Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1 Krishan Lall S/O. Late Subedar Ram ... on 30 November, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.V.K. MAHESHWARI
SPECIAL JUDGE: TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Corruption Case No.19/1997
CBI Vs. 1 Krishan Lall s/o. Late Subedar Ram Lall, r/o.
Q.No. Type-V/12, Kasumpati, Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh. The then, Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Welfare, Govt. of Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla.
2 K.L. Sawhney, s/o. Sh. Atma Ram Sawhney
(since deceased proceedings abated by Ld.
Predecessor vide order dated 10.09.1999).
3 Sandeep Sawhney, s/o. Sh. K.L. Sawhney,
partner of M/s. Shilpa Industries and M/s. Kai
Key Industrial Coporation, r/o.D-33, Kalkaji
Extn., New Delhi.
4 Balraj Sabharwal, s/o. Sh.L. Ramchander
Sabharwal, partner of M/s. Industrial Steel
Corporation, r/o. 260, Sector -15, Faridabad.
5 Jai Parkash, s/o. Sh. Attar Singh, r/o. 51,
Adarsh Colony, Moti Nagar, Hapur.
6 Udaiveer Singh, s/o. Sh. Inder Singh, Driver in
M/s.Shimla Cold Storage, r/o. Nehru Nagar,
Khurza, U.P.
CC No. 19/1997
1/34
2
7 Ashish Anand, Director of M/s. Rohan Motors
Limited, r/o. N-176, Panchsheel Park, New
Delhi.
Date of Institution 21.03.1997
R.C. No. 3(A)/90/ACU-II/CBI/New Delhi
Under Section U/s. 120-B r/w. 420, section 420 of IPC and
section 11, 12, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act
Arguments concluded on 24.11.2010
Date of order 30.11.2010
JUDGMENT:
Brief facts of the Case:
According to prosecution RC-3(A)/90 ACU.II was registered on 17.10.1990 in ACU.II branch on the basis of source information against Sh.
Krishan Lall (K. Lall) IAS (HP: 1973), the then Regional Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel, Rohit House, New Delhi, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988.
2 A fresh allegation found during investigation of the case that Sh. Kishan Lall, while working as Regional Development Commissioner, Iron & Steel, New Delhi, during the period June 1986 to June 1991, he received one CC No. 19/1997 2/34 3 800 CC Maruti Car, No. DL 3C A 3663 from Sh. K.L. Sawhney of M/s. Kaikey Industrial Corporation, Delhi, who had official dealings with him, without consideration. It was disclosed that Sh. Ashish Anand, Director of M/s. Rohan Motors Ltd., New Delhi, booked a Maruti car with Maruti Udyog Ltd. in the fictitious name of Sh. A. Kumar and thereby purchased 800 CC Maruti Car, registration No. DL 3C A 3663 on 17.10.90 in the name of Sh. A. Kumar from Maruti Udyog Ghaziabad. The car was brought to Delhi and sold to M/s. Industrial Steel. Corpn., New Delhi on 26.10.1990. 3 Sh. Balraj Sabharwal is one of the partners of the firms M/s. Industrial Steel Corpn., he is the brother-in-law of Sh. K.L. Sawhney and his son Sh. Sandeep Sawhney, was the authorised signatories of M/s. Industrial Steel Corpn., New Delhi. Shri K.L. Sawhney is a partner of two firms, viz. M/s Shilpa Industrial and M/s Kaikey Industrial Corpn., New Delhi. 4 Sh. K. Lall was functioning as Regional Development Commissioner, Iron & Steel, New Delhi, for the period from 02.06.1986 to 30.06.1991. The aforesaid three firms, i.e. M/s Industrial Steel Corpn., M/s Kaikey Industrial and M/s Shilpa Industries., deal in iron and steel and were under the jurisdiction of Sh. K. Lall who used to make inspection of these firms in the year 1980.
5 Sh. K.L. Sawhney gave the Maruti Car vide Reg. No. DL-3C-A 3663 as bribe to Sh. K. Lall to motivate him to show favour to the said firms in steel industries. Sh. K.Lall and his brother Sh. Mahesh Chand after receiving of the said Maruti Car from Sh. K.L. Sawhney, were using it.
CC No. 19/1997 3/34 46 On 3.04.1993 when a team of CBI officials went to Khurja to seize the said Maruti car, which was kept in the premises of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage, Khurja, a benami property of Sh. K. Lall, Sh. Udaiveer Singh, the tractor driver of Sh. Mahesh Chand, towed away the car and concealed it at a far away place from where the CBI team seized it ultimately. After the seizure of the car Sh. K. Lall set up his relation with Sh. Jai Prakash to file a petition in the court of CJM , Bulandshahar, who had claimed the ownership of the said car by producing falsely obtained purchase receipts from Sh. Balraj Sabharwal, the partner of M/s. Industrial Steel Corpn. 7 Sanction order for prosecution of Sh. K. Lall obtained from the Competent Authority.
