Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sh. S. Venkat Raman on 28 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS;
NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR No. RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi.
Branch: ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi
Under Section: Sections 217 & 218 of the Indian Penal Code,
1872 (In short "IPC").
Case No : CBI/311/19
CNR No. DLCT12-000929-2019
Date of institution : 31.01.2013
Date of reserving : 31.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2024
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF PROSECUTION...4 to 5
COURT PROCEEDINGS.......................................5
CHARGE..........................................................6
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.............................. 6 to 22
i) Prosecution witnesses....................................6 to 12
ii) Documents on record.....................................12 to 22
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 CrPC............23 to 24
DEFENCE EVIDENCE...........................................24 to 26
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 1 of 95
FINAL ARGUMENTS......................................26
LEGAL PROVISIONS......................................26 to 27
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI
WITNESSES.............................................................27 to 58
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE
WITNESS.................................................................58
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS..............................58 to 94
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN
CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND
CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS
SUPERIORS WERE FALSE ?....................................72 to 80
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?......................80 to 84
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:
...............................................................................84 to 93
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER:
..................................................................................85 to 86
b) SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS
PERTAINING TO RC-5/99: .......................................86 to 90
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS,
THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING
INFORMATION:......................................................90 to 91
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 2 of 95
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO
ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:................................91 to 92
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND
CARELESSNESS:...............................................92 to 93
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. PP FOR CBI:
..........................................................................93 to 94
CONCLUSION:..........................................94 to 95
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the : CBI/311/2019 case
b) Date of commission of : From the period 1999 to March offence 2011.
c) Name of the : Sh. S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI, complainant ACU-VI, New Delhi
d) Name, parentage and : S. Venkat Raman (in short "S.V. address of the accused Raman.") S/o Sh. V. Subrahmanian R/o. Plot No. 89, Phase-IV, CBI Colony,Vanasthlipuram, Hyderabad-70
e) Offence complained of : Section 217 and 218 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 217 and Section 218 IPC.
h) Date of Decision : 28.06.2024 Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 3 of 95
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the accused, namely, Sh. S.V. Raman while being Investigating Officer in RC 2(E)/99/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi (in short "RC 2/99") did not file its chargesheet and its accompanying documents. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused made incorrect notings in the office files and gave false information to his supervisory officers that the charge-
sheet has been filed in the Court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad and subsequently reported to his superiors that it was pending trial before the Court of Ld.XIV MM, Hyderabad. It is alleged that investigation revealed that Chargesheet of RC 2/99 was returned by the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad on 28.01.2002, as the IO did not file the documents as per the list of documents and that a new charge-sheet signed by the accused dated 10.03.2011 was filed on 11.03.2011 and thereafter, the said charge-sheet Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 4 of 95 was also returned on 21.09.2011. It is alleged that the accused being a public servant disobeyed directions of his superiors and prepared false reports with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he would save accused from legal punishment. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the accused S.V. Raman, committed the offences punishable U/s. 217 and 218 of IPC.
3. The Investigation of the case was done by the IO/Inspector. Sh. Bharat Singh, CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi who filed the final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of CrPC in respect of the offence punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC against the accused.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
4. The Ld. Predecessor Judge of this court took cognizance upon the said final report/chargesheet on 26.02.2013 and issued summons upon the accused who was stated to be chargesheeted without arrest. On 18.04.2013, accused appeared, admitted to court bail and he was supplied with the copies of chargesheet/final report alongwith its documents.Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 5 of 95 CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Ld. Special Judge-IV, (PC Act), CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, in a Revision Petition filed by the accused, the order of framing of charge dated 27.01.2015 was set aside on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court framed the charge in the absence of his counsel and one opportunity was granted for addressing arguments on framing of charge against the accused. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, a fresh Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed to also which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(I) Prosecution Witnesses:
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined, 11 witnesses, namely:
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 6 of 95 Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 PW1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar He was working with CBI in SIU (X), Delhi from 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005. He was posted as LDC and was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh.
L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. As a Crime Clerk, he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases.
2 PW2 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, at the In the year 1998, he Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 7 of 95 time of recording of his was posted in SIU-X deposition, he was posted as, as a Public Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Prosecutor and Zone, CBI, Lucknow, UP. accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch.
3 PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad He was posted in
BS&FC branch of
CBI from 2000 to
2012 as Head
Clerk/Crime
Assistant and looking
after the work of
establishment,
accounts and
administrative
matters. As Crime
Assistant, his duty
was specifically to
maintain the crime
files, investigation
files etc. relating to
investigation and trial
as well as to carry
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 8 of 95
out correspondence
with various agencies
and was In charge of
Crime Section in the
year 2008.
4 PW4 Sh.S.Pratap Reddy In the year 2012, he
was posted as
Superintendent in the
court of Ld. XIV
(14th) ACMM,
Hyderabad
(previously
designated as Ld. 23rd
MM, Hyderabad).
5 PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, at the In the year 2009, he
time of recording of his was posted in BS &
deposition, he was posted as FC Branch, New
Crime Assistant, Admn. Section, Delhi as UDC in CBI Headquarters Crime Section. His duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 9 of 95 the branch.
6 PW 6 Sh. Sham Lal (S.L.) Garg Complainant who also conducted the Preliminary Enquiry of the accused. In the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-
VI, New Delhi.
