-
"........Each of the 3 pages bears my signatures as well as the signature of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad, the then Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. Sh. Y. Surya Prasad also examined the documents independently and agreed with my opinion."
17.50 The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW44 in this regard read as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 401 of 522 "Que: Whether any reasons for opinion were given by Sh. Y. Surya Prasad in the present case or not. Ans: As per the record of the office, no separate reasons by Sh. Y. Surya Prasad were given.
Que: Whether Sh. Y. Surya Prasad and you jointly examined the documents in question or separately? Ans:We had not jointly examined the documents. We examined the documents separately................. Sh. Y. Surya Prasad independently examined the documents of this case. He did not simply endorse my opinion...............
It was in different dates that the examination of mine and that of Sh. Y. Surya Prasad was done. In office record, the date is available when I gave the documents to Sh. Y. Surya Prasad for his examination. There is no separate opinion expressed by Sh. Y. Surya Prasad as per the office record. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Y. Surya Prasad had not examined the questioned documents and has merely endorsed the opinion expressed by me."
17.51 As far as arguments regarding metallic machine in question is concerned, no doubt PW44 did state that he had never heard about the said machine and also that he does not remember whether he had physically seen the machine or not, however, it is a matter of record as is evident from Ex. PW44/A that the said machine was also sent to CFSL, though not in the present case and opinion was also sought whether the said machine has been used to affix, imprint numbers on the Delhi Administration I cards in question. Along with the machine, its specimen impressions S-216 to S-219 were sent for forensic examination, comparison with the questioned documents/Delhi Administration I cards and report Ex. PW44/B (colly) makes it crystal clear that they did not tally. Once the specimen impressions S-216 to S-219 were sent to the CFSL there was no necessity for PW44 to examine the said machine and there is nothing in the report to suggest that he had examined the said machine. This is the reason CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 402 of 522 why PW44 deposed as such about the metallic machine in question.
17.52 It will be pertinent to highlight that though specimen handwritings S-145 to S-192 of Ravinder Singh Sandhu were also sent for examination, comparison vide Ex. PW44/D, however, as stated by PW44 he was not able to express any opinion on the said questioned writings in comparison with the specimen writings as writing habits as occurring in the disputed writings could not be collectively accounted for from the standard writings and as such, he could not arrive at a definite opinion. This itself proves the genuineness, authenticity of the report Ex. PW44/B (colly) and that the same was given after thorough, detailed examination of the questioned documents and the specimen handwritings. Had the report been given in a routine manner, had a false report been given at the instance of CBI/prosecution then PW44 would have returned a positive finding in his report Ex. PW44/B qua the above specimen handwritings of accused Ravinder Singh Sandhu as well. Same applies for the defence's arguments based on PW47's statement that the CFSL he was working with was under the control of CBI.
Had that been the case, PW47 would have given positive report on all the questioned documents/thumb impressions and the specimen thumb impressions but that is not the case. It is evident from Ex. PW47/B (colly) that negative opinion was given on a number of questioned thumb impressions for the reasons as detailed in the report. In fact according to PW47/B number of questioned thumb impressions as detailed in paras III.b). IV to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 403 of 522 XII were found identical with each other but different from the specimen finger print in question which further proves that documents in question were forged & fabricated or else there was no reason for these documents to contain identical thumb impressions which means that same individual had put his thumb impressions on the said documents.
17.53 Coming back to the deposition of PW47, just because he had not taken the printout/photograph of unidentical fingerprints that by itself does not cast any doubt on report Ex. PW47/B. Defence has failed to explain as to how non obtaining of the printout/photographs of unidentical fingerprints has prejudiced the accused persons or creates doubt upon the report. No doubt photographs of the questioned thumb impressions Q186, Q187, Q200 and Q47, Q53 and Q61 are not part of Ex. PW47/B (colly) but the defence did not bother to ask PW47 whether he could produce the said photographs from the record or not. Things would have been entirely different had PW47 been directed to produce the photographs but he failed to do so. Having not done so, I find no reasons to disbelieve PW47 when he stated that he had taken the photographs of the questioned thumb impressions.
17.54 At the same time PW47 had proved on record photographs Ex. PW47/C along with his report/opinion Ex. PW47/B with respect to identical prints, thumb impressions. Ex. PW47/B and Ex. PW47/C are detailed, exhaustive reports and I find no reasons to disbelieve them more so when the defence CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 404 of 522 could not create any doubt upon the same. PW47 is/was an experienced examiner having joined Finger Print Division of CFSL in 1984 and worked in different capacities for examination of finger prints till his retirement in April 2010. According to him during this period, he had examined more than 2000 cases and furnished expert opinion in about 200 cases. Furthermore he had also visited approximate 150 scene of crimes and attended approximate 200 courts for expert testimony.
17.55 Though admittedly PW47 had not worked on Automated Fingerprint Identification System, however, he categorically stated that he had used magnifying glass, liner tester, comparator, computer, Video Spectral Comparator etc. for comparison of fingerprints/ thumb impressions. Defence could not prove that the said technique used by PW47 suffered from any inherent defect or was not sufficient, foolproof for the analysis/examinations and accordingly I find no reasons to differ with PW47 or his report Ex. PW47/B. 17.56 Last but not the least the defence could not bring any material whatsoever on record to contradict, create doubts upon report Ex. PW44/B (colly) or Ex. PW47/B (colly).
Recovery of the above documents from Sardhana
18. All the above questioned documents i.e. PIS, G8 receipts, ration cards, Delhi Administration I cards, sale documents pertaining to the 26 questioned plots were not CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 405 of 522 recovered from the allottees of those questioned plots but they were recovered at the instance of deceased Ashok Jain from Sardhana, UP which further proves the entire conspiracy.
18.1 PW5 Sh. Ved Prakash, independent witness, proved the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain as Ex. PW5/X pursuant to which the above documents were recovered. The said disclosure statement is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 406 of 522 18.2 This statement, as proved by PW5, was recorded in his presence & was signed by him apart from other independent witness Sh. V.S. Chauhan (PW23) & CBI officials including Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW52) and Insp. D.K. Thakur (PW51). He proved that in the said disclosure statement Ashok Jain had disclosed that he had kept documents regarding allotment of plots pertaining to Slum & JJ Department i.e. of 26 questioned plots at the house of Sh. Vineet Arora at Sardana Meerut, UP. He further proved that it was on the disclosure & pointing out of Ashok Jain that they reached at the house of Vineet Arora and Ashok Jain disclosed that the documents had been kept by him in a room which was in the end of verandah of the said house. He proved that CBI officials along with PW23 and Ashok Jain proceeded to the said room, while he stayed back in the verandah, from where the two bags were recovered and on opening the bags they were found to contain documents relating to allotment of Slum & JJ Department i.e. possession letters, ration cards, identity cards, slips of Rs.7,000/- issued by Slum & JJ Department, affidavits, sale and purchase agreements, Wills etc. He further proved that he had signed/initialed on the said documents and they were also recorded in the pointing out-cum-seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW5/Y which was also signed by him, independent witness (PW23) and CBI officials as above and that after completion of the search proceedings they reached back Delhi and appeared in the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, CBI. The recovery vide Ex. PW5/Y was made pursuant to Ex. PW5/X, which statement distinctly led to the discovery of the fact that the documents were kept there and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 407 of 522 their ultimate recovery and is thus admissible in evidence in terms of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.
18.3 He duly identified the said recovered documents i.e. provisional identification slips, G8 receipts, ration cards, Delhi Administration Cards, receipts of sale consideration, GPAs, agreements to sell and deeds of will in the name of the allottees of the questioned plots as Ex. PW5/A1 to A10, Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B10, Ex. PW5/C1 to Ex. PW5/C10, Ex. PW5D1 to Ex.
PW5/D10, Ex. PW5/E1 to Ex. PW5/E10, Ex. PW5/F1 to Ex. PW5/F10, Ex. PW5/G1 to Ex. PW5/G10, Ex. PW5/H1 to Ex. PW5/H10, Ex. PW5/I1 to Ex. PW5/I10, Ex. PW5/J1 to Ex. PW5/J10, Ex. PW5/K1 to Ex. PW5/K10, Ex. PW5/L1 to Ex. PW5/L10, Ex. PW5/M1 to Ex. PW5/M10, Ex. PW5/N1 to Ex. PW5/N10, Ex. PW5/O1 to Ex. PW5/O10, Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C11 and Ex. PW5/P2 to Ex. PW5/P10, Ex. PW5/Q2 to Ex. PW5/Q10, Ex. PW5/R2 to Ex. PW5/R10, Ex. PW5/S2 to Ex. PW5/S10, Ex. PW5/T2 to Ex. PW5/T10, Ex. PW5/U2 to Ex. PW5/U10, Ex. PW5/V2 to Ex. PW5/V10, Ex. PW5/W2 to Ex. PW5/W10, Ex. PW5/X2 to Ex. PW5/X10, Ex. PW5/Y2 to Ex. PW5/Y10 and Ex. PW5/Z2 to Ex. PW5/Z10.
18.4 During his cross-examination, by Ld. Defence counsel, PW5 had further stated as under:-
"I had verified the particulars contained in the list of allottees of Savdha Ghevra Scheme, which is a part of the documents Ex.PW5/X (D-30) and I had also compared the particulars with the documents before putting my signatures thereon. (Vol. the above list itself was prepared by me in my handwriting). The names of allottees written in the above list were provided to me by Inspector S.S. Bhullar. Again said, Inspector S.S. Bhullar gave me the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 408 of 522 bundle of recovered documents of allottees and the names of the allottees give in these documents were written by me in the list. The above list was prepared in duplicate, i.e. one original and one carbon copy. .............The names and the other details written in the above list were not being dictated to me by anyone and the same were written by me on my own on the basis of the bundle of recovered documents which was handed over to me by Insp. S.S. Bhullar."
18.5 There was no occasion for these documents, in the name of allottees/JJ dwellers, as per draw list Ex. PW4/B, to be found at the house of Vineet Arora. Vineet Arora was not an employee of Slum & JJ Department MCD and even if he was, still he had no business to keep these documents at his residence. Similarly, there was no occasion for Ashok Jain to have knowledge that the documents were lying at the house of Vineet Arora but for the fact that he had kept the documents there. According to Ex. PW5/X, deceased Ashok Jain had collected/obtained the said documents from deceased Ashok Malhotra and it has already been discussed in detail above that forged ration cards, Delhi Administration I Cards, sale documents etc. were got prepared by deceased Ashok Malhotra which further connects the accused persons to the conspiracy. But for his disclosure and pointing out these documents would not have been recovered during the investigation. Moreover, had the allotment been genuine, made in favour of genuine allottees who had applied for allotment these documents except for sale documents would have been with those allottees and not at the house of Vineet Arora. As far as sale documents are concerned, they could not have ever been prepared as the allotted plots could CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 409 of 522 not have been sold and if done so the allotment was liable to be cancelled.
18.6 During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that PW5 had categorically stated during his cross-examination that the disclosure statement Ex. PW5/X was recorded at Sardana, Meerut at the house of Deepak Arora (brother of Vineet Arora) and the same was recorded after recovery of the documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/Y. It was argued that as the disclosure statement was recorded after the recovery of documents, the said disclosure statement becomes inadmissible as the documents cannot be said to have been recovered in consequence, furtherance of the information/disclosure of deceased Ashok Jain. It was argued that as emerges from the deposition of PW5 it is not a case wherein the documents were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, therefore, the prosecution case as regards the recovery being pursuant to the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain becomes highly doubtful. However, I find no merits in the said arguments.
18.7 No doubt PW5, during his cross-examination, had stated as under:-
"Disclosure statement of Ashok Jain Ex.PW5/X (D30) was recorded at Sardana, Meerut at the house of Deepak Arora and the same were recorded after the recovery of all the documents from the said house."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 410 of 522 18.8 Nonetheless during his examination in chief which was recorded almost an year before the cross-examination of PW5, he had stated as under:-
"We passed via Police Headquarters, ITO wherein son of accused Ashok Jain had met the CBI team and had proceeded to Sardhana in a separate car.
Shri Ashok Jain disclosed that he had kept documents regarding allotment of plots pertaining to Slum & JJ Department in a house situated at Sardhana, Meerut, UP belonging to Shri Vineet Arora. The disclosure statement of Ashok Jain was separately recorded at Sardhana. I can identify the signatures on the disclosure statement, if shown to me....................On reaching Sardhana, the vehicle was parked in the market at Sardhana and we proceeded towards the house on the directions as disclosed by Shri Ashok Jain which was situated in a narrow lane. The said house at Sardhana belonged to Shri Vineet Arora. Shri Ashok Jain disclosed that the documents had been kept by him in a room which was in the last of verandah of the said house regarding allotment of plots by Slum & JJ Department. The CBI officials along with Shri V.S. Chauhan and accused Ashok Jain proceeded to the room as disclosed by him and I stayed back in the verandah. Thereafter, the CBI officials along with Ashok Jain came out of the room along with two bags which on opening were found to contain documents relating to allotment of Slum & JJ Department i.e. Possession letters, ration cards, identity cards, slips of Rs.7,000/- issued by Slum & JJ Department, affidavits, sale and purchase agreements, wills etc. which I can identify, if shown to me, as I had signed/initialed on the aforesaid documents."
18.9 The statement made during examination in chief leaves absolutely no doubt that first of all, the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain was recorded wherein, he had disclosed regarding having kept the documents at the house of Vineet Arora at Sardana, Meerut, UP. Thereafter the CBI team along with PW5 and deceased Ashok Jain proceeded towards the house of Vineet Arora, on the directions as disclosed by deceased Ashok Jain and who after reaching the said house also pointed out the room, which was in the last of the verandah of the said CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 411 of 522 house, wherein he had kept the documents and it was on his pointing out/disclosure that the documents were recovered and seized vide Ex. PW5/Y. This leaves absolutely no doubt that the disclosure statement Ex. PW5/X was recorded prior to recovery and that the recovery vide Ex. PW5/Y was effected only pursuant to the disclosure. Merely because in his statement Ex. PW5/DA, as recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the factum of recording of disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain in his presence is not recorded nor the fact regarding recovery of documents from the bags or for that matter preparation of list Ex. PW23/A does not render PW5's testimony unreliable nor does it create any doubt upon the recovery proceedings. Not only the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain i.e. Ex. PW5/X but even the pointing out- cum-seizure memo Ex. PW5/Y and the list Ex. PW23/A bears the signatures of this witness and his presence at the spot, at the time of above proceedings stands duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses including PW23.
18.10 The above fact stands further established/ corroborated from the testimony of PW23 V.S. Chauhan who lend due credence to the disclosure and recovery proceedings. PW23 categorically proved that the disclosure statement Ex. PW5/X was recorded at CBI headquarters, in his presence, prior to leaving for the search at Vineet Arora's house at Sardana. The relevant portion of his examination in chief read as under:-
"At this stage, Ld. PP for CBI has shown to the witness Ex. PW5/X, which is a copy of disclosure statement of accused Ashok Jain dated 07.09.2007, whereupon the witness states that the said statement was recorded at CBI HQs in his presence prior to leaving for the said search at Mr. Arora's house at Sardhana and the witness also identifies his CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 412 of 522 signatures on the said disclosure statement at point D and those of Ved Prakash at point A."
18.11 Though during the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that PW23, during his cross- examination, had admitted that in CC no. 129/11 he had stated that disclosure statement Ex. PW5/X was not recorded in his presence and therefore the statement made before this court is an improvement, an afterthought merely to boost the prosecution case, however, I find no merits in the said argument. The relevant statement of PW23 in this regard reads as under:-
"It is correct that in my cross examination recorded on 06.03.2017 in CC No. 129/11, I have deposed that disclosure statement of Mr. A. K. Jain was not recorded in my presence, however, I have clarified the same on the same date. The disclosure statement of Mr. A. K. Jain was recorded in CBI HQs. At that time of recording of disclosure statement of Mr. A. K. Jain, apart from myself, D. K. Thakur, Inspector, CBI, Mr. Bhullar and one or two more persons whose names I do not recollect were present."