CHARGE 8 Copies required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to all the accused. After hearing both the parties my Ld Predecessor vide order his dt. 19.7.2002 had directed to frame a charge against all the accused. Charge was framed against all the accused on 19.7.2002 for the offence punishable U/S 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 11,12, 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988. Charge for substantive offence for the offence punishable U/S 11 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P C Act 1988 framed against accused Krishan Lall . A charge for substantive offence U/S 12 of P C Act 1988 framed against accused Sandeep Sawhney, Balraj Sabharwal, Jai Prakash, Udaiveer Singh. A charge for the offence punishable U/S 420 IPC r/w 120-B IPC CC No. 19/1997 4/34 5 framed against accused Ashish Anand. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial, hence, this trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 9 Prosecution , in order to prove its case, has produced following witnesses 10 PW1 Mulakh Raj, Postman, has proved that during his tenure from 1976 to 1979 nofirm under the name and style of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation had ever existed.
11 PW2 Shri Hari Kishan has proved that no firm in the name of M/s Industrial Steel Corpn. existed at H.No. 58/14/A NIT Faridabad. 12 PW3 Shri Satish Sabharwal has proved that No firm in the name and style of M/s Industrial Steel Corpn. never existed in 58/14/A NIT Faridabad.
13 PW4 Shri Satya Narain Gupta has proved that he had never rented out any portion of M-99 Aggarwal Building , Connaught Circus to M/s Industrial Steel Corporation any time.
14 PW5 Shri Satya Narain has proved that he has never seen any firm in the name of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation at M-99,Aggarwal Building , Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
15 PW6 Sh. I J S Chawala has proved the receipt book Ex PW6/B. 16 PW7 Sh. R P Aggarwal has proved the file relating to CC No. 19/1997 5/34 6 Registration of Vehicle No. DL3CA 3663 Ex PW7/A, letter Ex PW7/B. 17 PW8 Shri Sudhir Gulati has proved the Proposal Form Ex PW8/A, Cover note Ex PW8/B, Insurance Policy Ex PW8/C. 18 PW9 Prasad Mukherjee has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
19 PW10 Shri D K Samanta Ray has proved the Sanction Order Ex PW10/A for the prosecution of accused K. Lal.
20 PW11 Shri Surender Pal Singh has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
21 PW12 Shri Prem has proved the seizure memo Ex PW12/A. 22 PW13 Shri V M Kumar had recorded the statement of Mr. Sudhir Gulati , Development Officer, NIC and seized documents from him regarding insurance of Maruti Car No. DL-3CA-3663. 23 PW14 Shyam Lal has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
24 PW15 Shri Hardeep Singh has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
25 PW16 Shri Raj Pal Singh has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
26 PW17 Ms Jwala Devi has proved the Production Memo Ex PW17/A, Inspection Report Ex PW17/B, Note Ex PW17/C, Inspection Report Ex PW17/C1, Order passed by Mr. K Lal Ex PW17/D, the note dated 7.5.91 Ex PW17/D1, Order passed by Mr. K Lal Ex PW17/D2, Letter dated CC No. 19/1997 6/34 7 23.4.91 Ex PW17/E, Inspection report dated 6..5.90 Ex PW17/F, letter dated 9.5.91 ExPW17/G, letter dated 10.5.91 Ex PW17/H, Inspection Report Ex PW17/I, Inspection report dated 10.12.87 Ex PW17/J . List of machinery Ex PW17/K, Inspection order Ex PW17/L, Note Ex PW17/L1, File Ex PW17/L2, Endorsement Ex PW17/L3, letter 23.4.91 is Ex PW17/M, Inspection report Ex PW17/N, letter dated 17.5.91 Ex PW17/O, letter dated 16..5.91 is Ex PW17/P, Certificate of registration Ex PW17/Q. 27 PW18 Sh. Kishan Lal has proved the Memo which is already Ex PW12/A. 28 PW19 Shri Manjeet Singh Chaudhary has proved recovery of Maruti Car DL3CA 3663 vide seizure memo Ex PW12/A. 29 PW20 Dy. SP MS Bisht has proved the document which is already Ex PW12/A , Memo Ex PW6/A. The charge sheet Ex PW20/A. 30 PW21 Shri Mahavir Singh Gupta has proved the receipt memo Ex PW21/1, Income Tax Return of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation Faridabad Ex PW21/2, Report Ex PW21/3.
31 PW22 Shri R K Jain has proved that no firm was existing in the name of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation at 5B/14A NIT Faridabad at 5B/14A NIT Faridabad.
32 PW23 Sh. B. Saha has proved the FIR Ex PW23/A and document already proved as Ex PW17/A,Ex PW12/A. 33 PW24 Chander Pal has proved the document already Ex PW11/A,Ex PW14/A and statement of Jai Parkash Ex PW24/A. CC No. 19/1997 7/34 8 DEFENCE OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
34 Statement of all the accused U/s 313 C r PC recorded wherein they have refuted all the evidence produced against them by the prosecution. 35 Accused Krishan Lal has stated that he has been falsely implicated by CBI in this case because he has made complaint against one of the IO Inspector MS Bisht during the investigation of DA case. Car no. DL3CA 3663 does not belong to him in any manner that is why CBI has not shown this car in his DA case. He is innocent.
36 Accused Sandeep Sawhney, Jai Parkash, Balraj Sabharwal, Udaiveer Singh and Ashish Anand have stated in their statement U/s 313 that they are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Even they do not know what case have been made against them.
