Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Shobha Chawla on 24 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI)-07: ROUSE AVENUE COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000127-2019
CC No. 05/2019
RC No:- 14(A)/2015/CBI/ACB/ND
U/Sec:- 420,468,471 IPC &
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act
CBI Versus SHOBHA CHAWLA
W/o late Anil Chawla,
R/o C-1, MCD Flats,
Padam Nagar, New Delhi-110007
Date of Institution : 16.11.2016
Judgment reserved on : 10.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 22.02.2020
Memo of Appearance:
For CBI : Sh. A.K. Kushwaha, Ld. PP
For Accused : Sh. Jitendra Sarin, Advocate with
Sh. Pritpal Singh, Advocate
JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION VERSION
1. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of information regarding irregularities in issuance of birth certificates being committed in the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 1 of 115 office of Registrar (Birth & Death) North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Delhi (hereinafter mention as North DMC), joint surprise checks were conducted at various offices of SDM Model Town, SDM Civil Lines, OIC Vital statistics, Civic Centre and Office of Registrar (Birth & Death) Civil Lines Zone, North DMC. During surprise checks, some SDM orders issued between the period 2013 to March, 2015 were collected. During investigation it revealed that multiple birth certificates were issued during March 2015 on the basis of same SDM orders. Some SDM orders were forged during this period by using the same SDM order number. It was observed that SDM order was issued in the name of one child and birth certificates were issued in different names using same SDM order number. FIR was registered against unknown officials of North DMC and others on the basis of documents seized.
2. During investigation it was revealed that under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, delayed registration of birth and death can be made as per section 13 of the Act. Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after expiry of the period specified but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after expiry of thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government. The birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order made CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 2 of 115 by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth or death and on payment of prescribed fee. Under the Act, record and statistics will be maintained in office of Registrars / Sub-Registrars as per section 16 of the Act.
3. It was further revealed during Investigation that in a case of registration of birth delayed by more than one year, applicant was required to submit application form, affidavit, proof of date of birth, residence proof of parent in the sub division on the date of birth, Aadhar card, identify proof of the applicant, in the office of concerned SDM. The application was verified by field staff i.e. bailiff, Patwari or Kanoongo. On receipt of verification report, Dealing Assistant would put up the application along with verification report and his remarks for approval of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate for issuance of birth registration order/SDM order. After approval of Tehsildar, birth registration order/SDM order was printed on official computer by Data Entry Operator and issued under the signature of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate concerned. This order was dispatched through speed post to applicant or was given by hand to him. Thereafter, applicant would submit the said birth registration order/SDM order along with birth reporting form in the office of Registrar/Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) of concerned area for issuance of birth certificate. Sub-Registrar was responsible to verify the authenticity of the birth registration order and cross check the particulars of beneficiary available on the website of the Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi. Thereafter, the birth certificate was issued under the signature of Sub-Registrar to applicant after online approval of the Registrar.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 3 of 1154. Birth certificates were issued from Citizen Service Bureau (CSB) located at various zonal offices of North DMC and since 01.01.2004, birth and death registrations were being done online. The applicant paid requisite fee for late registration at CSB counter and deposited birth reporting form along with SDM order/birth order to the Sub- Registrar concerned. Sub-Registrar (Birth&Death) checked the particulars mentioned in birth order. Thereafter, on the basis of birth reporting form and birth order, online registration was done by the Sub- Registrar concerned under his login ID and then the same was forwarded from Sub-Registrar to Registrar/Deputy Health Officer of concerned zone online. Upon online approval given by DHO/Registrar through his login ID, a print out of birth certificate was taken out from the computer and was put up to Sub-Registrar for signature. Then, certificate was signed by Sub-Registrar and issued to applicant. The Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) was responsible to cross check the particulars mentioned in SDM order with particulars of the applicant uploaded on the website of GNCT of Delhi by staff of SDM office.
5. As per the service record available with North DMC, accused was posted as Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, MCD Office from January, 2014 to August, 2015. Thereafter, she was transferred to Rohini. During surprise check conducted at the office of Vital Statistics (Birth & Death), North DMC, 22 birth registration orders along with payment receipts and birth reporting forms etc. were found. The officer in-charge of Vital Statistics revealed that she had collected the aforesaid 22 birth registration orders from the office of Sub- Registrar, Civil Lines Zone, MCD, Delhi after getting information regarding irregularities committed in issuance of birth certificates at CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 4 of 115 various offices of Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death). All the 22 birth certificates were found to be issued under signatures of accused who was working as Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone at the relevant time. Out of 22 orders only one SDM order in the name of Rishabh bearing no. 90639079166566/193 was found genuine. Only 10 beneficiaries of forged birth registration orders could be traced on their given addresses during investigation and I.O. recorded their statements were recorded. Birth certificates to all 21 beneficiaries of forged SDM orders had been issued vide birth registration numbers as mentioned in the birth details seized during joint surprised check.
6. Investigation also revealed that 22 birth certificates were issued on the strength of fake SDM orders, out of them 13 were issued on 04.03.2015, 7 were issued on 19.03.2015 and one each on 03.03.2015 & 10.03.2015.
7. Sh. Raman Vij, Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone produced birth details in respect of four beneficiaries i.e. Pawan Preet Singh, Saina, Karan and Mohd. Saleah and informed that there were no SDM orders in respect of these beneficiaries in the record room of Registrar, Civil Lines Zone. Out of these four beneficiaries only two could be traced. The register containing the particulars of beneficiaries which were provided to accused by Smt. Sulekha private person for issuance of birth certificate was seized from Smt. Sulekha. The particulars of these four beneficiaries were available in the said register. As per the report of Registrar Office, Civil Lines there was no SDM order in the said office. However, the birth certificates had been issued to the above mentioned beneficiaries by accused by using the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 5 of 115 unique numbers of the SDM orders issued to other beneficiaries. The particulars mentioned in the birth details were the same which were provided by Sulekha.
8. Investigation further revealed that 10 birth registration orders/ SDM orders in the name of Daya Shankar Yadav S/o Sh. Avdesh Yadav, Umrul Mukhatar S/o Sh. Anaytulla, Tanya Sharma D/o Sh. Subhash Chand, Ananya Shodwani D/o Sh. Harish Shodwani, Somya D/o Sh. Naresh, Aasma Malik D/o Sh. Rasuddin Malik, Hansika D/o Sh. Zakir Khan, Kanika Dhankar D/o Sh. Shambhu Nath, Neetu D/o Sh. Beeru and Anjali D/o Sh. Jagat Singh were found forged and the same had not been issued from the office of SDM, Civil Lines. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Tehsildar denied his signatures as well as rubber seal in his name on the aforesaid birth registration orders/SDM orders. These forged birth registration orders/ SDM orders did not bear any dispatch number and counter foils of these orders were not found in the office of SDM, Civil Lines.
9. Investigation has further revealed that 5 birth registration orders/ SDM orders in the name of Vivek Gupta S/o Sh. Dilip Gupta, Muskan Khan D/o Sh. Aslam Khan, Vansh Singh S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh, Murdul S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar and Aman S/o Sh. Peer Mohd. were found forged and the same were not issued from the office of SDM, Civil Lines. Sh. Madan Lal, Tehsildar denied his signature as well as rubber seal in his name on these birth registration orders/SDM orders. These forged birth registration orders did not bear any dispatch number and counter foils of these orders was not found in the office of SDM, Civil Lines.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 6 of 11510. Investigation further revealed that 6 birth registration orders/SDM orders in the name of Nikita Pandey D/o Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, Mohd. Suman S/o Sh. Mohd. Khalid, Abdul Kadir S/o Sh. Wasim Khan, Saloni Kumari D/o Sh. Sudhish Kumar Ram, Rani Kumari D/o Sh. Bharat Kumar Rajak and Khushi Goudiyal D/o Sh. Uday Anand Goudiyal were found forged and the same were not issued from the office of SDM, Model Town, Delhi. Sh. Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal, Tehsildar denied his signature as well as rubber seal in his name on the aforesaid birth registration orders/SDM orders. These forged birth registration orders did not bear any dispatch number and counter foils of these orders were not found in the office of SDM, Model Town.
11. During investigation 12 genuine SDM orders/birth registration orders having same numbers as mentioned in forged orders were seized from the office of Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) MCD, Civil Lines, Delhi. These genuine birth orders were bearing dispatch number of office of SDM and their counter foils were also found there during surprise check conducted on 03.06.2015. All these birth registration orders were issued in the year 2014 except the birth order of Pooja Jha which was issued in the year 2012. During investigation self attested photocopies of birth certificates of Rubi, Sahab Jaan, Vishakha Singh, Manya, Nandani Kumari, Sahil Soneja, Rishabh and Pooja Jha were collected from their parents/applicants. All these birth certificates and birth registration orders were found to be issued genuinely.
12. Birth certificates of Vivek Gupta, Vansh Singh, Murdul, Umrul Mukhtar, Tanya Sharma, Ananya Shodwani, Somya, Nikita Pandey, Muskan Khan, Rani Kumari and Amarti were also collected from their CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 7 of 115 parents which were issued by accused on the basis of fake / forged birth registration orders/SDM orders. Sh. Sunil Kumar, Data Entry Operator working under accused identified her initials and rubber stamp on the 22 fake birth certificates. Accused herself produced attested copies of computerized birth details of beneficiaries maintained at her office which shows that all these birth certificates were issued by her. Investigation further revealed that birth certificate in respect of Vansh Singh, Muskan Khan and Vivek Gupta were issued by accused through Sh. Rambir Singh private person in lieu of the bribe money. Birth certificates in respect of Murdul, Somya, Nikita Pandey, Tanya Sharma and Ananya Shodwani were issued by the accused through Sunil s/o Raja Ram, private person in lieu of bribe money. Sulekha became acquainted with accused and had got prepared birth certificates of Umrul Mukhtar and Amarti from accused paying Rs. 1,300/- for each out of Rs. 1,500/- taken from parent of those children. Smt. Sulekha also produced a register in which has mentioned the particulars of children whose birth certificates got prepared from accused. Sulekha also got prepared the birth certificates of Saina, Mohd. Saleah, Saliha Praveen, Karan and Pawan Preet Singh from the accused after giving her Rs. 1300/- for each birth certificate.
13. Investigation has revealed that accused had given four number of fake SDM orders to her Data Entry Operator Sunil Kumar with direction to fill up the birth reporting forms in his writing. She had also provided a new address to Data Entry Operator on a separate paper for mentioning the same in the birth detail as well as in the birth certificate which was not mentioned in the SDM order/birth reporting CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 8 of 115 form. Sunil Kumar also disclosed same facts before Ld. MM in his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation Sunil Kumar, Data Entry Operator working under accused identified her initials and her rubber stamp on these 22 fake birth certificates. Accused also provided attested copy of computerized birth details of beneficiaries maintained at her office which shows that all the above mentioned birth certificates were issued by her. Investigations revealed that fake SDM order dated 24.01.2015 was prepared in the name of Neetu D/o Sh. Beeru, R/o J.J. Colony, Raghuvir Nagar, Delhi by using the stamp of Sh. Amrendera Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate, Civil Lines, Delhi. The said locality did not come under the jurisdiction of SDM, Civil Lines, but birth certificate was issued against the said SDM order by accused instead of informing this fact to the SDM, Civil Lines or to senior officers of MCD. During investigation private persons Rambir Singh, Sunil and Sulekha stated that they used to pay bribe to accused for issuance of birth certificate and their statements were also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
14. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was initially submitted before the court but the same was returned to CBI vide order dated 13.10.2016 with liberty to file afresh after obtaining prosecution for sanction. Chargesheet was re-filed on 16.11.2016 after obtaining the sanction for prosecution against accused.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES
15. Cognizance was taken by the court on 22.11.2016 and accused was directed to be summoned for 29.11.2016. On appearance of CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 9 of 115 accused on 29.11.2016, copies of charge-sheet and documents were supplied to her.
16. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 07.02.2017, charge was framed against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter prosecution was directed to lead evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
17. Prosecution has examined 49 witnesses in support of its case. These witnesses can be broadly classified into following categories:-
(A) PUBLIC WITNESSES The public witnesses can further be classified on the basis of their roles as under:-
(i)Parents with genuine delayed birth certificates 17.1 PW1 Harish Soneja has proved the application to Executive Magistrate, Model Town filed by his son Sahil Soneja for issuance of his birth certificate as Ex.PW1/B and the the receipt of the application issued by Executive Magistrate, Model Town as Ex. PW1/C. He identified the birth certificate issued to his son on 21.11.2014, which was handed over by him to CBI as Ex.PW1/A. He also deposed that he does not know any person in the name of Suman or Nikita Pandey and they had never stayed at house no. 12-A, Old Gupta Colony, Polo CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 10 of 115 Road, Delhi.
17.2 PW2 Amit Kumar has proved the application to SDM, Model Town filed by him for issuance of birth certificate of his son Rishabh as Ex.PW2/A (colly). The copy of birth order was marked as Mark PW2/1. Thereafter he had gone to MCD Office, Rajpur Road and submitted the original birth order along with application for issuance of birth certificate and after two-three days, he had obtained the birth certificate from MCD office. He also deposed that he does not know any child named Saloni Kumari or her parents and they never resided at his address EE-2656, Block EE, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
17.3 PW3 Ms. Pooja Jha has deposed that she had applied in 2014 with SDM office Civil Line Tis Hazari for issuance of her birth certificate. She proved her application along with documents as Ex.PW3/A(colly). She also deposed that after submission of the application, officials from SDM visited her native place for verification and thereafter, birth order was issued in her favour. Thereafter she applied to MCD and birth certificate was issued in her favour on payment of requisite fees. When the witness was shown the birth certificate of Umrul Mukhtar (D-14), she deposed that Umrul Mukhtar never resided at house no. 3240, Gali no. 83, Block B, Sant Nagar, Delhi. When she was shown SDM order (D-41), She stated that the said document bears the same SDM order number which was issued in her favour. She also deposed that Umrul Mukhtar never resided on the above address where she had resided since her birth till her marriage.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 11 of 11517.4 PW4 Hari Om Kumar has proved the application to SDM, Tis Hazari along with the documents, filed by him for issuance of birth certificate of his daughter Manya as Ex.PW4/A(colly). He deposed that after 15 days of submission of application, order was issued in his favour. When the witness was shown D-44 (i.e. the SDM order of Ananya Shodwani), he stated that Ananya Shodwani never resided at 99, Gali no. 6, Amrit Vihar, Burari, Delhi.
17.5 PW5 Kishore Kumar has deposed that after a birth of his daughter Nandani, the birth certificate issued by MCD was having many mistakes and when he pointed out the mistake to the concerned office of MCD, he was asked to apply afresh as mistake could not rectified. Thereafter, he proved the copy of application along with documents applied for issuance of birth certificate of his daughter in the office of SDM, Model Town as Ex.PW5/A (colly). He deposed that after verification, SDM order was issued and thereafter, he applied for birth certificate in MCD office, Civil Lines and same was collected by his wife after about 15 days. When he was shown D-45 (i.e. birth order of Somya), he stated that no child namely Somya d/o Naresh resided at 96, Gali no. 6, A Block, Amrit Vihar, Burari, Delhi.
17.6 PW10 Smt. Sudha Devi proved the verification report regarding birth certificate of her daughter Vishakha Singh as Ex. PW10/A. She proved seizure memo Ex.PW10/B (D-9) and stated that vide this memo she had handed over self attested copy of SDM order Ex.PW10/C to CBI. She deposed that no child with the name Tanya Sharma d/o Subhash Chand was living in her neighbourhood. When she was shown D-49 (i.e. birth registration order of Tanya Sharma), CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 12 of 115 she stated that particulars filled in the order regarding child's name and husband name were wrong and the order was false. The certificate was marked as Mark PW10/1. When she was shown the copy of birth report attached with D-49, she stated that address mentioned on it was her address but name of the child and parents name on it were wrong. The birth report was marked as Mark PW10/2.
17.7 PW36 Pir Mohammad has proved application filed by him in SDM office for preparing the SDM order in respect of his children Sahabjan and Ruby as Ex.PW36/A and Ex. PW36/B respectively. He also identified his signature on the birth reporting forms (part of D-11) and stated that he had applied to MCD vide this application along with SDM orders [already exhibited as Ex.PW23/B-5(colly) and Ex. PW23/B-7(colly)]. He deposed that during investigation, he had handed over the copy of birth certificates of his children Ex. PW36/C and Ex.PW36/D to the IO. He also deposed that no child by the name of Mridul or Aman ever resided at house no.76/08, Gali no.13, Ajeet Vihar, Burari.
(ii)Parents with forged delayed birth certificates 17.8 PW8 Lakhan Singh has deposed that his son Vansh was born on 17.04.2010 at ESI Hospital, Okhla and at that time he was residing at house no. D-125, Gali no.3, Block D, Sangam Vihar. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW8/A (D-24) vide which he had handed over birth certificate of his son Ex. PW8/B to CBI. He further deposed that he wanted to get his son admitted in Central School and in March, 2005 he inquired in this regard from one PP Singh, a tutor of his area by showing him original birth certificate Ex.PW8/B who told him that he CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 13 of 115 would require fresh birth certificate showing his son to be more than five years of age and he can get the birth certificate through his contact. On the demand of PP Singh, he gave copy of Election ID Card and copy of original birth certificate of his son. PP Singh further told him that it would cost Rs. 2000 to Rs. 2500 for getting the certificate. PW8 further deposed that he did not get new birth certificate of his son in time and he could not fill the admission form in Central School. After the admission process was over, PP Singh brought a certificate showing date of birth of his son as 17.02.2010 and told PW8 that he had spent Rs. 2000 to Rs. 2500 on it and asked him to take it but PW8 refused as it was no use for him. PP Singh left the new birth certificate and asked PW8 to pay some money. He had handed over the new fake certificate to CBI vide memo Ex. PW8/A. After seeing the SDM order D- 37, PW8 deposed that he had never resided at the address mentioned in the order. He also denied his signature at point A on the birth reporting form (part of D-37). The SDM order and birth reporting form were marked as Mark PW8/1 and Mark PW8/2 respectively. He further deposed that he had not visited any office for applying for birth certificate Ex. PW8/B and had also not filed any form for that purpose.
17.9 PW12 Anita has deposed that her son Murdul was born on 17.04.2012 at home and she had not applied for his birth certificate. She further deposed that on inquiry from her neighbour to get the birth certificate of her son, she contacted the owner of shop named Rajdhani who contacted another person on phone and informed her that the birth certificate would be made and she gave her identity card to the shopkeeper. She paid Rs. 500/- as advance and after fifteen days she collected the birth certificate of her son from the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 14 of 115 shopkeeper and paid him balance amount of Rs. 1000/-. She deposed that she had not gone anywhere and had not signed any documents for obtaining the birth certificate. She proved production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW12/A (D-17) vide which she had handed over the birth certificate of her son Murdul Ex.PW12/B to CBI. When she was shown the SDM order and application form submitted to Govt. of NCT of Delhi, she stated that the application form Ex. PW12/C does not bear her signature and she had never stayed at house no. 76/8, Gali no. 13, Ajeet Vihar, Burari as mentioned in the birth order and Ex.PW12/C. When she was shown the birth registration details (page no.240 of D-
52) Mark PW12/1, she stated that other particulars were correct but the present address mentioned therein was not of her family.
17.10 PW14 Bhuvnesh Kumar Pandey has deposed that his daughter Nikita was born at home in the year 2003 and he did not get her birth certificate prepared. He went to SDM office, Tis Hazari in 2005 for getting the birth certificate prepared where he met a boy Praveen who told him that he can get the birth certificate prepared. PW14 gave copy of his aadhar card, aadhar card of his daughter Nikita. Praveen demanded Rs. 2000/-. After 15-20 days he had handed over birth certificate to him at Sant Nagar Burari and he paid Rs. 2000/- to Praveen. PW14 further deposed that after 3-4 months, a lady from MCD came to their house and told that the birth certificate of his daughter was fake and he was called in CBI office and was shown some forms and he had told that the same were not in his handwriting. PW14 proved production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW14/A (D-18) vide which he had given birth certificate of Nikita Ex. PW14/B to CBI. He had also deposed that he and his family never stayed at D-12 A, Gupta CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 15 of 115 Colony, Polo Road, Delhi. On being shown the birth registration details Mark PW14/1 (page 247 of D-52), he deposed that his other particulars were correct but the address was wrongly mentioned.