7 PW 7 G.S. Meena, at the time of He was posted in recording of his evidence he was BS&FC, CBI, New posted as DSP, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi from March Delhi 2011 till 28.03.2014 as an Inspector. He was working in the said branch with accused S.V. Raman who was Supdt. of Police of the branch who retired from the service in the year 2011 and to whom instruction were given for filing of chargesheet in RC Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 10 of 95 no.2/99 after the accused allegedly failed to file it.
8 PW8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy. He was posted as
Special PP of CBI
Hyderabad from
2007 to 2011 and
from 2012 to 2014.
He was stationed at
Hyderabad and
during that time he
was assigned with
some CBI cases to
conduct prosecution
at Special Court,
Hyderabad.
9 PW-9 Sh. Kailash Nath Tiwari He was posted in
SIU-X Branch of
CBI, New Delhi from
1997 to July 2002 as
Superintendent of
Police (now the said
branch merged with
BS&FC).
10 PW 10 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao. During the year 2012
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 11 of 95
to 2014, he was
posted as Under
Secretary, in Advice
Vigilance Division-II
(B) of DOP & T,
Government of India.
He signed the
sanction of
prosecution and
communicated it to
CBI.
11 PW 11 Sh. Bharat Singh Investigating Officer
of the present case.
From the year 1998
to December 2013,
he was posted as
Inspector in AC-II
Zone of CBI
(II) Documents on record:
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 12 of 95 Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A (colly) FIR dated 04.05.1999 in respect of RC No. 2/99, SIU (X).
2. Ex.PW1/B Noting No. 151/N given by JD (EOW-IV) Sh. J.C. Dabas on 03.10.2001 regarding approval to file the chargesheet of alleged RC 2(E)99-SIU-X.
3. Ex.PW1/C Noting vide para 156/N dated 17.10.2001 accused noted that "ALA has vetted the chargesheet. Forwarding of chargesheet may please be signed" and vide notice No. 157N dated 17.10.2001 given b SP Sh. K.N. Tiwari that "chargesheet be filed urgently".
4. Ex.PW1/D Noting No. 159/N dated 05.11.2011 vide which the then SP Sh. K.N. Tiwari noted that the alleged chargesheet was filed on 23.10.2001 in the court of XXIII MM, Hyderabad and submitted the same to DIG/BS&FC/Delhi.Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 13 of 95 5 Ex.PW1/E Noting vide para-No. 160 dated 05.11.2001, DIG/Bs&FC/Deli in his term noted that "For information please, Chargesheet has been filed on 23.10.2001"
and submitted to JD, EOW-IV.
6 Ex.PW2/A Noting vide para-No. 153/N, SP Kailash Tiwari put a note that chargesheet should be filed by 19.10.2001 positively and marked the file to accused.
7 Ex.PW2/B Noting vide No. 154/N, accused S.V. Raman prepared the draft chargesheet and put up for approval and vetting by law officers.
8 Ex.PW2/C Report dated 29.10.2010 bearing
signature of accused as well as
that of PW2 at point A and B
respectively, pertaining to
recording of statement U/s. 164
CrPC and thereafter about filing
of charge-sheet in the court of
Ld. 23rd Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 14 of 95
9 Ex.PW3/A(OSR) Production Memo dated
01.07.2011 (D-11) whereby
PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad
handed over FIR, PRs,
Correspondence files, CD file
and chargesheet file and other
misc. documents regarding the
present case to the IO Sh. S.L.
Garg who conducted the
preliminary inquiry.
10 Ex.PW3/B The file M-673/11 (D-16)
containing reports in respect of
RC 2/99.
11 Ex.PW3/C File F-1 (M-701/11) containing
the reports in respect of RC
No.2/99.
12 Ex.PW3/D PR file (M-702/11) in respect of
present RC No. 2/99.
13 Ex.PW3/E & 3/F Correspondence File M-704/11
and Correspondence File M-
705/11 pertaining to the present
case in PE No.
21720110002(A)/ACU-V/Delhi.
14 Ex.PW3/G Chargesheet file M-707/7/11
regarding the present case in PE
No. 21720110002(A)/ACU-
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 15 of 95
V/Delhi.
14. Ex.PW3/H Notings at para 203/N to 204/N
dated 05.11.2008 vide which
accused mentioned that
chargesheet of RC No. 2(E)/99-
SIU(X)/New Delhi was filed on
25.10.2001 and matter was at
the pre-charge stage.
15 Ex.PW3/J Noting at Para No. 209/N to
214/N vide which it was noted
by HoB Sh. Mahipal Yadav that
the version of officer S.V.
Raman regarding filing of
chargesheet in RC No. 2(E)/99
SIU(X) is wrong and has
furnished a false report
regarding the alleged RC.
15. Ex. PW4/A A letter dated 03.05.2012
bearing DIS No.
1347/CMM/HYD/2012 issued
to CBI vide which Ld. CMM,
Hyderabad informed that as per
the report of Ld. 14th ACMM,
the chargesheet of RC 99/2 was
filed and the same was returned
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 16 of 95
on 21.09.2011.
16. Ex. PW4/B The report of Ld. 14th ACMM
stating that the chargesheet of
RC 99/2 was filed on 11.03.2011
and the same was earlier
returned on 28.01.2002 and
thereafter returned on
21.09.2011.
17. Ex. PW 5/1(Colly) Para No. 455 vide which
(Para No. 455 to accused S.V. Raman put the
459). (In CC No. draft sheet in this case which 312/2019) was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP, CBI and vide para-No. 459/N the draft sheet was approved by DIG A.M. Prasad dated 23.07.2007.