18.12 Hence, the witness had categorically stated that as regards the non recording of disclosure statement in his presence, as was purportedly deposed by him in CC no. 129/11, he had clarified the same in that matter on the same day and he went on to reiterate that the disclosure statement was recorded at CBI headquarters i.e. before going to Sardana, Meerut, UP. The defence did not bring on record the copy of the deposition as recorded in CC no. 129/11 to contradict PW23's claim that he had clarified on the same day and accordingly I find no reason to doubt the deposition of PW23.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 413 of 522 18.13 In addition to PW23, PW52 during his cross- examination categorically stated "The disclosure statement i.e. Ex. PW5/X was prepared on 07.09.2007 in the morning at the CBI headquarters". Not even a single suggestion was given to PW52 that he was deposing falsely to that extent or that the disclosure statement was recorded at Sardhana after recovery of documents vide Ex. PW5/Y. In fact both Ex. PW5/X and Ex. PW5/Y are in the handwriting of PW52. Similarly no suggestion was given to PW51 that the disclosure statement was not recorded at CBI headquarters or that the same was recorded at Sardhana after the recovery of documents vide Ex. PW5/Y. 18.14 PW23 further proved that he had accompanied the CBI team which included independent witness PW5 to Sardana at the house of Vineet Arora where at the instance of Ashok Jain, upon search of house of Vineet Arora two bags containing documents were recovered. He further proved that the bags were opened, inventory of documents present in the bags was prepared and the seizure memo Ex. PW5/Y was also prepared. He further proved, as was also proved by PW5, that the list Ex. PW23/A titled as "Savda Ghevra" containing names of 26 persons alongwith plot numbers was also prepared at the house of Vineet Arora. Both PW5 and PW23, as proved by them, had affixed their signatures on the recovered/seized documents which were also sealed by the CBI team and they duly identified their signatures accordingly. Merely because in his examination in chief PW23 did not mention the name of Deepak Arora or Vineet Arora but merely kept on repeating the word Arora makes no CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 414 of 522 difference. After a lapse of almost 10 years since the witness participated in the recovery proceedings it was but natural for the witness to forget the complete name. Human memories are apt to blur with such huge passage of time. A person cannot be expected to give a parrot like version or depose with mathematical precision. Only a tutored witness can depose so. Error due to lapse of time/lapse of memory have to be given due weight-age/ due allowance. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the minute details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Unless the defence is able to establish that the discrepancies or short coming or for that matter lacunas in the prosecution case have prejudiced the accused persons or rendered the prosecution case unreliable or untrustworthy, the same cannot be formed the basis of acquitting the accused.
18.15 It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. It is the duty of the court to sift through the evidence and ascertain as to whether the evidence minus the contradictions, improvements, embellishments inspire confidence and is sufficient to convict the accused. Undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution case.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 415 of 522 18.16 It has been held in Zamir Ahmed Vs. The State 1996 Cri.L.J. 2354 as under:-
"It would be a hard nut to crack to find out a case which is bereft of embellishment, exaggeration, contradictions and inconsistencies. The said things are natural. Such contradictions and inconsistencies are bound to creep in with the passage of time. If the witnesses are not tutored they would come out with a natural and spontaneous version on their own. The two persons on being asked to reproduce a particular incident which they have witnesses with their own eyes would be unable to do so in like manner. Each one of them will narrate the same in his own words according to his own perception and in proportion to his intelligence power of observation."
18.17 Most importantly, there is absolutely no doubt that the documents as recovered vide Ex. PW5/Y were recovered from the house of Vineet Arora and that they were not planted upon deceased Ashok Jain. It emerges from the testimony of PW5 that son of Ashok Jain had also accompanied the CBI team at the time of recovery proceedings. In fact as stated by PW5, Ashok Jain's son had met the CBI team at ITO at New Delhi and from there he proceeded to Sardana Meerut, UP in a separate car. He categorically stated that when Ashok Jain's son met the CBI team/them at ITO no documents or articles were transferred from his vehicle to the CBI vehicle or vice-versa.
18.18 No doubt PW5 stated that none of them i.e. CBI team including himself offered their search to the occupants of the house i.e. Vineet Arora, his son, another lady who was present there but that by itself does not create any doubt upon the prosecution case. The fact that no videography of the search proceedings was done nor the photographs were taken is also of significance. The fact which stands duly established on record CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 416 of 522 especially from the testimony of PW5 and PW23 is that documents vide Ex. PW5/Y were indeed recovered from the house of Vineet Arora pursuant to the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain. Voluminous documents were recovered as were seized vide Ex. PW5/Y and noway such voluminous documents could have been carried by either PW5 or the CBI team on their self. It makes no difference that the CBI team before heading towards Sardhana stayed outside the police headquarter for about 15 minutes or met son of Ashok Jain who accompanied them to Sardhana, as stated by PW5, as PW5 categorically stated no documents or articles were transferred from Ashok Jain's son's vehicle to the CBI vehicle or vice-versa. Just because PW5 stated that "Insp. D.K. Thakur was having one briefcase having some papers/documents etc." does not caste any doubt whatsoever upon the recovery proceedings. Not only the voluminous record recovered from Sardhana could not have been carried by Insp. D.K. Thakur in his briefcase, also it was not even once suggested to PW5 that the documents as recovered from Sardhana were the same as carried by Insp. D.K. Thakur with him in his briefcase.
18.19 Ld. Defence counsel laid much emphasis on the following statement of PW5, as made during the cross- examination:-
"I cannot exactly tell as to from which particular place the said documents were recovered and I can only say that when CBI officials came out of the said room, they were having the above documents in two bags and they told that the above bags containing documents were recovered from some basement area of the said room.......I had not read the contents of the document Ex.PW5/Y (D30), i.e. the pointing out cum seizure memo dated 07.09.07, before CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 417 of 522 putting my signatures thereon. I had signed on the said document at the instance of Insp. S.S. Bhullar. It is wrong to suggest that the facts recorded in the above document are not correct. It is correct that it is recorded in the above document that on my directions (i.e. the directions of Insp. S.S. Bhullar), both the independent witnesses took out two air bags from inside the store and brought them to the drawing room of the house situated at the main gate of the house, but these facts are not correct as I did not enter the above room or the store room from where the above bags containing documents were recovered. (Confronted with portion X1 to X1 of Ex.PW5/Y (D30) where these facts are found to be recorded).
and argued that the said statement coupled with the fact that PW5 admittedly, stayed in the verandha of the house and did not enter the room from where the documents were allegedly recovered itself creates doubt upon the prosecution case. It was also argued that though PW5 claimed that he did not enter the room, however, as per Ex. PW5/Y, both the independent witnesses i.e. PW5 & PW23 had taken out the two bags from inside the store room and brought them to the drawing room of the house. It was argued that these discrepancies cast serious doubt upon the recovery cum seizure proceedings. However, I find no merits in their arguments. Just because PW5 stated as above and merely because he did not enter the room from where the documents were recovered, no doubts can be casted upon the recovery proceedings. PW5's testimony leaves no doubt that he along with CBI team had entered the house of Vineet Arora, they went to the room from where the documents were recovered on the pointing out, pursuant to disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain and when they went to the room they were empty handed. It was only when they came out of the room that they CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 418 of 522 were carrying the documents as were recovered from the said room.
18.20 It also stands established, from the cross- examination of PW39, as was also deposed by PW5 & other prosecution witnesses that Ashok Jain's son had also accompanied the CBI team to the house of Vineet Arora and that he was present at the time of search & seizure proceedings at Sardhana. The relevant deposition of PW39 in this regard read as under:-
"I identify the son of Ashok Jain by face, but I cannot tell as to how many sons he is having or what are their names. The above son of Ashok Jain, whom I identify, was also with him and the CBI officials when they visited our house on the above day. The CBI officials did not introduce the above son of Ashok Jain to us, but his identity was known from the conversation between the above accused and his son. Vol. The above son of Ashok Jain was known to me as he had also previously visited our house."
18.21 If the defence wanted to create doubts upon the recovery proceedings or prove that no recovery was affected then they should have examined Ashok Jain's son in their defence. Having not done so, I find no merits in the defence arguments.
18.22 In fact PW5 during his cross-examination had stated that Sh. V.S. Chauhan (PW23) had entered the said room, from where the documents were recovered, along with CBI officers and they were led by son of deceased Ashok Jain. The relevant portion of deposition of PW23 in this regard read as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 419 of 522 Examination in chief "At Sardhana, we had visited the house of one Mr. Arora. Mr. Jain got the door of the house opened and Mr. Arora met us there. I came to know that who opened the door was Mr. Arora as Mr. Jain was addressing him so. CBI team introduced themselves to Mr. Arora and told him the purpose of the visit, i.e. conducting of search at the residential premises of Mr. Arora. Mr. Arora cooperated in the search. Accordingly, the house of Mr. Arora was searched. During the course of search, two bags containing documents were recovered from two separate rooms, one of which was quite small."
Cross-examination "Besides the above room from which two bags containing documents were recovered, the other rooms of the said house were searched by the CBI officers in my presence. On the request of CBI officers, I had assisted them in the search in the small room from where the documents were recovered and I had helped them in bringing out one bag of documents."
18.23 Just because the local residents, neighbors were not joined in the recovery proceedings is of no consequence as the law is well settled that it is the quality that matters and not the quantity. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a particular fact. For similar reason merely because Sh. Vineet Arora signatures were not obtained on the recovered documents is of no consequence as the recovery stands duly proved through the testimony of PW5 & PW23, who had also signed the recovered documents, in addition to the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Merely because there is no whisper of presence of Vineet Arora or Deepak Arora or Gopal Arora etc. at the house that by itself does not create any doubt on the recovery proceedings or the testimony of PW5 or PW23. Presence of Vineet Arora at the house, apart from presence of other individuals, stands duly proved on record. Though PW5 and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 420 of 522 PW23 did not take the name of Deepak Arora or Gopal Arora or Vineet Arora in their statements, however, he did state that one Mr. Arora was present apart from other individuals. Similarly PW5 did state about the presence of Deepak Arora (PW39) and Vineet Arora at the house at Sardana at the time of recovery proceedings apart from the presence of other individuals. If the defence wanted to prove that the prosecution witnesses were deposing falsely in this regard nothing stopped the defence from examining Vineet Arora or Gopal Arora to discredit the prosecution case. Having not done so I find no reason whatsoever as to why the prosecution witnesses would depose falsely in this regard.
18.24 Just because PW5 failed to give the name of Sh.
Vineet Arora's son or of other persons who were present in their house does not in any manner discredits PW5's testimony or render the recovery proceedings unreliable. After the gap of 7 years, PW5 was not expected to remember such minute details which have otherwise no bearing on the merits of the case.
18.25 The fact that PW23 Sh. V.S. Chauhan had accompanied the CBI team at the time of recovery proceedings at Sardana was duly proved by PW5. In fact at the time of recovery & seizure proceedings, PW5 had prepared a list i.e. Ex. PW23/A of the name of the allottees from the bundle of recovered documents. This list contains the name of all the allottees of the questioned plots. As proved by PW5, the said list is in his handwriting and the names and the other detailed mentioned in CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 421 of 522 the said list were not dictated to him by anyone but were written by him on his own on the basis of the bundle of recovered documents from the house of Sh. Vineet Arora. This list also bears the signatures of independent witness PW23 in addition to other prosecution witnesses. Though the particulars encircled at point Z1 to Z4 i.e. Savda Ghevra, father/husband name, plot number, number of evidence etc. were admittedly not written by PW5, however, once the list is in the handwriting of PW5 and prepared on the basis of recovered documents at the spot itself, merely because someone else mentioned the particulars at point Z1 to Z4 is of no consequence. According to PW5 the same were written by PW51 Insp. D.K. Thakur. During the cross- examination of PW51 not only he was not confronted with points Z1 to Z4 on Ex. PW23/A nor it was even suggested to him that the writings at points Z1 to Z4 are not his or that they were not written by him at Sardhana or that they were written subsequently. Furthermore, the word "Savda Ghevra" is mentioned on the second page of the list in the handwriting of PW5 himself. PW5 categorically denied that the particular at point Z1 to Z4 were written in the CBI office and reiterated that the particulars were written in his presence at Sardhana itself. Once the preparation of the list stands duly proved on record by the prosecution witnesses including independent witnesses, it makes no difference that writings at points Z1 to Z4 are in different ink. Nonetheless the said writing is in the same ink as the signatures of independent witness PW23 V.S. Chauhan.
18.26 PW23's deposition in this regard read as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 422 of 522 "........which is a list titled as 'Savda Ghewra', containing names of 26 persons, alongwith plot numbers, whereupon the witness states that this list was prepared in the aforesaid premises of Mr. Arora itself on 07.09.2007 and the same bears his signatures at points B and those of Ved Prakash at points A on each page. The said list is Ex. PW23/A."
18.27 Not even a single suggestion was given to PW23, during his cross-examination, that no such list was prepared at Sardhana at the house of Mr. Arora. Therefore I find no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said list.
18.28 It is also of no consequence that the factum regarding the recovery of documents from a bag or preparation of the above list in the handwriting of PW5 or that the disclosure statement of Ashok Jain was made by him in the presence of PW5 is not recorded in the statement Ex. PW5/A. The fact that disclosure statement of Ashok Jain was recorded in his presence as well as the recovery of documents and preparation of list was squarely proved by PW5 and I find no reason whatsoever why PW5 would depose falsely. His overall testimony inspires confidence and is trustworthy.
18.29 No doubt that the portion encircled X2 on Ex.
PW5/Y is blank i.e. "Annexure 'A' to Annexure '.' " and no annexure is marked on the list, however, it is to be seen that voluminous documents were recovered vide Ex. PW5/Y. As explained by PW5 though he did not remember the exact number of documents as were recovered, however, more than 3000 documents were recovered and that he had signed, initialed on all the recovered documents. Furthermore all the recovered CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 423 of 522 documents do not pertain to the present matter. Merely because Annexure appearing at point X2 on Ex. PW5/Y was left blank does not render the recovery proceedings, duly proved by the independent witnesses and other officials witnesses, unreliable. Considering the voluminous record recovered whose counting & numbering, marking annexures on the same would have taken enormous time and also the fact that the entire record did not pertain to the present case, the allotment at Savda Ghevra, sufficiently explains why the said annexure was left blank. Nonetheless PW51 during his cross-examination did state as under:-
"The pointing-out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW5/Y was prepared by Inspector S.S. Bhullar upon my instructions. I had read the said pointing-out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW5/Y before signing the same. It is correct that on the second/last page of Ex.PW5/Y a portion which is already marked X2 to X2 has been left blank. It might be a mistake on the part of Inspector S.S. Bhullar (Vol. on that day we were in hurry as police custody remand of accused Ashok Jain was expiring on that day itself and he was to be produced before the Court by 03.30 P.M. It was a race against time)."
18.30 It is a matter of judicial record that the Ld. Special Judge had granted the further police custody remand of deceased Ashok Jain vide proceedings dated 07.09.2007 upon the application of the IO where the factum of recovery from Meerut, pursuant to the disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain is duly recorded. This also takes care of the inconsistency created by D.K. Thakur (PW51) regarding the date of search and seizure proceedings.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 424 of 522 18.31 As far as PW52 is concerned, his deposition in this regard read as under:-
"Question:Can you tell as to why blank portion has been left from point X2 to X2 in Ex.PW5/Y?
Answer:I do not exactly remember why the same was left blank at the time of writing the said memo as the annexures were prepared by the other team members at the spot."
18.32 These two statements considering the voluminous documents recovered from Sardhana do explain as to why the said portion was left blank on Ex. PW5/Y. Most importantly, signatures of independent witness PW5 appearing on documents D4 to D29 take cares of the shortcomings committed by the search team/CBI officials by not marking the annexures on the recovered documents. The signatures of independent witness not only accords genuineness, authenticity to the search proceedings but leaves absolutely no doubt about the recovery of these documents from Sardhana. This is in addition to the testimony of other prosecution witnesses which lends due corroboration to the said facts.
18.33 As far as the objection raised by Ld. Defence Counsels at the time when these documents were tendered in evidence on 15.01.2014 and the arguments that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged two sheets were annexures to pointing out cum seizure memo Ex. PW5/Y are concerned, merely because the word annexure is not recorded on the aforesaid two sheets is of no consequence. At the outset I fail to understand why, on what legal ground the objection was taken by the defence. These two sheets are original documents and it is not CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 425 of 522 as if they were for the first time brought on record by the prosecution. Being part of the charge sheet, copy of these documents/sheets were duly supplied to the accused persons and the prosecution is/was at absolute liberty to tender these documents. These sheets/lists were prepared at Sardhana itself after the recovery of D4 to D29 pursuant to Ex. PW5/X. The relevant portion of Ex. PW5/Y where the words "(Annexure 'A' to Annexure '..' enclosed)" appear reads as "All the documents seized have been initialled by both the independent witnesses.
"(Annexure 'A' to Annexure '..' enclosed)". Hence the annexure was with reference to the seized documents and not with reference to the list prepared after the seizure. Moreover as far as the said list is concerned i.e. Ex. PW23/A, it has already been discussed in detail above that the said list is a genuine document prepared at Sardhana itself.