37 DW1 Sh. Laxmi Chand, has proved three pages of Will Ex.DW 1/A. 38 DW2 Sh. A. K. Malhotra has proved the copy of letter dated 12.01.94 Ex.DW2/A and letter dated 21/22.09.93 . Ex DW 2/B, letter dated 27.08.93 Ex DW 2/C. 39 DW3 Sh. Anil Sharma has proved the original will Ex.DW 1/A. CC No. 19/1997 8/34 9 40 DW4 Sh. Vinod Arora has proved the partnership deed Ex.DW4/A. 41 DW5 Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh has proved the official memo dated 07.04.88 Ex.DW 5/A and copy of agreement register showing name of Jai Prakash at S. No. 672 Ex.DW 5/B. 42 DW6 Smt. Indu not brought the summoned record.
43 DW7 Sh. Jagdish Raj has proved the photocopy of meter sealing certificate Ex.DW7/A. 44 DW8 Inspector DS Chauhan has deposed orally. He has not proved any documents.
45 DW9 Sh. Kundan Singh has proved the certified copy of chargesheet alongwith annexures I to VI Ex.DW 9/A. 46 DW10 Sh. Mahavir Singh has not brought the summoned record.
47 DW11 Inspector Kishore Pandey has not brought the summoned record.
CC No. 19/1997 9/34 1048 DW12, Sh. Chander Bhan has proved the certified copy of sale deed Ex.DW 12/1.
49 DW13, Sh. R. B. Sahai has deposed regarding his partnership as Karta of HUF of R B Sahani.
50 DW14, Sh. S. P. Sharma has proved the partnership deed dated 22.05.1990 of M/s Shilpa Industries as Ex.DW 14/A, partnership deed dated 20.07.1993 of M/s Shilpa Industries as Ex.DW 14/B and resolution deed dated 22.02.90 of Ms. Shilpa Industries Ex.DW 14/C. 51 DW15, Sh. D. S. Dhankar has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
52 DW15, inadvertently recorded twice, Sh. Sunil Kumar has proved the certified copy of chargesheet Ex.DW 15/A-1, certified copy of list of witnesses Ex.DW 15/A-2, certified copy of list of documents Ex.DW 15/A-3, certified copy of charge Ex.DW 15/A-4, certified copy of deposition of Sh. Swantatra Bharat Gupta Ex.DW 15/A-6, certified copy of deposition of S.P. Bhalla Ex.DW 15/A-7, certified copy of deposition of M. S. Bisht Ex.DW 15/A-8, certified copy of deposition of Shashi Prakash Ex.DW 15/A-9 certified copy of judgment dated 04.12.09 Ex.DW 15/A-10.
CC No. 19/1997 10/34 1153 DW16, Sh. Sanjeev Dhingra has proved partnership deed Ex.DW 16/A. PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS .
54 Ld SPP Sh Tejvir Singh Dua argued that prosecution has proved its case that accused No.2 to 7 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy purchased a Maruti car No. DL 3CA- 3663 in a factious name of A Kumar. Actually accused Ashish Anand had purchased this car in the name of A Kumar as fictitious person . Car was sold to M/S Industrial Steel Corporation on 26.10.90 through Sh Balraj Sabharwal who is brother in law of K L Sawhney. Actually M/S Industrial Steel Corporation was non existing firm surviving on papers only. Sandeep Sawhney was the authorised signatory of M/S Industrial Steel Corporation . Accused K L Sawhney ( Now deceased ) was a partner of M/s Shilpa Industries and M/s Kai Kay Industries Corporation . Accused K Lall was the then functioning as Regional Development Commissioner, Iron and Steel wef 2.6.86 to 30.6.91. All the above referred firms were under his jurisdiction, who also used to carry out inspection of above said firms. Accused K L Sawhney( Now deceased ) had given the above said Maruti car to accused K Lall to motivate him to show favour to above said firms. Accused K Lall after receiving the car from K L Sawhney had given it to his brother Mahesh Chand, who was keeping it in the premises of M/S Shimla Cold storage Khurja being Benami property of accused K Lall. Accused Udaiveer Singh, tractor driver of Mahesh Chand CC No. 19/1997 11/34 12 towed away the car and concealed it at a far away place . Accused Jai Parkash in furtherance of criminal conspiracy falsely claimed ownership of this car by obtaining false purchase receipt from Balraj Sabharwal partner of M/S Industrial Steel Corporation. Ld Special Prosecutor argued that prosecution has produced 24 witnesses to prove its case . All the accused may be convicted.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS.
55 It is argued on behalf of accused Krishan Lall that Ld Predecessor of this Court Sh R K Gaubha vide his order dated 19.7.2002 directed to frame charge against accused A-1 for the substantive offences U/S 11 ,12 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (e) of P C Act in addition to the charge of criminal conspiracy. However, a charge for the offence U/S 11 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P C Act has been framed.
56 Ld. Defence counsel argued that prosecution utterly failed to prove that A-1 had ever shown any favour to any of the alleged firms belonging to K L Sawheny, Sandeep Sawhney and Balraj Sabharwal. Prosecution has not produced any evidence that car No. DL 3C A-3663 was ever given to accused or was ever owned or used by A-1. CBI in its reply filed to the application moved by accused Jai Parkash for releasing his car on superdari to him has stated that K Lall had purchased this car and it his Benami property. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar has released this car to Accused Jai Parkash on superdari, CBI has not challenged this order hence it has now become final . There is no evidence on the file that the car CC No. 19/1997 12/34 13 in question was purchased by accused Ashish Anand in the fictitious name of A Kumar . There is no evidence on the file that how this car was given to accused K Lall. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against accused K Lall he may be acquitted.