18 Ex.PW5/2 (Colly) Copy of chargesheet of case No. (pages 41 to 60), (in CC No. BD1/2005/E/001. CC No. 312/19).
19 Ex. PW 6/A (Colly) Complaint dated 23.01.2012 (OSR) (running into (original tagged with the Case 3 pages). No. 313/2019) filed by PW6 Sh.
Sham Lal Garg regarding not filing of chargesheet by the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 17 of 95 accused addressed to SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi mentioning all facts recovered during P.E. 20 Ex. PW7/A (OSR) Copy of Letter dated 09.08.2012 addressed to SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi prepared and signed by PW7 Sh. G.S. Meena, informing SP, CBI BS&FC that chargesheet in case No. 2/99 was assigned to him as accused had not filed the chargesheet in this case.
21 Mark PW-8/X Copy of Appointment letter as Special PP of Sh. K Ram Murthy in three cases belonging to CBI, Hyderabad.
22 Ex. PW 8/A Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian
Evidence Act in support of
emails dated 19.04.2009 and
20.06.2009 alongwith its
annexures addressed to Sh.
Mahipal Yadav, SP, CBI sent by
PW-8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy.
23 Ex. PW8/B (Colly) Copies of emails alongwith the
(running into 7 letter attached with the
pages) respective emails dated
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 18 of 95
19.04.2009 and 20.06.2009
addressed to Sh. Mahipal Yadav,
SP, CBI, New Delhi by PW-8
Sh. K. Ram Murthy.
24 Ex. PW9/A A FAX Message dated
& (Mark PW 2/1) 23.10.2001 from the accused
pertaining to the filing of
chargesheet in case RC No.2/99
in the court of Ld. XXIII MM,
Hyderabad (a designated court
to try CBI Cases) bearing
signature of S.V. Raman (IO).
(Earlier marked as Mark
PW2/1).
25 Ex. PW9/B The note paras Nos. 163/N and
164/N vide which the Fax
message Ex.PW9/A was put up
with the file before PW9 Sh.
K.N. Tiwari, the then SP,
BS&FC by Head Clerk on
09.11.2001 and PW9 put his
signature at point A.
26 Ex. PW 10/A (Colly) Forwarding letter dated
(5 pages) 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG,
AC-II, CBI alongwith Sanction
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 19 of 95
of the Prosecution dated
22.01.2013 against the accused.
27 Ex. PW 11/A (OSR), Copy of FIR in RC No.
(Original in CC 01/2012/CBI/ACU) VI/New
NO. 313/2019) Delhi.
28 Ex.PW11/B Letter dated 03.04.2012 of Sh.
S.K. Bhagat, the then SP, CBI,
ACU-VI, New Delhi addressed
to Ld. CMM, City Criminal
Court, Nampally, Hyderabad
requesting him to provide
necessary information in respect
of filing of chargesheet in RC
No. 02/1999/SIU-X, CBI, New
Delhi.
29 Ex.PW11/C (Colly) Copy of Search Memo dated
(3 pages). (Original 12.02.2012 (D-10) vide which in case file No. search was carried out at 313/2019). residence of accused at Hyderabad alongwith its annexures i.e search list, incriminating documents were seized.
30 Ex. PW 11/D(OSR) Handing Over/Taking Over Memo dated 28.02.2012 vide which PW11 IO Sh. Bharat Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 20 of 95 Singh had taken over documents mentioned in the Memo from complainant Sh. S.L. Garg, the then Inspr./ACU-VI, CBI.
31 Ex. PW11/E (OSR, Copy of letter dated 24.04.2012 Original in case file (26.04.2012) written by SP, CBI, No. 313/2019) BS&FC, the HoB, AC-II whereby letter and documents were marked to IO Bharat Singh by Sh. S.K. Bhagat, the then SP for necessary action.
32 Ex. PW11/F (OSR), Copy of Letter dated 01.08.2012 (Original in case file (D-13) of SP, CBI, BS & FC, the No. 313/2019) HoB AC-II received the documents mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents were marked to PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh.
33 Ex. PW 11/G (OSR), Copy of seizure memo dated (Original in case file 26.03.2012 (D-14) vide which No. 313/2019). PW11 IO Bharat Singh had seized the documents mentioned in the Memo from Mahavir Prasad, Crime Assistant, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 21 of 95 34 Ex. PW11/H(OSR), Copy of Letter dated 16.04.2012 (Original in case file (D-15) written by Sh. A.S. No. 313/2019). Dhillon, the then HoB, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi addressed to SP, CBI, ACU-VI and marked to PW11 IO Bharat Singh vide which he received the documents mentioned in the said letter.
35 Ex. PW11/I (OSR), Vide Ex.PW11/H, IO/PW11 (Original in case file Bharat Singh received the reply No. 313/2019). dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi.
36 Mark PW11/X The copy of chargesheet in case RC No. 2/1999, SIU-X at page No. 402 to 412 duly forwarded by Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP, SIU-X.