He further deposed that he had also given the mobile number of Praveen to his friend Subhash Chand as he was also requiring a birth certificate but he had no knowledge about the discussion they had over the phone nor he was aware of the name of his daughter or knowledge regarding forged SDM order and volunteered that Praveen had shown the birth certificate of his daughter on his phone. When he was shown the birth order Mark PW14/2 (D-50), he stated that the address and wife's name are wrong particulars. He also denied his signatures on the birth reporting form Mark PW14/3 (page no. 220 of D-50). PW14 was also cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI as he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross examination, he admitted that his statement Ex.PW14/C was recorded by CBI. He also deposed that he or his wife had not submitted any documents in SDM office and he had also not handed over the documents of his friend's daughter. He denied the suggestion that Praveen Kumar had handed over the birth certificate of his friend's daughter to him. When he was confronted with portion X to X-1 of his statement Ex. PW14/C, he admitted that he had handed over Rs. 4000/- to Praveen for issuance of two birth certificates and he had also stated before IO that he had provided particulars of both children and copies of address proof of himself and his friend Subhash to Praveen.
17.11 PW15 Chunni Begum has deposed that she had submitted the birth certificate of his son Umrul Mukhtiar in the school and was not having any other copy of the certificate and she decided CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 16 of 115 to get fresh certificate. She contacted Sulekha who used to make birth certificates in her area. She paid Rs.1800/- to Sulekha and Sulekha gave birth certificate of his son. She also deposed that she had gone to office and met one Madam who inquired from her if she had got prepared the certificate but she could not identified the madam despite accused being pointed out in the court by the Ld.PP. She also deposed that she had not applied for the birth certificate of his son and had not visited any office in this regard. She also deposed that she was not aware if the certificate given by Sulekha was genuine or not and she never resided at house no. 3240, Gali no. 83, B Block, Sant Nagar, Burari. She also deposed that she had handed over the original birth certificate to CBI. She proved production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW15/A vide which she had handed over the birth certificate of Umrul Ex. PW15/B to CBI. When she was shown the birth order Ex.PW15/C (D-41), she told that the particulars and parentage are incorrect. She also denied the signature of her husband at point A on the accompanying application Mark PW15/1. When she was read over the details of birth registration (D-52) Mark PW15/2, she stated that the name of her son, parents and permanent address is correct but the present address is incorrect. PW15 was also cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI as she was resiling from her previous statement. In her cross examination, she admitted that her statement was recorded by CBI and the same was read over and explained to her. She also admitted that Sulekha had taken her to the office of SDM Civil Lines. She further admitted that there she was made to meet accused Ms. Shobha Chawla but denied the suggestion that the accused had asked her about the birth of her son. She also failed to identify the accused in the court and stated that she had only met the accused for a moment CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 17 of 115 and therefore, do not remember her face.
17.12 PW17 Subhash Chand has deposed that his daughter Tanya Sharma was born in 2002 and delivery had taken place at the house of his in-laws and he had not applied for birth certificate. He further deposed that he met Praveen through Bhuvnesh Kumar, PA of the local councilor in 2015. Praveen took copy of his residence proof, noted down the particulars of his daughter and demanded Rs. 3000/- for his work. Bhuvnesh provided him birth certificate after about one month but he did not know who had given the birth certificate to Bhuvnesh. He was also not aware of the address or whereabouts of Praveen. He deposed that he had not submitted any application in SDM office, Civil Lines Zone, Tis Hazari for birth order. When PW17 was shown birth order D-49 and application for birth report, he deposed that he had never resided at house no. D-29, Gandhi Vihar, Near Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and further submitted that date of birth of his daughter has been wrongly mentioned as 19.08.2001 and the address was also incorrect and the signatures were also not of his wife. He also deposed that his wife had not applied for birth certificate of his daughter. He proved production-cum-seizure memo (D-19) Ex. PW17/A vide which he had handed over the birth certificate Mark PW17/1 (given to him by Bhuvnesh Kumar) to CBI. When he was shown the print out of registration of birth and death, MCD (page 243 of D-52), he deposed that the address/permanent address mentioned therein was incorrect and he never resided at D-29, Gandhi Vihar, Near Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
17.13 PW18 Poonam has deposed that in 2011 she was CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 18 of 115 residing at house no. 389, Block No. 22, Trilok Puri, Delhi where she gave birth to a daughter Somya on 24.01.2011. In January, 2015 she shifted to her father's house in Jahangir Puri. In 2015 while getting her daughter admitted to the school, she got prepared a birth certificate through Horam and had given him Rs. 1500/-. She deposed that she was not aware through whom Horam had got the certificate prepared. When she was shown the printout of registration of birth & death, MCD (page 246 of D-52), she deposed that the address/permanent address mentioned therein i.e. house no. 96, Gali no. 6, A Block, Amrit Vihar, Burari is incorrect and she had not even seen Burari. She also deposed that she never visited SDM Office, Civil Lines for obtaining birth order nor she submitted any application for issuance of birth certificate. When PW18 was shown the birth order D- 45, she stated that her name was wrongly mentioned as Navita Devi and her address was also wrongly mentioned in the birth order. When she was shown birth reporting form (part of D-45), she denied her signature at point A on the form. She also proved production-cum- seizure memo (D-21) Ex. PW18/A vide which she had handed over the birth certificate of her daughter Somya, which was given by Horam, to CBI.
17.14 PW19 Dilip Gupta has deposed that earlier he was residing at house no. 1238, I Block, Sangam Vihar. A son named Vivek was born to him in 1999 but he could not apply for his birth certificate. In Jan./Feb. 2015 his wife discussed regarding issuance of birth certificate with Pushpa who was living in the neighbourhood and she assured to get birth certificate and demanded Rs. 1500/-. On request, she agreed to accept Rs. 1400/- and he provided copy of his CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 19 of 115 ID card to Pushpa. After 30/35 days Pushpa gave birth certificate of his son and his wife gave Rs. 1400/- to Pushpa. When PW19 was shown the birth order D-39, he stated that name of his wife and address i.e. N-68-69 Majnu Ka Tila are wrongly mentioned in it. He also denied the signatures of his wife at point A on the birth reporting form (part of D-39) when the same was shown to him. He proved production-cum-seizure memo (D-22) Ex. PW19/A vide which he had handed over the birth certificate of his son Vivek Ex. PW19/B to CBI. He further deposed that he or his wife had never submitted any application in SDM office for birth order nor they had applied with MCD for issuance of birth certificate nor they ever resided at N-68-69, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi.
17.15 PW28 Zia Ul Haq has deposed that he got prepared birth certificate of his children Saliha Parveen and Mohd. Saleah on 06.05.2015 through Nasreen by Sulekha. One Janki Devi, Asha Worker had taken the birth detail of her children and handed over the same to Nasreen who handed over the same to Sulekha. He got the birth certificate of both the children after 15-20 days and his wife paid Rs. 4000/- to Janki Devi. He proved production-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW28/A (colly) (D-26) vide which he had handed over self attested copy of the birth certificate of his children Saliha Parveen and Mohd. Saleah. He further deposed that he never visited Sub-Registrar Office, Civil Lines Zone nor made any application for issuance of birth certificate or SDM order and he had never visited the SDM office for obtaining SDM order. He also deposed that he never resided at khasra no. 159, gali no. 5/14, Samta Vihar, Mukand Pur which was shown in both birth certificates. PW28 was declared hostile and was CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 20 of 115 cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had falsely introduced Janki Devi and there was no such person involved in the preparation of the birth certificates. He also denied the suggestion that his wife made payment of Rs. 4000/- directly to Sulekha.
17.16 PW30 Harish Shodwani has deposed that earlier he was residing in Rani Bagh and a baby girl Ananya was born on 12.07.2012 at Manav Nursing Home, Rani Bagh. He got the birth certificate of his daughter but there was spelling error in his name because of which he was facing difficulty in her admission. He contacted Anil Gupta of Sanjay Nagar who assured to assist him and he gave him Rs. 4000/- or Rs. 5000/- and Anil Gupta got new certificate with correct particulars which was submitted by him with Lancer's Convent School, Prashant Vihar. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW30/B (D-16) vide which he had given copy of the new birth certificate Ex. PW30/A (part of D-16) to CBI. He also produced the original certificate Ex. PW30/C which contained spelling mistake in his name. He deposed that he does not know anything about the address of Amrit Vihar, Burari mentioned in the certificate. He also deposed that he had no knowledge regarding SDM order for obtaining any birth certificate and he and his wife never visited SDM office in this connection. He volunteered that Anil Gupta got the work done and they had not gone anywhere. He denied the signature of his wife on birth reporting form Ex.PW30/D (part of D-44). He also denied any knowledge about the SDM order Ex.PW21/C-7 (part of D-44) and stated that their address mentioned in the order was wrong. In reply to a leading question put by Ld. Sr. PP, PW30 admitted that the correct name of the agent was Amit Gupta and not Anil Gupta.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 21 of 11517.17 PW34 Raj Kumar Sahani has deposed that he got prepared the birth certificate of his daughter Amarti through Asha worker Sulekha. He had handed over copy of aadhar card, copy of school I Card and Rs. 500/- to Sulekha for preparation of birth certificate of his daughter. After some time Sulekha handed over the birth certificate and he handed over balance amount of Rs. 1200/- to Sulekha. He further deposed that he had never visited the office of Registrar, Birth & Death or office of SDM in connection with the preparation of birth certificate of his daughter. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW34/A (D-15) vide which he had handed over the birth certificate Ex.PW29/E to CBI.
17.18 PW37 Aslam proved seizure memo Ex. PW37/A (D-23) vide which he had handed over the birth certificate (already Ex. PW29/E) of his daughter Muskan to CBI during investigation. He deposed that he got the certificate prepared through one Mr. Pathak who was a tutor. He had given his ID proof, particulars of his child and Rs. 2000/- to Mr. Pathak and he got the birth certificate for admission of the child in the school. PW37 further deposed that he got the birth certificate after about 10-15 days of providing the details and documents to Mr. Pathak and neither he nor his wife visited the office of SDM or Registrar, Death & Birth in relation to preparation of the birth certificate of his child. He denied the signature of his wife on birth reporting form already Ex.PW32/DA (part of D-38). When he was shown the SDM order (part of D-38) already Ex.PW22/A-2, PW37 deposed that he never resided on the address 405/19, Gali no. 9, Gopal Pur, Delhi-9 mentioned in the birth order.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 22 of 11517.19 PW38 Bharat Kumar Rajak has deposed that he is residing in Burari for last seven to eight year and his daughter Rani was born in the year 2005. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW38/A vide which he had handed over the birth certificate (already marked Mark PW23/E) of his daughter Rani Kumari to the IO. He deposed that he got the certificate prepared through one person who came to do the survey of the place where he worked in January, 2015. PW38 gave him aadhar card of his child and of himself, electricity bill of his house, school certificate and Rs. 2000/- in advance. After 15-20 days he received the birth certificate and paid the balance Rs. 2000/-. He further deposed that neither he nor his wife had gone to SDM office or to the office of Registrar Death & Birth for the preparation of birth order or birth certificate. He denied the signature of his wife Kavita Kumari on the birth reporting form Ex.PW32/DC and deposed that this form was not filled by her. When he was shown SDM order already marked as Mark PW6/E, he deposed that neither he nor any of his relative resided at the address i.e. N-25/B-66, Lal Bagh, Azad Pur.
17.20 PW41 Farman has deposed that prior to 2012 he was residing in jhuggi of CD Park, Jhuggi no. 38/224. His daughter Saina was born in October, 2010 and he did not obtain the birth certificate of his daughter at the time of her birth. In 2015 when he went for admission of his daughter in the school, he was asked to produce the birth certificate. PW41 deposed that he got the birth certificate prepared through one lady Sulekha who was living in his gali. He gave Rs. 1000/- to Sulekha with details of child and parents and got the birth certificate after one or two months. He also deposed that he did not CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 23 of 115 visit SDM office or Office of Registrar Birth & Death, MCD Civil Lines nor had submitted any application for issuance of SDM order under his signature. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW41/A (D-25) vide which he had handed over the birth certificate of Saina (part of D-25 already exhibited as Ex. PW29/D) to the CBI. He also deposed that he never resided at 10/259, Prem Nagar, Nathupura, Burari i.e. the address mentioned in the birth certificate Ex.PW29/D. 17.21 PW45 Ms. Pushpa has deposed that she knew her neighbour Madhuri who had asked for her help in preparation of birth certificate of her child Vivek. They both had gone to a typist who sat behind Batra Hospital and got the affidavit prepared. She further deposed that one person met them there and offered his help to get the birth certificate prepared and initially asked for Rs. 2000/- for preparation of birth certificate but when they showed their inability, he agreed to get the birth certificate prepared for Rs. 1400/-. Madhuri gave aadhar card, affidavit and Rs. 700/- to the said person and after about 15-20 days one person delivered the birth certificate at her house. 3-4 days later, they had gone to the same place where they had first met the said person i.e. behind Batra Hospital and paid balance Rs. 700/- to him. She further deposed that she never visited MCD office or SDM office nor she had filled any form for preparation of birth certificate. When she was shown the birth reporting form Ex. PW32/DB (part D-39) she stated that the form did not bear her handwriting or signature. She also deposed that she did not know about the SDM order prepared for issuance of birth certificate. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by ld. Sr. PP for CBI. In her cross examination, she admitted that she was called to CBI office during investigation of the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 24 of 115 case but she was not aware whether her statement was recorded or not. She denied the suggestion that she had given the name of Rambir as the person whom they had met for preparation of birth certificate in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and volunteered that she was shown the photograph of the person to which she identified. She denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not disclosing the name of Rambir to help the accused.
(iii)Touts/Agents 17.22 PW9 Amar Singh did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. In the cross examination, he denied that his statement was recorded by CBI although he had visited CBI office twice. He admitted that he had told CBI that he had taken Mitra Vasu Pathak @ Masterji to Mahesh for preparation of birth certificate of his child Baby Muskan and Mahesh had demanded Rs. 1200/- from Masterji for getting the birth certificate made. He denied that Masterji had given Rs. 1200/- to Mahesh in his presence but admitted that the birth certificate was made by Mahesh. He also admitted that he had collected the birth certificate from Mahesh and gave it to Masterji. He admitted that he was not aware that how and from where Mahesh had got the birth certificate and admitted that he had introduced Masterji to Mahesh in good faith and had not taken any commission from Mahesh.
17.23 PW16 Vikas Ahmad has deposed that he is running a photostate shop at A-1041, Jahangir Puri since 1980. In February, 2015, he introduced his customer Anita to Horam for getting the birth certificate of her son Murdul prepared. He deposed that Horam was CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 25 of 115 working as an agent for getting the small jobs of public done. He further deposed that Horam informed Anita that he will charge Rs. 1500/- for birth certificate. Anita gave him copy of I-Card of her husband, photograph of her child and document regarding date of birth of her child and some documents. After two days, he paid Rs. 500/- to Horam as advance on the asking of Anita. In the month of March he collected the birth certificate from the shop of Horam and paid Rs. 1000/-. He also checked the certificate on the website of MCD when Anita came to his shop to collect the birth certificate and thereafter handed over the same to Anita. After about 1½ years Anita came to his shop and told that CBI had come to her house and told that there were some technical mistakes in birth certificate. He took Anita to Horam who assured that he will give copy of the certificate from the Net after two days. Thereafter, Horam issued two copies from the office at Rajpur Road and handed over the copies along with receipt of payment to Anita. He further deposed that Horam had died about 4-5 months ago. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and in the cross examination, he stated that Anita had also handed over the copy of vaccination card of her son to Horam. He was not aware if the birth certificate was issued from the office of Sub- Registrar, Birth & Death.
17.24 PW24 Sunil s/o Raja Ram is one of the three touts and his testimony has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. I shall discuss his testimony in details in later part of the judgment.
17.25 PW26 Amit Gupta has deposed that he was running a CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 26 of 115 Cyber Cafe and was also a stamp vendor in Sanjay Nagar, near Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He had gone to office of CBI around two years ago and was questioned by IO. PW26 further deposed that he had seen Sunil on one or two occasions at the shop of Muntiaj Khan. He also identified Sunil in CBI office and told the IO that he was the same Sunil who used to visit the shop of Muntiaj Khan. He was asked to bring Muntiaj Khan to CBI office and he brought Muntiaj Khan to CBI office where IO made fresh inquiry from both of them and also shown birth certificates and were asked from where these certificates were prepared on which they told CBI that only Sunil could answer about it. Later on he learnt that accused Shobha Chawla had been arrested by CBI. He further deposed that he told CBI that he had given documents relating to birth certificate to Muntiaj Khan and received a sum of Rs. 2000-3000/- but the same were not correct facts and actually he had neither given any money nor received any money. PW26 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. In the cross examination, he stated that he did not know any Harish and he never discussed with him regarding birth certificate of his daughter Ananya Shodwani. He denied the suggestion that Harish had requested him for preparation of birth certificate and had provided the particulars and he had handed over the same to Muntiaj Khan and had also demanded Rs. 3000/- from Harish or that Muntiaj Khan had provided birth certificate to him and he had paid Rs. 3000/- to Muntiaj and the birth certificate was handed over to Harish. PW26 was confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex.PW26/A but he stated that the said facts were false, although he had stated so before CBI in haste. He disclosed the mobile number of Muntiaj in the court after seeing the details from his mobile. PW26 stated that he never visited the office of CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 27 of 115 SDM or submitted any application in this regard and was not aware of any SDM order dated 23.12.2014 for issuance of birth certificate of Ananya. When he was shown the SDM order Ex. PW21/C-7, he denied having any knowledge about it. He denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the accused and was deposing falsely.
17.26 PW27 Muntiaj Khan has deposed that he was running a shop of e-stamp for last four years and knew Amit Gupta being his friend. He did not recall that Amit Gupta gave him documents regarding preparation of birth certificate of Baby Ananya. He deposed that he never made any birth certificate of any child. He had gone to CBI office and told CBI officer that he never visited office of Sub Registrar for preparation of birth certificate. He was also shown some documents in CBI office and told that he never handled those documents. He knew Sunil but was not aware about his vocation. PW27 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. He denied the suggestion that in Feb./Mar. 2015 Amit came to his shop for preparation of birth certificate of Ananya and provided the documents pertaining to date of birth of said child. He was unable to recall whether he had handed over the said documents to one Sunil who used to come to his shop for preparation of birth certificate although he admitted that Amit had given him Rs. 2500/- for the said work and he paid Rs. 2300/- to Sunil but he could not recall that Sunil had provided the birth certificate of Ananya within ten days to him. He also admitted that the aforesaid money was in respect of birth certificate of Ananya issued from office of Sub-Registrar, Civil Lines Zone. He also admitted that he had handed over the said birth certificate to Amit. He deposed that he never visited the office of SDM CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 28 of 115 Civil Line Zones and never submitted any application for issuance of birth certificate in respect of Baby Ananya. He also deposed that he also did not receive any application from Amit Gupta for issuance of SDM order. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely to save the accused.
17.27 PW29 Smt. Sulekha is also one of the three touts and she is one of the main witness of the prosecution whose testimony has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution. I shall be discussing her testimony in detail in later part of the judgment.
17.28 PW31 Rambir Singh is also one of the touts who got prepared some birth certificates from accused and amongst the main witnesses of prosecution to prove the charges against accused. I shall discuss his testimony in detail in later part of the judgment along with the testimony of other touts.
17.29 PW42 Praveen has deposed that in Feb./March, 2015 he was approached by Bhuvnesh Kumar Pandey and his friend Subhash Chand for preparation of birth certificate of their children. He visited the SDM office for preparation of birth order and met Sunil who asked Rs. 2000/- for preparation of birth order/birth certificate. He returned and informed Bhuvnesh about the offer given by Sunil. Bhuvnesh asked him to get the birth certificate prepared through Sunil. Next day he went to Jahangir Puri and met Sunil and handed to him Rs. 2000/- along with documents and details of children for preparation of birth certificates. After about 15 days Sunil handed over the birth certificate to him at Bypass Burari Chowk and he handed over the remaining Rs. 2000/- to CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 29 of 115 him. PW42 identified the birth certificate of Nikita Pandey already Ex. PW14/B and birth certificate of Tanya Sharma already marked as Mark PW17/1 as the same birth certificates which were handed over by Sunil to him and he handed over the same to Bhuvnesh Kumar Pandey and Subhash Chand. He deposed that he does not know the address of Sunil who resides somewhere in Jahangir Puri. He also deposed that he did not fill up or sign any form for obtaining the birth order/birth certificate.