18.34 Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that there is a major inconsistency in the statements of PW23 and PW5 as regards the place from where the documents were allegedly recovered. It was argued that though PW5 claimed that the documents were recovered from a room whereas PW23 had stated that the documents were recovered from two separate rooms, which inconsistency according to Ld. Defence counsels casts grave doubt upon the recovery proceedings. However, I find no merits in the said arguments. Though during his examination in chief PW23 had stated that the two bags containing the documents were recovered from two separate rooms, however, during his cross-examination he had stated as under:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 426 of 522 "Besides the above room from which two bags containing documents were recovered, the other rooms of the said house were searched by the CBI officers in my presence. On the request of CBI officers, I had assisted them in the search in the small room from where the documents were recovered and I had helped them in bringing out one bag of documents."
18.35 Furthermore during his examination in chief he had stated as "During the course of search, two bags containing documents were recovered from two separate rooms, one of which was quite small". The discrepancy as pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel is too trivial to be given any weightage. What is material is not whether the bags were recovered from one room or two rooms but the fact that incriminating material as seized vide Ex. PW5/Y were duly recovered at the instance of deceased Ashok Jain from the house of Vineet Arora. Merely because the bags, in which the documents were kept & recovered from, were not deposited in the malkhana is of no significance nor does it create any doubt upon the recovery proceedings. The bags were/are not material piece of evidence and their significance was only to the extent that the incriminating material as was recovered from Sardhana was kept in bags at the house of Vineet Arora. There is absolutely no doubt that documents in question were seized from the house of Vineet Arora vide Ex. PW5/Y and at that time a list i.e. Ex. PW23/A of seized documents was prepared which was signed by PW23, PW5 apart from other prosecution witnesses. Both PW5 and PW23 categorically stated that they had signed, initialed on the documents which were recovered from the house of Vineet Arora. The deposition of PW5, PW23 and other prosecution witnesses lends due credence CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 427 of 522 to the recovery proceedings. Minor discrepancies as to whether they reached the CBI office at 12 noon (as stated by PW23) or at about 10.45 a.m. (as stated by PW5) or PW23's statement that they did not stop anywhere in between after leaving CBI office though it stands proved on record that they had stopped at ITO where they met son of deceased Ashok Jain are inconsequential as the recovery proceedings inspire confidence on material aspects. These discrepancies are bound to occur with passage of time.
18.36 Though it was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that PW5 had also claimed that all the documents, as allegedly recovered from Sardhana, were signed by him and PW23, however, when he was confronted with the documents he admitted that the documents do not contain PW23's signatures or initials. As far as this argument is concerned, the relevant portion of PW5's cross-examination in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
"At this stage Ld. defence counsel has asked the witness to see the sets of documents (which are stated to be 26 sets in number) from D-4 to D-29 on record and to tell if the signatures or initials of Sh. V.S. Chauhan are there on these documents or not. After seeing the documents carefully the witness states that the signatures or initials of Sh. V.S. Chauhan are not there on these documents."
18.37 Immediately after the above statement by PW5, he had also stated as under:-
"He also states now that all the documents recovered from the said house were not signed or initialed by both of them and some of the documents were signed or initialed by him, some other documents by Sh. V.S. Chauhan only and some documents by both of them."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 428 of 522 18.38 I have gone through the documents D4 to D29. These documents bear the signatures of PW5 Sh. Ved Prakash and though they do not bear the signatures/initials of PW23 Sh. V.S. Chauhan, however, it is the prosecution case that voluminous documents running into thousand of pages were recovered during the search at Sardhana. As per PW5 more than 3000 pages/documents were recovered. It is to be seen that the documents pertaining to the present case/allotment only have been proved on record and not the other documents which were also recovered from Sardhana. It cannot be completely ruled out that those other documents bear the signatures of PW23. Considering the fact that voluminous record was recovered and when no doubt remains that both these independent witnesses were witness to the recovery proceedings, it was of course, out of convenience that some of the documents were signed by PW5 and others by PW23 or else, if both of them had signed all the documents, or one of them had signed all the documents, it would have been an extremely time consuming exercise.
18.39 In addition to PW5 and PW23, the factum of recovery of documents vide Ex. PW5/Y from the house of Vineet Arora stands duly proved from the testimony of PW39 Sh. Deepak Arora who is the elder brother of Vineet Arora. PW39 correctly identified Ashok Jain while explaining that he is relative of Sanjay Jain who is friend of his younger brother Vineet Arora and went on to prove the recovery proceedings when he deposed as under:-
"In the intervening night of 15-16.08.2007, Ashok Jain had come to my residence and stated that he was going to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 429 of 522 Haridwar-Rishikesh and stated that there were two bags kept in his Alto car and it was not safe for him to carry those bags alongwith him to Haridwar-Rishikesh in his car, so he requested me to keep the said bags at my residence. I agreed to the same. Neither he told me, nor I looked into the bags to ascertain what was there inside. I kept the bag in the store of my house.
Thereafter, in the month of September, 2007, Ashok Jain again came to my house at about 10/11 AM alongwith some other persons who introduced themselves as CBI personnel. They asked me about the bags which were kept with me by Ashok Jain. I took Ashok Jain and the CBI personnel to the store of my house where the bags were kept. Ashok Jain pointed out towards the said bags and stated that these were his bags and picked them up. We all came out in the drawing room alongwith the bags. The bags were opened in the drawing room and the same were containing many papers. The CBI personnel started to check the papers and did the paper work qua the same till about 3-4 PM. Thereafter, they drew the proceedings on a paper and got the same signed from me as well as Ashok Jain and others also in my presence. Thereafter, they left along with Ashok Jain as well as the papers and the bags.
I can identify the said papers signed by me and others as mentioned above on which proceedings were drawn by CBI personnel on that day.
At this stage, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has shown to the witness a copy of one pointing out cum seizure memo dated 07.09.2007 already Ex. PW5/Y (D30), whereupon the witness states that the aforesaid memo contains the same proceedings which were drawn in his presence at the time of recovery of bags and checking of the papers at his residence as mentioned by him above. The witness further states that the said memo bears his signatures at point H on both pages."
18.40 The house from where the recovery was effected vide Ex. PW5/Y is in fact owned by Gopal Arora who is the father of PW39 Deepak Arora and Vineet Arora. This court is concerned with the recovery of the documents and not with the ownership of the house and it is of no consequence that the CBI did not collect the ownership documents of the said house nor CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 430 of 522 made any inquiry regrading the ownership as was vehemently pointed out by Ld. Defence counsels.
18.41 No doubt PW39 admitted that he had signed the documents i.e. Ex. PW5/Y without reading the contents of the same, the same was not read over to him but he had nonetheless stated that he was explained by the CBI officials that the said document was prepared with regard to the search of their house and the documents recovered therefrom. The said statement read as "Though the above document was not read over to me, but I was explained by them that the said document was prepared in regard to the search of our house and the documents recovered therefrom". He further proved the recovery proceedings when he stated as under:-
"The document which the CBI officials recovered from the two bags kept in our house were shown to me by them. They had also prepared some list of the recovered documents at the spot itself. Vol. They had done writing work for about 2 and ½ hours in respect of the above documents at the spot itself."
18.42 In fact PW39's statement leaves no doubt that the documents were recovered from one room, as stated by PW5 and not two rooms, as stated by PW23. The relevant portion of his examination in chief and cross-examination in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
Examination in chief "Thereafter, in the month of September, 2007, Ashok Jain again came to my house at about 10/11 AM alongwith some other persons who introduced themselves as CBI personnel. They asked me about the bags which were kept with me by Ashok Jain. I took Ashok Jain and the CBI personnel to the store of my house where the bags were kept. Ashok Jain CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 431 of 522 pointed out towards the said bags and stated that these were his bags and picked them up. We all came out in the drawing room alongwith the bags. The bags were opened in the drawing room and the same were containing many papers. The CBI personnel started to check the papers and did the paper work qua the same till about 3-4 PM. Thereafter, they drew the proceedings on a paper and got the same signed from me as well as Ashok Jain and others also in my presence. Thereafter, they left along with Ashok Jain as well as the papers and the bags."
Cross-examination "Except the above store from which the two bags were recovered, no other room or portion of our house was searched by the CBI.".
18.43 Ld. Defence Counsels also pointed out that PW39 categorically stated that there is/was no basement in his house whereas PW5, during his cross-examination stated that the documents were recovered "from some basement area in the said room". As far as this argument is concerned suffice would be to say that in view of the above detailed discussion the recovery of documents D4 to D29 in terms of Ex. PW5/Y stands duly proved on record. As far as PW5's above statement is concerned, it is to be seen that the said statement regarding the basement was made by PW5 for the first time during his cross-examination. During his examination in chief he had not stated anything about any basement and instead stated that the documents were recovered from a room, while he stayed back in the verandah of the house.
In fact during the cross-examination he had stated as under:-
"I did not enter the room from where the documents were recovered. I cannot exactly tell as to from which particular place the said documents were recovered and I can only say that when the CBI officials came out of the said room, they were having the above documents in two bags and they told that the above bags containing documents were recovered from some basement area of the said CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 432 of 522 room. I did not see the above basement area personally even after I was told about the same."
18.44 This minute inconsistency which is bound to occur with the passage of time does not even remotely create any doubt upon the recovery proceedings.
18.45 It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that documents D4 to D29, allegedly recovered during the course of investigation of RC no. 34/A/2007 do not bear the said RC number or for that matter any RC number and also there is no endorsement or malkhana stamp of RC no. 34/A/2007 on these documents which further creates doubt upon the alleged recovery proceedings, however, I find no merits in the said arguments. Ex. PW5/Y which starts with "POINTING OUT CUM SEIZURE MEMO U/S 27 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IN CASE RC-
DAI-2007-A-0034 Dt. 07.9.2007" which leaves absolutely no doubt that these documents were recovered during the investigation of RC no. 34/A/2007. This fact stands duly corroborated on record by the prosecution witnesses which include PW51, PW5 and PW23 apart from other prosecution witnesses. There was no need to additionally mention the RC number on the recovered documents, whose recovery otherwise stands duly proved on record.
18.46 It was also argued that PW51 D.K. Thakur who is alleged to have carried out search and seizure from Sardana, Meerut stated in his cross-examination that no search was carried out on 07.09.2007 and that the said date has been wrongly CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 433 of 522 written on Ex. PW5/Y. It was argued that according to PW51, the search was rather carried out on 08.09.2007 and therefore the entire story narrated by PW51 is contrary to the record as well as the deposition of other witnesses which further proves that the alleged cum seizure as well as disclosure statement of deceased Ashok Jain is manipulated & false document prepared by the CBI to falsely implicate the accused persons. However, I find no merits in the said arguments. To begin with the reason behind the said inconsistency, the conduct of PW51 has been dealt with in detail in the later part of this judgment. Secondly, though PW51, during his cross-examination, stated as under:-
"When the disclosure statement was recorded, no search proceedings were conducted on that day i.e. 07.09.2007. The date 07.09.2007 written below my signature at point B as well as the signatures at points A, C, D, E, F, G and H is incorrectly recorded on Ex.PW5/Y. The search was not conducted on 07.09.2007, rather it was conducted on 08.09.2007. Vol. The search and seizure proceedings were conducted early in the morning thereafter. Those two independent witnesses had accompanied us for the search and seizure at Sardhana. They were called telephonically to accompany us early in the morning at about 5/6 AM on 08.09.2007 for search and seizure at Sardhana. They were told about the purpose for which they were called alongwith the place to be visited. We left for Sardhana early in the morning at around 6 AM."
18.47 Nonetheless during his examination in chief he had stated as under:-
"On being shown photocopy of pointing out-cum-seizure memo dated 07.09.2007, the witness identifies his signatures at points B, signature of S. S. Bhullar at points D, as he knows the signature of S. S. Bhullar in normal course of official duties, signature of Ashok Jain at point E, signature of Ved Prakash at point C and V.S. Chauhan at point A, the independent witnesses, as they had signed in the presence of the witness, on the same. The photocopy of the pointing out- cum-seizure memo is already Ex. PW5/Y [original in RC34(A)/2007]. The witness has certified Ex. PW5/Y at true copy under his signature at point I."
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 434 of 522 and at that time he did not even once state that the said date i.e. 07.09.2007 as mentioned on Ex. PW5/Y has been incorrectly mentioned by him or that the correct date is 08.09.2007. Furthermore it stands duly established from the testimony of PW5 and PW23 that the recovery and seizure proceedings were indeed carried out on 07.09.2007 and not on 08.09.2007. In fact PW5 in his examination in chief had stated as under:-
"On 06.09.07, I was instructed by my senior officer to visit CBI office on 07.09.07 at 6:00 a.m. On reaching CBI office, I reported to duty officer posted on the main gate in the duty room. I made entry in the duty register regarding my visit. About 7:30 a.m., some officials from CBI came there along with accused Ashok Jain who was in custody. The witness has correctly identified accused Ashok Jain, present in the Court. The said CBI officials included Inspector D.K. Thakur, Inspector S.S. Bhullar, SI Vikas Pathak, SI Anmol and Shri V.S. Chauhan. At request of CBI officials, I accompanied CBI team in a Qualis (private vehicle) for proceeding to Sardhana."
18.48 PW23's deposition in this regard read as under:-
"At this stage, Ld. PP for CBI has shown to the witness D30 already Ex. PW5/Y, which is a copy of pointing cum seizure memo dated 07.09.2007 prepared U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereupon the witness states that it is a copy of the same seizure memo which was prepared at the premises of aforesaid Mr. Arora at Sardhana on 07.09.2007."
18.49 In addition to PW5 and PW23 it stands further established from the testimony of PW52 S.S. Bhullar, who was the part of raiding team and which fact was duly proved by PW5 & PW23, that the recovery was effected vide Ex. PW5/Y on CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 435 of 522 07.09.2007 and not 08.09.2007. The relevant portion of his cross- examination in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
"(At this stage, the witness is asked whether he knows when the pointing-out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW5/Y was prepared qua which witness states that he does not remember the date and after going through the same states that the same was prepared on 07.09.2007, which he otherwise does not remember). Ex.PW5/Y was signed on the same day when it was prepared i.e. 07.09.2007.
The disclosure statement i.e. Ex.PW5/X was prepared on 07.09.2007 in the morning at the CBI headquarters. I alongwith other officials visited Sardhana on 07.09.2007 and left in the morning i.e. between 07.00 A.M. to 08.00 A.M., but I do not remember the exact time."
18.50 In fact Ex. PW5/Y and for that matter Ex. PW5/X are in the handwriting of PW52 and did not PW51 D.K. Thakur. The relevant portion of his cross-examination in this regard read as "Both Ex.PW5/Y and Ex.PW5/X are in my handwriting. I do not remember the facts which have been narrated in Ex.PW5/Y and Ex.PW5/X" . Last but not the least the date as mentioned by all the witnesses against their signatures who were part of recovery proceedings, including PW5, PW23, PW39 and PW52 is 07.09.2007 and not 08.09.2007 which further proves that the recovery proceedings at Sardhana took place on 07.09.2007 and not on 08.09.2007. One person could have made the mistake in writing date i.e. D.K. Thakur, who otherwise was deposing falsely to that extent, and not everyone which itself proves the falsity of his claim.
18.51 At this stage, it will be pertinent to highlight that alongwith the written arguments, the Ld. Public Prosecutors placed on record certified copy of judicial record, proceeding CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 436 of 522 dated 07.9.2007 which further leads no doubt that the recovery from Sardhana was affected only on 07.9.2007 and not on 08.9.2007. The image of the certified copy of the judicial order is reproduced herein:
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 437 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 438 of 522 Preparation of Challans & PIS
19. After the manual draw was held, draw list & draw parchis/slips were prepared the next step in the allotment of the 26 questioned plots was the generation of the challans i.e. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26. These challans admittedly are in the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 439 of 522 handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and they bear the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo. This fact also stands established from para 1 and 2 of the CFSL result Ex. PW44/B (colly) as well as deposition of PW44. In addition to the CFSL Result, the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of deceased Philip Toppo on these challans were duly identified by PW4 and other prosecution witnesses. Moreover, during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Atul Vashisht, when the incriminating material i.e. the challans prepared by him, was put to him, he stated "It is a matter of record" .
19.1 Though it was argued by the Ld. Defence Counsels that first G8 Receipts were issued and then the challans were prepared, however, I find no merits in their submissions and it stands duly proved on record that first the challans were prepared/issued and then only the beneficiary share was deposited and the G8 Receipts issued accordingly. There is absolutely no doubt that it was basis on these challans that G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to PW5/Z2 were issued. According to PW11 Sh. Kundan Lal, the allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- as beneficiary share with the cashier, after receiving challan from the dealing assistant.