37. Mark 3/A Copy of chargesheet in RC No. 2/99 with signature of accused at point A
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.11.2022. The court will discuss the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 22 of 95 testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e., at the time of appreciation of evidence.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C/DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
10. The statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 01.12.2022. He stated that he had mentioned correct details to the department at the appropriate time and had never shielded any information from his superiors at any point of time. He also stated that the chargesheet had been filed before concerned court on the date mentioned by him to his superiors and informed the office by FAX. He stated that he filed the chargesheet of the RC in question on 23.10.2001. Further, he stated that the complete files which include /part files of the RC in question have not been produced before the Court. He also stated that the statement of witnesses examined during Preliminary Enquiry were not produced before the court. He also stated that the prosecution did not seize or produce the relevant documents regarding filing of the chargesheet and letter sent by Ld. CMM, Hyderabad and the report along with it of Ld. 14 th ACMM, Hyderabad sent which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B are unverified.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 23 of 95
11. Further, in his statement, the accused stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including investigation, supervision of investigation of cases including searches conducted by his subordinates in various cases, administration, preparing notes for conferences, conducting enquiries, preparation of comments on judgments and whether the case was fit for appeal against the acquittal of accused persons. He also stated that he was also asked to supervise and train the newly inducted 6-7 CISF personnel inducted in the CBI. Further, he stated that during the said period he had carried out his duties with utmost sincerity and was never communicated any adverse ACR or remarks. He further stated that he received President's Police Medal for distinguished services in 2008. Lastly, he stated that he had been made a scapegoat to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI at the relevant point of time.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
12. The accused led evidence in his defence.
Defence Evidence
13. (I) In order to prove and substantiate its case, the defence has examined, 01 witness, namely:
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 24 of 95 Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 DW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, at the He brought the time of recording of his record included the deposition, he was posted as SI, Service Register of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. accused S.V. Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.
Documents on record:
14. (II) The Defence witness relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of
Documents
1. Ex. DW 1/A (Colly, Copies of page nos.
OSR, running into 14 18 to 30 of Service pages) Register containing some loose pages which are tagged with the Service register of accused from Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 25 of 95
2. Mark DW1/DX Copy of order no.
CBI ID No.
47/Med./PPM-
PM/ID-08/PD-1617
dated 20.08.2008.
15. Thereafter, Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.01.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas Khatri, Ld. PP for the State as well as that of Sh. Shivam Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
17. The legal provisions which are involved are Sections 217 and 218 of IPC. The said sections are reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 217 IPC:
217. Public servant disobeying directions of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 26 of 95 Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 218 IPC:
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. --
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI WITNESSES:
18. PW1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that during his posting as LDC in CBI in SIU(X) (merged in BS & FC), he was working as a Crime Clerk under supervision of Sh. L. Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 27 of 95 C. Minocha, Head Clerk. Further, he deposed that when an FIR is registered, one copy of the FIR is entrusted to IO for investigation and one copy is sent to the concerned court and after completion of the investigation. He deposed that the Final Report Part-I is submitted to the Branch SP by IO and thereafter, Branch SP marks the same to Law Officer of the Branch for opinion as Final Report Part-II. Accordingly, Final Report Part-II is submitted to Branch/SP competent officer by Law Officer and if the Branch SP is a competent authority, he gives final order and if not, he forwards his comments to the competent authority for final order in the matter. Further, if matter relates to the prosecution of the public servant, sanction of prosecution is required before filing of the charge-sheet. He further deposed that after receiving the sanction for prosecution from the concerned department, draft charge-sheet is prepared by IO and same is filed in the concerned court. Further, he deposed that IO submits a status report of filing of the charge-sheet and also the status of case before the court on date fixed. He also deposed that concerned Prosecutor also submits the status as a Court diary to the Branch on date fixed before the Court.
19. Further, on being shown the file bearing no. M-
702/11 (D-3), he deposed that RC No. SIA 1999E 0002 was Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 28 of 95 registered on 04.05.1999 under the signature of the then Branch SP, Sh. K.N. Tiwari and he identified his signature at point A. Further, he deposed that copy of FIR (Ex. PW 1/A [Colly]) was sent to the Ld. Special Judge for CBI cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (A.P) and the copy of the same was also given to the IO. Further, on being shown file Mark M701/011 Part First (notesheet part), he deposed that the approval to file the charge-sheet of RC 2 (E)99- SIU-X recorded by the then JD (EOW-IV) Sh. JC Dabas on 03.10.2001 (Para 151/N) under his signature/initial at point B. The said noting was relied upon as Ex. PW 1/B. Witness correctly identified the signature of Sh. JC Dabas as he deposed that he had seen him writing and signing during his course of duty.
20. Further, he deposed that vide noting para 156/N dated 17.10.2001, accused IO/S.V. Raman noted that "ALA has vetted the chargesheet. Forwarding of chargesheet may please be signed" under his signature at point C and thereafter, vide noting no. 157/N dated 17.10.2001 the then SP Sh. K.N. Tiwari noted that chargesheet "be filed urgently" under his signature/initial at point D. Witness correctly identified the signature and handwriting of accused S.V. Raman and the then SP, Sh. K.N. Tiwari. Notings at 156/N and 157/N which are Ex. PW 1/C as he Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 29 of 95 deposed that he had seen them writing and signing during his course of duty.
21. Further, PW1 deposed that once charge-sheet is filed, if law officer attends the case, then record of proceedings is maintained for reporting in court diary and if Pairvi Officer attends the case, work done report is sent as per crime manual of CBI.
22. Further, on being shown file M-704/11 (D-6) i.e., correspondence file of this case, PW1 deposed that he placed a FAX message, which was marked as Mark PW2/1, received from the accused in the correspondence of the said case being investigated by accused. Further, he identified the signature of accused at point A on the said FAX. Further, he identified the signature of the then SP, Sh. K.N. Tiwari at point B under his endorsement as "Send a revised statement (Daily report)" which was in his handwriting.