57 It is argued on behalf of accused Sandeep Sawhney that he was not a partner of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation and controlling it thereof. According to Ex. PW 21/2 which is the income tax return partner of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation were Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Balraj Sabharwal and Sh. Gulshan Sabharwal. Accused Sandeep Sawhney has not been shown as a partner of this firm in the income tax return Ex. PW21/2. 58 CBI has not produced any evidence to prove that Sandeep Sawhney was partner of Shilpa industry to which favour was allegedly granted by A1 vide Ex. PW 17/H. According to DW14/A, B & C (partnership deed of M/s Shilpa Industries) he is not a partner of it. According to D16/A which is partnership deed of M/s Kay Kay Industrial Corporation he is a partner of this firm only. CBI has not produced any evidence to show that he was Incharge of the affairs of this firm. CBI has not produced any evidence to prove that he had arranged or procured the car in question. CBI has not produced any evidence to establish that he was involved in any conspiracy in this case. There is no evidence to prove that accused Sandeep Sawhney was procured the car in question in the name of fictitious person. It is argued that accused is innocent he be acquitted. Ld. CC No. 19/1997 13/34 14 Defence Counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on following authorities :- Sham Sunder and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 1982 and Shreya Jha Vs. CBI 2007 [3] JCC 2318.
59 It is argued on behalf of Balraj Sabharwal that there is no evidence to prove that he was in any way involved in the procurement of car in question in the fictitious name. There is no evidence that A Kumar was a fictitious person. Car was initially registered in the name of A Kumar by the transport authority after verifying about the identity of the registered owner. It was sold to M/s Industrial Street Corporation for consideration. It is still registered in the name of the above said firm. Nobody has challenged the transfer of car from the name of A Kumar to the name of M/s Industrial Street Corporation. There is no suggestion from the CBI that vehicle was initially registered and thereafter transferred without any verification. 60 It is argued that prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that car was passed to A1. Ownership of the car is in the name of M/s Industrial Street Corporation. PW3 has stated that he had never seen Balraj Sabharwal driving the car. PW3 has also admitted that accused Balraj Sabharwal was having his own car.
61 It is argued that car in question was sold by M/s Industrial Street Corporation to Jai Prakash. CJM Bullandshahar while granting superdari of this car to Jai Prakash observed in his order that Jai Prakash had purchased this car from M/s Industrial Street Corporation. CBI has not challenged the order of CJM Bulandshahar vide which car was released on superdari to Jai CC No. 19/1997 14/34 15 Prakash. Thus, the same has attained finality.
62 Accused Balraj Sabharwal had never been a partner of M/s Shilpa Industries or KK Industrial Steel Corporation. There is no evidence on the file to prove that he was in any way concerned with the management and control of these firms.
63 M/s Industrial Street Corporation was a trading firm having no concern with accused K. Lal. This firm did not fall under the jurisdiction of K. Lal. It had not purchased any steel through control sources. Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that A4 was in any way involved in the alleged conspiracy of giving the car in question to accused K. Lal in bribe.
64 It is argued on behalf of accused Jai Parkash that he is bona fide purchaser of car No. DL 3 C A-3663 . He had applied before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar for releasing this car to him as its owner . Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar after considering the document of ownership of the car has released it on superdari to him . He had sufficient means to purchase this car which is admitted even by the prosecution witness and defence witnesses.
65 It is argued on behalf of accused Udaiveer that prosecution has failed to produce any witness to prove that this car was ever recovered from his possession. Prosecution has not produce any witness who had ever seen him plying this car. He is a poor innocent person. There is no evidence in the file to connect him in the alleged criminal conspiracy. He has been CC No. 19/1997 15/34 16 falsely implicated in this case and he may be acquitted. 66 It is argued on behalf of accused Ashish Anand that according to prosecution he was involved in arranging the car in question without consideration. There is no evidence on the file as to how the car in question was purchased in the fictitious name of A Kumar by Ashish Anand of Rohan Motors on 17.10.90 and registered in Ghaziabad and thereafter brought to Delhi and sold to M/s Industrial Street Corporation on 26.10.90. K. Lal was neither the owner nor in possession of car in question. The car was registered in the name of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation. It has not been shown in the list of assets of accused K. Lal in the DA case pending against him. Accused Jai Prakash is the owner of this car. Car in question was released to him on superdari by CJM Bulandshahar. CBI has not challenged this order which has attained the finality.