19.2 According to PW11 these challans were to be received by the eligible JJ dwellers from the dealing assistant, which in the present case was accused Atul Vashisht. The cash was to be deposited by the eligible JJ dwellers, with the cashier, CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 440 of 522 after receiving the challans from dealing assistant. It stands proved on record, from the uncontroverted testimony of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42, which has been discussed in the later part of this judgment that no cash was deposited by the eligible JJ dwellers and there was no occasion for them to receive the challans from the dealing assistant. The allottees of the questioned plots never appeared before the dealing assistant i.e. accused Atul Vashisht who filled the challans or the Assistant Director deceased Philip Toppo who signed/issued the challans and the cash as per the prosecution case was in fact deposited by accused Atul Vashisht and Sumer Chand Garg (not charge sheeted). The very fact that the challans are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and bear the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo coupled with the fact that the allottees were not even aware about the allotment process in question & thus there was no occasion of them to deposit beneficiary share sufficiently proves, even in the absence of any direct evidence, that it was accused Atul Vashisht who was depositing the beneficiary share. The overall circumstances, the evidence on record point towards only this possibility. It will be pertinent to point out that though the challans were prepared in duplicate, no copy meant for the JJ dwellers was ever handed over to them as not only the JJ dwellers were not eligible but they had not even applied for any allotment nor were they aware as to all that was happening i.e. preparation of challans, deposit of beneficiary share, draw of plots/lots, issuance of provisional slips etc. behind their back. If the cash amount would have been deposited by the allottees then one copy of the challans would CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 441 of 522 have been handed over to the allottess but as stands proved on record no such copy was ever handed over and the challans/both copies/duplicate copies were handed over to the IO by PW37 Sh. S.C. Vats vide Ex. PW37/A (colly).
19.3 It will also be worthwhile to highlight that it was not even once suggested to PW11 that first the beneficiary share was deposited with the cashier and then the challan was issued by the Dealing Assistant. PW11, as discussed above, had specifically stated that it was the allotment section which advised the eligible JJ dwellers to deposit the beneficiary share with the cashier after receiving the challan from the dealing assistant which as discussed above was none other than accused Atul Vashisht. Hence at the time when the eligibility of the JJ dwellers was checked and challans issued to them for depositing the beneficiary share with the cashier the basic documents as regards the eligibility of the JJ dwellers would have been checked by the allotment section, dealing assistant. Verification of their documents i.e. ration cards, identity cards etc. may have taken place subsequently, subsequent to the provisional allotment, but it was the allotment section/dealing assistant accused Atul Vashisht who was checking the documents of the JJ dwellers in whose names the challans were prepared and whose name and other particulars appeared in the survey list. Only upon checking their basic eligibility that the challans were issued to them and they were advised to deposit the beneficiary share with the cashier. As already discussed above in detail, out of the 26 questioned plots, 17 JJ dwellers were already allotted alternate plots, thus they CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 442 of 522 were not entitled for re-allotment/fresh allotment and as far as remaining 9 JJ dwellers are concerned, 4 JJ dwellers namely Rambir, Mohd. Mukhtiyar, Mohd. Wasim and Arun Kumar had not furnished any document at the time of survey as is evident from the survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) and thus there was no material available before the allotment section, dealing assistant Atul Vashisht to verify their eligibility. PW40 Sh. Biri Singh who had conducted the survey along with PW13 had stated, during his cross-examination, as "I used to check the documents of the Slum dwellers during the survey. The duty of the Field Investigator was to check the documents........We used to collect documents from the jhuggi dwellers at the time of our visit to the jhuggi......The said documents which were handed over by the slum dwellers to me for verification, thereafter, the said documents were taken by the Field Investigator". Had the above 4 JJ dwellers possessed the requisite documents, they would have been handed over to PW40 or PW13. Moreover the details would have been there in Ex. PW13/A. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to highlight the following statement made by PW52 during his cross-examination:-
"Que: I put it to you that Dealing Assistant had no role to play in verification of documents submitted by the allottee. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is incorrect to say that Dealing Assistant had no role to play in verification of documents submitted by the allottee as the Dealing Assistant has to check the documents as well as cross check with the survey list in order to verify if the person is eligible for the plot and thereafter a challan for the remittance of money with S&JJ Department is issued by the Dealing Assistant. I had recorded the statement of Kundan Lal to this effect.
I cannot say whether the verification of documents for their genuineness was to be done by the Dealing Assistant or not, however, he was supposed to cross check the documents CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 443 of 522 with the survey list in order to verify if the person is eligible for the plot."
19.4 No doubt PW11 was himself involved in FIR no. 29/01 which was registered by ACB, Delhi with allegations that a fake survey was conducted by him & others on the basis of which and after preparation of forged documents certain ineligible JJ dwellers/squatters were allotted plots, however, merely because PW11 was involved in any such case has no bearing whatsoever on the present case. Defence has completely failed to explain what bearing registration of above FIR has upon the present prosecution case. Undoubtedly from the testimony of prosecution witnesses including those from Slum & JJ Department it is writ large that the said department, some of its officials at the relevant time were working, conducting themselves in a fraudulent, illegal manner which not only tarnished the image of the said department but also caused great loss to the public exchequer apart from severely affecting the eligible JJ dwellers, however, that does not in any manner lessen the culpability of accused persons in the present case. Rather it highlights the sorry state of affairs of the said department, which emboldened the accused persons to hatch the present conspiracy.
19.5 Merely because accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo were witnesses in FIR no. 29/01, wherein PW11 was an accused and subsequently convicted, that by itself is not sufficient to throw away the testimony of PW11. In the absence of any positive evidence, clear motive etc. which was for the defence to prove, it will not be justified to discard the testimony CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 444 of 522 of PW11 as motivated or untrustworthy. The defence could not prove on record that PW11 solely on account of the fact that accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo were witnesses in FIR no. 29/01, was having grudges against them so as to depose as a prosecution witness in the present matter. A careful scrutiny of examination in chief of PW11 reveals that he did not state anything incriminating against either of them and had only deposed about the steps involved in allotment of the alternate plots to the JJ dwellers. This itself puts to rest the arguments raised by Ld. Defence Counsels in this regard.
19.6 As regards the existence, non existence of the Lock Committee or setting up of and existence or non existence of Disputed Cases Eligibility Determination Committee in supersession of the Lock Committee, suffice would be to say that the setting up, existence or non existence of the said committees, their working etc. has nothing to do with the present FIR or the allegations against the accused persons. Same was fairly conceded by Ld. Defence Counsels, during the course of arguments, who in fact explained that the questions regarding the said committees were put to PW11 and for that matter other prosecution witnesses as the said issue was involved in other matters and the evidence was recorded simultaneously in those matters as well.
19.7 No doubt PW11 during his cross-examination stated as under:-
"It is correct that initially the allotment made to the jhuggi dwellers was on provisional basis. The final allotment made CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 445 of 522 to the jhuggi dwellers after verification of the documents and then only permanent allotment letter was issued to them. It is correct that after provisional allotment, the documents were verified by the department and if the documents were not found in order, the provisional allotment used to be cancelled. The verification of documents, i.e. ration card, election I Card etc was used to be conducted by Assistant Director or any equivalent officer of the same rank or any officer authorized by him. It is correct that the concerned officials of SUR Section of S&JJ Department had been following the policy of relocation of squatters without verification of ration cards and therefore, cannot be held responsible for not verifying the ration cards and other documents prior to provisional allotment."
,however, it is of no significance that the allotment of the questioned plots was only provisional or that the final allotment was to be made after verification of the documents of the JJ dwellers. Similarly the fact that the department could cancel the provisional allotment or that the physical possession of the plots was not handed over does not have any bearing on the culpability of the accused persons. The prosecution has successfully proved on record that a conspiracy was hatched for fraudulent allotment of alternate plots for their sale in the market, which plots otherwise could not have been sold. Forged & fabricated documents were prepared not only for allotment purposes but also for sale of the allotted plots pursuant to, to give effect to the conspiracy.
19.8 Ld. Defence Counsels also vehemently argued that PW11 admitted that he had initiated office notes dated 08.01.2002 as well as 12.01.2001 i.e. Ex. PW11/DA & Ex. PW11/DB, which were approved by the Deputy Commissioner/ Competent Authority (S&JJ), according to which notes alternate CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 446 of 522 plot could be allotted to a squatter even if his name did not figure in the joint survey report, subject to verification of the documents. Furthermore he admitted that the policy of Delhi Government under which relocation schemes were implemented did not specifically provide that the ration cards should be first verified from the concerned authority, before considering their case for allotment which admissions according to Ld. Defence Counsels completely dislodges the prosecution case as the accused persons cannot be held liable for issuance of Provisional Identification Slips in the name of JJ dwellers without verification of their ration cards etc., as they were following the policy in letter and spirit.
19.9 However, I completely fail to understand what significance the said office notes or PW11's admission in that regard has in the present matter. The defence could not raise even faintest of doubt upon the joint survey or the survey list prepared pursuant to the survey. In fact it would not be wrong to say that there is no real dispute as regards the genuineness, authenticity of the joint survey or the survey list in the present matter. What is in dispute is the manual draw on the basis of which the provisional allotment was made in a fraudulent manner.
19.10 Both the above office notes pertain to the year 2002 and 2001 respectively. Even if the Slum & JJ Department continued with the said policy, as per the office notes, it is to be seen that these two offices notes deal with the cases of those JJ dwellers whose jhuggis were found locked at the time of survey CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 447 of 522 or those who could not furnish ration card at the time of survey. The issue before this court is entirely different. In the case at hand the 26 questioned plots were allotted to those JJ dwellers whose names appeared in the survey list Ex. PW13/A. Jhuggis of none of the JJ dwellers who were allotted the questioned plots were found locked at the time of survey.
19.11 No doubt as per survey list Ex. PW13/A 4 JJ dwellers namely Rambir, Mohd. Mukhtiyar, Mohd. Wasim and Arun Kumar, who were also allotted the questioned plots, could not furnish the ration cards at the time of survey and as per the office notes Ex. PW11/DA and Ex. PW11/DB their case for provisional allotment could be considered by the Slum & JJ Department but there is ample evidence on record which proves that these JJ dwellers could not have been allotted the questioned plots as they were not at all eligible for the allotment for the reason that they did not have the requisite documents i.e. ration cards prior to 1998. It stands established on record especially from the testimony of PW6, PW12 and CFSL result Ex. PW44/B & Ex. PW47/B that the ration cards, the identity cards furnished purportedly by them/on their behalf were forged & fabricated documents. As far as these JJ dwellers namely Rambir, Mohd. Mukhtiyar, Mohd. Wasim and Arun Kumar are concerned, the very fact that they could not furnish ration cards at the time of survey further proves that the ration cards prepared in their name were forged & fabricated, which otherwise has been dealt with in detail above. Had these dwellers been possessing ration cards or other identity documents, they would have furnished the same at CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 448 of 522 the time of survey itself. It will also be pertinent to highlight that as far as JJ dwellers namely Kishan, Sita Ram, Harihar, Samsuddin, Salik are concerned their ration cards as per survey list Ex. PW13/A (colly) are/were of the year 18.06.2002, 18.06.2002, 15.12.1996, 18.06.2002 & 27.06.1996 respectively and thus they were not entitled to 18 sq. meter plots but only entitled to 12 sq. meter plots, still they were issued the challans and allotted plots vide manual draw Ex. PW4/B. The Dealing Assistant/accused Atul Vashisht cannot explain how the Manual Draw was held and these JJ dwellers, despite being not eligible were allotted alternate plots.
19.12 As per CFSL result Ex. PW44/B, the handwriting at point Q678 on the Delhi Administration I card Ex. PW5/E4 in the name of Rambir, is of co-accused Surjeet Singh. Similarly, the writings at points Q682, Q684 on the ration card Ex. PW5/E3 are in the handwriting of co-accused Lal Mani whose writing as well as thumb impressions also appear/are affixed in the sale documents prepared in the name of said JJ dweller. Moreover co- accused Vijay Kumar's signature appear on these sale documents at points Q687, Q693, Q698, Q702 and Q705. Same is the position qua the documents i.e. ration card, Delhi Administration I card in the name of Mohd. Mukhtiyar, Mohd. Wasim and Arun Kumar which has already been discussed in detail above. In fact as discussed above, the PIS Ex. PW5/M1 in the name of Mohd. Mukhtiyar bears the thumb impression of accused Mohan Lal at point Q253.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 449 of 522 19.13 As also discussed above the draw, manner in which the draw was held is itself fraudulent. The very fact that the challans were never taken by/handed over to them and also the fact that their draw slips were recovered from the house of accused Mohan Lal and the sale documents in respect of alternate plots allotted to them were recovered from Sardhana along with the documents of other JJ dwellers sufficiently proves that the allotment in their favour was also absolutely fraudulent. Furthermore just like the documents of the other JJ dwellers of the questioned plots, their sale documents were also prepared for the purpose of sale of these plots in the open market. These documents as stands proved on record were fraudulently prepared, were forged & fabricated documents.
19.14 Moreover according to Ex PW11/DA, though not at the time of survey, however, at the time of shifting the jhuggi dwellers produced all the relevant documents and requested for providing alternative. Also JJ dwellers who did not have the ration cards were to submit the affidavit to the effect that in case of non verification of his/her ration card, his/her share money will be forfeited and the provisional allocation would be cancelled. The note was approved with directions that such undertaking be taken from the JJ dwellers. There is no such affidavit or undertaking of the above JJ dwellers in the present case. The relevant portion of Ex. PW11/DA in this regard is reproduced hereunder:-
"During survey, it has been observed that number of Locked cases have been recorded in the joint survey list CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 450 of 522 and some cases are indicated as without Ration Card. At the time of shifting, the jhuggi dwellers produced all the requisite documents and requested for providing alternative..........
As you are aware that SUR Section has shifted number of jhuggi families on the basis of Kacha/Provisional parchi subject to cross verification, but now cross verification has not been done by the area FSO. Since these jhuggi families have been shifted on the basis of Kacha/Provisional Parchi, we may also accept the share money of the locked/without ration card cases subject to the condition that the dweller will submit the affidavit stating that in case of non-verification of the Ration Card, his/her share money will be forfeited and the provisional allocation will be cancelled by the Deptt."
19.15 Similarly, Ex. PW11/DB dealt with those JJ dwellers who were having ration cards prior to 1998 or those who were having ration card issued during the year 1999 and were also having documents prior to 1998 like identity card, death/birth certificate, LIC policy etc. but their names did not appear in the joint survey list, however, as discussed above, names of all the allottees of 26 questioned plots appear in the survey list. Moreover even Ex. PW11/DB provided that the said JJ dwellers were to produce affidavits along with attested photograph from First Class Magistrate, which is squarely missing from the present case.
"The representation of the jhuggi families stated that the Joint survey of this cluster was conducted in the year 1997 with the result names of some of the jhuggie families are not appearing in the joint survey list and requesting for providing alternative. Further, the representatives of the jhuggie dwellers has stated that many jhuggi families who entered in the jhuggi cluster during 1998 have not been covered. With the result they are not being considered for providing alternative. They are pleading that all such families who are possessing documentary proof like Ration card prior to 1998 or the jhuggi dweller who have Ration card issued during the year 1999 and having documents prior to 1998 like Identity card, Death/Birth Certificate, LIC Policy, Medical treatment proof, bank account, driving licence etc. but their names are not appearing in joint CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 451 of 522 survey list may also be considered for providing alternative. In case the person is not possessing Ration card of 1999, he will have to produce proof issued by Food & Supply Deptt. to the effect that he had been issued ration card during the year 1999.
Keeping in view the request received from jhuggi dwellers, we may consider their request for providing alternative subject to the submission of documentary proof as mentioned above irrespective of their name appearing in the joint survey list of 1997. But the dweller will have to submit an affidavit alongwith the attested photograph from the Ist class Magistrate stating that his statement and the documentary proof submitted by him are genuine. In case if it is found incorrect the department may forfeit his share money and take action against the dweller."
19.16 For similar reasons Ex. PW11/DC dated 07.10.2002 vide which 6 copies of preamble to "POLICY WITH REGARD TO PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE TO THE JHUGGI DWELLERS WHOSE NAMES ARE NOT APPEARING IN THE JOINT SURVEY LIST BUT POSSESSING REQUISITE DOCUMENTS LIKE RATION CARDS ETC. ISSUED PRIOR TO 31.12.1998" was sent to the Slum Committee/Standing Committee/Corporation for approval and Ex. PW11/DD are of no help to the defence. Firstly, as already discussed above the 26 questioned plots were allotted to those JJ dwellers whose names appear in the joint survey list. Out of these 26 questioned plots, 17 JJ dwellers were already allotted the alternate plots. 5 JJ dwellers were not eligible for 18 sq. meter plot as per policy and 4 did not have the requisite documents i.e. ration cards, identity cards etc. Secondly and most importantly documents purportedly furnished at the time of provisional allotment by all the allottees of the questioned plots were forged & fabricated documents. Hence no question arises of these allottees of questioned plots possessing requisite documents.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 452 of 522 19.17 The image of the relevant portion of Ex. PW11/DD is reproduced hereunder:-
19.18 So Ex. PW11/DD also dealt with those JJ dwellers whose names did not appear in the joint survey list but they did possess the requisite documents. It was only upon verification of their documents i.e. ration cards that the request of JJ dweller for providing alternate plot could be considered.