23. Further, on being shown file M-707/11 (D-5) i.e., correspondence file of this case, he deposed that he placed a report, which was already Ex. PW 2/C, received from the accused alongwith the copy of the charge-sheet in the correspondence of the said case being investigated by accused. Further, he identified the signature of accused at point A and signature of the then SP, Sh. K.N. Tiwari at Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 30 of 95 point B on the said report. Further, he deposed that there was no court diary/report, except dated 29.10.2001, available on the file (D-5).
24. Further, PW1 deposed that vide noting 159/N dated 05.11.2001, the then SP, Sh. K.N. Tiwari noted that the alleged charge-sheet was filed on 23.10.2001 in the Court of XXIII MM, Hyderabad and submitted the same to DIG/BS&FC/Delhi and same bear signature of K.N. Tiwari at point A. Noting 159/N is Ex. PW 1/D. Further, he deposed that vide noting dated 05.11.2001, DIG/BS&FC/Delhi in his term noted that "For information please. Chargesheet has been filed on 23.10.2001" and submitted to Joint Director (JD) EOW-IV, the then JD, thereafter, JD saw the same noting on 06.11.2001 and put his signature/initial at point B. Noting Para 160 was separately given identity of Ex. PW 1/E.
25. PW1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he admitted the fact that if compared with the seizure memo, all the files pertaining to RC-2/99 SIU-X, CBI were not part of the court record. Further, he stated that office used to maintain dispatch register wherein office maintained the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR, etc. but, it could not be ascertained from the dispatch register to whom the charge-sheet was entrusted to file in the competent Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 31 of 95 court. Further, he stated that dispatch register was not in the court record and that he did not maintain any separate record to show how many part filed are opened in a particular case. Further, he admitted the fact that record maintained by the crime section was inspected by senior officers including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis.
26. PW2 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Zone, CBI, Lucknow, U.P. deposed in his testimony that at the time of his reporting as PP in 1998, in SIU-X, CBI, Sh. K.N. Tiwari was Head of the Branch as Superintendent of Police and apart from another Investigating Officer, accused Sh. S.V. Raman, Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch. Further, he deposed that SIU-X was having the jurisdiction of Economic Offences and bank fraud related cases.
27. Further, PW2 Prabhat Kumar deposed about the procedure of filing of charge-sheet in the competent jurisdiction. In this regard, he deposed that as per procedure, after the finalization of investigation, after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO, the final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC is prepared by the IO. He deposed that subsequently, the chargesheet is marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 32 of 95 vetting and after the vetting, the charge-sheet is finally prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in Court of competent jurisdiction. He deposed that the charge-sheet also bears the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the Court.
28. Further, on being shown D-3, page no. 12 to 19, he deposed that FIR of this case was registered on 04.05.1999 under the signature of Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP, SIU-X, CBI and he correctly identified his signatures at point A. FIR was already Ex. PW 1/A (Colly). Further, he deposed that the investigation of this case was entrusted to accused S. V. Raman, the then DSP, CBI, New Delhi.
29. Further, he deposed that after investigation, competent authority approved the prosecution of accused persons on 03.10.2001 and marked the file to DIG BS & FC, Delhi and noting in this regard is in para 151/N. Further, he deposed that Kailash Tiwari, the then SP, put a noting in para 153/N, on the file that charge-sheet should be filed by 19.10.2001 positively and marked the file to accused Sh. S.V. Raman. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. Kailash Tiwari at point A on noting and noting is Ex. PW 2/A.
30. Further, he deposed that S.V. Raman prepared the draft charge-sheet and put up for approval and vetting by law officers. He correctly identified the signature of S.V. Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 33 of 95 Raman at point A and noting para 154/N is Ex. PW 2/B. Further, he deposed that SP, Sh. Kailash Tiwari directed to vet the charge-sheet from ALA in para 155/N.
31. Further, on being shown D-6, he deposed that file FAX number 323 was the photocopy of fax message available, which bears the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A and signature of Sh. Kailash Tiwari at point B. Photocopy of the FAX message is Mark PW 2/1.
32. On being shown D-5, he further deposed that on page no. 231, it is stated that report bear signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A and signature of Sh. Kailash Tiwari at point B. The report is Ex. PW 2/C and the report pertained to recording of statement U/s 164 Cr. PC thereafter filing of charge-sheet in the court of 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
33. PW2 Sh. Prabhat Kumar was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he stated that court never return the charge-sheet without pronouncing a speaking order and court directs the IO to file the deficient documents before proceeding further. Further, he deposed that during the filing of charge-sheet, Ahlmad checks and verifies all the documents whether filed or not and submit its report accordingly, in the court. Further, he deposed that other than IO, charge-sheet can be filed by IO deputed by Head of the Branch.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 34 of 95
34. PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad- deposed in his testimony that he was posted in BS&FC Branch of CBI from 2000 to 2012 as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant and as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant his duty was specifically to maintain the crime files, investigation files, etc. related to investigation. Further, he deposed that vide production memo dated 01.07.2011 (D-11) which is Ex. PW 3/A (OSR), he handed over the correspondence file M-673/11 in the present case to IO. Further, he also handed over the notesheet file F-1 (M-701/11), PR file (M-702/11), PR file (M-703/11), correspondence file (M-704/11), correspondence file (M-705/11), CD file (M-706/11) and correspondence file (M-707/11) regarding the present case to the IO in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU V/Delhi. Further, he identified his signature at point A and signature of S.L. Garg at point B on production memo which is Ex.PW3/A as he had seen them write and sign during the course of duty.