67 PW11 Sunderpal has not supported the case of prosecution. PW16 has denied that Jai Prakash does not own this car. 68 Car was not recovered from Shimla cold storage. PW12 and Pw18 have not supported the case of prosecution to the effect that Udai vir tractor driver of Mahesh Chand had concealed the car in a field. 69 Accused Ashish Anand Director of M/s Rohan motors was the dealer of Maruti Car. He sold and purchase Maruti Cars on commission. This car was registered in the name of A1 on 17.10.90. A Kumar had sold the car to M/s Industrial Street Corporation in consideration. No complaint was filed by A Kumar that he was cheated by M/s Rohan Motors. Thus, there is no CC No. 19/1997 16/34 17 evidence at all that accused Ashish Anand had cheated anybody and dishonestly induced anyone to deliver the car in question. There is no evidence on the file to prove that A Kumar was a fictitious person. Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that accused Ashish Anand was having any relation or connection with other co-accused or he was in any way involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. He was not in any way concerned with the steel business or with M/s Industrial Street Corporation. There was no occasion or reason why he will give or arrange a car for K. Lal to motivate him to show favour in the above referred firms. He is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He be acquitted. 70 Accused K.L. Sawhney has expired on 19.01.1999 during the pendency of this case and present proceedings against him stand abated by my Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 10.09.1999. PUBLIC SERVANT AND SANCTION 71 It is undisputed that accused Krishan Lal (K. Lal) an IAS officer of 1973 batch of HP Cadre, in the year 1990 was working as Regional Development Commissioner of Iron and steel at Rohit house, New Delhi, thus he is a public servant. Even this fact has not been disputed on behalf of accused K. Lal during the course of arguments.
72 PW10 D K Samanta Rao Additional Secretary UPSC has stated that on 03.10.96, he was posted as Director (Vig.) in department of personal and training Govt. Of India. He has identified his signatures on sanction order Ex. PW 10/A dated 03.10.96. This witness has stated that accused K. CC No. 19/1997 17/34 18 Lal who is an IAS Officer is removable from his post by the Govt. Of India. Powers were further delegated to Hon'ble Minister Incharge i.e. Prime Minister of India. Sanction for his prosecution was granted by Prime Minister of India in the name of President of India. He has authenticated the sanction order for the prosecution of accused K. Lal in this case. 73 This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused K. Lal. In his cross examination, he has stated that sanction order Ex. PW 10/A is typed one except the date and signature. He has also admitted that CBI has sent a draft sanction order. He has further stated that file was examined and only on the satisfaction sanction for his prosecution was granted after perusing all the material sent by CBI including the statement of witnesses etc. This witness has denied that sanction order Ex. PW 1/A is verbatim of draft sent by CBI. He has stated that draft of sanction order was prepared by his subordinate and sent for approval to Hon'ble Prime Minister. This witness has denied the suggestion that sanction was granted in a mechanical manner without applying the mind.
74 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that CBI had sent a model draft sanction order to the competent authority thus he had passed the sanction order on the dotted lines without application of his mind. It is correct that sanctioning authority had received a draft proforma of the sanction order, however, PW10 D K Samanta Rao has categorically stated that sanction was granted after examining the relevant file and after applying mind to the material sent by CBI. He has also denied the suggestion that CC No. 19/1997 18/34 19 sanction was granted without application of mind in a mechanical manner. 75 Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Damodaran, 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 272 has held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 147 - Ss. 5 (1) (e) and 5 (2) read with S. 161, IPC - Non application of mind and grant of sanction mechanically by sanctioning authority - Basis of acquittal by High Court - High Court deeply influenced in its decision by the fact that a model sanction order was enclosed with the record sent to the sanctioning authority - Held, acquittal not justified - There was no infirmity in the order granting sanction - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 197".
76 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC page 148 has held as follows :
" In his evidence in Court the Sanctioning Authority stated that the sanction was prepared by the police and put before him by the personnel branch of his office and that before according sanction we went through all the relevant papers put before him. The sanction granted U/S 6 was perfectly valid. The statement of the sanctioning authority did not prove that he merely put his signatures on the readymade sanction presented by the police without applying his mind to the facts of the case. It was not for him to judge the truth of the allegations made against the accused by calling for the record of the connected claim cases or other records in connection with the matter CC No. 19/1997 19/34 20 from his office . The paper which were placed before him apparently gave him the necessary material upon which he decided that it was necessary in the hands of justice to accord his sanction."
77 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the sanction order itself is a speaking order in such circumstances it is not necessary to prove it by leading evidence that sanctioning authority has applied his due mind. Reliance is placed on C S Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka 2005 IV AD (S.C.) 141 wherein in para No.9 it is observed as follows:
"Therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. In the present case, the sanction order speaks for itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to his known source of income. That is contained in the sanction order itself. More so, as pointed out, the sanctioning authority has come in the witness box as witness No.40 and has deposed about his application of mind and after going through the reports of the Superintendent of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal department, he accorded sanction. It is not a case that the sanction is lacking in the present case. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and the view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court is justified."CC No. 19/1997 20/34 21
78 In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent of police (CBI) Vs. Deepak Chaudhary - 1995 SCC (Crl.) 1095 has held as follows:
''We find force in the contention. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima-facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refused to grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative act the need to prove an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.''
79 I have carefully gone through the sanction order Ex PW10/A, it is a detailed order having all the material particulars of this case. A bare perusal of this order reflects that sanctioning authority has passed this order after due application of his mind. In view of above discussion, this Court is of opinion that prosecution has proved a valid sanction for the prosecution of accused K Lal in this case.