(B) OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE OF SDM 17.30 PW6 Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal has deposed that he worked as Tehsildar, Model Town from 01.11.2012 to 16.02.2016. He was not present in the office on 03.06.2015 when the surprise check was conducted by CBI officials as he had gone to the Head Quarters at 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. On the directions of SDM, he came back to the office and CBI team demanded certain documents regarding birth orders and the physical record of only two birth orders out of five desired by CBI team was available and it was handed over to CBI. In respect of the remaining three birth orders, computer generated record was handed over to CBI. The documents were handed over vide joint surprise check memo Ex. PW6/1 (D-3). The witness identified the signatures and endorsement made by him. He further deposed that he was called in CBI office in November, 2015 where he was asked about the procedure for issuance of birth orders and was shown six-seven birth orders out of which, one was genuine and others were bearing his forged signatures. PW6 also described the procedure for applying birth orders in case of delayed birth registration by more than one year CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 30 of 115 of birth. He further deposed that after June, 2015 only online applications can be filed by the applicant. After three days of the application, applicant can get his original documents and affidavit verified from the counter in SDM office and field verification has been done away with. The order is issued online with digital signature of Executive Magistrate and applicant can take print out of the same. PW6 also proved the letter Ex. PW6/2 (colly) (D-7) vide which he had handed over print out of downloaded performa of affidavit for obtaining birth/death certificate, office order dated 26.11.2015, application and various documents for issuance of various certificates to the IO. The witness also identified his specimen signatures on the sheets S-29 to S-40 given by him in CBI office as Ex.PW6/3 (colly) (D-63). When witness was shown birth orders of Khushi Godiyal (D-31), Abdul Kadir(D-36), Saloni Kumari (D-42), Mohd. Suman (D-43), Rani Kumari (D-46) and Nikita Pandey (D-50) marked as Mark 6/A to Mark 6/F respectively, purportedly issued by him, he deposed that these orders were not bearing his signatures and his signatures had been fabricated. He was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI as he was resiling from his previous statement. In the cross examination, he admitted that as per the procedure the birth order is uploaded on the website of the Revenue Department and the Civic Agency which is issuing the birth certificate is supposed to verify the genuineness of the birth orders from the website of the Revenue Department.
17.31 PW21 Amrendra Kumar Singh has deposed that he was working as Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Civil Lines in June, 2015. On 03.06.2015 a surprise check was conducted by the officials of CBI in their office at 01.00 PM and he was not available at that time and CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 31 of 115 was called by the then SDM Sh. Manish Jain and he reached in the office at 01.45 PM. CBI team asked about some birth orders which were provided to them. He identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo (D-4) Ex. PW13/A vide which he had handed over the documents/record to CBI. He also identified the signature of Sh. Manish Jain on point C on the memo Ex. PW13/A. He also identified his signature on production-cum-seizure memo dated 13.05.2016 Ex.PW21/A (D-27) vide which he had handed over the certified copies of relevant entries of dispatch register of office of SDM, Civil Lines Ex. PW21/B (colly). He also identified his signatures at point A on these documents and deposed that the same were certified by him.
PW21 was shown nine birth orders Ex.PW21/C-1 to Ex. PW21/C- 9 [pertaining to Hansika (D-32), Asma Malik (D-33), Kanika Dhankhar (D-34), Anjali (D-35), Daya Shankar Yadav (D-40), Umrul Mukhtar (D-
41), Ananya Shodwani (D-44), Somya (D-45) and Tanya Sharma (D-
49) respectively] in the court and he deposed that these birth orders do not bear his signatures at point Q-3 to Q-20. He deposed that he never signed as Amrendra Kumar Singh on the said points. When PW21 was shown five birth orders Ex.PW21/D-1 to Ex. PW21/D-5, he deposed that these certificates were genuine and were issued by him and he identified his signatures at point A-1 to A-10. PW21 thereafter explained the procedure for issuance of birth order when application is made after one year of birth. He deposed that their office does not issue birth certificate. He also deposed that on the basis of the birth orders issued by them, it is for the concerned Sub-Registrar to issue the birth certificate. The witness also identified his specimen signatures on the sheets S-1 to S-14 exhibited as Ex.PW21/E (colly) (photocopies of part of D-56) given by him in CBI office.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 32 of 11517.32 PW22 Madan Lal has deposed that he remained posted at Tehsildar, Central District, Tis Hazari Complex from 07.04.2011 to 30.07.2014. He further deposed that during the investigation of the case, CBI had shown him 21 birth orders, out of which 14 were found issued from the office of SDM, Civil Line which was also included five birth orders bearing his forged signatures and nine birth orders bearing the forged signatures of PW21. He deposed that someone else had forged these signatures on these birth orders. When he was shown the birth orders PW22/A-1 to Ex. PW22/A-5 [pertaining to Vansh Singh (D-37), Muskan Khan (D-38), Vivek Gupta (D-39), Murdul (D-47) & Aman Singh (D-48) respectively], he deposed that these do not bear his signatures and he had never signed as Madan Lal. PW22 was thereafter shown six more birth certificates Ex.PW22/B-1 to Ex. PW22/B-6 and he deposed that these certificates were genuine and were issued by him and he identified his signatures at points A-11 to A-
22. The witness also identified his specimen signatures on the sheets S-15 to S-28 exhibited as Ex.PW22/C (colly) (photocopies of part of D-
56) given by him during the investigation. Thereafter he also explained the procedure for issuance of birth order where application is made after one year of birth and deposed that their office does not issue the birth certificate.
(C) WITNESSES TO THE JOINT SURPRISE CHECK
(i) Public Witnesses 17.33 PW7 Chetan Singh has deposed that he had joined joint surprise check team along with CBI officials and reached the office of CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 33 of 115 Registrar, Birth & Death, MCD Office, Civil Lines. He also accompanied CBI officials to the office of SDM (North) at Civil Lines where CBI officials were told that their records were lying at Azad Pur and thereafter they reached Azad Pur and CBI officials searched for the file throughout the day and some files were taken out and shown to him. He identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex. PW6/1 (D-3).
17.34 PW11 Mahesh Kumar Gautam has deposed that on 03.06.2015 on the orders of his office, he reached CBI Office. From there he along with CBI team first went to MCD office, Civil Lines where birth certificates were made. He identified his signature on joint surprise check memo Ex. PW11/A (D-2) which was prepared at the office of Sub-Registrar, 16 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines. He also identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo Ex. PW11/B (D-5) prepared at Civic Centre, New Delhi. He also deposed that the various documents mentioned in these memos were taken over by the CBI and all the witnesses signed on these memo in his presence. He also deposed that the accused was present in her office at Rajpur Road, Civil Line and CBI officials had done their work in her presence.
17.35 PW13 Vijay Kumar Gaur has deposed that on 03.06.2015 on the directions of Assistant Director, he had reached CBI office and had joined a raid with them. CBI conducted raid at SDM office at Tis Hazari. He identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo Ex.PW13/A (D-4) and deposed that CBI had seized and taken the record mentioned in it. He also deposed that the memo was prepared at the spot and the witnesses had signed the same in his presence. In CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 34 of 115 reply to a leading question by Ld. PP for CBI, he admitted that except Sh. Manish Jain, SDM Civil Line, all other signatories of Ex. PW13/A were the team members of CBI.
17.36 PW35 Harpal Singh has deposed that on 03.06.2015 on the directions of his seniors, he had reached CBI office and had met Dy. SP Deepak Gaur. From CBI office, they went to North MCD Office, Rajpur Road to the office of accused. After conducting surprise check in the presence of accused a memo was prepared. He identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo already Ex.PW11/A (D-2) and deposed that CBI had seized the documents detailed in the memo. He also deposed that thereafter they had reached office of North MCD Data Centre Office Vital Statistics at Civic Centre, Minto Road, 24th Floor. There some files were checked and data was provided by official Kulvinder Singh in DVD which was signed by him. He identified the DVD already exhibited as Ex.P when the same was opened in the court. He also identified his signatures on the joint surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex.PW21/A vide which the DVD was seized by CBI. He further deposed that thereafter they reached the office of Incharge Vital Statistics on 18 th Floor of Civic Centre where Ms. Jasveen Duggal was present. The CBI team checked the office and also took some documents provided by her vide surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex.PW11/B (D-5). He identified his signature on the memo at point C on all pages.
(ii) Officials of CBI 17.37 PW43 B.S. Chauhan, Dy. SP has deposed that on 03.06.2015 he was directed by the then SP to conduct joint surprise CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 35 of 115 check at SDM Office, Model Town. He prepared a team comprising of himself, Inspector Yogender Yadav, one witness from Directorate of Vigilance and two witnesses from Department of Transport and reached the office of SDM North and seized files relating to the irregularities pertaining to the birth certificates and prepared the joint surprise check memo already Ex. PW6/1. He identified his signature at point C, signature of Y.S. Yadav at point D, signatures of Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal, the then Tehsildar at point A. He deposed that the surprise check memo mentions the details of files which were seized and the documents later on haded over to the IO.
17.38 PW46 Mukesh Kumar, SI Delhi Police deposed that in 2015 he was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, Delhi on deputation. On 03.06.2015 after receiving source information, a team comprising of SI Ajeet Singh, Raman Kumar Shukla, Ram Singh and V.K. Gaur conducted a surprise check in SDM office, Civil Lines, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and met SDM Manish Jain and Tehsildar Amrendra Singh and informed the purpose of surprise check and surprise check was conducted in their presence and relevant documents were collected and seized vide joint surprise check memo already Ex. PW13/A. He identified his signature on the memo at point D, signature of Raman Shukla at point E and signature of Ajeet Singh at point F. He further deposed that independent witnesses and Manish Jain, SDM and Amrendra Singh, Tehsildar signed the memo in his presence. Thereafter they returned to CBI office and deposited the documents in malkhana.
17.39 PW47 Inspector Harnam Singh has deposed that on CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 36 of 115 03.06.2015 he joined the surprise check team constituted by Dy. SP Deepak Gaur to conduct joint surprise check at the office of Sub Registrar (Death & Birth) Civil Lines Zone, North DMC, Rajpur Road, Delhi. He further deposed that they reached office of Sub-Registrar at around 12.00 noon. Accused was present in her office and she was explained the purpose of joint surprise check and thereafter joint surprise check was carried out and some documents were collected and were seized vide joint surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex. PW11/A (D-2). The witness identified his signature at point C on the memo. He also identified the signature of other team members and accused on the memo. He deposed that thereafter they proceeded to the office of Office Incharge, Vital Statistics (Birth & North), North DMC, Civic Centre, New Delhi and went to 24th floor and met Kulvinder Singh who provided the data in a DVD. The witness identified his signature on the joint surprise check memo already Ex. PW20/A (D-57) at point C and that of Deepak Gaur at point D and deposed that the DVD along with certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act already Ex.PW20/B (part of D-57) were seized. He further deposed that thereafter they had gone to 18th floor of Civic Centre and met Ms. Jasveen Duggal who was Office Incharge, Vital Statistics (Birth & Death). She was informed the purpose of visit and she produced some documents which were seized vide joint surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex.PW11/B (D-5). He identified his signature on the memo at point D and that of Deepak Gaur at point E. Thereafter they returned to CBI office along with the seized documents.
17.40 PW48 Sh. Y.S. Yadav has deposed that he was posted in CBI, ACB in Delhi on deputation from 2012 to 2016. On 03.06.2015 he CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 37 of 115 along with Dy. SP B.S. Chauhan, two independent witnesses and other members had gone to the office of SDM, North District, Model Town. He further deposed that there they seized some documents pertaining to the irregularities/illegalities regarding issuance of birth certificates and surprise check memo was prepared. The witness identified his signature at point B and signature of Sh. B.S. Chauhan at point C on the surprise check memo already Ex. PW6/1 (D-3). He deposed that the documents mentioned therein were seized through this memo. Thereafter they returned to CBI office along with the seized documents.
17.41 PW49 Deepak Gaur, Dy. SP has deposed that on 03.06.2015 he constituted a team comprising of himself, Harnam Singh, Inspector Praveen Kumar, Sushil Kumar Assistant Programmer and two independent witnesses and conducted joint surprise check at the office of Sub Registrar (Birth & Death), North DMC, 16 Rajpur Road, Civil Line, New Delhi on the directions of then SP Sh. Anish Prasad. He further deposed that the joint surprise check was on the information that fake birth certificates were issued from the said office. Accused Shobha Chawla was the Sub-Registrar on 03.06.2015 and she was present in her office on that day. She was explained the purpose of joint surprise check. 16 certified copies of various birth certificates were obtained from her computer system and taken into possession vide joint surprise check memo already exhibited as Ex. PW11/A (D-2). The witness identified his signatures at point D on the memo. He also identified the signature of other members of team on the memo. He further deposed that accused informed that the corresponding documents pertaining to the birth certificates issued by CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 38 of 115 her in the month of March had been sent to Civic Centre for verification which had not been received back. He deposed that thereafter they proceeded to the office of Officer Incharge, Vital Statistics (Birth & Death), North DMC, 18th floor, Civic Centre and met Jasveen Duggal, Officer Incharge and explained the purpose of visit. She provided 56 corresponding documents and certified copies of ten birth certificates after retrieving them from the computer system. She also confirmed that 56 documents had been obtained by her from the office of accused. These documents were taken into possession vide surprise check memo Ex.PW11/B (D-5). He further deposed that on 03.06.2015 itself the CBI team also reached MCD Data Centre Office and collected data regarding registration of birth and death on DVD from Kulvinder Singh and certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act already Ex. PW20/B (part of D-57) vide joint surprise check memo Ex.PW20/A (D-
57). Thereafter they returned to the office and memos along with the documents were handed over to SP Anish Prasad.
(D) OFFICIALS FROM NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 17.42 PW20 Kulvinder Singh has deposed that he had joined Tech Mahindra in 2006 and was assigned MCD e-governance works since August, 2011. On 03.06.2015 on the directions of Director, IT Department, MCD Civic Centre, he had assisted and supported the surprise check team of CBI in providing the complete dump of data of registration of birth and death applications from the production data which was hosted under the MCD, Civic Centre, Data Centre. The data was provided in a DVD. He identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW20/A (D-57) vide which the DVD was seized by CBI. He CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 39 of 115 also deposed that he had issued certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act in connection with said electronic record and identified his signatures on the certificate Ex. PW20/B (part of D-57). He also identified his signatures on DVD Ex. P-1 in which he had put the dump of data when the same was opened before the court.
17.43 PW23 Raman Vij has deposed that in the year 2015 he was working as Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone. He further deposed that had handed over 12 birth orders along with applications forms and late fee receipts Ex. PW23/B-1 to Ex. PW23/B- 12 respectively to the CBI vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 21.12.2015 Ex.PW23/A. He further deposed that vide production-cum- seizure memo dated 11.04.2016 Ex. PW23/C, he had handed over four online birth reporting forms along with SDM Orders bearing no. 90639281070127 Ex.PW23/C-1(colly); SDM order no. 90639281011981 Ex.PW23/C-2(colly); SDM order no. 90639281062329 Ex.PW23/C-3(colly) and SDM order no. 90639281068135 Ex.PW23/C-4 (colly). He further deposed that in all the aforesaid birth reporting forms, child name appearing is different from the online details of SDM orders. The original SDM orders of these four birth registration forms were not available in the office of Registrar, Civil Lines. He further deposed that he had also given certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex.PW23/D, pertaining to the documents seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C. 17.44 PW25 Dr. Jasveen Kaur Duggal has deposed that she joined North DMC in year 2012 as Officer Incharge (Vital) Statistics and Assistant Chief Registrar (Birth & Death) in the year 2012. She CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 40 of 115 further deposed that she was conversant with the procedure and guidelines issued for issuing birth and death certificates. She explained the procedure for registration of birth and issuance of birth certificates. She also deposed that the first copy of the birth/death certificate issued within one year is given free of cost.
PW25 also deposed that there are six zones of Citizen Service Bureau (CSB) which issues birth certificates and the CSB of Civil Lines Zone is located at 16 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. She further deposed that the process was computerized in the year 2004 and certificates issued after 2004 were computer generated printouts from the concerned zone of MCD. In the year 2015 also verification facility was available online to track the status where any applicant could see the same by entering the requisite login credential on the official website of the MCD. She further deposed that there is one Dy. Health Officer (DHO) /Registrar assisted by Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar is further assisted by data entry operators who are on contractual assignment and not regular employees of MCD. She further deposed that a complaint was received in the Head Quarters in Feb./Mar. 2015 from one Guddi Devi regarding some wrong processes being done by Civil Lines Zone and pursuant to such complaint, Head Quarters had issued order to all six zones to supply SDM orders for the period where registration took place in March, 2015 and the said SDM orders were scrutinized and when the details available online were compared with the physical orders received from the zones, it was observed that there were multiple birth registration against the same SDM orders. The website of Revenue Department was also checked for e-SLA which could show whether any SDM had passed any particular order or not but no other particulars used to be reflected on the website of Revenue CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 41 of 115 Department during that time though in June, 2015 or so, the entire particulars and orders were directed to be put on the website. She further deposed that CBI team had visited their office on 03.06.2015 and had seized the record vide joint surprise check memo already Ex.PW11/B (D-5). She identified her signature on the said memo at point B on all pages and deposed that the documents seized vide the said memo are contained in D-30 to D-51 as well as part of D-11 and included SDM orders and filled up birth reporting forms and some payments receipts regarding late fees. She deposed that all the SDM orders along with filled up birth reporting forms were seized from their office. She also proved the printouts generated on 03.06.2015 as Ex. PW25/B (page 221 to 230 of D-51). She also proved the letter Ex.PW25/C (D-6) vide which she had provided some other documents along with information. She deposed that Sub-Registrar is the authority to check the SDM orders before data entry is approved and thereafter late fees is paid by the applicant and registration number is generated and online approval is done by the Registrar. She also deposed that the address mentioned on the birth certificate is on the basis of the address mentioned in the SDM orders and volunteered that Sub-Registrar has to tally that the address mentioned in SDM orders is the same as mentioned in birth reporting forms. She further deposed that CBI had also seized the file related to child Rishabh and the SDM order Mark PW25/D (part of D-11) in relation thereto.
17.45 PW32 Sunil Kumar s/o Sultan Singh has deposed that he was working as data entry operator during 2014-2015 in Civil Lines Zone, MCD and was attached with accused Shobha Chawla. He deposed that data entry operator has to feed details regarding birth CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 42 of 115 reporting forms in the computer and name addition etc. He also used to do the work assigned by accused in relation to his official capacity and he used to sit on the first floor of the Vigilance building. He further deposed that he was not given any login, user or password as data entry operator and it was the job of the accused to open the system by using her login credential and make the system available to him for feeding the data. He further deposed that he used to feed the data as per the documents provided to him through the accused only. He further deposed that he was not supposed to entertain any birth reporting form directly and applicant was required to approach the concerned official at the counter situated at the ground floor and submit birth reporting form along with other documents and thereafter those documents used to come to him for feeding in the computer in chronological order.
He further deposed that he was called in the CBI office in relation to fake SDM orders and was shown several birth reporting forms and he identified four such birth reporting forms which were filled by him in his handwriting as directed by the accused and accused had also given the birth orders in relation to those forms and accordingly he filled up the birth reporting forms as per the details appearing in the birth orders. When he was shown birth reporting forms contained in D- 36, D-45, D-48 and D-49, he deposed that the birth orders Mark PW6/B, Ex.PW21/C-8, Ex. PW22/A-5 and Ex.PW21/C-9 were given to him by the accused and on the basis of such orders, he filled up the birth reporting forms Ex. PW32/A (part of D-36), Ex. PW24/DD-1 (part of D-45), Ex. PW32/B (part of D-48) and Ex. PW24/DD-2 (part of D-49) in his handwriting as per the instructions of the accused. He further deposed that on the basis of the said documents birth certificates were CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 43 of 115 issued which were signed by the accused. PW32 identified the initial of the accused on birth certificate of Saina Ex. PW29/D. However, he could not identify the initial/signature of accused on nine other birth certificates shown to him and stated that these do not seem to have been signed by the accused freely and in running handwriting. He also deposed that his specimen signatures were also taken during the investigation on specimen sheets S-41 to S-58 Ex.PW32/C (colly) (part of D-56). He further deposed that during investigation his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded in the court and he identified his signature on his statement exhibited as Ex. PW32/D. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. In the cross examination, he stated that he had told the CBI about the signature of accused on ten birth certificates and denied the suggestion that before CBI he had claimed that all ten such certificates were bearing the initial of the accused.