35. Further, he relied upon the file M-673/11 (D-16) which is Ex. PW 3/B, file F-1 (M-701/11) which is Ex. PW 3/C, PR file (M-702/11) which is Ex. PW 3/D, Correspondence file (M-704/11) which is Ex. PW 3/E, correspondence file (M- 705/11) which is Ex. PW 3/F and charge-sheet file (M- 707/11) which is Ex. PW 3/G. Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 35 of 95
36. Further, on being shown file D-6 which is Ex. PW 3/E, he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A on the FAX message which was already Ex. PW 2/1, in which S.V. Raman informed about filing of charge-sheet of RC- 2(E)/99-SIU(X), New Delhi. Further, he identified the signature of accused at point A on the report dated 29.10.2001, which was already Ex. PW 2/C and as per the said report charge-sheet of the RC-2(E)/99-SIU(X), New Delhi was filed in the court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Further, he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A on copy of charge-sheet of RC-2(E)/99-SIU(X) New Delhi which was placed in the file already Ex. PW 3/G. Copy of charge-sheet was relied upon as Mark 3/A.
37. Further, he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman on the noting at point A on para-203/N to 204/N, wherein he mentioned that the charge-sheet of the RC-2(E)/99- SIU(X), New Delhi was filed on 25.10.2001 and the matter was at pre-charge stage. The noting 203/N to 204/N was relied upon by him as Ex. PW 3/H.
38. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. Mahipal Yadav, the then HOB at point A on the noting para-209/N to 214/N, in which Sh. Mahipal Yadav, the then HOB had stated that the version of accused S.V. Raman regarding filing of charge-sheet was wrong and accused S.V. Raman had Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 36 of 95 furnished a false report. The said noting was relied upon as Ex. PW 3/J.
39. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he admitted the fact that all the files pertaining to RC-2(E)/99 SIU-X, CBI were not available on record of the court and that he had never seen the trial file. Further, he deposed that the trial file was separately maintained by Crime Clerks, who used to work under him, and he did not know the duties of accused S.V. Raman.
40. PW4 Sh. S. Pratap Reddy deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was posted as Superintendent in the Court of 14th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (ACMM) Hyderabad in the year 2012. He deposed that on 03.05.2012, his court received a letter dated 03.04.2012 from CBI, New Delhi through the Ld. CMM. He deposed that on the basis of letter, Ld. 14 th ACMM directed to place the relevant documents before her. He also deposed that the Ld. CMM based on the report of the Ld. 14th ACMM issued a letter no. 1347/CMM/HYD/2012 dated 03.05.2012, to the CBI.
41. Further, on being shown letter which is Ex. PW 4/A dated 03.05.2012 bearing DIS no. 1347/CMM/HYD/2012, he identified the signature of the then Ld. CMM Sh. Sanga Reddy at point A .Further, he identified the signature of Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 37 of 95 Smt. R. Radha Devi, Ld. 14th Additional CMM at point A on the letter which is Ex. PW 4/B titled as information submitted by the then Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad regarding filing of chargesheet bearing RC No. SIA/1999/E 2002/SIU-X/CBI/N New Delhi.
42. PW 4 Sh. S. Pratap Reddy was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he stated that from 2001 to 2003, he did not work in the court of Ld. 23rd MM redesignated as Ld. 14th Additional CMM, Hyderabad. Further, he admitted the fact that it is not mentioned in Ex. PW 4/B as to when the original charge-sheet in RC No. SIA/1999/E 2002/SIU-X/CBI/N New Delhi was filed in the court of Ld. 23rd MM, Hyderabad and that the said Ld. CMM or Ld. ACMM, Hyderabad did not send document in support of Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW 4/B to the CBI. Further, he denied the suggestion the record maintained in the court of Ld. 14th ACMM, Hyderabad was not complete in respect of the said RC, and it does not record the date on which the original charge-sheet was filed. Further, he stated that he worked in the office of Ld. 14th ACMM, Hyderabad from June 2011 to June 2012.
43. PW5- Sh. Kishore Tirkey- deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section in the year Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 38 of 95 2009 and his duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register of cases registered in the branch.
44. Further, on being shown D-3, page-94, which is Ex.
PW 1/A in CC No. 312/19 (FIR dated 31.01.2005), he deposed that this case was registered in BS & FC Branch, CBI on 31.01.2005 and case was marked to accused S.V. Raman of investigation. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then Superintendent, CBI BS & FC at point A on Ex. PW 1/A.
45. Further, on being shown D-4, note sheet para-444 to 445 (already Ex. PW 1/B in CC No. 312/19), file bearing no. M-715/2011, witness deposed that vide this note sheet, the Director, CBI approved filing of charge-sheet in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001 and then the file was marked to accused S.V. Raman. Further, he deposed that vide para 455, accused S.V. Raman put the draft charge-sheet of the said case and was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI and vide para-459/N, the draft sheet was approved by DIG A.M Prasad dated 23.07.2007. Para 455 and 459/N relied upon as Ex. PW 5/1 (Colly) (Para 455 to 459) in CC No. 312/19.