19.19 As far as Ex. PW11/DE is concerned, the image of same is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 453 of 522 19.20 Ex. PW11/DE merely states that there was no specific instruction contained in the policy regarding verification of ration cards before making allotment to the squatter families.
This has already been discussed above in detail. Though no verification was required but it was incumbent to check the eligibility of the JJ dwellers as per the survey list and the documents i.e. ration card etc. As stated by PW11 " the allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers........" , which statement remained unchallenged during the cross-examination, it was the duty of the allotment section to see the eligibility of the JJ dwellers. It stands proved CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 454 of 522 on record that most of the JJ dwellers who were allotted the questioned plots did not seek any allotment as they had already been allotted alternate plots, everything was happening behind their back and the remaining JJ dwellers, who also had not sought any allotment, did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Further it makes no difference that the allotment was on purely provisional basis. Fact remains fraudulent allotment was made and forged, fabricated documents were prepared for this purpose.
19.21 PW8 Sh. Ramachandran proved letter dated 11.07.2008 i.e. Ex. PW8/A vide which he had sent certified zerox copies of the receipt side of the cash book dated 12.07.2007 and 15.07.2007, total 5 sheets i.e. Mark PW8/1 {also Ex. PW26/A (colly)} which cash receitps bear the signatures of PW26 Sh. A.P. Mitra. PW8 proved that these entries in the sheets are in respect of the relocation charges received from the JJ dwellers against issue of G8 receipts. It has already been discussed above that the amount of Rs. 7000/- for which G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2 were issued and for which the entries Mark PW8/1 {also Ex. PW26/A (colly)} were made in the cashbook were not deposited by the JJ dwellers. Same stands squarely proved on record, particularly from the testimony of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42.
19.22 The above amount was in fact deposited by accused Atul Vashisht and not the JJ dwellers/allottees of the questioned plots. Though there is no direct evidence to that effect and PW10 Raju Punaji Siriskar according to whose statement u/s 161 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 455 of 522 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex. PW10/DA it was accused Atul Vashisht who had deposited the said amounts did not depose in terms of his said statement but there is enough circumstantial evidence which points towards the same. On meticulous consideration of the overall facts & circumstances of the case, the evidence on record, particularly the fact that the challans on the basis of which the amount was deposited are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht & bear the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo, the fact that the JJ dwellers/allottees of the questioned plots in whose names the challans were prepared had never applied for allotment and had not deposited amount of Rs. 7000/-, no doubt remains that it was accused Atul Vashisht who had deposited the said amount as beneficiary share.
19.23 According to PW8, it was the duty of the cashier to receive the amount of Rs. 7000/- from the JJ dwellers, however, he also stated that he does not know the name of the exact person who had received the money, as Cashier, because according to him Head Cashier sometimes authorized his Assistant Cashier also to receive the money from the relocation site. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder:-
"The amounts of Rs.7000/- received with the application were being received and deposited in the bank by Cashier of SLUM and JJ Deptt. (Vol. To duly receive the above amounts was also the job of the Cashier).
Q: Who was the cashier in the present case who had taken the money of 26 applications of this case and deposited the same in the bank?
Ans. I do not remember the name of the exact person who had received the money as cashier because Head Cashier sometimes authorized his Assistant Cashier also to receive the money from the relocation site. However, at the headquarter these amounts were being received by the Head Cashier CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 456 of 522 himself. All the moneys so collected were deposited by the Head Cashier in the bank and Shri Purushotam Kumar was the Head Cashier at that time...........
Throughout the entire period of 1990 to 2010, Shri Purushottam Kumar was the cashier. The cashier cannot legally delegate his powers to accept the cash. Vol. The cashier was always being assisted by one or other Assistant Cashier, who also used to accept the cash amounts.
Q: Are you aware that during the period pertaining to this case, i.e. in the year 2007, was there any person working as Assistant Cashier and helping the cashier Shri Purushottam Kumar in acceptance of the cash amount?
Ans. Yes, one Sh. Raju Punaji Siriskar was the Assistant Cashier in the year 2007 and he also used to accept the cash amounts, besides Sh. Purushottam Kumar, but I can say it only for the period from July, 2007, till when I was in the SLUM and JJ Department. However, sometimes, on the specific request of the Director, SUR, some LDCs were also being deputed by us for helping the cashier in acceptance of cash deposits for different places.
19.24 He had also stated as under:-
"It is also volunteered that during the departmental enquiry against the then cashier Shri Purushotam Kumar, the above charges against him were proved and he already stands removed from service, whereas the enquiries against the other persons are still pending, and orders for recovery of the above amount from Purushottam Kumar has already been passed by the department)."
19.25 Though Purushottam Kumar was the Head Cashier but apart from him his Assistant Cashier was also accepting the relocation charges from the JJ dwellers. In the case at hand it was PW10 Raju Punaji Siriskar who had accepted the beneficiary share/relocation charges and issued G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2 but as discussed above it was not the JJ dwellers who had deposited/paid the beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/- and rather it was accused Atul Vashisht who deposited the said cash/beneficiary share.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 457 of 522 19.26 PW10 Raju Punaji Sirsikar proved that in the year 2000 he was posted in the Accounts Branch, was posted as Cashier also and at that time Purshottam Kumar was the Assistant Director (Cash). He proved that the cashbook and other relevant records were maintained by Sh. Purshottam Kumar. Though he claimed that the amount of Rs.7,000/- of each slip was received by Shri Purshottam Kumar, he merely used to issue the receipt and the amounts were deposited by the allottees with Shri Purshottam Kumar who received the cash along with the challan, however, I have absolutely no hesitation in concluding that to that extent, PW10 had made false statement in the court.
19.27 No doubt, during his cross-examination PW10 had stated "I had never stated to the CBI official that accused Atul Vashisht used to deposit the challans or any cash amounts. In my presence, the accused Atul Vashisht had also never deposited any challan forms or cash amounts with any person of our department." however, I have absolutely no doubt that he was deposing falsely to that extent. During the course of investigation his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded which is on record as Ex. PW10/DA. According to this statement, it was accused Atul Vashisht who used to bring the challans and deposit the cash i.e. beneficiary shares upon which, he used to issue G8 Receipts. The relevant image of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 458 of 522 19.28 In terms of his statement Ex. PW10/DA, during his deposition he identified the G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex.
PW5/Z2 as having been filled by him as well as bearing his initials, which G8 receipts were issued once the beneficiary share was paid/deposited in terms of the challans Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 at points Q1558 to Q1661. He duly identified the handwriting & signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo on the said challans.
19.29 No doubt, during his cross-examination, PW10 stated that he had not seen accused Atul Vashisht signing the documents as above or signing or writing any other document CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 459 of 522 and that he identified the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht because name Atul is written in the signatures, however, at the same time he stated "It is wrong to suggest that as I have never seen accused Atul Vashisht signing and writing on any document, therefore, I wrongly identified his signatures as well as his writings". Hence testimony of PW10 remained shaky on certain aspects but the same has not affected the prosecution case in any manner as there is due corroboration in the form of testimony of other witnesses and CFSL result as discussed above which leaves no doubt that the signatures and handwriting on the documents in question are of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo.
19.30 It will be worthwhile to mention that challans Ex. PW4/D1 to D26, (C4) which PW10 claimed were handed over to him by Purshottam Kumar have been admittedly filled in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and they bear the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo. This fact is not only undisputed but stands duly proved vide CFSL result Ex. PW44/B apart from testimony of other prosecution witnesses as has been discussed in detail in this judgment. Furthermore during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. while answering question no. 281 and 691 accused Atul Vashisht stated as " It is a matter of record. However, I being the Dealing Assistant in SUR section of Slum & JJ Department at the relevant time, used to prepare Challans......" and "....... I was posted as Dealing Assistant in SUR section of Slum & JJ Department at the relevant time and the nature of job of Dealing Assistant was to prepare CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 460 of 522 Challans........" which statements further leaves no doubt that the challans in question are in his handwriting.
19.31 As against his statement Ex. PW10/DA, during his deposition PW10 claimed that he never received cash from any person as part of his duty as a Cashier and the same was received by Sh. Purshottam Kumar. The relevant portion of his cross- examination by Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard read as under:-
"I never received cash amounts from any persons as a part of my duty as a Cashier. The nature of duties of Sh. Purshottam Kumar, Assistant Director, was to receive cash amounts, to visit the banks for deposit etc. of the amounts and to maintain accounts etc........................The duty of collection of cash amount from the allottees of the relocation scheme of jhuggies was of Sh. Purshottam Kumar (Vol. I had never taken any cash amount from the allottees).....................I was not asked by the CBI officials during the course of investigation as to who was the officer who used to collect the cash receipt and therefore, I never told them that the cash used to be collected by Shri Purshottam Kumar (Confronted with portion A to A of the statement dated 11.07.2008 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it is stated that, "On being asked, I state that most of the time, Sh. Atul Vashisht, UDC and Sh. Sumer Chand Garg, AD of SUR Division of SLUM and JJ department used to bring the challans and deposit cash to me and I used to issue G8 A receipt in duplicate in the name of individuals/plots allottees as per the challans and give to them"). The above statement is Ex.PW10/DA..........................I had never stated to the CBI official that accused Atul Vashisht used to deposit the challans or any cash amounts. In my presence, the accused Atul Vashisht had also never deposited any challan forms or cash amounts with any person of our department. I do not now remember which document was shown to me by the CBI officer during the course of investigation."
19.32 However, the above statement is inconsistent with, contrary to his statement Ex. PW10/DA as was recorded during the investigation and there is little doubt that PW10 was making CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 461 of 522 false statement as above. To begin with it has emerged from the testimony of PW8 that apart from the Head Cashier i.e. Purushottam Kumar, the cashier/Assistant Cashier who in this case is PW10 Raju Punaji Siriskar also used to accept cash from the allottees. The G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2 were filled by PW10 and also bears his signatures as was duly proved by him during his examination in chief. Apart from the G8 receipts the signatures of PW10 also appear at the bottom on the challans against/ in front of "Receipt Payment vide R. No." and against the same is mentioned the G8 receipt number. The fact that the challans bear his signatures/receiving as regards the amount stands further proved from PW10's statement made during his cross-examination which read as " I used to sign sometimes on copy I of the challan along with the G8 receipt and sometimes copy II of the challan along with the G8 receipt, and sometimes on both copies of challan along with G8 receipt."
19.33 Hence it was only on receipt of Rs. 7000/- i.e. beneficiary share that PW10 would have given the said receiving on the challan & issued the G8 receipt accordingly and not otherwise because once he acknowledges the receipt of the said amount then he becomes accountable for the said amount. His claim that the said amount/cash was collected/taken by Purushottam Kumar is absolute falsehood. During his cross- examination by Ld. Defence counsel he had stated "I am not aware as to what was being done with the cash amounts received by Sh. Purshottam Kumar or when and whether the same were being deposited with the bank by him...........Shri Purshottam Kumar used to hand over to me challans for issuing G8 receipts CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 462 of 522 without handing over cash to me. Thereafter, I used to issue G8 receipts and hand over the same along with challans to Shri Purshottam Kumar........................ Sh. Purshottam Kumar never handed over the collected cash amounts to me and he only handed over to me the challan forms. The challan forms which were handed over to me were not blank, but duly filled in...................Since 2000 the practicing of receiving challan from Sh. Purshottam was being continued by me till 2007. During the aforesaid period, I issued the G8 receipt without receiving any physical cash against the receipts. Vol. the cash was used to be received by Sh. Purshottam and he sent challans to me for issuing G8 receipt." I am absolutely not inclined to believe that PW10 without receiving the cash would acknowledge the receipt of cash on challan, sign the same as a proof of receiving and also issue the G8 receipts. Furthermore Sh. Purshottam Kumar was the Assistant Director (Cash) at the relevant time and PW10 was the Cashier. It absolutely sans logic that the cash would be accepted by the Assistant Director (cash) and not the cashier. This is not how the hierarchy works in any department.
19.34 Ld. Defence counsels vehemently argued that the prosecution story that the allottees of the questioned plots were fake & fictitious persons or that they did not deposit the beneficiary share/cash amount or the same was deposited by accused Atul Vashisht stands further negated in view of PW10's statement, who categorically stated that the allottees of all the G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2, as issued by him, had CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 463 of 522 personally come to the office when the above receipts were issued and the cash amount was deposited by them. It was argued that if these allottees had personally come to deposit the cash then no question whatsoever arises of the said allottees being fake & fictitious. However, I find no merits in their arguments.
19.35 No doubt PW10, during his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, stated as under:-
"The allottees of all the G8 receipts (Cash Receipts) issued by me, as referred to and identified by me during my examination in chief, had personally come in our office when the above receipts were issued and the cash amounts were deposited by them............I had seen Sh. Purshottam Kumar accepting cash amounts from different allottees."
19.36 However the said statement itself proves that PW10 was making false claims as regards not having received the cash/beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/- from accused Atul Vashisht. On one hand PW10 had categorically stated that he had never received cash amount from any person as part of his duty as a Cashier and that the duty of collection of cash amount from the allottees was of Pushottam Kumar. The relevant portion of his cross-examination in this regard read as under:-
"I never received cash amounts from any persons as a part of my duty as a Cashier. The nature of duties of Sh. Purshottam Kumar, Assistant Director, was to receive cash amounts, to visit the banks for deposit etc. of the amounts and to maintain accounts etc. The allottees of all the G8 receipts (Cash Receipts) issued by me, as referred to and identified by me during my examination in chief, had personally come in our office when the above receipts were issued and the cash amounts were deposited by them. The duty of collection of cash amount from the allottees of the relocation scheme of jhuggies was of Sh. Purshottam Kumar (Vol. I had never taken any cash amount from the allottees).
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 464 of 522 19.37 If PW10 was never receiving the cash from any person much least the allottees and the duty to collect the cash from the allottees was of Purshottam Kumar then I completely fail to understand how and on what basis he claimed that the allottees of the questioned plots had personally come to the office when the cash amount was deposited. Furthermore he had stated as under:-
"I and Sh. Purshottam Kumar used to sit in the same room, but at different places and there was a considerable gap between us. I am not aware about the system /process of acceptance of challans and cash amount from the allottees of the above schemes.............. There were no timings fixed for the deposit of cash amounts by the allottees and the same could be deposited at any time within the working hours."
19.38 It is evident from the deposition of PW10 that he was not speaking entirely truthfully for reasons best known to him. He kept on changing his stand and his testimony on certain aspects remained shaky. Though he stated " The duty of collection of cash amount from the allottees of the relocation scheme of jhuggies was of Sh. Purshottam Kumar ", however, in the later part of his cross-examination he stated " I was not asked by the CBI officials during the course of investigation as to who was the officer who used to collect the cash receipt and therefore, I never told them that the cash used to be collected by Shri Purshottam Kumar".
19.39 That being the position i.e. considerable gap between his seat and that of Sh. Purshottam Kumar and there being no fixed time of deposit of cash/beneficiary share by the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 465 of 522 allottees, he could not have personally seen the allottees depositing the cash and therefore he made false claim during his deposition to that extent. Moreover it stands established from the testimony of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW31, PW33, PW34 and PW42 that they had not deposited any amount for which G8 receipts Ex. PW5/L2, Ex. PW5/U2, Ex. PW5/F2, Ex. PW5/B2, Ex. PW5/I2, Ex.PW5/A2 and Ex. PW5/S2 were issued. Once they had not visited the Cashier nor deposited the amount, then how PW10 could have handed over the receipts to them. Moreover, once these JJ dwellers had not visited the Slum & JJ Department to deposit the cash, how come the Cashier i.e. PW10 would have seen them is unfathomable. This itself proves that PW10 was making false claim to that extent to save the accused persons. The very fact that all these receipts and other documents were recovered vide Ex. PW5/Y from the house of Vineet Arora/Gopal Arora itself belies PW10's statement to that extent because if indeed the receipts after issuance were handed over to those persons who had deposited the amount, then there was no occasion for them to be recovered from the house of Vineet Arora/Gopal Arora. The relevant portion of cross-examination of PW10 in this regard read as under:-
"Shri Purshottam Kumar used to hand over to me challans for issuing G8 receipts without handing over cash to me. Thereafter, I used to issue G8 receipts and hand over the same along with challans to Shri Purshottam Kumar."