17.46 PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot has deposed that he was working as Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, MCD since May 2013. He knew accused as she was Sub-Registrar from 2013 to 2015. He deposed that in case where the birth certificate is obtained after one year of birth, the MCD office requires birth order issued by SDM and copy of such birth order is also received in the office from the concerned SDM. The applicant is required to apply for the birth certificate of his child by filing the birth reporting form which can be received from the window of CSB and it can be also directly entertained by Sub-Registrar or it can be received by the Registrar through Dak. He further deposed that the Sub-Registrar verifies the detail and then put the stamp on the birth order in token of verification CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 44 of 115 and then on his approval, birth certificate is issued by Sub-Registrar under his/her signature. In answer to the court question regarding the mechanism for verification of birth orders, the witness deposed that the data used to be verified from Sub Registrar of Head Quarters. He further deposed that the office copy of the birth order received from the SDM used to be marked to the concerned Sub Registrar of any particular zone and Sub Registrar could have also verified from the same. When he was shown the forged SDM order contained in D-31 to D-50, he deposed that these SDM orders can be easily identified as forged as they do not contain the dispatch number and date on the above and these SDM orders along with birth reporting forms were never placed before him for approval. He further deposed that since he was also a health officer and used to visit field for inspection as well as attend meeting in the Head Quarters and Health Ministry, therefore, for the smooth functioning of the office he had assigned his password of login ID to the Sub Registrar to avoid any delay and he had also issued the order in writing in detail. He also deposed that the details in the birth certificate should match with the details contained in the SDM order.
(F) SANCTIONING AUTHORITY 17.47 PW40 Pankaj Kumar Singh has deposed that he was posted in North DMC as Addl. Commissioner, Health & Finance on deputation from May, 2014 to November, 2016. He further deposed that in October, 2016 he had received requisition for giving sanction for prosecution against the accused Shobha Chawla being the competent authority to remove the accused. He identified the sanction order CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 45 of 115 issued by him as Ex. PW40/A and deposed that the sanction order was sent to SP CBI through forwarding letter Ex. PW40/B (D-62). He also deposed that he had gone through the entire material placed before him by CBI and had accorded sanction after proper application of his mind (G) HANDWRITING EXPERT 17.48 PW39 Dr. Rita Rani Gupta is the Sr. Scientific Officer from CFSL, CGO Complex Lodhi Road. She deposed that she has examined the questioned documents Mark Q-1 to Q-46 and compared them with the standard documents Mark A-1 to A-26 and S-1 to S-58 and opined that authorship of questioned signatures/initials Mark Q-1 to Q-20 could not be connected with the writer of standard signatures/initial Mark A-1 to A-10 and S-1 to S-14 attributed to Amrendra Kumar Singh; authorship of questioned signatures/initials Mark Q-21 to Q-30 could not be connected with the writer of standard signatures/initial Mark A-11 to A-22 and S-15 to S-28 attributed to Madan Lal; authorship of questioned signatures/initials Mark Q-31 to Q-42 could not be connected with the writer of standard signatures/initials Mark A-23 to A-26 and S-29 to S-40 attributed to Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal; handwriting of handwriting evidence points to the writer of specimen writing Mark S-1 to S-58 attributed to Sunil Kumar being the person responsible for questioned writings Mark Q- 43 to Q-46. She proved her report Ex. PW39/B and identified the CFSL seal impression on Ex.PW32/A (Q-43), Ex. PW24/DD-1 (Q-44), Ex.PW32/B (Q-45) and Ex. PW24/DD-2 (Q-46).
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 46 of 115(H) IO OF THE CASE 17.49 PW44 Inspector S.P. Singh is the IO of the case. He has deposed that FIR Ex. PW44/A (D-1) was registered on 22.06.2015 and initially it was entrusted to Sh. M.O. Roy, Dy. SP for investigation and on 10.07.2015 it was entrusted to him for investigation of the case. He deposed that he was also handed over the documents pertaining to joint surprise check memo Ex.PW11/A, Ex. PW6/1, Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW11/B. He also received letter dated 20.05.2016 Ex. PW25/C from Jasveen Duggal, Officer Incharge (OIVC) and procedure regarding registration of birth and death certificate issued by North DMC was also annexed with the letter. He also deposed that he received letter Ex. PW6/2 from Sh. Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal, Tehsildar, Model Town through which information regarding uploading of data birth/death orders were provided along with FAQ regarding the procedure for registration of birth and death. He also deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/B (D-8), he had seized the certified copy of SDM order dated 05.09.2014 in favour of Pooja Jha, birth certificate and payment receipt which were collectively received as Ex.PW44/C. He also deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B (D-9), he had seized the self attested copy of SDM order (already Ex. PW10/C) and copy of birth certificate in respect of Vishakha Singh Ex.PW44/D. He also deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW44/E (D-10), he had seized the self attested copies of SDM orders in respect of Manya and other children produced by Hariom. The self attested copies of SDM orders and certificates were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW44/F. PW44 deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A, he had seized 12 birth orders along with application forms and payment CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 47 of 115 receipts from the then Sub Registrar Sh. Raman Vij. He had also seized online birth reporting forms already exhibited as Ex. PW23/C-1 to Ex. PW23/C-4 and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act already Ex.PW23/D from Sh. Raman Vij vide seizure memo already Ex.PW23/C. He further deposed that he had received letter Ex.PW44/G from the Sub Registrar through which it was intimated that birth reporting form and SDM order in respect of child Amariti and S. Raghunandan were not found in the record of Birth & Death Section.
PW44 further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex. PW29/B (D-
13), he had seized the register from Sulekha Ex. PW29/A which contained details of birth certificates issued through her from the Office of Registrar, North DMC, Civil Lines. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A (D-14), he had seized birth certificate of Master Umrul Mukhtar, Ex. PW15/B from Smt. Chunni Begum. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A (D-15), he had seized birth certificate of Baby Amarti Ex. PW29/E from Raj Kumar Sahani. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B (D-
16), he had seized birth certificate of Ananya Shodwani Ex. PW30/A from Harish Shodwani. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A (D-17), he had seized birth certificate of Master Murdul Ex.PW12/B from Anita. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A (D-18), he had seized birth certificate of Nikita Pandey Ex.PW14/B from Bhuvnesh Kumar Pandey. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.17/A (D-19), he had seized birth certificate of Tanya Sharma Ex. PW17/1 from Subhash Chand. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.38/A (D-20), he had seized birth certificate of Baby Rani Kumari Mark PW23/A from Bharat Kumar Rajak. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A (D-21), he had CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 48 of 115 seized birth certificate of Baby Somya Mark PW23/F from Poonam. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A (D-22), he had seized birth certificate of Master Vivek Gupta Ex.PW9/B from Dilip Gupta. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW37/A (D-23), he had seized birth certificate of Muskan Khan Ex. PW23/DA from Aslam Khan. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A (D-24), he had seized birth certificate of Master Vansh Singh Ex. PW8/B from Lakhan Singh. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW41/A (D-25), he had seized birth certificate of Baby Saina Ex. PW29/D from Farman. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A (D-26), he had seized birth certificate of Mohd. Saleah and self attested copy of birth certificate of Saliha Parveen from Zia ul Haq. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/1 (D-27), he had seized certified copy of relevant entries of dispatch register of SDM Office, Civil Lines Ex. PW21/B (colly) from Amrendra Kumar Singh. He further deposed that the birth certificate of Sahil Soneja was collected from his father Harish Soneja and copies of birth certificates of Ruby and Sahab Jan already Ex.PW36/C and Ex.PW36/D were collected from Peer Mohammad when they were called for their statements. He also deposed that during investigation, he also received documents at serial no. D-30 to D-54 from Malkhana where they were deposited after joint surprise check. During investigation, he also got the statements of Sulekha, Sunil s/o Raja Ram, Rambir and Sunil s/o Sultan Singh recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and proved applications moved by him for this purpose as Ex.PW44/H-1, Ex. PW44/I, Ex.PW44/J and Ex. PW44/K respectively.
He also deposed that the personal bio-data of the accused was collected from MCD and proved the same as Ex. PW44/L (colly) (D-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 49 of 11558). He also deposed that during investigation, he had obtained the specimen handwriting/signatures of Amrendra Kumar Singh Ex. PW21/E, Madan Lal Ex. PW22/C, Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal Ex. PW6/3, Sunil Kumar s/o Sultan Singh Ex. PW32/C and the same along with questioned documents were sent to CFSL through forwarding letter along with annexure Ex. PW44/M (six pages). After completion of investigation, he obtained sanction for prosecution against the accused from sanctioning authority and proved the sanction order Ex. PW40/A and the forwarding letter Ex. PW44/B. He further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses correctly including statement of Sunil Kumar s/o Sultan Singh Ex. PW32/E and Pushpa Mark PW45/A. During investigation, it was revealed that fake SDM orders were made through accused Shobha Chawla for preparation of birth certificates and accordingly chargesheet was filed. CFSL report was received in December, 2016 and thereafter the report along with the documents were filed in the court.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
18. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein she denied the incriminating evidence against her and stated that she used to sit in CSB Hall situated at ground floor of the building from 09.00 AM to 03.00 PM (Monday to Friday) and 09.00 AM to 01.00 PM (Saturday) along with two officials of MCD for public dealing and from 03.00 PM to 05.00 PM in her office (Monday to Friday) situated on the first floor of adjoining building. She deposed that Sulekha was working as a tout in CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 50 of 115 connivance with others and was involved in the racket. She denied that she used to receive details from her and used to prepare the birth certificates after taking the money. She also denied that the certificates D-22 to D-24 were obtained through her by Rambir Singh on payment of Rs.1000/- per certificate and stated that all these certificates were fabricated by erasing the particulars from the original and re-typing the particulars of the applicants. She stated that she had shared her login credential with Data Entry Operator for smooth functioning of the office as she was required to attend official meetings, court hearings and was also required to be present for public dealing in CSB Hall for majority of her duty hours and this practice was prevalent prior to her joining the office. She also stated that PW32 has made false statement to implicate her. She also denied her initial on the birth certificate of Saina and stated that in none of the birth certificates purportedly issued on the basis of forged birth orders bear her initial or her signature. She also stated that the CSB transaction record Ex.PW23/DB, Ex.PW23/DC and Ex.PW23/DD shows that none of the birth certificates purportedly issued on the basis of forged orders were printed from the office of Registrar, Birth & Death. She also stated that the investigation was unfair and bias and was conducted solely in a manner to falsely implicate her and the statements of the witnesses were also manipulated to implicate her. The IO deliberately did not obtain her specimen writing and specimen writing of material persons as his sole object was to implicate her falsely. The sanctioning authority was also misled in granting the sanction and material evidence were withheld to save the real culprits. She had no knowledge as to who prepared, procured and submitted the birth orders and how these birth certificates were prepared on the basis of forged birth orders. No forged birth CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 51 of 115 certificate was signed/initialed and prepared by her or at her instance. She also deposed that the Registrar used to accord approval in cases where application was made after one year of birth, through his login credential and he never shared his passport or login credential. She preferred to lead evidence in her defence and examined following two witnesses:-
(i) DW1 Shyam Prakash Tehsildar from the office of SDM Model Town, Delhi produced the summoned record i.e. printouts of birth order no.
90639079084588 in the name of applicant Laguri and another printout no. 90639079080268 in the name of Aarti which were proved as Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B respectively. He deposed that he had obtained the printouts of these birth orders from the website of Delhi Government and the said orders are available on this website. When the witness was shown the birth order bearing no. 90639079084588 already Ex.PW33/DH-4 in the name of applicant Maya Devi for child Sapna Chauhan and birth order bearing no. 90639079080268 in the name of applicant Tarun Goel for the child Ananya Goel already marked as Mark PW6/DX-9 (part of Ex.PW24/DC-9), he deposed that the names of the applicants and child mentioned in these documents were different from the record brought by him.
When the witness was shown birth orders bearing no.
90639079083276, 90639079083346, 90639079083436 and 90639079083271 part of Ex.PW24/DC-1, Ex.PW24/DC-2, Ex. PW24/DC-3 & DC-8 and Ex.PW24/DC-10, the witness stated that the birth orders with aforesaid serial numbers were not available on the official website of Delhi Government i.e. e-district and the record of these birth orders is not available in the office of SDM Model Town.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 52 of 115(ii) DW2 Navrattan Kumar, Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death, North DMC, Civil Lines Zone, Rajpur Road, Delhi has deposed that he was working as Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death in Civil Lines Zone since November, 2016. He proved letter dated 28.07.2017 as Ex. DW2/A and deposed that vide this letter, he had submitted the records i.e. Register Books serial no. 1 to 9 containing birth reporting forms along with birth orders which were submitted in the office from 01.11.2013 to 31.01.2014, CSB login reports for the period 01.02.2015 to 30.04.2015 (already Ex.PW23/DB, DC and DD), and from 01.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 and stock registers already Mark PW44/DA and stock disbursal register already Mark PW44/DB before the court in response to the summons u/s 91 Cr.P.C. He deposed that the stock register Mark PW44/DA relates to the pre-printed blank stationary received from Head Quarters and same was exhibited as Ex. DW2/B. He also deposed that the stock disbursal register already Mark PW44/DB relates to the disbursal of pre-printed blank stationary to CSB operators and the same was exhibited as Ex. DW2/C. Thereafter, DE was closed.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
19. Ld. PP CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. He has argued that the present case was registered on the basis of reliable information in March, 2015 that fake birth certificates were being prepared from the office of the accused on the basis of fake SDM orders. Surprise checks were conducted in the offices of SDM Civil Lines, SDM Model CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 53 of 115 Town and Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone, North DMC and fake birth orders and birth certificates were recovered which showed that multiple birth certificates were issued in March, 2015 on the basis of same birth orders. The name of the child in the birth orders and birth certificates were different and criminal misconduct was found by the public servants, unknown officials from different department and unknown private persons. Ld. PP has argued that it is admitted fact that accused was posted as Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) Civil Lines Zone North DMC from January, 2014 to August, 2015 and she was responsible to verify the authenticity of the birth order and cross check the particulars of beneficiary available on the website of Revenue Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and only thereafter, the data entry could have been made on the system and after online approval of Registrar through his login ID, birth certificate could be printed issued to the applicant under the signature of Sub-Registrar. However, accused misconducted herself and failed to perform her duties diligently.
It was argued that during the surprise check, 22 birth registration orders along with payment receipts and birth report forms were found from the office of Vital Statistics (Birth & Death), North DMC, Civic Centre. The officer Incharge confirmed that she got collected the aforesaid 22 birth orders from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Civil Lines Zone. All the 22 birth certificates were found to be issued under the signature of the accused and out of the 22 birth orders, only one was found genuine. Out of the 21 beneficiaries, only ten beneficiaries were traced on the given addresses. It was further argued that all the 22 birth certificates were issued on the strength of fake SDM orders and 13 birth certificates were issued on 04.03.2015 and 7 birth certificates CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 54 of 115 were issued on 19.03.2015 and one each on 03.03.2015 and 10.03.2015. It was further argued that during investigation, Tehsildars namely Amrendra Kumar Singh, Madan Lal and Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal denied their signatures on 21 forged SDM orders. During investigation, it was also revealed that accused had issued birth certificates on the basis of fake SDM orders and Sunil Kumar Data Entry Operator had identified the initials and rubber stamp of accused on the fake birth certificates. It was further argued that accused got the birth certificates prepared in connivance with touts Smt. Sulekha, Sunil S/o Raja Ram and Rambir Singh after receipt of bribe through them. He submitted that the touts Rambir Singh, Sulekha and Sunil have supported the case of prosecution and have deposed that they used to pay bribe to the accused for preparation of the birth certificates. It was also argued that the accused also prepared birth certificate of one Nitu d/o Biru who was not even residing under the jurisdiction of North DMC nor she informed SDM Civil Lines Zone or other senior officers about the said birth certificate.
20. Per Contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that investigation in the case was not carried out fairly and impartially by the IO and accused has been falsely implicated in the case to save the real culprits. He argued that as per the chargesheet only 21 birth orders (D-30 to D-50) and 13 birth certificates (D-14 to D-26) have been produced on record and no birth orders are available for four birth certificates. He argued that out of these, the birth orders D-8 to D-11, D-53 & D-54 are genuine birth orders and the birth certificates D-8 to D-10, D-28 & D-29 are genuine birth certificates even as per the case of prosecution. He argued that the touts i.e. Sulekha, Rambir and Sunil CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 55 of 115 were in connivance with the data entry operators and CSB operators and the birth certificates were printed from outside. He also argued that the forged birth certificates were not signed by the accused and there is no evidence to show that the Registrar had given his approval for issuance of birth certificates. He further argued that the witnesses have deposed falsely in the court to implicate the accused and the evidence of the touts is in the nature of accomplice evidence as they were also partners in the crime as they admitted that they had paid bribe to the accused. He further argued that Data Entry Operator Sunil Kumar was also involved in the racket as he admitted in his evidence that he had filled certain birth reporting forms. Even Registrar Sh.O.P.Gahlot has falsely deposed that he had given his login ID and password to the accused and that accused could identify forged birth orders as they did not contain any dispatch number. Registrar falsely deposed that the birth orders were sent by office of SDM to his office and accused could have verified the particulars from those copies whereas the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate have deposed that the copies of the birth orders were not sent to the Office of Registrar Birth & Death. Counsel for the accused has also referred to the testimonies of various witnesses such as PW6, PW21, PW22, PW20, PW25, PW23, PW33, PW32, PW24, PW29, PW31 and IO PW44 to show that these witnesses had deposed falsely and contrary to the record to falsely implicate the accused. I shall deal with the deposition of these witnesses in detail in the later portion of the judgment. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that accused examined DW-1 Shyam Prakash and DW-2 Navrattan Kumar in her defence to show that the racket of preparing forged birth certificates was continuing even before she joined the office as Sub-Registrar Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone in CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 56 of 115 2014. It was also argued that the IO did not carry out any investigation to find out where and by whom the forged SDM birth orders were prepared and the source of official stationery used in the preparation of forged birth orders and birth certificates. Ld. Defence counsel also referred to press release of CBI and submitted that the documents mentioned in the said press release were never produced before the court. He also argued that there is no evidence to establish that the initial on the forged birth certificates were of the accused as no specimen handwriting/signatures/initials of the accused were obtained and sent to CFSL for comparison. It was argued that accused has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
21. In rebuttal, Ld. PP for CBI has argued that there is nothing on record to show that PW-32 Data Entry Operator Sunil Kumar is not a trustworthy witness or that he had accepted money for preparing the fake birth certificates or that he had entered data without knowledge of the accused. It was argued that PW32 had identified signature of accused on one birth certificate Ex.PW29/D of Saina but he has given the explanation that he had not been able to identify her initials/signatures on the remaining nine certificates as these did not seem to have been signed freely and in running hand. Ld. PP further argued that PW32 has further deposed that the SDM orders of Abdul Kadir (Mark PW6/B, part of D-36), Somya Ex. PW21/C-8 (part of D-45), Aman Ex.PW22/A-5 (part of D-48) and Tanya Sharma Ex.PW21/C-9 (part of D-49) were given to him by the accused and on the basis of the said SDM orders he had filled up the birth reporting forms Ex. PW32/A (part of D-36), Ex. PW24/DD-1 (part of D-45), Ex. PW32/B (part of D-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 57 of 11548) and Ex. PW24/DD-2 (part of D-49) in his handwriting which clearly shows the involvement of accused in the preparation of birth certificates on the basis of fake SDM orders.