46. Further, he deposed that vide para-516/N (already Ex.
PW 1/C in CC No. 312/19), accused S.V. Raman made a note on 24.07.2007 that he was filing the charge-sheet in the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 39 of 95 court of Special Judge, Nasik by 26.07.2007 and the last note on that file was of 22.11.2007.
47. Further, on being shown D-9, file bearing no. M-681 (already Ex. PW 3/D in CC No. 312/19), witness deposed that copy of charge-sheet (Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) in CC No. 312/19) of case RC BD1/2005/E/0001 was available from page 41 to 60 and at page 41 of charge-sheet, Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP vetted the charge-sheet on 27.07.2007. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. Prabhat Kumar at point A. He relied upon the chargesheet which is Ex.PW5/2(Colly.) (Pages 41 to 60).
48. Further on being shown D-6, which is numbered M-
678/11 (already Ex. PW 3/C in CC No. 312/19), witness deposed that first noting (Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19) at para 1 which was marked from point B to B was made by accused S.V. Raman. Further, he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A.
49. Further, on being shown noting at para 7 of Ex. PW 3/E in CC No. 312/19, marked from point C to C, witness deposed that the said marked noting was made by accused S.V. Raman on 20.05.2009 which was already Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19. Further, he identified the signature of accused at point A.
50. Further, on being shown D-5, File no. M-718/11 (already Ex. A3 in CC No. 312/19), page no. 57, 58, witness Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 40 of 95 deposed that it was a fax message (already Ex. PW 1/D in CC No. 312/19) sent by S.V. Raman to SP, CBI, BS & FC Branch on 25.07.2007. He further identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A.
51. PW5- Sh. Kishore Tirkey was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he admitted the fact that when compared to the seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001, all the material were not filed in the court. He deposed that the copy of the charge-sheet dated 21.03.2011 filed in RC no. BD1/2005/E/0001 was present in the court record and was Ex. PW 4/A (D-16) in CC No. 312/19. Further, he admitted the fact copy of charge-sheet in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001 prepared and approved to be filed in the court in the year 2007 was not part of the charge-sheet in this case. Further, he deposed that office used to maintain dispatch register and whenever a charge-sheet was taken from the office to be filed in the court, an entry was made in that register. Further, he deposed that the dispatch register was not a part of court record. He also deposed that the accused S.V. Raman was investigating other cases also during the relevant period. Further, he admitted the fact that record maintained by Crime Section was inspected by Sr. Officer including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis and Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 41 of 95 that he did not deal with the trial file in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001.
52. PW6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg- deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi. He deposed that a complaint was received by office of CBI, AC-II from BS & FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V. Raman for not filing charge-sheet and the complaint was marked to him for Preliminary Enquiry. He deposed that he conducted the Preliminary Enquiry and found evidence against the accused S.V. Raman and accordingly, he filed his complaint (D-2) dated 23.01.2012, bearing his signature at point A, to his SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi mentioning all the facts which he recovered during Preliminary Enquiry. Further, he deposed that original complaint dated 23.01.2012 was tagged with the case no. 313/2019 and the complaint was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A (Colly) (OSR).
53. PW 6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg in his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel deposed that when any complaint was received from the superiors for PE, it was registered by giving a specific number and in the present case the PE number was mentioned in the subject of his complaint dated 23.01.2012 (D-2). Further, he could not remember if he handed over the written complaint received from Sh. Santosh Macherla, HoZ (BS & FC), CBI, New Delhi to the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 42 of 95 IO of the present case. He deposed that he handed over all the documents prepared, and statement recorded by him during PE to the IO of the present case. Further, he deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge-sheet by the accused as claimed by him. Further, he deposed that statement recording during Preliminary Enquiry were not made part of the present charge-sheet. Further, he deposed that after submission of PE, the Branch takes further course of action as per law and that he could not remember the name of senior officer on whose instructions the FIR was registered. Further, he denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any statement during PE that is why the same were not part of the present charge-sheet. Further, he denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any PE in this case.
54. PW7 Sh. G.S. Meena, DSP, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi-
deposed that from March 2011 till 28.03.2014, he was working as an Inspector in Banking Security and Fraud Cell (BS & FC) and at that time accused S.V. Raman was Superintendent of Police (SP) of the branch. He further deposed that while posted in the said branch, he got to know that some FIRs pertaining to the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) IX and X Branch of CBI, New Delhi were Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 43 of 95 marked to accused S.V. Raman, but he did not file the charge-sheet in the said FIRs in the Court.
55. Further, he deposed that vide letter dated 09.08.2012 which is Ex. PW 7/A (OSR) addressed to SP CBI/BS & FC, New Delhi, he informed SP CBI BS & FC, New Delhi in response to his earlier letter no. 6183/4/7/2012-BS & FC/DLI, dated 08.08.2012 that the charge-sheet of case no. RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi was assigned to him as the accused S.V. Raman did not file the charge-sheet in this case. He deposed that the said letter which is Ex. PW 7/A (OSR) was prepared by him and identified his signature at point A. Further, he deposed that he informed the SP that on perusal of list of documents enclosed with the charge-sheet signed by S.V. Raman and forwarded by K.N. Tiwari on 23.10.2001, only 47 documents were cited as relied upon documents but only 19 documents were provided by the then IO/S.V. Raman on 02.03.2012 and at that time FIR of the present case was already registered against the accused for not filing the charge-sheet in RC 2/99-SIU and other cases also.