19.40 As per the above statement, it was on the basis of challans i.e. Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 handed over to him by Purshottam Kumar that he had issued G8 receipts and thereafter he used to handover those receipts along with the challans to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 466 of 522 Purshottam Kumar, therefore there was no occasion for him to claim that the allottees of questioned plots, to whom G8 receipts were allegedly issued, had personally come to the office when the receipts were issued and cash amount was deposited as as per his claims merely on the basis of challans handed over to him by Sh. Pursushottam Kumar that he was issuing the G8 receipts. Nonetheless what emerges from his deposition as well as statement Ex. PW10/DA is that first the challans were filled and it was only thereafter that the G8 receipt were issued and not vice-versa as was otherwise claimed by Ld. Defence Counsels.
19.41 PW10 during his examination in chief had also stated as under:-
"The receipts were issued on deposit of sum of Rs.7,000/- for allotment of plot to JJ dwellers and were prepared in triplicate. One copy was retained as a counterfoil while the two copies were handed over to the persons who filed the challan along with the amount. The second carbon copy of the receipt was submitted by the allottees with the concerned official of SUR Section. He proved that G8 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2 are filled in his handwriting and bears his initials at point A on the same."
19.42 As against this during his cross-examination he stated as under:-
"I am not aware about the system /process of acceptance of challans and cash amount from the allottees of the above schemes...............Shri Purshottam Kumar used to hand over to me challans for issuing G8 receipts without handing over cash to me. Thereafter, I used to issue G8 receipts and hand over the same along with challans to Shri Purshottam Kumar."
19.43 Hence though during his examination in chief he explained the process of deposit of beneficiary share and issuance of G8 receipts, however, during his cross-examination CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 467 of 522 he claimed that he was not aware about the said process which contrary statements itself creates grave doubt upon the demeanor of the witness. Moreover according to his examination in chief he claimed the G8 receipts were issued in triplicate, one copy was retained as a counterfoil while the two copies were handed over to the persons who filed the challan along with the amount. Whereas according to his cross-examination he handed over the G8 receipts and the challans to Sh. Purushottam Kumar. Not only these two statements are inconsistent but it stands proved on record that the original G8 receipts were recovered from Sardhana whereas, the challans were never handed over to the allottees for the reasons that there was no allottee, of the questioned plots, who had deposited the cash amount and who was to be accordingly handed over the said documents. It will also be pertinent to highlight that the challans were filled in duplicate, one copy to be handed over to the allottees making the payment, however, the duplicate copy was never handed over to the allottees and as has emerged on record vide Ex. PW37/A. 19.44 Having discussed the same, I am constrained to observe that the then Ld. Public Prosecutor, for reasons best known to him, did not seek declaration of PW10 as a hostile witness, did not cross-examine him though his examination in chief and cross-examination by ld. Defence Counsels as regards deposit of cash/beneficiary share and handing over of challans was adverse to the prosecution's interest. This absolutely sans logic and appears to be fishy. Also the challans though filled in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht, the receiving regarding CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 468 of 522 the receipt of payment is given by PW10, it is his signatures which appear on all the challans at the bottom where it is written as "receipt payment vide R. No. Cashier (S&JJ) MCD". Fact remains that it was he who received the payment. During his cross-examination he had stated "I used to sign sometimes on copy I of the challan along with the G8 receipt and sometimes copy II of the challan along with the G8 receipt, and sometimes on both copies of challan alogn with G8 receipt". Not only he gave the receiving as a Cashier on the challans but the G8 receipts were also issued, signed by him. In my opinion though cited as a witness, it cannot be completely ruled out that PW10 was hand in gloves with the accused persons. This is why he did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, IO for reasons best known to him did not cite, did not examine Sh. Purshottam as a witness. This was another shortcoming in the investigation by the IO.
19.45 Though Ld. Defence Counsels pointed out that the amount deposited vide the above receipts and in fact amount to the tune of Rs. 19.44 crores deposited with the Slum & JJ Department was embezzled regarding which FIR no. 12/11, U/s 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act r/o Sections 409/420/468/471/120B IPC at PS ACB, New Delhi was registered wherein PW8 was also an accused, however, suffice would be to say that this court is not concerned with the said FIR or with the embezzlement of amount deposited with the Slum & JJ Department. For the purpose of present trial what is important and as stands proved on record is that cash amount of Rs. 7000/- each was deposited for which G8 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 469 of 522 receipts Ex. PW5/A2 to Ex. PW5/Z2 were issued, however, the amount was never deposited by those JJ dwellers, in whose name the G8 receipts were issued and entries in the cashbook Mark PW8/1 {also Ex. PW26/A (colly)} were made.
19.46 In addition to the challans, PW10 had also identified the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of Philip Toppo (since deceased) on the PIS Ex. PW5/A1, Ex. PW5/B1, Ex. PW5/C1, Ex. PW5/D1, Ex. PW5/E1, Ex. PW5/F1, Ex. PW5/G1, Ex. PW5/H1, Ex. PW5/I1, Ex. PW5/J1, Ex. PW5/K1, Ex. PW5/L1, Ex. PW5/M1, Ex. PW5/N1, Ex. PW5/O1, Ex. PW4/C1, Ex. PW4/C2, Ex. PW4/C3, Ex. PW4/C4, Ex. PW4/C5, Ex. PW4/C6, Ex. PW4/C7, Ex. PW4/C8, Ex. PW4/C9, Ex. PW4/C10 and Ex. PW4/C11 at points Q547, Q579, Q611, Q643, Q676, Q708, Q742, Q773, Q805, Q838, Q871, Q904, Q937, Q970, Q1002, Q1035, Q1068, Q1101, Q1134, Q1166, Q1199, Q1232, Q1265, Q1298, Q1331 & Q1363 and Q548, Q580, Q612, Q644, Q677, Q709, Q741, Q774, Q806, Q839, Q872, Q905, Q938, Q971, Q1003, Q1036, Q1069, Q1102, Q1135, Q1167, Q1200, Q1233, Q1266, Q1299, Q1332 & Q1364 respectively. He also identified the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and signatures of Philip Toppo (since deceased) on the challans Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 at points Q1558 to Q1661, as well as on the draw slips Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A52 at points Q1396 to Q1551. He had also identified the signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Philip Toppo on the plot/draw list conducted through parchi system (manual) i.e. Ex. PW4/B at points Q1553 & Q1556 and Q1554 & Q1557 respectively.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 470 of 522 19.47 No doubt during his cross-examination PW10 did state that he had never worked with deceased Phillp Toppo, in the office under his supervision, had never seen him signing and that he had earlier never seen the above documents on which he had identified the signatures of deceased Phillp Toppo, nonetheless, he did identify the signatures as discussed above and went on to reiterate, during the cross-examination, "I cannot identify handwritings of accused Phillip Toppo, but can identify his signatures only.........CBI officials had never told me about the signatures of accused Phillip Toppo". Having worked in Accounts Section from 2001 to 2007 i.e. for around 6 years, same was sufficient time for him to be acquainted with the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo. Hence the signatures were duly identified by him and in addition to his testimony the fact that the said documents contain the signatures of deceased Phillip Toppo stands further corroborated from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and the FSL result. In fact as already discussed above, it is not disputed that these documents do bear the handwriting/signatures of accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo.
19.48 It is not a mere coincidence that all the challans Ex. PW4/D1 to Ex. PW4/D26 are in the handwriting of accused Atul Vashisht and are in respect of the questioned plots but the same is rather on account of conspiracy hatched by him in collusion with the co-accused persons. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels vehemently argued that first the G8 receipts CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 471 of 522 were issued and on the basis of the same, the challans were prepared. It was argued that the challans being filled/prepared on the basis of G8 receipts issued by PW10, accused Atul Vashisht cannot be faulted, fastened with any criminal liability for issuing the challans. In support of the said arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels relied upon office order dated 30.05.2003 which is part of Ex. DW2/D (colly) as well as office noting/file of the Slum & JJ Department dated 28.05.2003. It was also argued that as per these documents, it was the diarist along with record keeper who were to be the custodian of all PIS issued by the SUR Section, therefore, it was for these officials to explain as to how the PIS went missing from the office, their custody/possession and not accused Atul Vashisht whose role was merely to prepare the PIS and handover the same to the diarist, diary/dispatch clerk, record keeper. It was argued that no investigation whatsoever was carried out on this aspect and there is no evidence whatsoever to connect accused Atul Vashisht with the missing PIS or their alleged recovery from Sardhana. It was argued that the IO did not conduct a fair investigation or else he would have definitely investigated the above aspects. However, I find no merits in the said arguments.
19.49 As far as preparation, issuance of G8 receipts and challans are concerned, it stands proved on record that first the challans were prepared and then only the G8 receipts were issued on the basis of challans. In addition to the testimony of PW10 who deposed that "Shri Purshottam Kumar used to hand over to me challans for issuing G8 receipts without handing over cash to me. Thereafter, I used to issue G8 receipts and hand over the same along CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 472 of 522 with challans to Shri Purshottam Kumar", it further stands proved from the testimony of PW11 Kundan Lal who deposed that " the allotment section, on the basis of the joint survey report advises the eligible jhuggi dwellers to deposit an amount of Rs. 7000/- as beneficiary share with the cashier, after receiving challan from the dealing assistant" that first the challan was prepared and thereafter the beneficiary share was deposited, G8 receipt issued. It will be worthwhile to note that not even once, during the cross- examination of PW10, a suggestion was given to him that he was deposing falsely to that extent or that first the G8 receipts were issued and on the basis of those receipts the challans were prepared/issued by the dealing assistant. Furthermore, PW52 during his cross-examination stated as under:-
"Que: I put it to you that only after issuance of G8 receipts, challans were used to be prepared by the Dealing Assistant on the direction of Assistant Director (Cash), who used to check the documents submitted by the allottee. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is incorrect to say that only after issuance of G8 receipts, challans were used to be prepared by the Dealing Assistant as the G8 receipts are issued based on the challan itself."
19.50 Once PW52 made the above statement no suggestion whatsoever was given to him that he was deposing falsely to that extent and accordingly I find no reasons to disbelieve him or the testimony of other prosecution witnesses in this regard.
19.51 As far as office order dated 30.05.2003 which is part of Ex. DW2/D (colly) is concerned, at the outset I have serious doubts as regards the genuineness, authenticity of the said office CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 473 of 522 order which again, which as already discussed above is claimed to have been obtained by accused Atul Vashisht through RTI. The signatures of not only the Assistant Director who had allegedly disclosed the said information, handed over the said document to accused Atul Vashisht but even the signatures of Deputy Director Sh. B.S. Tolia who had allegedly issued the said office order appears to be forged & fabricated. Just a glance at this document and the other documents accompanying it leaves no doubt that the said document is a forged & fabricated one. As already discussed above, accused Atul Vashisht somehow managed to create and slip these documents in between the other genuine documents so as to somehow accord genuineness to these forged & fabricated documents. The image of the said office order and some other documents filed on behalf of accused Atul Vashisht is reproduced hereunder which shows grave difference in the signatures on this office order viz-a-viz the other documents at points A which are part of Ex.DW2/D (colly) or for that matter Ex. DW2/A and B:-
Forged/doctored CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 474 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 475 of 522 Genuine CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 476 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 477 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 478 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 479 of 522 19.52 It is not a coincidence that out of all the documents filed by accused Atul Vashisht, which he claimed to have obtained through RTI the signatures of the Assistant Director SUR, who had handed over the said documents, are different only on the documents on which reliance has been placed by accused Atul Vashisht. The signatures on the relied upon document/office order dated 30.05.2003 appear to be doctored when compared with the signatures on the other documents where the signatures are running in a flow. The forgery is writ large. There are hundreds of documents placed on record by accused Atul Vashisht but it is only on the documents, which benefit the accused that the signatures appear to be absolutely doctored, fabricated. This court upon exercise of it's power, rather duty vested under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and the law laid down in Murari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 531 has come to the said conclusion. There is just no doubt in the opinion of this court that the documents are forged & fabricated.
19.53 No doubt Sh. Hira Lal, Assistant Director who had given the information/documents under RTI was examined as DW2 and he did state during his examination in chief that all the documents which are part of Ex. DW2/D (colly) bear his signatures but then the fact remains that most of the documents bear his genuine signatures and not all. The forged documents bearing forged signatures were slipped in between the genuine CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 480 of 522 documents and the genuine documents, bearing the genuine signatures were shown to the witness who identified the same and as far as forged documents bearing the forged signatures are concerned they are clandestinely, in routine marked point A. Even a layman can differentiate between the genuine and the forged signatures. It has already been discussed above that DW3 has already deposed regarding these documents obtained under RTI bearing no. 386/DD(Rehab)/DUSIB/11 that " At this stage, it is stated by the witness that some annexures mentioned in the RTI reply dated 26.08.2011 running into 300 pages are not traceable in our office record. In this regard, I am placing on record circular bearing No. D280/DD(SUR)/DUSIB/2023/ dated 11.10.2023, which bears my signature at point A. The said circular alongwith copy of dispatch/receipt register (running into 2 pages) is now exhibited as Ex. DW3/E (running into 3 pages) (OSR)." This creates further doubt upon the genuineness of these documents. If the documents were indeed genuine there is no occasion why these documents were not traceable in the office.
19.54 Furthermore, PW52 proved on record letter no. F-10821/32/SOF/S&JJ/MCD/2008/D-459 dated 24.09.2008 of Sh. H. C. Vats (PW37) i.e. Ex. PW52/A-42 vide which he informed the IO that no record in respect of manual draw in question i.e. manual draw dated 09.03.2007 is available in his office. If the record was not available in 2008, how the record especially the relied upon by accused Atul Vashisht was available in 2011 cannot be explained. The said letter is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 481 of 522 19.55 In fact even PW37 had proved one letter dated 27.06.2008 i.e. Ex. PW37/A vide which the IO/PW52 was informed that the original file relating to manual draw in question could not be traced in the office. The relevant portion of the image is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 482 of 522 19.56 It has already been discussed above that there are grave doubts as regards the genuineness of office order dated 07.08.2006 which is part of Ex. DW3/F (also Ex. PW37/D).
Once as per Ex. PW37/A the original file as per which the manual draw of the questioned plots was held was not traceable in the year 2008 how could accused Atul Vashisht obtained copy of the same through RTI in the year 2013. At this stage it will also be worthwhile to highlight the statement made by PW52 regarding the said document which read as under:-
"On being shown document Ex. PW37/D3, i.e. office order dated 07.08.2006, the witness states that he did not collect the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 483 of 522 said document during the course of investigation. I can neither admit nor deny the aforesaid office order dated 07.08.2006 vide which a draw committee was formed consisting of Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director and concerned dealing assistant of SUR Section of Slum & JJ Department to conduct draw on manual basis through parchi system and it required coram of two members of the said committee............
The original files pertaining to the draw of plots of the present case were not recovered during the course of investigation. A letter dated 27.06.2008 of Assistant Director, SUR was received wherein it was informed that the original allotment files / record and original file through which the manual draw was conducted are not available/traceable.
19.57 It was also argued that as per office order dated 30.05.2003 which is part of Ex. DW2/D (colly) and office noting dated 28.05.2003 it was the diarist along with record keeper who were to be the custodian of all PIS issued by the SUR Section, therefore, it was for these officials to explain as to how the PIS went missing from the office, their custody/possession and not accused Atul Vashisht whose role was merely to prepare the PIS and handover the same to the diarist, diary/dispatch clerk, record keeper, suffice would be to say that as discussed above that there are grave doubts as regards the genuineness of the said office order. Same applies for the office notes running into 5 pages, which again were brought on record during the testimony of DW2 while claiming that same were obtained through RTI. The image of the office note/notings/file is reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 484 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 485 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 486 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 487 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 488 of 522 19.58 Just like office order dated 30.05.2003 part of Ex.
DW2/D (colly), the signatures on the above office file/noting at point A on a bare glance appear to be forged, fabricated and doctored when compared with the signatures of the same official, Hira Lal (DW2) appearing on the genuine documents. The forgery is writ large. Moreover, there is no file number CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 489 of 522 mentioned on the top of the said office note/noting/file as is mentioned in the other office notes/notings/file which is also part of Ex. DW2/D i.e. F.No.1056(3)/Dir.(SUR)/03 on which the signatures at point A appears to be genuine when compared with the signatures appearing on the above office notes/notings/file. Though file number is mentioned in the said office noting, however, not only it is handwritten, not typed and it is on the left side and not on the top. Most importantly, there is just no sequence in the said office note/notings/file. Random headings, paragraph numbering with there being no sequence, sub-heading creates further doubt upon the said office note/notings/file e.g. the first page ends at para 1 (e) and the next page begins with para (a). There is no heading on the next page and after para (a) another para (i) starts and after that suddenly para (g) starts. Also the page number on the first two pages of the noting/file is handwritten i.e. 1/N and 2/N whereas the remaining three pages contained typed page numbers i.e. 3/N, 4/N and 5/N. All this coupled with immense difference in the signatures creates grave doubts upon the genuineness of said document.