He further argued that touts PW24 Sunil s/o Raja Ram, PW29 Sulekha and PW-31 Rambir Singh have also specifically deposed that they used to pay money to accused for preparation of birth certificates. Ld. PP argued that the mere difference in the amount of bribe paid to the accused, is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of Rambir Singh. He also argued that PW42 Praveen has also corroborated the testimony of PW24 Sunil and has deposed that he got the birth certificates of Nikita Pandey and Tanya Sharma through PW24 Sunil. He also argued that no suggestion has been given to the witnesses that signatures of the accused has been forged on the birth certificates by the touts or data entry operator or some other person. It was argued that it was the responsibility of the accused to verify the particulars of the SDM orders before issuance of the birth certificates and merely because she had shared her login and password with the data entry operator, cannot be a ground to absolve her from her liabilities and rather there is a presumption against the accused that the birth certificates were prepared with the knowledge of the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
22. From the perusal of charge-sheet, evidence adduced by the par- ties and documents available on record, the following points for deter- mination arise in the present case which requires consideration:-
(i). Whether accused Shobha Chawla had forged the birth registration orders/SDM orders CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 58 of 115 D-30 to D-50?
(ii). Whether accused used the aforesaid forged and fabricated birth registration orders/SDM or-
ders as genuine documents and prepared forged birth certificates D-14 to D-26 by abusing her official position and cheated her office?
(iii) Whether the sanction for prosecution granted against accused is a valid sanction?
23. The procedure followed for obtaining birth certificates, in cases of delayed registration of birth after one year of its occurrence, can be summarized as under:-
(i) Under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 delayed regis-
tration of birth and death can be made as per the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act.
(ii) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence can be registered only on order made by Magistrate of 1st Class or Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth and death.
(iii) For registration of births delayed beyond one year, applicant has to submit application form, affidavit, proof of date of birth, residence proof of parents, Aadhar card/identity proof of applicant in the office of the concerned SDM.
(iv) The Dealing Assistant hands over applications with supporting doc- uments to field staff i.e. bailiff, patwari or kanoongo working in the office of Tehsildar for local verification and after receipt of verification report, Dealing Assistant would place the application along with verification re- port and his remarks for approval of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate. Af-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 59 of 115ter approval by Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, birth registration order is printed on official stationery and official computer and issued under signature of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate. The birth registration order is dispatched to applicant by speed post or it can be collected by the applicant.
(v) After obtaining birth registration order, applicant submits the said birth registration order and birth reporting form in the office of Registrar/Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death) of the concerned area. The Sub-Registrar verifies the authenticity of birth registration order and cross check the particulars of beneficiary available on website of Rev- enue Department. Since 01.01.2004 birth and death registration were being done online.
(vi) The applicant is required to pay the fees for late registration at CSB Counter and deposit the reporting form along with birth registration or- der to the Sub-Registrar. Sub-Registrar was responsible to check the particulars mentioned in SDM birth order and tally the same with partic- ulars filled in the form. Once the particulars were checked, online regis- tration was done by Sub-Registrar under his/her login ID and the same was forwarded to DHO/Registrar online. After online approval given by DHO/Registrar through his login ID, printout of birth certificate was taken and signed by Sub-Registrar and thereafter it is issued to the ap- plicant.
24. Now I shall deal with the aforesaid points for determination one by one.
(i). Whether accused Shobha Chawla had forged the birth registration orders/SDM orders D-30 to D-50?
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 60 of 11525. As per the case of prosecution, 22 birth registration orders were seized during surprise check conducted in the office of Vital Statistics (Birth & Death), North DMC, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Out of 22 birth orders, 21 birth orders (i.e. D-30 to D-50) were found forged and only one birth registration order bearing no. 90639079166566/193 in the name of Rishabh was found genuine. It is further the case of prosecu- tion that the beneficiaries in the original birth registration order were dif- ferent, although the birth registration number was the same. For the sake of convenience, the list of 21 fake/forged SDM orders/birth regis- tration orders showing the names of beneficiaries in the original SDM order as well as fake SDM order is reproduced as under:-
Doc. Serial Number of Name of Child Name of Child in Exhibit No. Document in Fake original SDM / Number SDM/Birth Birth Registration Registration order Order D-30 90639271092072 Neetu North DMC could Ex. PW44/DF not provide genuine SDM Order D-31 90639079150360 Khushi Godiyal -Same as above- Mark PW25/A D-32 90639281082495 Hansika -Same as above- Ex.PW21/C-1 D-33 90639281082496 Asma Malik -Same as above- Ex.PW21/C-2 D-34 90639281082344 Kanika -Same as above- Ex.PW21/C-3 Dhankhar D-35 90639281083782 Anjali -Same as above- Ex.PW21/C-4 D-36 90639079142537 Abdul Kadir -Same as above- Mark PW6/B D-37 90639281051340 Vansh Singh Amit Kumar Ex.PW22/A-1 CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 61 of 115 D-38 90639281058846 Muskan Khan Ladlee Ex.PW22/A-2 D-39 90639281058857 Vivek Gupta Babita Ex.PW22/A-3 D-40 90639281058859 Daya Shankar Ragni Ex.PW21/C-5 Yadav D-41 90639281074045 Umrul Pooja Jha Ex.PW21/C-6 Mukhtar D-42 90639079125143 Saloni Kumari Rishabh Mark PW6/C (mentioned in birth details as 90639079166566) D-43 90639079144755 Mohd. Suman Sahil Soneja Mark PW6/D D-44 90639281086048 Ananya Maanya Ex.PW21/C-7 Shodwani D-45 90639281086617 Somya Kumari Nandni Ex.PW21/C-8 D-46 90639079119947 Rani Kumari Unknown Mark PW6/E D-47 9281001145 Murdul Ruby Ex.PW22/A-4 D-48 9281001004 Aman Singh Sahab Jaan Ex.PW22/A-5 D-49 90639281081979 Tanya Sharma Vishakha Singh Ex.PW21/C-9 D-50 90639079144755 Nikita Pandey Sahil Soneja Mark PW6/F
26. To prove its charges against accused, prosecution has exam- ined three witnesses from the office of SDM namely PW6 Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal, PW21 Amrendra Kumar Singh and PW22 Madan Lal be- sides examining PW39 Dr. Rita Rani Gupta from CFSL. Perusal of testimonies of these witnesses would show that PW6 has deposed that the birth orders of Khushi Godiyal (D-31), Abdul Kadir (D-36), Saloni Kumari (D-42), Mohd. Suman (D-43), Rani Kumari (D-46) and Nikita CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 62 of 115 Pandey (D-50) do not bear his signature and his signatures were fabri- cated. He also deposed that during investigation, his specimen signa- tures S-29 to S-40 [Ex. PW6/3 (colly)] were taken by the IO. PW21 Amrendra Kumar Singh has deposed that the birth orders of Hansika (D-32), Asma Malik (D-33), Kanika Dhankhar (D-34), Anjali (D-35), Daya Shankar Yadav (D-40), Umrul Mukhtar (D-41), Ananya Shodwani (D-44), Somya (D-45) and Tanya Sharma (D-49), exhibited as Ex. PW21/C-1 to Ex. PW21/C-9 do not bear his signatures at points Q-3 to Q-20 and he never signed as Amrendra Kumar Singh on the said points. He also identified his signatures on five genuine birth orders ex- hibited as Ex. PW21/D-1 to Ex. PW21/D-5 at points A-1 to A-10 respec- tively. He further deposed that his specimen signatures S-1 to S-14 [exhibited as Ex. PW21/E (colly)] were obtained during the investiga- tion. PW22 Madan Lal, Retd. Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate also de- posed that the five birth orders of Vansh Singh (D-37), Muskan Khan (D-38), Vivek Gupta (D-39), Murdul (D-47) and Aman Singh (D-48) ex- hibited as Ex.PW22/A-1 to Ex. PW22/A-5 do not bear his signatures at points Q-21 to Q-30 and he never signed as Madan Lal on the said points. He also identified his signatures on six birth orders Ex.PW22/B- 1 to Ex. PW22/B-6 at points A-11 to A-22. He also deposed that his specimen signatures S-15 to S-28 [exhibited as Ex.PW22/C (colly)] were taken during investigation.
PW39 Dr. Rita Rani Gupta from CFSL has proved her report as Ex. PW39/B and has deposed that the authorship of questioned signa- tures/initials marked Q-1 to Q-20 could not be connected with the writer of standard documents marked A-1 to A-10 and S-1 to S-14 attributed to Amrendra Kumar Singh. She further deposed that the authorship of questioned signatures/initials marked Q-21 to Q-30 could not be con-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 63 of 115nected with the writer of standard signatures/initials marked A-11 to A- 22 and S-15 to S-28 attributed to Madan Lal. She further deposed that the authorship of questioned signatures/initials marked Q-31 to Q-42 could not be connected with the writer of standard signatures/initials marked A-23 to A-26 and S-29 to S-40 attributed to Vinod Kumar Dha- trawal.
27. Perusal of the aforesaid evidence clearly establishes that the birth orders D-30 to D-50 are not genuine birth orders but the same are forged and fabricated documents.
28. The next important question which arises for consideration is whether these documents were forged by accused or not. Perusal of the entire evidence would show that none of the 49 witnesses exam- ined by the prosecution has deposed that these documents were signed/ initialed or prepared by the accused. Perusal of testimonies of the parents of the children who were beneficiaries of the forged birth certificates/SDM orders i.e. PW8 Lakhan Singh, PW12 Anita, PW14 Bhuvnesh Kumar, PW15 Chunni Begum, PW17 Subhash Chand, PW18 Poonam, PW19 Dilip Gupta, PW28 Ziaul Haq, PW30 Harish Shodwani, PW34 Raj Kumar Sahani, PW37 Aslam, PW38 Bharat Ku- mar Rajak and PW41 Farman would show that they have deposed in a similar fashion that they had procured the birth certificates of their chil- dren through some agents and had paid money to them. All these wit- nesses have denied having gone to the SDM office or applying for the birth registration orders. These witnesses also denied having filled up the birth reporting forms for obtaining the birth certificates and deposed that they received the birth certificates through their respective agents.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 64 of 115Even though PW15 Chunni Begum deposed that Sulekha had taken her to office to meet the madam and that madam had asked her if she had got the birth certificate of her son prepared to which she (PW-15) denied but she could not identify the accused in the court as the per- son whom she had met in the office in connection with the birth certifi- cate. In her cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, PW-15 Chunni Be- gum again denied that accused had asked her about the birth of her son. Deposition of PW-15 that Sulekha had taken her to office to meet accused also becomes doubtful because PW-29 Sulekha has not de- posed any such fact in her entire testimony. Prosecution has also ex- amined three touts i.e. PW24 Sunil Kumar s/o Raja Ram, PW29 Sulekha and PW31 Rambir Singh but even these witnesses have not deposed that the fake birth registration orders were prepared or forged by the accused in their presence.
29. The IO of the case PW-44 has also admitted in his cross exami- nation that he had not obtained the signatures/initials of the accused for comparison nor he had asked the office of Registrar to provide the admitted signatures/initials of accused from the official record. Thus, from the record it is evident that no efforts were made during the in- vestigation to trace out the person who had forged the signatures of Tehsildars/Executive magistrates on the forged SDM/ Birth registration orders nor any attempt was made to search for the source from where these forged birth registration orders were being procured and by whom the same were procured.
Hence, from the evidence available on record, I am of the con- sidered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to establish that accused had forged the 21 birth registration orders (i.e.,D-30 to D-50) CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 65 of 115
(ii). Whether accused used the aforesaid fake birth registration or- ders/SDM orders as genuine documents and prepared fake birth certificates D-14 to D-26 by abusing her official position and cheated her office?
30. As per the charge-sheet filed by CBI, accused abused her offi- cial position and forged birth certificates on the basis of forged and fab- ricated birth registration orders and thus cheated her office/North DMC. During investigation, 21 forged birth orders (D-30 to D-50) were seized by the CBI. However, only 10 beneficiaries out of the 21 beneficiaries of forged birth certificates could be traced out during the investigation. CBI could trace out and file only 14 fake/forged birth certificates pur- portedly issued under the signatures of accused along with the charge- sheet. The birth registration orders in respect of 4 certificates out of 14 birth certificates could not be traced and placed on record. For the sake of convenience, the details of 14 forged/fake birth certificates along with their corresponding birth orders and birth reporting forms are detailed as under:-
Sr. Name of Birth Certificate SDM Order / Birth Birth Reporting No. the Child No. Registration Order Form No. 1 Umrul NA-754956(D-14) 90639281074045 (Part of D-41) Mukhtar Ex.PW15/B (D-41) Ex.PW21/C-6 Ex. PW31/DF 2 Ananya NA-743829(D-16) 90639281086048 (Part of D-44) Shodwani Ex.PW30/A (D-44) Ex.PW21/C-7 Ex. PW30/D 3 Murdul NA-790792(D-17) 9281001145 (Part of D-47) Ex. PW12/C Ex.PW12/B (D-47) Ex.PW22/A CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 66 of 115 4 Nikita NA-790767(D-18) 906390_79144755 (Part of D-50) Pandey Ex. PW24/DD-3 Ex.PW14/B (D-50) Ex.PW6/F 5 Tanya NA-790771(D-19) 90639281081979 (Part of D-49) Sharma Mark PW17/1 (D-49) Ex.PW21/C-9 Ex. PW24/DD-2 6 Rani NA-790772(D-20) 906390_79119947 (Part of D-46) Kumari Ex. PW32/DC Mark PW23/E (D-46)Mark PW6/E 7 Somya NA-743830(D-21) 90639281086617 (Part of D-45) Mark PW23/F (D-45) Ex.PW21/C-8 Ex. PW24/DD-1 8 Vivek Gupta NA-749364(D-22) 90639281058857 (Part of D-39) Ex.PW9/B (D-39) Ex.PW22/A-3 Ex. PW32/DB 9 Muskan NA-833416(D-23) 90639281058846 (Part of D-38) Khan Ex.PW23/DA (D-38) Ex.PW22/A-2 Ex. PW32/DA 10 Vansh NA-754435(D-24) 90639281051340 (Part of D-37) Singh Ex.PW8/B (D-37) Ex.PW22/A-1 Ex.PW31/DA 11 Amarti NA-754958(D-15) No Birth Order No Birth Ex.PW29/E Reporting Form 12 Saina NA-784180(D-25) No Birth Order No Birth Ex.PW29/D Reporting Form 13 Mohd. NA-814640(D-26) No Birth Order No Birth Saleah Ex.PW28/A (colly) Reporting Form 14 Saliha NA-814641(D-26) No Birth Order No Birth Praveen Ex.PW28/A (colly) Reporting Form
31. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that accused was responsible for veri- fying the birth registration orders/SDM orders placed before her for ob- taining the birth certificates. It was argued that she could have verified the birth registration orders from the official website of Revenue De-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 67 of 115partment and also from the copies of birth registration orders which were received in the office of the Registrar (Birth & Death). It was ar- gued that PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot, Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, North DMC has categorically deposed before the court that his office also received the office copy of such birth order forms from the concerned SDM. He also deposed that it was the responsibility of Sub- Registrar to verify the birth registration orders and the data used to be verified from Sub-Registrar of Head Quarters. He also deposed that the forged birth registration orders/SDM orders (D-30 to D-50) could be easily identified as these did not contain dispatch number and date on the above and therefore, could be easily identified that these were forged birth registration orders. Ld. PP has argued that accused being the Sub-Registrar was responsible to verify the birth registration orders which she failed to verify.
32. Per Contra, Counsel for accused has argued that there was no mechanism in place, for proper verification of birth registration orders. He argued that the office copies of the birth registration orders were never received in the office from the concerned SDM and this fact stands proved from the testimonies of Executive Magistrates/Tehsildars who have appeared as PW6, PW21 and PW22. He further argued that it is also on record that the only method to verify the birth registration orders was through the official website of the Revenue Department but only birth registration order number was available on the official web- site of revenue department and no particulars regarding the name of the child or date of birth of the child were available on the website which could be verified. He also argued that none of the above three witnesses have disputed the genuineness of the stationery and the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 68 of 115 stamps on the forged birth registration orders which shows that gen- uine official stationery and stamps were used for preparing forged birth registration orders.
33. Perusal of cross examination of PW6 Sh. Vinod Kumar Dha- trawal would show that he has admitted that as per the procedure the birth order is uploaded on the website of Revenue Department and the Civic Agency issuing the birth certificates is supposed to verify the gen- uineness of the birth orders from the said website. In his cross exami- nation dated 12.07.2017, PW6 admitted that the birth order contained two signatures and the second signature pertained to the copies being sent to Zonal Health Officer, MCD and the applicant. He further volun- teered that the copy was not sent to Zonal Health Officer, MCD physi- cally. PW21 Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh has also admitted in his cross examination that the birth order used to contain two signatures. They never used to send any copy to Zonal Health Officer, MCD, though it used to be mentioned in the birth order that the copy was being for- warded to the Zonal Health Officer, MCD also. He personally did not raise any objection as to why copy was not being sent to the Zonal Health Officer, MCD, even though the order mentioned so. PW22 Madan Lal has also admitted the fact that in all birth orders it used to be mentioned that the copy is forwarded to Zonal Health Officer, MCD. He also volunteered that it was never the practice to forward the copy to the Zonal Health Officer, MCD etc. and he personally did not raise any objection in this regard.
34. As regards the contents of the birth orders uploaded on the offi- cial website of the Revenue Department, PW25 Dr. Jasveen Kaur Dug-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 69 of 115gal, Officer Incharge (Vital Statistics)/Assistant Chief Registrar (Birth & Death), North DMC has deposed that no particulars used to be re- flected on the website of Revenue Department of GNCT for eSLA dur- ing that period, although in June, 2015 or so, the entire particulars and orders were directed to be put on the website. In her cross examina- tion, she admitted that for verification on the website of Revenue De- partment, the only thing which could be verified was the birth order number and nothing more like name of the father and mother of the child, address, child name, date of birth, place of birth etc could be ver- ified from the website. PW21 Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh has also testified in his cross examination that the Issue Certificates of birth or- ders available in the file D-53 at running page no. 250, 262, 276, 292, 306, 321, 334, 350, 366, 378 and 396 (exhibited as Ex. PW21/DX-1 to Ex. PW21/DX-10 except Issue Certificate at page 334 which was ex- hibited as Ex. PW3/A) were computer generated back up data fed in the computer by Data Entry Operator upon the receipt of application. He deposed that this data is reflected on their official website. He also admitted that the name of the child, the name of the mother and father, date of birth and place of birth is not mentioned. He further stated that once the data is uploaded, the same could not have been edited by anyone including SDM.
35. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid testimonies of the wit- nesses, it is established that the office copy of the birth registration or- ders/SDM orders were not sent to the office of Zonal Health Officer, MCD even though it was so mentioned in the birth registration orders. This fact is also fortified from the fact that no such office copies of birth registration orders were provided by PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot to the IO CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 70 of 115 which could have easily corroborated his testimony.
36. PW-33 O.P. Gahlot, Registrar has also deposed in his examina- tion-in chief that the Birth Registration orders contained in D-31 to D-50 did not contain dispatch number and date on the top and therefore it can be easily identified that they are forged. However, in his cross-ex- amination dated 14/9/2019, he admitted that there was no system in existence in his office in the year 2013-2015 by which it could be veri- fied that the dispatch number mentioned on the birth order was gen- uine or not. He further admitted that the presence or absence of dis- patch number on SDM order could not be a criteria for identifying the SDM order as forged. He further deposed that if the birth order is veri- fied on line from the official website of SDM office only then it can be ascertained if it is genuine or not. Thus from the aforesaid deposition of PW-33, it becomes absolutely clear that mere absence of dispatch number and date on SDM order does not make it a forged document.
37. From the perusal of testimonies of the witnesses as discussed hereinabove, it becomes absolutely clear that there was no proper sys- tem/mechanism available with the accused to verify the genuineness of the birth registration orders received along with the birth reporting forms. There was no practice of sending office copies of birth registra- tion orders by SDM office to concerned Zonal health Officer and ab- sence or presence of dispatch number and date could not be a criteria to determine the genuineness of a birth registration order as there was no system in existence to verify the genuineness of the dispatch num- ber. Similarly, even by going to the official website of Revenue Depart- ment, the accused could have only verified that a birth registration or-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 71 of 115der bearing a particular number had been issued by the office of the SDM or not. In any case, accused could not have verified the name of the child, date of birth, place of birth or name of the parents etc as the same were not uploaded on the official website of the Revenue Depart- ment. As noted in the foregoing paras, same number which was used in the original birth registration order has also been used in the forged birth registration order thus making it almost impossible to verify the genuineness of the birth registration order filed in the office of the ac- cused along with the birth reporting forms. Hence in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused failed to verify the particulars of the birth orders.