CC No. 19/1997 21/34 22LEGAL AND FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE 80 Prosecution has produced PW1 Mulk Raj, PW2 Hari Kishan,
PW3 Satish Sabharwal, PW4 Satya Narain Gupta, s/o. Sh.Ram Nath and PW5 Sh.Satya Narain, Postman PW 22 R K Jain to prove that M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation was neither existed at H. No.58/14/A NIT Faridabad nor in building bearing no. M-99, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. PW1 has deposed that he was postman in Beat no.62 and 62 A in Gole Dak Khanna. Aggarwal Building M-99 was in his beat, no firm under the name and style M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation had ever existed there. PW2 Hari Kishan has deposed that he was posted as postman in main office at NIT Faribabad since 1980 till date. H. No. B-58/14/A was in his beat no.16. No firm under the name and style M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation existed there. He has also stated that Mr.Sabharwal was owner of this house. PW3 Satish Sabharwal has deposed that he has been residing in H. No. B-58/14/A since his birth and no firm under the name an style M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation had ever existed in this house. In late 1980, on the request of Sh.Balraj Sabharwal, who is his cousin, a sign board under the name and style of M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation was allowed to be displayed on the front side of his house which was subsequently, was removed. PW4 Satya Narain Gupta had stated that Aggarwal Building M-99, Cannaught Circus belongs to his wife Smt.Lalita Gupta and no portion of this building was ever CC No. 19/1997 22/34 23 rented to M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation at any time. PW5 Sh.Satya Narain, Postman stated that he remained posted in beat no 63, M- Block, Cannaught Circus and Aggarwal Building M-99 was in that building. He had never come across any firm under the name and style M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation on the said address. PW22 R K Jain has stated that he had personally visited the premises of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation at 5 B /14A NIT Faridabad and found that no such firm was running on the given address.
81 From the above discussion it is clear that prosecution has proved on the file that firm M/s Industrial Steel Corporation was not running any business on the given addresses but it was surviving on papers only.
82 PW6 I .J. S. Chawla has stated that receipt no.95 of book no. PW6/B was issued for the transfer of vehicle no. DL 3CA 3663. PW7 R.P. Aggarwal has stated that initially, vehicle no.DL 3CA 3663 was registered in name of A. Kumar, s/o. Sh. S. Kumar, r/o.C-24, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar- III. It was registered on 26.10.1990. On the same date, it was transferred to M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation and still in the name of it according to file Ex.PW7/A. In his cross examination, he has stated that in the application of transfer of this vehicle from original owner A. Kumar in favour of M/s. Industrial Steel Corporation. He has proved application Ex.PW7/DA. PW8 CC No. 19/1997 23/34 24 Sudhir Gulati has stated that he had issued insurance cover note Ex.PW8/A in respect of car no. DL 3CA 3663. Insurance was done on the telephonic call of Late Sh.K.L. Sawhney who had requested him to meet Mr.Sabharwal to insure the car. PW11 Surinder Pal Singh has deposed that Jai Prakash is his neighbour. He was running a flour mill besides agriculture. He was having a Maruti Car. PW12 Prem has identified his signatures on seizure memo dated 13.04.1993 Ex.PW12/A. He has put his thumb impression at the asking of CBI. He has further stated that car was found in front of house of Karamveer in open condition.
83 PW16 Raj Pal Singh has stated that in the year 1993 CBI had obtained his signature while he was passing by the house of Jai Parkash. He was declared hostile. He has not supported the case of prosecution even in his cross examination by Ld. Prosecutor.
84 PW18 Krishan Lal has identified his signatures on Seizure Memo of car No. DL 3CA 3663 which is already exhibited as Ex PW 12/A. In his cross examination he has stated that car was seized from a field near the field of his brother Prem.
85 Car no. DL-3CA-3663 was impounded during the investigation of this case for the release of which accused Jai Prakash moved an application dated 21.04.93 before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar. CBI has filed a rejoinder to the application / petition filed by Jai Prakash CC No. 19/1997 24/34 25 which is Ex. PW 20/DX in para no. 3 of this rejoinder which is stated as follows :
" That investigation has also revealed that Sh. K. Lall has purchased two cars i.e. (i) Maruti white car bearing no. DL-3CA-3663 in fictitious name as benami and (ii) Car red Maruti bearing no. HIP4 in his own name."
86 Thus, from above quoted para no. 3 of rejoinder Ex. PW 20/DX, filed by CBI, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar, it is clear that according to CBI K. Lall had purchased white Maruti Car bearing no. DL-3C-A3663 in fictitious name as benami. It is stated in para no. 5 of this rejoinder by the CBI as follows :
"That the verification made by V. Kumar disclosed that this car was purchased by one Sh. A Kumar, R/o C-24, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 17.10.90. The verification of which disclosed that Sh. A Kumar R/o C-24 Lajpat Nagar Delhi was a fictitious man. Further from the transport authority, it was disclosed that this car was transferred to M/s Industrial Steel Corporation, United India Building, F Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (LIC Building) on 26.10.90."
87 Prosecution has not produced Sh. V. Kumar who had verified that this car was purchased by one Sh. A Kumar who was a fictitious person. Prosecution has also not produced any other evidence on the judicial file to prove that A Kumar was a fictitious person. It was actual A-7who had purchased this car.
CC No. 19/1997 25/34 2688 In para no. 7 & 8 of Ex. PW 20/DX it is stated as follows :
"That the investigation has further disclosed that this Car belongs to accused K. Lall and it was found that his younger brother Shri Mahesh Chand was driving this car at Khurja, U.P. That on 13.04.93 an information was received that the said car has been parked in the premises of M/s Shimla Cold Storage of accused Sh. K. Lall at Khurja, U.P."