19.59 Once there are serious doubts upon the genuineness of the said office noting/file, the arguments based upon the same that the said noting/file provides that after preparation of PIS, the same was to be handed over to diary/dispatch clerk who was to hand over the PIS to allottees after obtaining their thumb impressions/signatures on the same and then handover the same to the record keeper for maintenance of documents loose their significance. It is also to be seen that during the cross-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 490 of 522 examination of prosecution witnesses, especially those who appeared from the Slum & JJ Department, it was not even once suggested to these witnesses that the PIS was to be handed over to the diary/dispatch clerk and it was the diary/dispatch clerk who after obtaining the signatures/thumb impressions of the allottees on the PIS handover the PIS to the record keeper. The very fact that no such suggestion was given itself proves that these documents/office noting/file are not genuine or else suggestions based upon the same would have been definitely given to these witnesses during their cross-examination. In fact it was not even once suggested anytime during the trial, during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or during the recording of statement of accused persons as to who was the diary/dispatch clerk to whom PIS, admittedly prepared by accused Atul Vashisht and bearing the signatures of deceased Philip Toppo, were handed over by them. I completely fail to understand that if after preparation of the PIS by accused Atul Vashisht, the same were handed over to diary/dispatch clerk why his name was not disclosed, suggested to the prosecution witnesses during the trial. PIS having been prepared by accused Atul Vashisht, in terms of the above office noting/file relied upon by him, it was for him to prove the name of the diary/dispatch clerk to whom he handed over the PIS for obtaining the signatures of the allottees. When even the name was not provided by the accused anytime during the trial nor any effort was made to lead any evidence in this regard the same by itself is sufficient proof of the said document being an afterthought and fabricated & forged. The least accused Atul Vashisht could have done, if he CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 491 of 522 wanted to prove that the PIS was handed over to the diary/dispatch clerk and it was the diary/dispatch clerk who had obtained the signatures/thumb impressions of the allottees, was to provide the name of the said diary/dispatch clerk. Not only the same was not done but the very fact that no efforts were made to examine the said diary/dispatch clerk further proves the hollowness and falsity of the defence's claim. If indeed accused Atul Vashisht had handed over the PIS to the diary/dispatch clerk he would have disclosed his name, atleast suggested his name to the prosecution witnesses to put forth his point. Forget about leading any positive evidence in this regard, no effort was made to even give the suggestion to that extent which itself proves the falsity, hollowness of his claim. It has been discussed in this judgment that the witnesses were not cross-examined on certain crucial aspects. It will be worthwhile to highlight the following observations made in Mahavir Singh (supra):-
"13. It is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised. (Vide: Atluri Brahmanandam (D), Thr. LRs. v. Anne Sai Bapuji, AIR 2011 SC 545; and Laxmibai (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204)."
19.60 No doubt PW37 during his cross-examination stated "The file of the draw used to be in the custody of store keeper. I do not recollect who was the store keeper at the relevant time", but that is a generalized statement and it has already been discussed that files pertaining to the present manual draw were not traceable in the office for which PW37 himself proved Ex. PW37/A in addition to Ex. PW52/A as was proved by PW52 Sh. CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 492 of 522 S.S. Bhullar. Again except for the above statement not even once it was suggested to PW37 that the PIS was handed over to the diary/dispatch clerk or that it was diary/dispatch clerk who used to obtain thumb impressions/signatures of the allottees on the PIS much least as to who was the said diary/dispatch clerk.
19.61 Similarly, as far as the said office noting to the effect "therefore AD (Cash) would receive their share money from the dwellers and would send copy of G-8 receipt to SUR Cell and would obtain challan from the SUR Cell. Hereafter, previous practice of obtaining challan before issuance of G-8 receipt be strictly not followed", is concerned, in addition to the fact that its genuineness is highly doubtful, it is to be seen that this nowhere proves that first the G8 receipt was to be prepared and then the challan was to be prepared. It merely says that the practice of "obtaining" challan before issuance of G8 receipt be strictly not followed and it nowhere talks about "preparation" of G8 receipt before the challan. It has been discussed above in detail that the challan used to be prepared first and only thereafter G8 receipt was to be issued.
19.62 No doubt PW52 during his cross-examination stated as under:-
"I had not enquired as to who was the custodian of original allotment files and office copy of provisional identification slips in the Slum & JJ Department. I did not examine any official from the Slum & JJ Department as to who was the custodian of original allotment files and office copy of provisional identification slips..............I do not remember as to who was the custodian of allotment register in regard to the allotment of plots in question............I cannot say whether there was any dispatch clerk in the SUR Section, who used to take CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 493 of 522 signatures/thumb impression of the allottees while handing over provisional identification slips. I did not examine any dispatch clerk during the course of investigation. I had not examined any official from Slum & JJ Department as to whether any dispatch register was being maintained in regard to allotment of plots in question and who was the dispatch clerk at the relevant period.........
Que: Whether during the investigation you came to know about the name of the officer who was responsible for the possession of original files of allotment and draw in respect of the plots in question?
Ans: During the course of investigation, I did not come to know as to who was the officer responsible for the possession of original files of allotment and draw in respect of the plots in question."
19.63 However, he had also stated "I had taken on record written letter stating therein that the original individual allotment files are not traceable in Slum & JJ Department, but I did not examine any official from the Slum & JJ Department regarding working of Slum & JJ Department and whereabouts of the original allotment files". The said letters are on record as Ex. PW37/A (colly) and Ex. PW52/A42 (colly) as discussed above in detail. The fact that IO did not examine the custodian of the original allotment files or the provisional identification slips (PISs) has not dented the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever as it stands proved that the original allotment files or the PISs, even if they were to be in the custody of the custodian, never reached the custodian rather they were recovered from the house of a private individual, on the disclosure of deceased/co- accused Ashok Jain & accused Mohan Lal. The recovery of the documents i.e. original G8 receipts, PIS etc. from Sardhana and the recovery of the original draw list, draw slips, draw parchies from the house of accused Mohan Lal, which has been discussed in detail above, squarely proves that the files never reached the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 494 of 522 Store Keeper or else there was no occasion for the recovery of these documents from Sardhana and the house of accused Mohan Lal. The entire set of documents being forged & fabricated, the entire allotment process being bogus, no question arises of the original files being in the custody of the custodian. Moreover as discussed above, it was for accused Atul Vashisht to prove that after preparation of the PIS he handed over the same to the diary/dispatch clerk, however, neither the name of said diary/disptach clerk or custodian nor any evidence whatsoever has been proved on record in this regard. It was not even once suggested to PW52 that accused Atul Vashisht had after preparation of PIS, admittedly prepared by him, handed over the same to the diary/dispatch clerk. No efforts whatsoever were made to prove that a dispatch register was maintained by the department with regard to the allotment of plots or that the same was maintained by the diary/dispatch clerk. If indeed any such dispatch register was maintained or any such diary/dispatch clerk was posted in the department or accused Atul Vashisht had handed over the PIS to him then nothing stopped the accused from leading evidence in support of his claim. Having not done so and mere suggestions to the IO and when no such suggestions were given to the prosecution witnesses from the Slum & JJ Department the arguments loose their merits, significance.
19.64 As regards the arguments that PW52 did not carry out any search in the office of Slum & JJ Department and accordingly did not seize any record from the Slum & JJ Department, suffice would be to say that in view of Ex. PW37/A CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 495 of 522 (colly) and Ex. PW52/A42 when the original allotment files/record and original file of manual draw were not available/traceable there was no occasion for any search to be conducted at the Slum & JJ department as the same would have been exercise in futility.
19.65 It will also be worthwhile to mention that none of these documents were shown to any prosecution witnesses especially the ones who appeared from the Slum & JJ Department. As far as Hira Lal (DW2) is concerned, it has already been discussed above that somehow these documents were also exhibited during his testimony along with other genuine documents. It is to be seen that contents of the documents were not put to DW2 or to any prosecution witness and in my opinion had the same been done and had the documents been shown to other prosecution witnesses, the fact that they were forged & fabricated would have been duly established on record. Moreover, the Additional Commissioner, Deputy Director Sh. B.S. Tolia and other officials whose signatures appear on the said documents were not examined by the defence for reasons best known to it.
Offence Committed
20. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that it has come on record that the allotment in the present case was cancelled much prior to registration of the present case and even otherwise the allotment was provisional subject to verification of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 496 of 522 documents at the time of final allotment. It was argued that as the allotment was already cancelled, no loss of whatsoever nature has been caused to anyone including the MCD nor anyone has been deceived, therefore, the charge for offence u/s 420 of IPC is not made out. It was further argued that there is no evidence of forgery or conspiracy nor the same has been proved. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act against the only public servant/ accused Atul Vashisht and it is well settled principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while burden placed upon the accused is limited which he can discharged even by cross-examination of witnesses. However, I find no merits in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsels.
20.1 It has already been discussed above that it makes no difference that the allotment in the present case was cancelled prior to the registration of the FIR, though there is no material placed on record to prove that the allotment was indeed cancelled before registration of the FIR and the only evidence on record vide Ex. PW2/A is that the questioned plots were lying vacant and the possession was with the Slum and JJ Department. Similarly, it makes no difference that the allotment was provisional in nature or that the final allotment was to be made only after verification of the documents of the allottees. The fact that the questioned plots remained under the possession of the Slum and JJ Department is also immaterial. What matters is that fraudulent allotment in the name of allottees was made on the basis of forged & fabricated documents.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 497 of 522 20.2 As far as offence of criminal conspiracy is concerned, the detailed discussion as above leaves no doubt that a conspiracy was hatched and the aim & object of the conspiracy was to make fraudulent allotment of plots/alternate plots in favour of ineligible JJ dwellers/slum dwellers with the ultimate aim, object to sell these plots in the open market thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the department/Slum & JJ Department, MCD. Accused Atul Vashisht, Surjeet Singh, Mohan Lal, Lal Mani and Vijay Kumar were part of this conspiracy apart from other deceased/individuals including Phillip Toppo, Ashok Malhotra, Ram Chander Arora @ Masterjee and Ashok Jain. Each and every individual played a specific role to further the object of the said conspiracy. Atul Vashisht played his part/role by holding manual draw, preparation of draw list & draw parchi/draw slips, issuing challans and preparation of PIS. Accused Surjeet Singh helped in/played active role in preparation of forged Delhi Administration I cards in the name of the allottees which were used at the time of allotment, preparation of PIS etc. Accused Mohan Lal not only affixed thumb impressions on the PIS but most of the forged documents prepared pursuant to the conspiracy, to give effect to the conspiracy were recovered from his premises/house. These documents included the sale documents prepared in the name of allottees to ultimately sell the allotted plots. Accused Lal Mani also helped in, played his active role in forging the ration cards in the name of allottees as well as the sale documents. Accused Vijay Kumar signed as a Notary and CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 498 of 522 helped in preparation of forged sale documents in the name of the allottees. Therefore, all the accused persons i.e. Atul Vashisht, Surjeet Singh, Mohan Lal, Lal Mani and Vijay Kumar are held guilty for offence u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as well as 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of PC Act 1988.
20.3 As far as accused R.S. Sandhu is concerned, though the role attributed to him by the prosecution is that he had helped in preparation of forged ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards, helped in procuring photographs appearing on these documents, however, prosecution could not bring any material/evidence on record whether oral or documentary, expert or otherwise which could substantiate it's case/allegations. There is nothing to connect accused Ravinder Singh Sandhu with the conspiracy or the forged documents used in, prepared to achieve the objective of conspiracy. No doubt his confessional statement as was recorded in RC no. 34(A)/2007 is on record as Ex. PW51/D, however, the said statement by itself in the absence of any sufficient material, cogent evidence it not sufficient to bring home the guilt against accused R.S. Sandhu. He is, therefore, entitled to acquittal.
20.4 Nonetheless the said confessional statement which throws great light on the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and can be used to lend assurance to the other evidence available on record, in view of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The said section reads as under:-
"30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 499 of 522 When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession."
20.5 The said confessional statement when read along side the other evidence available on record, which has been discussed in detail above, completes the chain, links all the accused persons in the conspiracy. The said confessional statement eloborates the role of deceased Ashok Malhotra, how he was the kingpin of the entire conspiracy. It also explains how the forged documents i.e. PIS, G8 receipts etc. came in the hands of co-accused persons from accused Atul Vashisht. It was he who handed over them to deceased Ashok Malhotra at his house. This statement explains why the documents were not available in the office and why they were recovered from Sardhana. First they reached deceased Ashok Malhotra from accused Atul Vashisht and then Ashok Malhotra handed over the same to deceased Ashok Jain who ultimately kept them at Sardhana. It further explains the role of accused Lal Mani, deceased Ram Chander Arora as well as Darshan Lal in preparation of forged ration cards, I cards and sale documents. The confessional statement further corroborates the prosecution story as regards the aim & objective of the conspiracy, which was to sell the plots in the open market and how the co-accused persons were benefited/rewarded for the role played by them, for being part of the conspiracy.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 500 of 522 20.6 The images of the statement i.e. Ex. PW51/D are reproduced hereunder:-
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 501 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 502 of 522 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 503 of 522 20.7 Though Ld. Counsel for the accused persons relied upon Indra Dalal (supra) to argue that the said confessional statement cannot be looked into, however, I find no merits in their arguments. Merely because the said confessional statement was made in another matter would not create any legal bar, impediment as far as use of the said confessional statement in the present matter. It has been held in State of Gujarat vs CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 504 of 522 Mohammed Atik and others AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1686 as under:-
"We have, therefore, absolutely no doubt that a confession, if usable under Section 15 of the TADAA, would not become unusable merely because the case is different or the crime is different. If the confession covers that different crime in which that crime is under trial and it would then become admissible in the case.
In State of Rajasthan vs. Bhup Singh - 1993 (10) SCC 675 a similar objection raised by the defence was considered in the context of admissibility of a confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In that case, information was elicited by the police from the accused during investigation in connection with a particular offence and weapon of offence was recovered in consequence thereto. That information became relevant in a subsequent case, but the accused contended that the said information is not admissible in evidence in the subsequent case. This High Court over-ruled the objection on the ground that there is no such prohibition in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was observed that "it is immaterial whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime."
20.8 The following observations made in Mohd. Khalid vs State Of West Bengal AIRONLINE 2002 SC 266 with regard to confessional statement may also be noted in this regard:-
"Where trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co- accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration. [See Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra [1971] 3 SCC 432]. It can in some cases be inferred from the acts and conduct of parties. [See Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors AIR (1980) SC 439................... A confessional statement is not admissible unless it is made to the Magistrate under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The requirement of Section 30 of the Evidence Act is that before it is made to operate against the co- accused the confession should be strictly established. In other words, what must be before the Court should be a confession proper and not a mere circumstance or an information which could be an incriminating one. Secondly, it being the confession of the maker, it is not to be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act against the non-maker co-accused and lastly, its CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 505 of 522 use depends on finding other evidence so as to connect the co- accused with crime and that too as a corroborative piece. It is only when the other evidence tendered against the co-accused points to his guilt then the confession duly proved could be used against such co-accused if it appears to effect him as lending support or assurance to such other evidence. To attract the provisions of Section 30, it should for all purposes be a confession, that is a statement containing an admission of guilt and not merely a statement raising the inference with regard to such a guilt. The evidence of co-accused cannot be considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, where he was not tried jointly with the accused and where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the accused. As noted above, the confession of co-accused does not come within the definition of evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. It is only when a persons admits guilty to the fullest extent, and exposes himself to the pains and penalties provided for his guilt, there is a guarantee for his truth. Legislature provides that his statement may be considered against his fellow accused charged with the same crime. The test is to see whether it is sufficient by itself to justify the conviction of the person making it of the offence for which he is being jointly tried with the other person or persons against whom it is tendered. The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence. This position has been clearly explained by this Court Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 159. The exact Scope of Section 30 was discussed by the Privy Council in the case of Bhubani v. The King, AIR (1949) PC 257. The relevant extract from the said decision which has become locus classicus reads as follows:
"Sec. 30 applies to confessions, and not to statements which do not admit the guilt of the confessing party........But a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type.....It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver which is not subject to any of those infirmities. Sec. 30, however, provides that the Court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, no doubt, make it evidence on which the Court may act but the section does not say that the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 506 of 522 confession is to amount to proof. Heady there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed with the other evidence. The confession of the co-accused and be used only in support of other evidence and cannot be made the foundation of a conviction". Kashmira Singh's principles were noted with approval by a Constitution Bench of these Court Hart Charan Kurmi and Jodia Hajam v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6 SCR 623. It was noted that the basis on which Section 30 operates . is that if a person makes a confession implicating himself that may suggest that the maker of the confession is speaking the truth. Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker, it is to likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly. So Section 30 provides that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the co- accused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession. It is significant however that like other evidence which is produced before the Court it is not obligatory on the Court to take the confession into account. When evidence as defined by the Evidence Act is produced before the Court it is the duty of the Court to consider that evidence. What weight should be attached to such evidence is a matter in the discretion of the Court. But the Court cannot say in respect of such evidence that it will just not take that evidence into account. Such an approach can however be adopted by the Court in dealing with a confession because Section 30 merely enables the Court to take the confession into account. Where, however, the Court takes it into confidence, it cannot be faulted. The principle is that the Court cannot start with confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidences, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about the reach on some other evidence. That is the true effect of the provision contained in Section 30."