38. Ld. PP for CBI has further argued that the involvement of ac- cused in preparation of forged birth certificates is also established by the testimonies of PW24 Sunil s/o Raja Ram, PW29 Sulekha, PW31 Rambir Singh, PW32 Sunil Kumar data entry operator and PW-33 Sh. O.P. Gahlot. It was submitted that out of the 14 forged birth certificates available on judicial file, the forged birth certificates of Umrul (D-14), Amarti (D-15), Saina (D-25), Mohd. Saleah (D-26) and Saliah Praveen (D-26) were got prepared by PW29 Sulekha through accused. The forged birth certificates of Ananya (D-16), Murdul (D-17), Nikita (D-18), Tanya (D-19) and Somya (D-21) were got prepared through the ac- cused by PW24 Sunil s/o Raja Ram and forged birth certificates of Vivek (D-22), Muskan (D-23) and Vansh (D-24) were got prepared through accused by PW31 Rambir Singh. He further argued that PW32 Sunil Kumar data entry operator has also testified that he had filled four birth reporting forms of children Abdul Kadir, Somya, Aman and Tanya Sharma in his own handwriting at the direction of the ac-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 72 of 115cused on the basis of SDM orders provided by the accused. PW32 Sunil Kumar data entry operator also identified the signatures of ac- cused on 22 birth certificates during the investigation. PW32 has also deposed that he was not given any login user or password and the ac- cused used to open the system by using her login credential and there- after the system was made available to him for feeding the data and he used to feed the data as per the documents provided to him through the accused. He has also testified that he used to receive the birth re- porting forms from the CSB Counter for feeding in computer in chrono- logical order and he did not entertain any birth reporting form directly. It was argued that these facts clearly show the involvement of accused in the offence.
39. Ld. Defence counsel for the accused has vehemently denied the role of accused in preparation of forged birth certificates and has ar- gued that the touts in connivance with data entry operators and CSB operators used to make entries and birth certificates were got printed from outside. He also denied the signatures of the accused on the forged birth certificates and argued that even PW32 Sunil Kumar has falsely identified the signatures/initials of accused on only one forged birth certificate of Saina (D-25). He further argued that no birth report- ing form and birth order in respect of the birth certificate of Saina has been placed on record. He further argued that these witnesses have deposed falsely in the court to save themselves and to implicate the accused. Ld. Defence counsel also referred to the cross examination of these witnesses in detail and pointed out material contradictions in their testimonies which makes their testimony doubtful.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 73 of 11540. It is pertinent to note here that only 14 forged birth certificates, as detailed above, are available on the chargesheet. There are no forged birth registration orders and birth reporting forms in respect of birth cer- tificates of Amarti (D-15), Saina (D-25), Mohd. Saleah (D-26) and Sal- iha Praveen (D-26). The entire case of the prosecution is based on the fact that forged birth certificates were prepared by accused on the ba- sis of forged birth registration orders/SDM orders. Hence, in the ab- sence of forged birth registration orders, the prosecution cannot estab- lish that birth certificates of Amarti (D-15), Saina (D-25), Mohd. Saleah (D-26) and Saliha Praveen (D-26) are forged and fabricated docu- ments.
41. There is one more interesting aspect regarding these 14 birth certificates. All the birth certificates are printed on the official stationery of the North DMC and apart from the signatures/ initials of accused, the certificates do not bear any signature/initial of Data Entry operator who had made data entry on the basis of birth reporting form or had taken the prints of the birth certificates. The prosecution has relied on the statement of PW-32 Sunil Kumar Data entry Operator to prove that ac- cused had signed/put her initials on the aforesaid 14 birth certificates.
PW-32 has deposed that he identified signatures/initials of the accused on 10 birth certificates during investigation. However, before the court he could identify the initial/signature of the accused on the birth certificate of Saina (D-25) and deposed that he was not able to identify the signature/initials on remaining nine certificates because these did not seem to have been signed freely and in running and therefore, he was not sure. During cross examination by Sr. PP for CBI, he denied that before CBI he had claimed that all such ten certifi-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 74 of 115cates were bearing initials of accused. When he was confronted with portion X to X of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW32/E, he denied having made any such statement before the accused.
42. On the other hand, PW-44 Insp. S.P. Singh during his cross ex- amination has deposed that he had shown all the birth certificates made on the basis of forged birth orders available with him to witness sunil for identifying the signature of accused. He deposed that he had shown the birth certificates of Rani Kumari(D-20), Muskan(D-23), Vansh(D-24) and Mohd. Saleah(D-26) to Sunil for identifying the signa- tures of accused. He was confronted with Statement of Sunil Ex. PW- 32/E where it was not so recorded. After having seen the statement Ex.PW32/E, I.O. deposed that he might have shown the certificates to Sunil but could not say as to why he might not have shown the birth certificates of aforesaid children to Sunil during investigation for identi- fying the signatures of accused. This deposition of I.O. creates a doubt as to why all available birth certificates were not shown to the witness. PW-44 has further stated that he does not remember if he had ob- tained the specimen signature/ initial of accused during investigation or he had sent the same to CFSL for comparison. The record however shows that no specimen signatures/initials of accused were obtained by I.O. during investigation and the same were not sent to CFSL. He also deposed that he did not ask the office of Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, North DMC to provide signature of accused from the official record. He also did not recall whether he had obtained the spec- imen signature/initial of accused during investigation or had sent the same to CFSL for comparison. He volunteered that birth certificates were having different signatures in single word on which experts were CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 75 of 115 unable to give their opinion. It is really surprising that on one hand IO had obtained and sent specimen handwriting/signature of data entry operator Sunil(PW-32) to CFSL for comparison with the birth reporting forms which were already admitted by Sunil to be in his handwriting, even though he was not even a suspect in the case as per PW44. But on the other hand, PW44 did not care to obtain and sent for compari- son to CFSL, the specimen sign./initial of accused and merely relied on the statement of PW-32 Sunil (data entry operator) identifying the sig- nature/initial of accused on the 10 forged birth certificates, even though he was not a handwriting expert. It is again beyond comprehension as to why only 10 birth certificates were shown to PW32 Sunil when 14 forged birth certificates were available with the IO. There is also no ex- planation offered by I.O. as to why the remaining four forged birth cer- tificates were not shown to the witness during investigation. PW44 did not obtain and sent the specimen signature of accused to CFSL for comparison with forged birth certificates on the basis that the birth cer- tificates were having different signatures in single word on which ex- perts were unable to give their opinion without even consulting any handwriting expert in this regard. Another question that arises for con- sideration is, if a handwriting expert cannot compare and give his opin- ion on the initial on forged birth certificates, how the statement of Sunil identifying the initial of the accused on the birth certificate of Saina(D-
25) can be relied upon. Admittedly, he is not a handwriting expert and it is not the case of prosecution that accused put her initials on the forged certificate in his presence. The omission on the part of IO to ob- tain specimen sign./initial of accused and sending it to CFSL for com- parison with sign./initial on forged birth certificates has caused ir- reparable damage to the case of prosecution. PW32 Sunil, data entry CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 76 of 115 operator has not identified the signatures of accused on 9 forged birth certificates out of 10. He has only identified the initial of accused on the birth certificate of Saina(D-25) but even that identification cannot be safely relied upon in view of the fact that he is not a handwriting expert and accused had not put the initial on the certificate in his presence. Hence there is no evidence on record to establish that the birth certifi- cates d-14 to D-26 bear the sign./initials of the accused.
43. Even though the prosecution has failed to establish that the birth certificates D-14 to D26 bear the sign./initials of the accused, I deem it necessary to minutely examine the depositions of PW24 Sunil Kumar (tout), PW29 Sulekha (tout), PW31 Rambir Singh (tout) and PW32 Sunil Kumar (data entry operator), PW-33 O.P. Gahlot and I.O. in order to ascertain whether accused had any role in preparation of forged birth certificates on the basis of forged birth registration orders. In case the depositions of these witnesses is found trustworthy, only then the role of the accused would come to be established.
44. PW24 Sunil Kumar s/o Raja Ram is a tout as per the version of the prosecution. During investigation, his statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C which has been proved by him as Ex.PW24/A. In his exam- ination in chief before the court, he deposed that he knew the accused through Sulekha but he never directly interacted with accused. He fur- ther claimed that as regards children above the age of one year, he used to give the form along with documents directly to accused Shobha Chawla and used to collect the birth certificates from window. He used to charge Rs. 1500/- from the applicants and out of such amount, he used to pay Rs. 1300/- per certificate to accused Shobha CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 77 of 115 Chawla. He could only recall the name of Ananya for whom he got the birth certificate prepared. However, when he was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, he admitted that he used to receive the birth certifi- cates of children above one year of age directly from the accused and disclosed the names of other children as Murdul, Baby Somya, Tanya Sharma and Nikita Pandey.
44.1 In his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, PW24 deposed that he got pre- pared the birth certificates of children above one year of age on the asking of accused. However, in his examination in chief, he remained silent on this fact. Similarly, in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C he de- posed that he used to charge Rs. 1300/- for getting the birth certificates prepared for children above one year of age. During his cross exami- nation by counsel for the accused, he deposed that in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW24/A) he had stated that he used to charge Rs. 1500/- from the applicant and he used to pay Rs. 1300/- per certificate to the accused Shobha Chawla. PW24 was confronted with his state- ment Ex. PW24/A wherein it was only recorded that on the asking of accused, he got prepared the certificate of more than one year old child for Rs. 1300/- and there was no mention of payment of money to the accused in lieu of preparation of birth certificates which is a mate- rial improvement in his testimony on this aspect.
44.2 Further, in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, PW24 has not dis- closed the name of any child above the age of one year for whom he got the birth certificate prepared through the accused whereas in his examination-in-chief he disclosed the name of Ananya and further dis- closed the names of Murdul, Somya, Tanya and Nikita when he was CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 78 of 115 cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP. During his cross examination, he again deposed that in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW24/A he had given the names of the children i.e. Ananya, Murdul, Baby Somya, Tanya and Nikita Pandey as the children for whom the birth certificates were got made by him. He was again confronted with his statement Ex.PW24/A where the names of children were not recorded. PW24 also admitted in his cross examination that he did not maintain any record regarding preparation of birth certificates of the said children. When he was specifically asked that on what basis he had given the names of five children in his statement to CBI, he replied that CBI officials had given the said five names at the time of his inquiry. He further deposed that CBI officials had shown him the birth certificates of these children. This deposition clearly establishes that PW24 Sunil Kumar had not given the names of the aforesaid five children from his personal knowledge or memory but had merely given the names on the basis of the names disclosed by CBI officials and the birth certificates shown to him.
44.3 PW24 in his cross examination has further deposed that he had stated before the CBI as well as before the Magistrate that all such birth certificates used to be handed over by him to Horam, who used to sit in Mahindra Park. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW24/A and statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Ex. PW24/DA where no such fact was recorded.
44.4 In his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW24/A, PW24 has de- posed that he had done the work only for three months. In his cross examination also he deposed that he had not got prepared any certifi- cate of the child of more than one year except the aforesaid five chil-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 79 of 115dren. However, when he was shown 10 birth reporting forms contained in five registers for the period October, 2013 to January, 2014 from the office of Registrar, MCD, Civil Lines Zone (i.e. prior to the joining of ac- cused as Sub-Registrar in Civil Lines Zone), he identified his handwrit- ing on the forms which were photocopied and retained on record as Ex.PW24/DC-1 to DC-10. PW24 has categorically admitted that these forms were in his handwriting. Perusal of these birth reporting forms show that these forms pertain to Saumya d/o Dinesh Kumar (Ex.PW24/DC-1), Nitin Gautam (Ex.PW24/DC-2), Vinayaka Masson (Ex.PW24/DC-3), Himanshu (Ex.PW24/DC-4), Monika (Ex.PW24/DC-
5), Priyanka (Ex.PW24/DC-6), Priya (Ex.PW24/DC-7), Tamanna (Ex.PW24/DC-8), Aanya Goel (Ex.PW24/DC-9) and Daksh (Ex.PW24/DC-10). This admission by PW24 falsifies his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that he had worked only for three months and that he had started work of preparing the birth certificates of children above one year at the instance of the accused. It further falsifies his statement given in court that he had not got prepared the birth certificates of any other children above one year except Ananya, Murdul, Somya, Tanya and Nikita. It is also surprising that he had been filling the birth report- ing forms of other children in his own handwriting but the birth reporting forms of five children for whom he claims to have got the birth certifi- cates prepared were not filled by him. Not only this, when he was shown the birth reporting forms of Ananya (Ex.PW30/D), Somya d/o Naresh (Ex. PW24/DD-1), Murdul (Ex.PW12/C), Tanya (Ex.PW24/DD-
2) and Nikita (Ex.PW24/DD-3), he admitted that these forms were not in his handwriting and he was also unable to tell as to who had filled up those forms and stated that as far as he could recollect, these forms were not filled up in his presence. This further creates a doubt whether CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 80 of 115 he actually got the birth certificates of the aforesaid five children pre- pared through accused or he simply gave the names as told by CBI of- ficials.
44.5 PW24 in his examination in chief also deposed that as regards children over the age of one year, he used to give the forms along with other documents directly to the accused Shobha Chawla and used to collect birth certificates from the window. In the cross examination, he clarified that for the child of less than one year, no document was re- quired to be annexed with the birth reporting form and for a child of more than one year, only SDM order is required to be submitted along with the birth reporting form. The question arises if PW24 was already submitting the SDM order/ birth registration order along with birth re- porting forms as stated by him in his examination in chief, where was the occasion for the accused for forging/fabricating the birth orders and using the same as genuine documents for preparing the forged birth certificates.
45. Now I shall discuss the testimony of PW29 Sulekha who was also working as a tout and got prepared the birth certificates of Umrul (D-14), Amarti (D-15), Saina (D-25), Mohd. Saleah & Saliha Praveen (D-26 colly) through the accused. She also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW29/C. She also identified accused in the court.
45.1 In her examination in chief, she has deposed that she used to give the details regarding the name of the parents, date of birth etc. on a slip to the accused in order to get the birth certificates prepared and whenever such birth certificate was ready, she used to collect the birth CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 81 of 115 certificate from CSB counter situated on the ground floor. She also de- posed that SDM order was required in cases where the birth certificate was to be obtained for a child who was more than one year old. She was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP after declaring her hostile. In her cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP, she admitted that she never used to hand over any such birth order/SDM order to the accused. She also admitted that she used to take Rs. 1500/- from the parents and out of such amount she used to give Rs. 1300/- to the accused and she got prepared six such birth certificates of baby Saina (D-25), Master Pawan Preet Singh (no birth certificate on record), Mohd. Saleah & Baby Saliha Praveen (D-26 colly), Umrul Mukhtar (D-14) and Baby Amarti (D-15) from the accused.
45.2 In her cross examination, Sulekha has deposed that she was shown the birth certificates in respect of Baby Saina, Master Pawan Preet, Mohd. Saleah, Baby Saliha Praveen, Umrul Mukhtar and Amarti and no other birth certificate was shown to her. When she was specifi- cally asked as to what basis she gave the names of the children in her examination in chief, she replied that she had mentioned the names of the said children in her register Ex. PW29/A. When she was shown the register and asked to point out the entries regarding the aforesaid six children, she could only point out entries related to Pawan Preet Singh (Mark A-1), Baby Saina (Mark A-2), Mohd. Saleah (Mark A-3) and Baby Saliha Praveen (Mark A-4) but was unable to find out the entries relat- ing to Umrul Mukhtar and Baby Amarti.
45.3 In her cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, she admitted that register Ex.PW29/A was in her handwriting. However, during cross ex-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 82 of 115amination, she stated that the writing encircled Mark A-2 relating to Baby Saina was in her handwriting and stated that the rest would be in the handwriting of parents of such respective children. She was fur- ther asked as to how she revealed the names of Umrul Mukhtar and Baby Amarti in her examination in chief when there were entries relat- ing to them in her register, she replied that CBI officials had visited the house of the parents of these children and they confirmed that they got the birth certificates prepared through her and therefore, she had stated their names. She also stated that except for the register Ex. PW29/A, she was not maintaining any record in relation to birth certifi- cates.
45.4 So far as the payment of bribe to the accused is concerned, PW29 in her examination in chief did not depose that she paid any bribe to the accused. However, when she was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, she stated that she used to take Rs. 1500/- from the parents and out of such amounts she used to pay Rs. 1300/- to the ac- cused. In para 59 of her cross examination dated 16.02.2018, she again contradicted herself and denied the suggestion that she used to charge Rs. 1500/- from the parents and out of the said amount she used to give Rs. 1300/- to the accused. She also could not give the date, time and place when she received money from the parents and when she had paid the amount to the accused. She also admitted that no amount was mentioned in the register Ex. PW29/A against the en- tries at Mark A-1 (Pawan Preet Singh), A-2 (Saina), A-3(Mohd. Saleah) and A-4 (Saliha Praveen) which again falsifies her statement that she used to mention in the register whenever any amount was received by her from the parents regarding deposit of form with MCD. In her state-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 83 of 115ment u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW29/C, Sulekha deposed that she used to charge Rs. 1300/- from the client and after some days when accused started charging Rs. 1300/-, she started charging Rs. 1500/- but she has not deposed these facts either in her examination in chief or in her cross examination. The testimony of PW29 Sulekha is also contra- dicted by the testimonies of the parents of children i.e. PW15 Chunni Begum, PW34 Raj Kumar Sahani, PW41 Farman and PW28 Zia ul Haq that she used to charge Rs. 1300/- or Rs. 1500/- from the par- ents. PW15 Chunni Begum has deposed that the she had given Rs. 1800/- to Sulekha for getting the birth certificate of her son Umrul Mukhtar. PW34 Sh. Raj Kumar Sahani, father of Amarti has also de- posed that he had paid Rs. 1700/- to Sulekha for getting the birth cer- tificate of his daughter Amarti. Similarly, PW41 Farman has deposed that he paid Rs. 1000/- to Sulekha for getting the birth certificate of his daughter Saina and PW28 has deposed that he paid Rs. 4000/- to Sulekha for getting the birth certificate of his children Mohd. Saleah and Saliha Praveen.
45.5 As regards the veracity of the register Ex.PW29/A, PW29 has admitted in her cross examination that only some portion of the register Ex. PW29/A was in her handwriting. She failed to explain as to who had made the entries regarding the children other than Pawan Preet Singh and she also could not explain the signature at point X-1 and X-2 on Mark A-9 of register Ex.PW29/A. She was also unable to tell as to who wrote the portion Mark A-10 in the register Ex.PW29/A. She de- posed that portion Mark A-11 was not in her handwriting and was not aware who had written the same but stated that it seems to be in con- text of preparation of birth certificates and again said that she could not CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 84 of 115 say the context. Although, she admitted the portion Mark A-12 to be in her handwriting and stated that it was in relation to money deposited for forms in Civil Lines Zone but she could not tell the individual break up of the amount mentioned therein. She also could not tell as to who wrote her name and phone number in the portion Mark A-13. She also admitted that the portion Mark A-15 and A-16 were in her handwriting but she was unable to recall whether these birth certificates were per- taining to the children of more than one year or less than one year. She also admitted that top portion of Mark A-15 was in her handwriting and she meant that Rs. 1200/- were to be paid to the accused on 26.10.2015. However, this deposition appears to be false as accused was not posted as Sub Registrar in Civil Lines Zone on 26.10.2015 as per the record of North DMC. She was unable to say if Om Prakash mentioned in the portion Mark A-14 was the same person who used to sit in CSB for collecting the form. PW29 admitted that there was no en- try made by her in English in the register Ex. PW29/A. She also admit- ted that there were certain entries in Hindi in the register which were not in her handwriting and she could not say as to who was the author of those entries. She also admitted that there were certain entries which were not having any address or incomplete address but she could not comment upon them any further. The aforesaid deposition of PW29 clearly establishes that register Ex.PW29/A was not exclusively maintained by Sulekha and the register had many entries which PW29 could not identify or explain. Hence, the entries in the said register cannot be accepted as entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business as the same are neither in chronological order nor they appear to be true and correct record of transactions maintained by PW29 Smt. Sulekha and as such no reliance can be placed on reg-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 85 of 115ister Ex.PW29/A. 45.6 Further, PW29 in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW29/C has deposed that for preparing the birth certificate for children above the age of one year, SDM order was required and the accused used to get the same prepared from somewhere. However, no such facts were stated by her when she appeared as a witness before the court. Not only this, perusal of the record shows that out of the five birth certifi- cates which were purportedly got prepared by PW29 through accused, there are no birth registration orders/SDM orders in respect of four chil- dren i.e. Amarti, Saina, Mohd. Saleah and Saliha Praveen which again raises a doubt about the truthfulness of the testimony of PW29.