89 Prosecution has not produced any witness to prove that this car belong to accused K. Lall or his younger brother Mahesh Chand was driving this car at Khurja and this car was parked in the premises of M/s Shimla Cold Storage of accused K. Lall at Khurja, U.P. On 13.04.93.
90 Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahr has passed order dated 13.07.93 which is Ex PW 20/D-y, relevant portion of which is as follows :
"Jai Prakash , a resident of Hapur (Ghaziabad) has moved a release application, relating to a white maruti car no. DL-3C-3663, which was seizued by the police of Khurja Kotwali, in the presence of M. S. Bisht, Dy. SP/CBI New Delhi on 13.04.93, from the possession of Udaiveer Singh".......
"The detailed history is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of the release application. The registration of the car shows that one A Kumar, R/o Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was its regular owner vide registration dated 26.10.90 who sold it and transferred it to M/s Industrial Street Corporation, CC No. 19/1997 26/34 27 New Delhi and its partner Balraj Sabharwal transferred it by further sale, to the applicant Jai Prakash on 10.06.92 for Rs. 76,000/-. Original cash receipt for Rs. 76,000/-, Sale letter, form no. 20 and report of transfer form no. 20 duly signed by the parties supporting with an affidavit of the seller are on record. Applicant Jai Prakash has filed an affidavit, thereafter in pursuance, he had transferred the said car to Udaiveer Singh for sale purposes, and on a contract to pay Rs. 1500/- per month till the car is actually sold. Applicant has denied on oath, that he never gave any statement to CBI that the car in question did not belong to him. He had no connection with K. Lall. Udaiveer Singh has also deposed in his affidavit that he had taken the car on 11.06.92 from the applicant for the sale purpose and to ply it on a contract of Rs. 1500/- per month till it is not sold. He further deposed that on 13.04.93 when he was taking this car to show to mechanic for sale purpose CBI and police of Khurja Kotwali seized it in the way. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of CBI. Applicant has also filed a receipt of deposition of Rs. 50/- for the registration." ...................
............. "Applicant Jai Prakash, has prima facie adduced cogent and reliable evidence, that the car in question was sold and validly entrusted to him, which has been confronted. At present, he comes within the definition of registered owner, section 2 (3) Motor Vehicle Act 1988".............
............. "Car no. DL-3CA-3663 will be released in favour of applicant, JAI Prakash by the police of Khurja Kotwali, Jai Prakash will furnish a superdginama, and one surety bond for Rs. 1 Lack with an CC No. 19/1997 27/34 28 undertaking that he will produce it during the investigation, inquiry or trial to the Court, or police or CID, at the relevant place, date and time, whenever call upon will keep it in safe and running condition and will not sale or alienate the same, without the permission of court".............. 91 This order has not been challenged by CBI till date and has attained the finality.
92 PW20 Dy. SP Sh. MS Bhist in this regard in his cross examination has stated as follows:
" It is correct that Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar had released the car in question to Jai Prakash on superdari and had allowed his application. CBI did not challenge the release of the car on superdari in favour of Jai Parkash.
Q. I suggest it to you that CBI was not aggrieved by release of car on superdari to Jai Parkash, therefore, it did not challenge the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar.
Ans. It is incorrect.
I do not know if affidavit certified copy of which is Mark DX was filed by accused Jai Prakash in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar . I have gone through the order dated 13.07.93 related to the said car passed by Shri US Bansal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar which is Ex. PW which is Ex. PW 20/DX/DY. (Objected to).
The CBI had not initiated any proceedings for purgery against Jai Prakash. It is wrong to suggest that we did not initiate any action against Jai CC No. 19/1997 28/34 29 Prakash for purgery as the CBI was not aggrieved by filing of the affidavit by Jai Prakash."
93 CBI has also filed another criminal complaint against accused Kishan Lal ( K. Lall ) which is also pending in this Court bearing CC No.20/97 titled CBI Vs Kishan Lal vide RC No. 3(A) 0/90 U/S 13 (1) (e) of P C Act 1988 for possessing disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. In that case CBI has not shown Car No. DL 3C-A 3663 in the list of assets held by accused Kishan Lal . Accused has proved certified copy of this charge sheet in this case which is Ex PW9/A. Even PW20 Dy S. P M.S Bhist IO of this case in his cross examination has admitted this fact. Relevant portion of his statement is as under:
" In respect to this FIR, two other charge sheets, one for disproportionate assets and another for cheating case have been filed. I was part IO in respect of those charge sheet also. As far as I recollect, this car is not shown as an asset of accused Kishan Lal in disproportionate case. It is wrong to suggest that car had been taken as an assets in DA case as this car neither belongs to accused Krishan Lal nor had been taken as bribe from accused K L Sawhney."
94 According to prosecution, accused K. Lal had kept this car with his brother Mahesh Kumar in the premises of M/s. Shimla Cold Storage, Khurza as his benami property, however, CBI has not cited him as an CC No. 19/1997 29/34 30 accused in this case, though, it has cited Udaiveer Singh, the Tractor Driver of Mahesh Chand as an accused in this case on the allegation that he had towed away this car to conceal it at a far away place from M/s.Shimla Cold Storage.