20.9 No doubt that the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate who had recorded the said statement was not examined by the prosecution but there was no requirement to do so. It has been held in Madi Ganga vs State Of Orissa AIR 1981 SC 1165 as under:-
"5...................Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 507 of 522 examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law................The Magistrate has appended a certificate that he was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. No circumstance has been brought out in the evidence justifying the calling of the Magistrate as a witness. We do not think that the circumstances of the case justify any comment on the alleged failure of the prosecution to examine the Magistrate as a witness."
20.10 It was further held as under:-
"6. The final submission of the learned Counsel was that even if the confession to the Magistrate was accepted as voluntary it has not been sufficiently corroborated to justify the conviction of the accused. It is now well settled that in order to sustain a conviction on the basis of a confessional statement it is sufficient that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with the contents of the confession. General corroboration is sufficient - vide Subramanian Goundan v. State of Madras (1)..........."
20.11 Reliance may also be placed upon Devi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2005 SCC 10 453 in this regard. No doubt though the said statement was recorded in RC No. 34 (A)/2007, however, RC no. 25(A)/2007 appears on the said statement, however, it was a clerical mistake as was explained by PW51 when he stated as under:-
"On being shown copy of proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Ld Spl. Judge Sh. S. K. Kaushik dated 31.08.2007, the witness identifies his signatures thereon at points A. As per the proceedings, the witness states that he had produced accused Ravinder Singh Sandhu in the court for his confessional statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. in RC 34(A)/2007. Witness further states that Ld Metropolitan Magistrate questioned him first and thereafter, accused R. S. Sandhu was examined by him in his absence and his statement was recorded by the Ld Judge. I had identified the accused Ravinder Singh Sandhu, who is present today in the Court. The said copy of proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is now Ex. PW51/D (D66) [original in RC 34(A)/2007]. On being asked as to why RC 25(A)/2007 is mentioned at Ex. PW51/D, the witness has stated that it was a clerical mistake which did not come in his knowledge at that CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 508 of 522 point of time. Previously some accused persons were examined U/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the same Ld Metropolitan Magistrate/Ld Spl. Judge and this could be an inadvertent mistake by way of copying and pasting on the computer system."
20.12 Though it was also argued that the said confession statement Ex. PW51/D was not voluntarily made by the accused or that he was beaten during the police custody, however, I find no merits in the said claim. As far as being beaten in the police custody is concerned, except for the bald submissions the defence did not lead any evidence whatsoever to corroborate the said claim. It is to be noted that at the time when the confessional statement Ex. PW51/D was recorded, accused R.S. Sandhu was produced from judicial custody and not police custody i.e. he was not under the control or supervision of the CBI/IO. As far as the said statement/confession not being voluntary or being made under pressure is concerned, I have absolutely no doubt that the said statement was made voluntarily. The certificate of the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the said statement, as reproduceed above, wherein the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate recorded his satisfaction that he believes that the confession was made voluntarily sufficiently establishes that the said statement was made voluntarily and without any pressure, threat etc. Furthermore at the inception of the statement the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, as reproduced above, had recorded " I explained to the accused that he is not bound to make this confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. In reply to which he states that he is making his statement voluntarily without any pressure from the police as he has realized his mistake and he does not want to face more CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 509 of 522 harassement during the trial". Hence the confession was made voluntarily and after being warned about the consequences of making the confession.
20.13 As far as offence of cheating is concerned, section 415 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which defines cheating and section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which provides punishment for cheating are reproduced hereunder:-
"415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, 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".
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 extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"Person" is defined in section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as "the word "person" includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not".
"Valuable security" is defined in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as "the words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or who hereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right".
20.14 In the case at hand the accused persons, as above, had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Slum & JJ CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 510 of 522 Department, MCD. The ultimate aim & object of this conspiracy was to cause wrongful gain, unjust enrichment to themselves while causing wrongful loss to the Slum & JJ Department, MCD by making fraudulent allotment of plots and their subsequent sale. It was the accused persons who cheated Slum & JJ Department, MCD. How they cheated is by making fraudulent allotments on the basis of forged & fabricated documents. Pursuant to the conspiracy forged ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards were prepared in the name of allottees. They were prepared in the name of allottees who were not entitled to or eligible for allotment. In fact these allottees, JJ dwellers, as discussed above, had not applied for allotment. A manual draw was held in a fraudulent manner and allotment was made in the name of these allottees. After the manual draw, a draw list was prepared which was duly signed by accused Atul Vashisht who also prepared the draw slips/parchis in the name of said allottees. Challans were prepared in the name of allottees and beneficiary share of Rs. 7000/- each was also deposited in their names, on the basis of which, G8 receipts were issued in the name of allottees. Thereafter, provisional identification slips were issued in the name of these allottees.
20.15 These provisional identification slips allotted the alternate plots in the name of the allottees and though they were provisional in nature, still they entitled the allottees/persons in whose name the allotment was made to seek possession from the engineering department of Slum & JJ Department, MCD. Being prepared by accused Atul Vashisht and deceased Phillip Toppo CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 511 of 522 these PISs, draw parchis, draw slips etc. were sufficient to deceive the Slum & JJ Department to deliver the possession of the plots to the allottees. Moreover on the basis of the forged challans prepared by accused Vashisht and signed by deceased Phillip Toppo, G8 receipts were issued in favour of the allottees. But for the forged challans prepared by accused Atul Vashisht, the Slum & JJ Department, MCD would not have issued the G8 receipts through its employee/PW10. The Slum & JJ Department was deceived to issue the G8 receipts and they would not have been issued but for the forged challans prepared by accused Atul Vashisht. The PIS and for that matter the challans, draw parchis/slips etc. were valuable security and though they were made/prepared by accused Atul Vashisht, however, he made them on behalf of the Slum & JJ Department. It was the Slum & JJ Department who was dishonestly induced to issue these documents on the basis of forged & fabricated ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards. These documents created legal right in the name of allottees as they became entitled to possession of allotted plots. Though it is a different thing that these allottees were not even aware that the allotment was being made in their names. As discussed above, the allottees of the questioned plots were not aware of this entire exercise as everything was happening behind their back. These sets of documents were complete so as to show allotment in the name of these allottees and ultimately lure, deceive not only the Slum & JJ Department, MCD that the said allottees were the rightful allottees but also the innocent buyers to whom the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 512 of 522 allotted/questioned plots were to be sold, which was the ultimate aim & object of the conspiracy.
20.16 At this stage, it will also be worthwhile to highlight the observations made in N.M. Chakraborty (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"........the word "property" did not necessarily expressed that the thing, of which delivery was dishonestly desired by the person who cheats, "must have a money value or a market value, in the hand of the person cheated". It was held that "even if the thing has no money value, in the hand of the person cheated, but becomes a thing of value, in the hand of the person, who may get possession of it as a result of the cheating practised by him, it would still fall within the connotation of the term 'property' in section 420 I.P.C.""
20.17 Therefore these documents were not only valuable security but also property as these documents, especially the PIS had immense value once they came in the hands of the co- accused persons, who got the same for achieving the objective of the conspiracy. They were sufficient to get the possession of the allotted plots and to further pass on them to unsuspecting buyers, which sale would have provided pecuniary benefit to the accused persons. Therefore, all the accused persons i.e. Atul Vashisht, Surjeet Singh, Mohan Lal, Lal Mani and Vijay Kumar are held guilty for offence u/s 420 IPC.
20.18 Section 467, Section 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are reproduced hereunder:-
"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 CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 513 of 522 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 [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."
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [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.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]."
20.19 It has been discussed above in detail that the PIS, challans etc. are/were valuable security. These forged documents were prepared by accused Atul Vashisht. Two of the PIS bear the signatures of accused Mohan Lal. Furthermore, the ration cards are also valuable security as they created legal right entitling the holder of ration card to certain benefits i.e. to be able to buy subsidized foodgrains through public distribution system. Similarly the ration cards as well as I cards issued by Delhi Administration entitled holders of these cards to access government welfare programs and services and thus the Delhi Administration I cards also amount to valuable security. These documents were forged, fake documents were prepared by accused Surjeet Singh and Lal Mani, which has been discussed in detail above. As far as accused Vijay Kumar is concerned, some of the forged receipts, which receipts are acknowledgment of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 514 of 522 payment of money, bear his signatures as he notarized those documents, though he was not authorized as he was not a notary public. Some of the receipts also bear the thumb impression of Lal Mani whose handwriting also appears on the forged Will and some of these Wills (6 sets) have been notarized by accused Vijay Kumar. All this has been discussed in detail above. Therefore, all these accused persons are held guilty for offence u/s 467 r/w section 120B IPC. As these documents were used for the purpose of cheating the Slum & JJ Department, MCD, all these accused persons are held guilty for offence u/s 468 r/w section 120B IPC.
20.20 The forged ration cards, Delhi Administration I- Cards and the PISs were used as genuine by accused Atul Vashisht for the purpose of allotment, during allotment of the questioned plots. He was well aware that these documents are forged and fabricated, nonetheless used them as genuine for the purpose of allotment of the questioned plots. As far as the remaining accused persons are concerned, they forged these documents, created fabricated documents including sale documents but there is no evidence they had used these documents any where. Accordingly, accused Atul Vashisht is held guilty for offence u/s 471 r/w section 120B IPC. The remaining accused persons are acquitted of the said charge.
20.21 In addition to the above offences, as far as accused Atul Vashisht is concerned, it is an admitted position that he was a public servant at the relevant time as he was working as CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 515 of 522 Dealing Assistant/UDC with the Slum & JJ Department, MCD. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. The relevant portion of Section 13, as was in force at the relevant time, is reproduced hereunder:-
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 516 of 522 pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) 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."
20.22 The above detailed discussion leaves absolutely no doubt that accused Atul Vashisht abused his position as a public servant. He along with deceased Phillip Toppo made fraudulent allotments of the alternate plots in the name of those JJ dwellers who were not entitled for allotment. They held the draw in a fraudulent manner, prepared draw slips/parchis, challans and PISs. All this while they were aware that the allotments were made in the name of JJ dwellers who were not entitled or eligible for allotment and knowingly used forged & fabricated documents i.e. ration cards, Delhi Administration I cards etc. for this purpose. The ultimate aim of the entire exercise, the conspiracy of which accused Atul Vashisht was a part was to sell the allotted plots in the open market. For these plots to be sold the allotment in the name of the allottees was sine qua non as only then the unsuspected, innocent buyers could be deceived with the sale by showing that the plots were indeed in the name of the allottees and thus they could sell the same. For this purpose the entire allotment process starting with the draw till the issuance of PISs was manipulated by accused Atul Vahisht and deceased Phillip Toppo and with aid & assistance of the co-accused persons.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 517 of 522 Unlawful, illegal means were adopted i.e. forging of numerous documents, most essentially ration cards and Delhi Administration I cards to achieve this objective. The PIS so prepared and obtained was ultimately handed over along with other relevant documents to the co-accused persons for the purpose of sale of the allotted/questioned plots. Ultimately they were recovered from Sardhana and the remaining documents from co-accused Mohan Lal though there were no occasion for these documents to be recovered from there. These documents were passed on the accused persons by accused Atul Vashisht. Hence accused Atul Vashisht by abusing his position as a public servant and by adopting corrupt, illegal means made fraudulent allotments of the 26 questioned plots on the basis of forged & fabricated documents. He thus committed criminal misconduct as is defined in Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which is punishable u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
20.23 While highlighting the following statement made by PW27, during his cross-examination:-
"I do not remember for how long the vigilance department file alongwith documents remained with me. I am not able to recall whether I granted sanction for prosecution of accused Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht in this case only or in all the connected cases. There is no date on sanction orders Ex. PW27/A and Ex. PW27/B. I had not sought any personal explanation from accused Phillip Toppo and Atul Vashisht before granting sanction for their prosecution. I did not seek any clarification from the IO nor I did I meet IO personally."
,it was argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Atul Vashisht that sanction order Ex. PW27/B is no sanction in the CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 518 of 522 eyes of law as there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority, however, I find no merits in the said arguments. The sanction was granted by the competent authority after due application of mind and upon due consideration of the material placed before the sanctioning authority. The following statement of PW27 leaves no doubt that it was only on consideration of all the relevant material that the sanction was granted:-
"I was the competent authority for the removal of the aforesaid officials who were working with Slum & JJ Department and the same was under administrative control of MCD. Before granting the sanction, I had gone through circumstances of the case and material placed before me including FIR, statement of witnesses, CFSL opinion, GEQD opinion, statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and documents collected during the course of investigation in respect of allegations. I had accorded sanction for prosecution U/s 120B r/w 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof or any other offence made out of the said facts and circumstances. I have perused section of offences from Acts before according sanction."
20.24 The material as placed before PW27, as stated by him, was sufficient for considering and grant of sanction. Furthermore PW27 during his cross-examination also stated as "The documents were put up before me through my Chief Vigilance Officer. Vigilance file with notings and documents was put up before me. There was no draft sanction order in the vigilance file put up before me". There was no need for the sanctioning authority/PW27 to seek any personal explanation from accused Atul Vashisht nor he was required to seek any clarification from the IO or to meet him personally. The sanctioning authority was only required to form an opinion as to CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 519 of 522 the grant or refusal to sanction based upon the material placed before it/him. Just because no departmental enquiry was ever initiated against accused Atul Vashisht nor he was ever issued any show cause notice qua the draw/allotment in question, the same has no bearing either on grant of sanction or the present prosecution. Both are independent proceedings having no bearing on each other.
20.25 Therefore accused Atul Vashisht is held guilty for offence u/s 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Conclusion
21. All the accused persons i.e. Atul Vashisht, Lal Mani, Vijay Kumar, Mohan Lal and Surjeet Singh except accused R.S. Sandhu stands convicted for offence u/s 120B IPC r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as well as 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of PC Act 1988 and also for offence u/s 420 IPC. All of them except accused R.S. Sandhu stands convicted for offence u/s 467 r/w section 120B IPC as well as of the offence u/s 468 r/w section 120B IPC. Accused Atul Vashisht also stands convicted for offence u/s 471 r/w section 120B IPC as well as under
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
21.1 As far as accused R.S. Sandhu is concerned, in view of the above discussion he stands acquitted of the charges.
CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 520 of 522 21.2 Before parting with the present judgment, I deem it fit that the copy of the present judgment be sent to Director, CBI who shall look into the observations made by this Court as regards the manner in which investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officers and the other officials who investigated the present matter. The lapses in the investigation, the sloppy/shoddy manner in which the IOs and other investigating officers conducted themselves is highly deplorable.
21.3 A copy be also sent to the Director of Prosecution as regards the observations made by this Court regarding the conduct of the then Ld. Public Prosecutor which has also been discussed in detail in the judgment. These officials are being apprised of the Court's observations so that in matters of the present nature, merely on account of the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers and the Ld. Public Prosecutors, the ends of justice should not be defeated. If the justice has to prevail, these officials have to conduct themselves in a professional, sincere and honest manner as they are the backbones of the criminal justice delivery system. The Public Prosecutors are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. They are responsible for not only representing, safeguarding the society's interest but also of the victim of crime. Similarly, the investigating officers are expected to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. At the same time considering the responsibility bestowed upon them which is primarily to curtail the crime, they are expected to act diligently and in a professional manner. In the case at hand this CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 521 of 522 was somewhat lacking not only in the then Ld. Public Prosecutors but also the investigating officers.
22. Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost to the accused persons and let they be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally Announced in the open court signed by GAURAV GAURAV RAO on 17th December 2024 RAO Date:
2024.12.17 17:29:31 +0400 (GAURAV RAO) Special Judge CBI (PC Act)-01 Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi CC No. 06/2019 CBI v. Atul Vashisht & ors. Page no. 522 of 522