46. Now I shall analyze the testimony of PW31 Rambir Singh who was also one of the touts who got prepared birth certificates of Vivek Gupta (D-22), Muskan Khan (D-23) and Vansh Singh (D-24) prepared through the accused. Statement of this witness was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C which has been proved as Ex. PW31/A. 46.1 When PW31 appeared before the court, he deposed that he knew the accused. He got 5-6 birth certificates for children of more than one year of age. He deposed that any such applicant used to give him the filled up form and he used to handover such form to the accused and she used to get the birth certificates prepared and han- dover to him. Any such applicant used to pay him Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1400/- approximately and out of such money he used to pay Rs. 1000/- per certificate to the accused. He identified the birth certificates of Vivek Gupta as Ex.PW9/B (D-22), Muskan Khan as Ex. PW23/DA (D-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 86 of 11523) and birth certificate of Vansh Singh as Ex. PW8/B (D-24) in the court and stated that he had obtained these certificates through the ac- cused and had paid her Rs. 1000/- per certificate.
46.2 In his cross examination, PW31 was unable to give the names of other 2-3 children for whom he got the birth certificates prepared. He also could not recall the dates when he had submitted the birth report- ing forms pertaining to the children Vivek, Vansh and Muskan and could not even tell whether the forms were submitted on the same day or after gap. He also could not tell the name of the fourth child whose birth certificate was shown to him during investigation. It is pertinent to note here that only 3 birth certificates of children Vivek, Muskan and Vansh have been placed on record along with the chargesheet and the chargesheet is totally silent about the fourth birth certificate which was shown to PW31 during investigation. In reply to a specific question, PW31 deposed that he had identified the birth certificate of Muskan during investigation as CBI officials told him that mediator Mr. Bhard- waj, Amar Singh Yadav or the lady had got the birth certificates pre- pared through him. This clearly shows that the witness is himself not sure about the fact whether the birth certificate of Muskan was got pre- pared by him or not and it appears that the accused has identified the birth certificate of Muskan only at the instance of CBI officials. PW37 Aslam, father of Muskan has also deposed that he got this birth certifi- cate prepared through one Mr. Pathak and he had not visited the SDM office or the office of Registrar, Birth & Death in relation to birth certifi- cate of his child. He also identified the birth certificate Ex. PW23/DA as the same certificate which was given to him by Mr. Pathak. PW9 Amar Singh Yadav on the other hand had deposed that Mr. Mitra Vasu CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 87 of 115 Pathak @ Masterji had discussed with him regarding the birth certifi- cate of Muskan and he had introduced him one guard Mahesh @ Sethji and Mahesh had demanded Rs. 1200/- from Pathak @ Masterji. He also admitted that the birth certificate was made by Mahesh @ Sethji. None of these witnesses have stated that they had approached PW31 Rambir Singh for preparation of birth certificate of Muskan. Prosecution has not examined the guard Mahesh @ Sethji from where the birth certificate of Muskan was got prepared. Hence, in the ab- sence of testimony of Mahesh @ Sethji, it cannot be said affirmatively that birth certificate of Muskan Khan d/o Aslam was got prepared by Rambir Singh through the accused.
46.3 PW31 has also stated in his examination in chief that applicant used to give him the filled up forms and he used to handover such forms to the accused. However, this statement of PW31 is falsified by his own statement in his cross examination dated 10.09.2018 wherein he admitted his handwriting in the birth reporting forms of child Vivek Gupta Ex.PW33/DB, Muskan Khan Ex.PW32/DA and Vansh Singh Ex. PW31/DA. He also identified his handwriting on the birth reporting forms of Hansika (part of D-32), Asma (part of D-33), Kanika (part of D-
34), Anjali (part of D-35) and Umrul (part of D-41) which were exhibited as Ex. PW31/DB to Ex. PW31/DF. It is surprising as to when and how he filled up these birth reporting forms when no one had approached him for getting the birth certificates of these children prepared. This fact clearly shows that PW31 has not disclosed the complete facts be- fore the IO during the investigation and has concealed material facts.
46.4 In his cross examination, PW31 Rambir Singh has also admit-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 88 of 115ted that at times he used to go to Sunil, the data entry operator (PW32) whenever there was a delay in obtaining the birth certificate which fact was denied by PW32 Sunil. However, the admission of his handwriting by PW31 at point A on birth registration forms Ex. PW31/DB to Ex. PW31/DE clearly establishes that he used to visit PW32 Sunil as the number at point A on the birth reporting forms are registration number generated by the computer system when data of birth reporting form was entered in the system and at that time the birth reporting forms used to be in the custody of PW32 Sunil, data entry operator. This ad- mission on the part of Rambir Singh raises a doubt that other private individuals also had access to the data entry operator and the possibil- ity of PW32 Sunil accepting the forms directly from the touts like Ram- bir Singh, Sulekha and Sunil and other private persons cannot be ruled out.
46.5 PW31 Rambir Singh in his cross examination dated 10.09.2018 has also deposed that the birth certificates were printed by CSB opera- tor in his presence and he had given the particulars of aforesaid chil- dren to CSB operator for printing the birth certificates. However, he is contradicted by PW32 who has deposed in his cross examination that if the birth certificates are printed from CSB Hall, the printouts should contain the same data as available in the system which means that there was no requirement of giving the particulars of children to CSB operator as the birth certificates were printed on the data entered in the system and approved by the Registrar. This also shows that PW31 ei- ther was in connivance with data entry operator and CSB operators or he has deposed falsely on this aspect for the reasons best known to him.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 89 of 11546.6 PW31 Rambir Singh was also unable to recall the dates when he had paid Rs. 1000/- per certificate to the accused for obtaining the birth certificates of Vivek, Vansh and Muskan. The statement of PW31 Rambir that he used to pay Rs. 1000/- per certificate to the accused was also falsified by his own statement Ex.PW31/DG recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C where it is recorded that he used to charge Rs. 1700/- per birth certificate from the beneficiary and paid Rs. 1500 per birth certificate to Smt. Shobha Chawla. Even in his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW31/A, he did not disclose that he used to pay Rs. 1000/- to the accused which further creates a doubt about the truthfulness of his statement.
47. PW32 Sunil Kumar s/o Sultan Singh is another important witness relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. He has also proved his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW32/D. 47.1 In his examination in chief, PW32 has admitted that he was working as data entry operator in Civil Lines Zone since 26.05.2014 and was attached with the accused. His duty was to feed details re- garding birth reporting forms in the computer and he used to sit on the first floor of Vigilance Building. He deposed that he was not given any login user or password and the accused used to open the system by using her login credential and thereafter he used to feed data as per the documents provided by the accused. He identified four birth report- ing forms of children Abdul Kadir (part of D-36), Somya ( part of D-45), Aman ( part of D-48) and Tanya Sharma ( part of D-49) which were filled by him in his handwriting on the directions of the accused and she CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 90 of 115 had also birth registration orders in relation to the said forms and ac- cordingly he filled the birth reporting forms as per the details appearing in the birth orders. During his cross examination, he admitted that he was the only data entry operator in the Civil Lines Zone since 2014- 2015. He admitted that the birth reporting forms were received in CSB Hall by the accused, Om Prakash and Satish Yadav but there was no record to show as to which form was received by which of the officials. He further deposed that he used to receive birth reporting forms from accused and not directly from the public. He further stated that all the applications received by him on a particular day were kept in one bun- dle and no separate file for each birth reporting forms was maintained. No date of receipt was mentioned on each of the forms and there was no serial number on the forms and he was also not maintaining any record as to how many forms were received by him on a particular day for making data entry. This statement of PW32 shows that no proper record of the forms received in CSB Hall was maintained. Neither the forms were given serial number nor date of receipt was mentioned on such birth reporting forms. There was no record as to how many forms were received by each officials in the CSB Hall and how many forms were sent to PW32 on a particular day. Hence, the possibility of the birth reporting forms being sneaked in any time prior to its reaching the hands of Data Entry Operator (PW32) cannot be ruled out and it was not possible for the accused or the data entry operator to ensure that the birth reporting forms were being received and processed through proper channel. Similarly, there was no record maintained by PW32 as to how many forms were entered by him in the system on daily basis as he himself has admitted in the cross examination that there used to be back log of two-three weeks with them. PW32 has CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 91 of 115 also deposed that after making data entries of the applications in a day, he used to make a bundle of such applications and hand over to the Sub-Registrar and he did not prepare any record regarding any hand- ing over. This again shows that there was a possibility of data entry op- erator entertaining the birth reporting forms directly from the touts or private individuals and accused could not have detected it as no record was being maintained to show as to which forms were received by data entry operator through CSB Hall in the absence of any serial number or date of receipt of forms in the CSB Hall being mentioned on the forms.
47.2 Although in examination in chief PW32 deposed that he was not supposed to entertain any birth reporting form directly but in his cross examination, he admitted that he used to receive forms through Sub- Registrar and he had also received some forms directly from the Reg- istrar who used to call him at his office to receive the forms and some- times the forms were sent by the Registrar through his staff. He was unable to give the name of the child or other particulars of the said form or the dates when he had received such forms. This further shows that the birth reporting forms were also being received by PW32 from the sources apart from CSB Hall and the possibility of PW32 receiving the birth reporting forms from the touts or private indi- viduals cannot be totally ruled out.
47.3 PW32 further deposed that he had heard the names of Sulekha, Rambir and Sunil but he had not met them personally. How- ever, his statement gets falsified when he was shown register Ex. PW29/A maintained by Sulekha wherein he identified his handwriting CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 92 of 115 at point Z on page no. 2 of the register. He tried to explain that he was asked by accused to write the MCD registration number in the register when Sulekha used to come there with her register. However, record also shows that PW31 Rambir Singh had also identified his handwriting at point A on the birth reporting forms Ex.PW31/DB to Ex. PW31/DE. The numbers mentioned at point A are the registration numbers which were generated when data entry was made in the system in respect of the birth reporting forms. According to PW32, the registration numbers on the forms were put by him after making the data entries. Hence, the presence of registration numbers on the birth reporting forms Ex. PW31/DB to Ex. PW31/DE clearly establishes that PW31 Rambir Singh was present with PW32 Sunil Kumar when data entries were made by him. Hence, from the aforesaid circumstances, it is clearly establish that not only PW32 was knowing PW29 Sulekha and PW31 Rambir Singh but he also used to personally met with them. This cir- cumstance again shows that the possibility of PW32 Sunil accepting the forms directly from the touts like Rambir Singh, Sulekha and Sunil and other private persons cannot be ruled out.
47.4 PW32 in his examination in chief has deposed that accused used to open the system by using her login credentials and thereafter he used to make data entry in the system. It was argued by Ld. PP for CBI that since PW32 was not having any login user or password, it should be presumed that every data entry made by PW32 in the sys- tem was within the knowledge of the accused. However, perusal of cross examination of PW32 would show that he had deposed that log in credentials were required only at a time of starting of the system or when the session expired. Admittedly, accused used to sit in the CSB CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 93 of 115 Hall on the ground floor from 09:00 AM to 03:00 PM on Monday to Fri- day and from 09:00 AM to 12:00 noon on Saturday for public dealing whereas PW32 used to remain in his office on the first floor of the Vigi- lance Building during his office hours for making data entries. PW32 has also admitted in his cross examination that when the accused was not available in the office, she used to apprise him about the password telephonically and thereafter he used to enter the password and make data entries. Although, he could not tell how many times accused had shared password or the dates but he stated that it might have been shared on more than 50 occasions. PW33 O.P. Gahlot has proved the photocopies of attendance register for the months of March and April, 2015 as Ex.PW33/DC and Ex. PW33/DD respectively and has admit- ted that as per the said documents accused was on leave on 2 nd and 3rd March, 2015 and 4th April, 2015. PW32 in his cross examination has admitted that he had made data entries pertaining to the birth re- porting forms of Neetu on 03.03.2015 i.e. when the accused was on leave which clearly establishes that PW32 used to make data entries even in the absence of the accused and hence, no presumption can be drawn against the accused that she was having the knowledge of every data entry made by PW32.
47.5 PW32 in his cross examination has also admitted that although he used to make the data entries sincerely and diligently as per the particulars contained in the applications and accompanying documents but since he was required to fill the form quickly there was possibility of mistakes in making data entries. He stated that there could be typo- graphical error in the name of the child, date of birth or SDM birth order number. When he was shown the birth reporting form of Rishabh and CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 94 of 115 printout of data entry made by him, he admitted that column no. 7 per- taining to the informant's name and address was blank in the birth re- porting form. However, in the data entry he has mentioned the name of informant as Amit Kumar and stated that he used to mention the name of informant and his address as provided in the birth registration form or he used to mention the name of the father or mother in case the name of informant was not mentioned in the birth reporting form. He also admitted that in the birth reporting form of Rishabh, the father's education was mentioned as 10 + 2 whereas in the data entry he has mentioned below Primary. Similarly, when he was shown the data en- try pertaining to the child Saloni Kumari Ex. PW32/DH, he denied the suggestion that the SDM order number of child Rishabh was used for registration of child Saloni Kumari on the same day. Perusal of the SDM order number of the birth registration order of Rishabh and the birth registration number in the data entry Ex. PW32/DH shows that in both cases same birth registration number has been mentioned. It is also pertinent to mention that both the data entries in respect of Rishabh and Saloni were made on the same day i.e. 04.03.2015 which raises a doubt whether this was merely a typographical mistake or something more. When PW32 was shown the birth reporting form, and SDM order pertaining to child Murdul, he admitted that in the data entry printout the name of the child is written as "Mirdul". He also admitted that the date of birth of child Tanya in the data entry printout is written as 19.08.2002 whereas in the birth reporting form the date was shown as 19.08.2001. These instances clearly show that there were possi- bilities of PW32 making mistakes in the the data entries and it cannot be said that the data entered by PW32 was always correct.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 95 of 11547.6 PW32 has claimed that he had filled four birth reporting forms of Abdul Kadir (Ex. PW32/A, part of D-36), Somya (Ex. PW24/DD-1, part of D-45), Aman (Ex. PW32/B, part of D-48) and Tanya Sharma having date of birth as 19.08.2001 (Ex.PW24/DD-2, part of D-49) in his handwriting as per the instructions of the accused. In his cross exami- nation, he deposed that except the above four birth reporting forms, no other birth reporting form as shown by CBI was in his handwriting and he could not identify the handwriting of any person in the other forms shown to him during the investigation. He also deposed that other than these birth reporting forms, he had received the birth reporting forms in routine manner from CSB Hall except the forms received by him from the Registrar. However, he was unable to tell whether the birth report- ing forms of Abdul Kadir, Somya, Aman and Tanya Sharma were given to him on the same day or on different dates. He was also unable to re- call whether the data entries with regard to these four forms were made by him on the same date or on different dates. PW32 has also de- posed that accused had also given the birth registration order along with the aforesaid four birth orders. However, perusal of the record would show that no birth certificates of Abdul Kadir and Aman are avail- able in the judicial file.
47.7 PW32 also admitted in his cross examination that the birth re- porting forms of Ananya Ex. PW30/D, Murdul Ex.PW12/C and Nikita Ex. PW24/DD-3 contained only the address of parents at the time of birth of the child whereas data entries pertaining to the said three chil- dren at pages 240, 245 and 247 of Ex. PW32/DH mentions permanent address also. He denied that these forms were filled by him at the be- hest of tout Sunil and volunteered that the permanent address used to CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 96 of 115 be told by the accused. This statement of PW32 falsifies his statement made in para 33 of his cross examination wherein he had deposed that he had not made any data entry at anyone's instance or any person known to him during his tenure as data entry operator at Civil Lines Zone except the four birth reporting forms of Abdul Kadir, Aman, Tanya and Somya.
47.8 Ld. PP for CBI has also argued that accused got prepared the birth certificate of Neetu which was beyond her jurisdiction as the ad- dress of Neetu was of Raghubir Nagar which was beyond the jurisdic- tion of office of Registrar (Birth & Death) Civil Lines Zone of North DMC. Counsel for the accused has refuted this argument and has submitted that birth certificate of Neetu has not been placed by the IO along with the chargesheet and in the absence of the birth certificate, it cannot be said that accused had got the said birth certificate prepared. Perusal of the record shows that only the birth registration order of Neetu Ex.PW44/DF and birth reporting form Ex.PW32/DD is available on record. PW32 Sunil Kumar in his cross examination has admitted that he had made the data entry pertaining to this birth reporting form on 03.03.2015 and endorsement of MCD registration number and date appearing at point on Ex.PW32/DD was in his hand and was put by him after making the data entry and generation of MCD registration number in the computer. This fact also stands corroborated by the computer printout of data entry details in respect of birth reporting form of Neetu available on page 221 of D-51 Ex.PW25/B which shows that the birth registration number was generated on 03.03.2015 vide birth registration number MCDOLIR-0115-006509697. The record of CSB transactions available on page 8 of Ex. PW23/DC also shows that five CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 97 of 115 copies of birth certificates were also issued by CSB operator Dhar- mendra Bisht on 03.03.2015 itself. It has already come on record that accused was on leave on 03.03.2015 as per the deposition of PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot. Hence, in the absence of birth certificate and the fact that accused was on leave on 03.03.2015, it cannot be said that the birth certificate of Neetu was got issued by the accused under her sig- nature.
48. PW33 Dr. O.P. Gahlot is Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, MCD. He has deposed that he was working as Registrar since May, 2003. Accused was Sub Registrar from 2013 to 2015, although he could not recall the exact date. He deposed that after verification by Sub Registrar and then on his approval, birth certificate was issued by Sub Registrar under his/her signature. When he was shown the forged SDM orders contained in D-31 to D-50, he deposed that the SDM or- ders do not contain dispatch number and date and therefore, it can be easily identified that they were forged and these SDM orders were never put before him for approval. He also deposed that since he had to visit the field for inspection being Health Officer, he had assigned the password of his log in ID to Sub Registrar for birth and death record to avoid any delay and he had also issued order in writing in detail.
48.1 PW33 in his cross examination has admitted that after every week system required the change of password. He also admitted that accused joined on 13.02.2014 and was relieved on 24.08.2015. After seeing the attendance registers for the months of March and April, 2015, he admitted that accused was on leave on 2 nd and 3rd March, 2015 and 4th April, 2015. He also admitted that sometime birth reporting CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 98 of 115 forms were also received by him through dak and he used to mark them to the accused after making endorsement. He also stated that other than online approval, his approval was also required physically on all the birth reporting forms filed along with the SDM orders. The Sub Registrar was required to submit the birth reporting forms for his signature and he approved the birth reporting forms on the basis of SDM orders accompanied with birth reporting forms.
48.2 In his cross examination, PW33 could not tell the date when he had given an order in writing for giving his password to accused. He stated that he had handed over the copy of the said order to the IO during investigation but no such order is available on record. He also stated that he did not pass the written order every week after change of password but used to pass order in writing on the change of Sub Reg- istrar. He further deposed that he had not rejected or refused to ap- prove any birth reporting form accompanied by the birth order from 2013 till date.
48.3 PW33 has also failed to place on record, the written order vide which he had given his password to the accused. Although, he de- posed that he had given the copy of the order to the IO during investi- gation but the IO in his cross examination has deposed that he had asked about the written order from PW33 regarding the date of sharing of password and the password during the course of recording of his statement and PW33 told him that he would supply the record if the same is available. This statement of the IO falsifies the statement made by PW33 that he had handed over the written order to the IO during investigation. Thus, in the absence of any written order avail-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 99 of 115able on record, it cannot be said that PW33 had shared his log in ID and password with the accused as claimed by him. Even if it is pre- sumed for the sake of arguments, that PW33 did share his log in ID and password with the accused for smooth functioning of the office work, it would not absolve PW33 of his responsibility for granting ap- proval before the birth certificate is printed. PW33 cannot abdicate his responsibility to grant approval on the accused merely by sharing his log in ID and password.