95 PW13 V.M. Kumar, PW15 Hardeep Singh, PW19 Manjit Singh, PW 20 M S Bisht and PW 23 B Sahay have investigated this case. PW13 has seized documents of insurance of Maruti Car DL 3CS 3663, PW15 obtained the sanction for the prosecution of accused K. Lall. PW19 Manjeet Singh has stated that in the month of April, 1993 he was working as Inspector CBI. He had accompanied Dy. SP M S Bisht to Khurja on 13.4.93 in connection with the investigation of case vide R C No.3/90. When they reached to the house of Mahesh Chand brother of accused K Lall, Maruti Car No. DL 3CA 3663 was not found there. Mahesh Chand was also not available, therefore, they went to Shimla Cold Storage which was stated to be of Mahesh Chand, in search of Maruti Car. Mehesh Chand was not found there also. One worker Dhram Pal informed them that one person named Udaiveer had taken the said car with the help of a tractor in order to conceal it. Dhram Pal had also informed that he had learnt that a telephonic call was received in the Cold Storage about the visit of CBI for the recovery of car. They proceeded towards Khurja city and met accused Udaiveer while coming on the main road from the field on the tractor. On interrogation he had told that he had concealed the Maruti Car in a field. He CC No. 19/1997 30/34 31 led the CBI team and got recovered Maruti Car No. DL 3CA 3663 from opposite the house of Karamveer which was seized vide recovery memo Ex PW 12/A. 96 Prosecution has not produced alleged Dharam Pal in the witness box to prove the entire version. PW20 Dy. SP M S Bisht has stated that during the investigation of this case on 13.4.93 he had seized Maruti Car no. DL 3CA 3663 vide seizure memo Ex PW 12/A. This car was given to K Lall by Sh. K L Sawhney because he was having official dealing with Sh. K Lall. PW23 B Sahay has stated that in the year 1990 he was posted in CBI ACU II. He was associated in the investigation of R C No. 3/90 against accused K Lall. He has proved FIR dt. 17.10.90 Ex PW 23/A, signed by the then SP Sh. R K Bhattacharya by identifying his signatures on the same. Initially the investigation of this case was with Sh. J N Parshad, on his transfer investigation was entrusted to him. Other IOs were also associated with him namely M S Bisht, Sh. P Lal and Sh. Chander Pal.
97 PW 17 Smt. Jawala Devi was working as Inspector in Regional Development Commissioner office at the relevant time when Mr. K Lall was the Regional Development Commissioner. She has stated that she had inspected the unit of M/s Shilpa Industries and K K Industries Corporation on the direction of accused K Lall. At the time of inspection both the units were found working. Shilpa Industries were manufacturing coolers etc. K CC No. 19/1997 31/34 32 K Industries was also a manufacturing unit. Both the units were found in working condition at the time when the inspection was carried out by her. She has proved her Inspection Reports and various other note sheets etc. She has also stated that accused K Lall as Regional Development Commissioner was competent to suspend the licence of any unit which was found misusing any controlled material supplied to that unit. In her cross examination she has stated that no misutilization of any controlled item was found. Relevant portion of her statement is as under:
" Shri K.Lal accused as Regional Development Commissioner was competent to suspend the licence of any unit who was found misusing any controlled material supplied to the unit. The unit could also be debarred by him , if if was found to be misusing any controlled material (iron and steel)supplied to the unit.
XXXXXXX by Shri Mukesh Sharma, adv. for accused K.Lal.
I had inspected the unit on the basis of the orders issued by K.Lal. I do not know if the inspection was the routine or otherwise. The inspection was for the purpose whether the unit was misutilising the controlled item or not. I had not found any mis utilising of any controlled item during two inspections conducted by me in respect of Shilpa Industries and Kei kay industries. The documents which had been referred to by me CC No. 19/1997 32/34 33 above in respect of PK Chatterjee and Jai Mal Singh also do not report about mis utilisation of any controlled material by Shipa Industries and Key Kay Industries.
XXXXXXXXXXXX By Mr K S Singh, for accused Sandeep and Balraj Sabharwal.
There is an endorsement encircled Ex PW17/DX in the handwriting of Shri Jai Mal Singh, DRDC and also bears his signatures. I have seen Ex PW17/F. I had not found any discrepancy during the inspection of M/S Shilpa Industries vide this report conducted on 6.5.91, and that is why no entry had been made in para 20 to 23."
98 PW21Mahavir Singh Gupta has stated that in July, 1993 he had worked as Income tax Officer with Ward No.5 at Faridabad. He has proved Annual Income Tax Return filed by M/s Industrial Steel Corporation, Faridabad which is Ex PW 21/2 and receipt memo of the same which is Ex PW 21/1. He has also proved the report of Inspector which is Ex PW 21/3, which are with regard to Income Tax Return filed by M/s Industrial Steel Corporation.
99 PW22 R K Jain has stated that he had personally visited the CC No. 19/1997 33/34 34 premises of M/s Industrial Steel Corporation at 5 B /14A NIT Faridabad and found that no such firm was running on the given address.
100 This is the entire evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused. From the above discussed evidence, prosecution could not proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, therefore accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, hence all the accused are acquitted. Order accordingly. File be consigned to RR.
Announced: (V K MAHESHWARI ) Dt. 30.11.2010 SPECIAL JUDGE: DELHI CC No. 19/1997 34/34