49. PW44 Inspector S.P. Singh is the IO of the case. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the case has not been inves- tigated in fair and impartial manner and IO has not properly investi- gated the case. The investigation has been conducted in a biased manner against the accused. IO has not conducted investigation on the vital aspects of the case which could have unearthed the real cul- prits. He has argued that there are glaring lapses in the investigation and IO has failed to collect and produce relevant documents before the court. He has not investigated from where the forged SDM orders were prepared. No efforts were made to trace out the trail of official sta- tionery used for printing of the fake SDM orders and birth orders. The forged birth certificates were not sent to CFSL nor the signatures/ini- tials of accused were obtained for comparison. IO failed to place on record the house search memo of accused and Rambir Singh.
49.1 In his examination in chief, IO has deposed about the docu- ments collected by him during the investigation. He has proved FIR and various production-cum-seizure memos vide which he had seized the birth certificates, SDM orders and the documents seized during the CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 100 of 115 surprise check. He has also deposed that he got recorded the state- ments u/s 164 Cr.P.C of Sulekha, Rambir Singh, Sunil (data entry oper- ator) and another Sunil (tout) and proved the applications filed before the court for getting the statements of witnesses recorded. He also de- posed that he obtained the specimen handwriting/signatures of Amren- dra Kumar Singh, Madan Lal, Vinod Kumar Dhatrawal and Sunil Kumar data entry operator and sent the document to CFSL along with the specimen handwriting/signatures. He also deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After filing of the charge- sheet, CFSL report was received in December, 2016 and thereafter it was filed in the court along with the original documents.
49.2 Perusal of cross examination of the IO shows that he had recorded the statements of Raj Kumar Sahani, Chunni Begum and Poonam at their residence and had also collected the documents from their residence whereas statements of other witnesses were recorded at CBI Office and documents were also seized at CBI office. In para 48 of his cross examination, PW44 deposed that he had summoned the remaining witnesses in CBI office either by issuing notices or by mak- ing calls on their mobile numbers if the same were available with duty officer. He further deposed that no mobile number of other witnesses were available with duty officer and to those witnesses notices were sent in writing but those notices were not filed with the chargesheet. He stated that he had mentioned the fact of issuing notices to the wit- nesses in the case diary. However, when the witness was asked to pro- duce the notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C he stated that no notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C were issued to Sulekha, Sunil s/o Raja Ram and Rambir and they were picked up as suspects. He also deposed that he did not CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 101 of 115 search for additional documents/record apart from the records seized by joint surprise check teams nor he visited the offices of SDM, Civil Lines and SDM, Model Town but he visited the office of Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone, North DMC once. He also deposed that he had not visited CSB Hall nor had recorded the statement of Registrar at that time. No document was also prepared regarding the said visit.
49.3 PW44 further deposed that he did not have first hand knowl- edge regarding the procedure for obtaining the birth certificates. He was not aware about the role of CSB operator nor he was aware if the birth certificates were printed on pre-printed performa (official sta- tionery) supplied by the Head Quarters to the zonal offices. He was also not aware that there was six zonal offices of North DMC and com- mon stationery was used in all the zones for printing the birth/death certificates. When the attention of PW44 was drawn to the registers marked as Mark PW44/DA and Mark PW44/DB regarding receipt of of- ficial stationery from the Head Office to Civil Lines Zone and certificate number wise disbursal of the same to various CSB operators, he stated that these registers were not provided to him during investiga- tion despite asking the then Sub Registrar for other records. Although he stated that he had asked for other records in writing but did not specifically mention about these registers. He also admitted that he had not filed the said requisition along with the chargesheet.
49.4 When PW44 was shown the log in details/CSB transaction record for the period 01.02.2015 to 30.04.2015 already exhibited as Ex. PW23/DB, Ex.PW23/DC and Ex. PW23/DD, he could not comment on these records and stated that he had not specifically asked for this CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 102 of 115 record and he was not aware that such record was being maintained. He also admitted that he did not inquire as to in whose custody the pre-printed stationery remained prior to handing over of the same to the CSB operator. He was also not aware about the number of CSB operators working in Civil Lines Zone during the relevant period.
49.5 As regards the house search of accused and Rambir Singh, PW44 has deposed that he did not file the house search memo of Rambir and accused along with the chargesheet. He admitted that some cash, property documents and household articles were recov- ered from the house search of accused and photocopies of I-Card and birth certificate of his child was recovered from the house search of Rambir Singh but surprisingly these documents were not placed on record along with the chargesheet. IO also admitted that he did not record the statements of independent witnesses associated in the house search of Rambir Singh which is also beyond any comprehen- sion. PW44 has deposed that he had searched the premises of Ram- bir in Sangam Vihar but he did not remember if stamps or blank certifi- cates or any other incriminating material was found during the house search. Counsel for accused produced print out of CBI press release dated 04.06.2016 from the official website of CBI and same was shown to the witness and was exhibited as Ex.PW44/DI. Perusal of the said press release would show that incriminating material such as birth cer- tificates, stamps etc. were recovered from the house search of ac- cused and Rambir Singh. It is again very surprising and beyond com- prehension as to why this press release was given by CBI if no incrimi- nating material was recovered in the house search and if the incrimi- nating material as mentioned in the press release was actually recov-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 103 of 115ered, why such material and house search memos have not been filed along with the chargesheet.
49.6 PW44 has also deposed in his cross examination that he did not conduct the house search of the witnesses Sulekha and Sunil s/o Raja Ram as there was no source information of involvement of Sulekha and Sunil. This statement is contradictory to his deposition in para 79 where he has deposed that Sulekha and Sunil s/o Raja Ram were picked up as suspects in the case. There is no explanation as to why the house search of Sulekha and Sunil s/o Raja Ram was not con- ducted when they were picked up as suspects. He further stated that he had source information regarding involvement of Rambir in fabrica- tion of birth certificates along with the accused.
49.7 PW44 has also deposed that he had called Ms. Shobha Chawla to CBI office as suspect and not as a witness but no separate questionnaire was given to the accused and her statement was recorded on the basis of questions put by PW44. He admitted that the statement of accused was not filed along with the chargesheet. No rea- son has been given as to why the statement of accused was not filed along with the chargesheet.
49.8 PW44 has also stated that the documents mentioned in Ex.PW11/B (D-5) included birth reporting forms and birth orders which were submitted by applicants at the office of Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone, North DMC (D-30 to D-50). He also deposed that from the perusal of the record, it could not be said as to when the said forms and birth orders were deposited in the office of Registrar, Birth & CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 104 of 115 Death. He also could not tell as to which CSB Operator received which form as their duties kept on changing after three months. He also could not say as to when and why these documents (D-30 to D-50) were re- ceived in the office of OIVS, Civic Centre and he had not seized any communication documents regarding requisition made by office of OIVS. However, after going through the statement of Dr. Jasveen Kaur Duggal Ex.PW44/DC recorded by him, PW44 deposed that these doc- uments were received by hand from accused in the office of OIVS and the date of receipt is not mentioned. He also admitted that he had not collected any record regarding the periodical checks made by OIVS prior to 03.06.2015 and also did not investigate as to what manner OIVS used to conduct the check of SDM orders. He also deposed that he did not ask or seize any complaint received by OIVS in her office and did not see the contents of the complaint.
49.9 PW44 in his cross examination admitted that he was not aware that every zone has a separate DHO. He was also not aware if DHO was also the Zonal Health Officer. He stated that from the perusal of birth order, it was clear that copy of birth order was being sent sepa- rately to Zonal Health Office as well as to applicant but he could not re- call if he had investigated on this aspect or not. He stated that he had not collected the birth orders from the Zonal Health Officer received di- rectly from the office of SDM and stated that it might be possible that birth orders were not sent directly to the office of Zonal Health Officer. This shows the casual approach in which the investigation has been carried out by the IO.
49.10 In reply to the question of Ld. Defence counsel on what CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 105 of 115 ground he had earlier deposed that CSB operators were working on daily wages and were changed after every three months, PW44 has deposed that he had examined one Bharat Rawat a CSB operator and recorded his statement about this fact but he had not filed the state- ment of Bharat Rawat along with the chargesheet. After going through the statement of Bharat Rawat, PW44 stated that he has not men- tioned in his statement that he was a daily wager and was changed after three months. The perusal of the statement, however, showed that Bharat Rawat worked as CSB operator with Civil Lines Zone from 01.03.2015 to 30.06.2015.
49.11 Regarding the sharing of password by the Registrar with the accused, PW44 has deposed that Registrar had not informed the date from which he had shared password with the accused. The Registrar had not shared his password with PW44 and he had not seized any record regarding the sharing of password. PW44 also deposed that he had asked about the written record in this regard from the Registrar during the course of recording of his statement to which he told PW44 that he would supply the record if the same is available. However, PW44 was confronted with the portion A to A of Statement Ex. PW44/DE of the Registrar wherein he had stated that he had issued or- der in writing. This also clearly shows that investigation was not prop- erly carried out by the IO and there was no reason for the IO for not collecting the written order issued by Registrar after he had categori- cally stated that he had issued order in writing. PW44 also did not in- vestigate regarding the validity of the password and whether the pass- word remained same through out or had to be changed periodically.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 106 of 11549.12 As regards the verification of SDM orders from the official web- site, PW44 has deposed that he was not aware about the official web- site of SDM office and deposed that the entire contents of birth order were available on the website of SDM office prior to 03.06.2015. This statement of the IO is contradicted by the statements of three SDMs examined by the prosecution as PW6, PW21 and PW22 who had de- posed that the website did not contain the particulars like name of the parents, name of the child, date of birth etc. which could be verified. The IO could have easily known about the contents of the official web- site of the Revenue Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi, if he would have met System Analyst, Revenue Department, GNCT of Delhi as informed by PW6 Vinod Singh Dhatrawal vide his letter dated 15.01.2016 Ex.PW6/2 (D-7). However, for the reasons best known to the IO, no in- vestigation has been conducted in this direction.
49.13 When PW44 was shown the printout of birth details of Neetu on page 1 of Ex.PW25/B (colly) (D-51), he admitted that as per record, the birth details were registered on 03.03.2015. On being shown docu- ments Ex.PW23/DC (colly), he admitted that as per record, five copies of birth certificates of child Neetu were printed on 03.03.2015, he stated that he had not investigated as to how the approval of Sub Reg- istrar for registering the birth details and approval of Registrar for grant- ing approval for printing the certificate was accorded in relation to the child Neetu. It is pertinent to note here that as per the record, accused was on leave on 03.03.2015 and there was no occasion for the ac- cused to sign the birth certificate on 03.03.2015.
49.14 PW44 also failed to obtain specimen signatures/initials of ac-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 107 of 115cused and send them for comparison with the forged birth certificates to CFSL. The reason given by PW44 for not obtaining the specimen signatures/initials of the accused in his cross examination defy any logic. PW44 merely relied on the statement of PW32 Sunil (data entry operator) who identified the signature/initial of accused on the 10 forged birth certificates during investigation, even though he was not a handwriting expert. It is again beyond comprehension as to all 14 forged birth certificates available with PW44 were not shown to PW32 Sunil Kumar. There is no explanation whatsoever, as to why the re- maining four forged birth certificates were not shown to the witness during investigation.
49.15 Another question which arises for consideration is if the hand- writing expert of CFSL cannot compare and give his opinion on the ini- tial on forged birth certificates, how far the statement of Sunil identify- ing the initials of the accused can be relied upon. Admittedly, he is not a handwriting expert and it is not the case of the prosecution that ac- cused put her initials on the forged certificates in his presence. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the IO com- mitted a blunder by not obtaining the specimen handwriting /signature of accused during investigation and getting the same compared with initials on forged birth certificates from the handwriting expert. This omission on the part of IO has caused irreparable damage to the case of prosecution. PW32 Sunil, data entry operator has not identified the signatures of accused on 9 forged birth certificates out of 10. He has only identified the initials of accused on the birth certificate of Saina but even that identification cannot be safely relied upon in the absence of any admitted/specimen signature/initial of the accused available on CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 108 of 115 record.
49.16 PW44 in his cross examination has deposed that he was not having the address of Sunil s/o Raja Ram and came to know about his address from Horam. He also deposed that one Rajender Prasad had brought Sulekha to CBI office and Rajender Prasad was also in- volved in the preparation of birth certificates. PW44 stated that he might have recorded the statement of Rajender Prasad but did not file the same on judicial file as it was not found relevant for the present case and volunteered that initially Rajender Prasad was picked up and he had disclosed the names of Sulekha, Sunil and other persons in- volved in preparation of birth certificates. After going through the state- ments of witnesses, PW44 also deposed that Sulekha was working as tout since 2015, Sunil s/o Raja Ram was working as tout for last 4-5 years and Rambir was working as tout for last three years. He admit- ted that these persons were working as touts prior to joining of accused in February, 2015 but he did not investigate whether these witnesses were also procuring the birth certificates of children more than one year of age even prior to February, 2014. He also deposed that he does not remember if he had investigated about the forged birth orders which were submitted in Civil Lines Zone of North DMC prior to Febru- ary, 2014. This is again a major lapse on the part of the IO in the inves- tigation. Despite having the knowledge that criminal conspiracy was hatched during the period 2013 to 2015, no efforts were made by the IO to investigate about the forged birth orders submitted in the office of Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Lines Zone and forged birth certificates procured on the strength of the forged birth registration orders prior to February, 2014.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 109 of 11549.17 As regards the register Ex.PW29/A (D-13) produced by Sulekha during investigation, PW44 has admitted that the register con- tains handwriting of different persons and Sulekha could not tell about the entries made in the register when he inquired about them. He also deposed that the register was not maintained according to the dates. He admitted that the register did not contain entries related to birth cer- tificates of children Umrul and Amarti. He was not aware about the per- sons i.e. Poonam, Naval, Choudhary, Pushpa etc which appeared at several places in the register. The deposition of PW44 again indicates that no proper investigation has been made by him on the entries men- tioned in the register and the persons whose names frequently ap- peared in the register.
49.18 PW-25 Jasveen kaur Duggal has deposed that a complaint was received in the Head Quarters in Feb./Mar. 2015 from one Guddi Devi regarding some wrong processes being done by Civil Lines Zone. However, I.O. has neither seized any such complaint during the investi- gation nor it has been filed alongwith the chargesheet. No efforts seems to have been made by the I.O. to examine Guddi Devi during in- vestigation and she was not even been cited as a prosecution witness. There is no explanation by the I.O. in this regard in his deposition. The entire racket of preparing forged birth certificates on the basis of forged SDM orders/birth registration orders was exposed on the complaint made by Guddi Devi and she was one of the material witnesses to prove the case of prosecution. Non-examination of such a material wit- ness certainly raises doubts about the manner in which investigation has been carried out in this case.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 110 of 11550. Thus, after a careful perusal of testimonies of aforesaid witnesses, it is evident that these witnesses have made material improvements in their depositions on material aspects and have not deposed truthfully. Hence, the testimonies of these witnesses do not inspire the confi- dence of the court and the same cannot be safely relied upon. Hence, no reliance can be placed on his testimony.
51. In order to substantiate the defence of the accused that forged birth certificates (D-14 to D-26) were not printed in the office of Regis- trar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, North DMC, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that as per the disbursal register Ex.DW2/C maintained by the office of Registrar (Birth & Death), Civil Lines Zone, certificate no. 833416, 749364, 790767, 790771, 790772, 790792 were not issued to any CSB operators for printing of birth certificates. It was argued that when a pre-printed certificate has not been issued to any CSB opera- tor, where was the occasion for him/her to print the birth certificate. He further submitted that as per disbursal register EX. DW-2/C pre-printed certificate bearing no.754956 and 754958 were issued to CSB Opera- tor Jyoti for printing the birth certificate on 5/3/2015; pre-printed certifi- cates bearing no. 743829, 743830 & 784180 were issued to CSB Op- erator Bhart on 19/3/2015, 19/3/2015 and 22/4/2015 respectively for printing the birth certificates; pre-printed certificate bearing no.754435 was issued to CSB Operator Kuldeep on 4/3/2015; and pre-printed certificates bearing no.814640 &814641 were issued to CSB Operator Sanjeev Parmar on 06/05/2015. He further argued that the CSB Trans- action record for the period 01/02/2015 to 28/02/2015, 01/03/2015 to 31/03/2015 and 01/04/2015 to 30/04/2015 exhibited as Ex.PW-
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 111 of 11523/DB(colly), Ex.PW23/DC(colly) & Ex.PW23/DD(colly) and CSB Transaction Record for the period 01.05.2015 to 31.05.2015 respec- tively either do not reflect entries or entries are reflected with incorrect particulars with respect to the birth certificates D-14 to D-26 which clearly indicate that these certificates were got printed from outside.
52. Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that bare perusal of the birth certificate Vivek Gupta (D-22), Muskan Khan (D-23), Vansh Singh (D-24) also show that these birth certificates have been reprinted after erasing the contents of original certificate.
53. I have also carefully gone through the disbursal register Ex.DW2/C and CSB Transaction Record Ex.PW23/DB(colly), Ex. PW23/DC (colly) and Ex. PW23/DD (colly) and find force in the submis- sions advanced by Ld. Defence counsel. A bare perusal of the birth certificates of Vivek Gupta (D-22), Muskan Khan (D-23), Vansh Singh (D-24) show that these certificates have been printed after erasing its original contents. Out of 14 forged birth certificates available on record, CSB transaction records do not contain any entry regarding 11 certificate numbers. The record reflects the entries in the name of Nikita, Tanya and Rani Kumari on 20.03.2015 but with different certifi- cate numbers. Similarly, certificate no. 833416 is reflected in the entry dated 21.02.2015 but the details of the child and online registration number are different. The names of the children in the entries dated 06.05.2015 against certificate nos. 814640 and 814641 in the CSB Transaction Record for the period 01.05.2015 to 31.05.2015. These facts create a doubt that the forged birth certificates D-14 to D26 were printed outside and not from the office of Registrar(Birth & Death) Civil CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 112 of 115 Lines Zone, North DMC Rajpur Road.
54. Hence, in view of the evidence available on record and the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that accused used forged and fabricated birth registration orders/SDM orders as genuine documents and prepared forged birth certificates D-14 to D-26 by abusing her official position and cheated her office.
(iii) Whether the sanction for prosecution granted against accused is a valid sanction?
55. Now I shall deal with the issue of sanction for prosecution of the accused. Admittedly, the IO had applied for grant of sanction to prose- cute the accused and sanction order was granted by the competent authority i.e. PW40 Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the then Addl. Commis- sioner, Health & Finance, North DMC. He appeared as a witness and proved the sanction order Ex. PW40/A and also deposed that the sanc- tion was sent to CBI through forwarding letter Ex. PW40/B. He also de- posed that along with the request for sanction, he received the CBI re- port containing the statement of witnesses and documents and after going through the entire material and after proper application of mind, he had accorded the sanction for prosecution.
56. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that PW40 in his cross exami- nation has admitted that the sanction order was received by him after it was vetted by the legal officer of North DMC. It was argued that this admission clearly shows that the sanction was accorded by PW40 with- out proper application of mind and at the instance of the CBI.
CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 113 of 11557. The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to prose- cute a public servant need not detain the court save and except to reit- erate that the provisions in this regard either under the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a check on frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute a honest public servant for acts arising out of the discharge of duty and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide range of duties cast on him by virtue of his office. The test, therefore, always is whether the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties by the Government or the public servant. If such connection exists and the discharge or exercise of the govern- mental function is, prima facie, founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and frivo- lous prosecution against the public servant. However, realising that the dividing line between an act in the discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may, at times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjusti- fied claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant so as to derive undue advantage of the requirement of sanction, specific provi- sions have been incorporated in Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission or irregular- ity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned.
58. Once there is cogent evidence that the sanctioning authority has CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 114 of 115 independently applied its mind and has accorded the sanction, the same has to be treated as a valid sanction and adequacy or inade- quacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction or- der. I am of the considered opinion that the sanction order Ex.PW40/A cannot be held to be invalid merely because the sanctioning authority has adopted the same format for according sanction which was sup- plied by CBI or the sanction order was vetted by the legal department of North DMC. Hence, the sanction order Ex. PW40/A is a valid sanc- tion order.
CONCLUSION
59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the charged offences u/sec. 420, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. The accused is directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA) On 22nd day of February, 2020 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07 Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi CC No. 05/019 CBI Vs. Shobha Chawla Page 115 of 115