56. PW7 Sh. G.S. Meena was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he stated that instruction for filing the charge-sheet in RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi was received by him in writing, but he could not file the same as the documents were not complete. Further, he stated that he Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 44 of 95 did not know if the SIU X Branch of CBI, New Delhi was shifted from CGO to Yashwant Palace, Chanakaya Puri, Delhi in 2003 and from Yashwant Palace, Chanakaya Puri to CGO Complex Delhi in 2010. Further, he denied writing any other letter to the department, except Ex. PW 7/A. Further, he deposed that he tried to search the documents of RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi in the Malkhana of CBI and voluntarily deposed that he also requested to the accused S.V. Raman for providing the documents, although he did not remember the date when he asked the accused S.V. Raman for providing the documents. Further, he denied the suggestion that he never asked the accused S.V. Raman for providing any documents in RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi.
57. Further, he admitted the fact that accused S.V. Raman retired in 2011. Further, he deposed that he did not prepare any record which shows that he had enquired for the documents in the malkhana, and he did not try to locate the said documents anywhere else.
58. Further, he denied the suggestion that there were no documents missing in RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi or that his letter Ex. PW 7/A was false. Further, he denied the suggestion that accused S.V. Raman had filed the charge- sheet in RC 2/99-SIU-X, New Delhi in the concerned court.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 45 of 95
59. PW8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was posted as Special PP of CBI Hyderabad from 2007 to 2014 and again deposed from year 2012 to 2014. He deposed that he was stationed at Hyderabad, CBI Court as well as dealing with CBI cases in Court of Ld. 14th MM. Further, he deposed that he received a letter appointing him as Special PP in three cases (i) RC 2(E)-2004-BS & FC/DLI titled as CBI Vs. K.V. Gopala Krishna & Ors., (ii) RC 2(E)-1999-SIU-X/DLI titled as CBI Vs. K.V. Satya Narayana & Ors. (Both pending before 14th ACMM, Hyderabad) and (iii) RC 3(E)-1999-BS & FC/DLI (CC 01 of 2002) titled as CBI Vs. G. Rama Rao & Ors. (Pending before Ld. Special Judge, Hyderabad), belonging to CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi. He identified the copy of his appointment letter and the same was marked as Mark PW- 8/X.
60. Further he deposed that in regard to the three cases, he did not receive any document or information with regard to pendency of two cases before any court, any date of hearing or any proceedings i.e. (i) RC 2(E)-2004-BS & FC/DLI and
(ii) RC 2(E)-1999-SIU-X/DLI, so he requested the CBI, New Delhi to provide information regarding the status of the said cases but he did not receive any information from CBI, New Delhi. Further, he deposed that Sh. Mahipal Yadav, SP, CBI enquired him over phone with regard to the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 46 of 95 said two cases to which he informed that those cases were not traceable, and no paper or reference was given to him. Further, Sh. Yadav asked him to give written communication to this effect, in pursuance of which he wrote an email dated 19.04.2009 alongwith attachment of letter dated 19.04.2009 informing that he had no information regarding the said cases, and nothing was required to be done by him.
61. He deposed that he sent an email dated 20.06.2009 alongwith annexure i.e., letter dated 20.06.2009 addressed to the SP, CBI, Sh. Mahipal Yadav, New Delhi apprising that no information about the pendency about the aforesaid case despite searching physically in the court complex and seeking withdrawal of the same cases from him. Further, Certificate U/s 65-B Evidence Act in relation to the said emails was relied upon as Ex. PW 8/A and emails along with letter attached with the respective emails dated 19.04.2009 and 20.06.2009 were relied upon as Ex. PW 8/B (Colly) (running into 7 pages). Further, he deposed that he did not have any conversation with the accused even on the phone also with regard to RC 2(E)-1999-SIU-X/DLI nor did he ever meet him.
62. PW 8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he admitted the fact that Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 47 of 95 he had not mentioned any email ID or the email ID of the recipient of the email in Ex. PW 8/A and computer system through mails mentioned in Ex. PW 8/A were sent. Further, he denied the suggestion that Certificate Ex. PW 8/A was a false Certificate and was not in accordance with the Section 65-B of Evidence Act. Further, he deposed that he did not remember the exact date when Sh. Mahipal Yadav, SP, CBI called him, but it was somewhere in the month of June 2009. Further, he admitted the fact that he did not receive any written notice from Sh. Mahipal Yadav to send him any information. He voluntarily stated that he enquired over phone about the status of said two cases to which he replied that he had already sent email to SP CBI. Further, he deposed that he had not checked in regard to filing of the charge-sheet in RC 2(E)-1999-SIU-X/DLI, except in the office and court record of Ld. 14th ACMM, Hyderabad. He voluntarily stated that it was not his duty, still he accompanied one of the CBI officials, namely, Sh. Munna to check the filing of FIR in the court of Ld. 14 th ACMM, Hyderabad. He deposed that he could not remember if he had checked the chargesheet registration register to conclude that chargesheet was not filed in RC 2(E)-1999- SIU-X/DLI.
63. Further, he denied the suggestion that he never assisted any CBI official in conduction of any search Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 48 of 95 regarding filing of charge-sheet in RC 2(E)-1999-SIU- X/DLI. Further, he denied the suggestion that he had a conversation with the accused with regard to RC 2(E)- 1999-SIU-X/DLI or that he met him in this regard.
64. PW 9 Sh. Kailash Nath Tiwari- deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was posted in SIU X Branch CBI, New Delhi from 1997 to July 2002 as Superintendent of Police (SP) and the branch had been merged with BS & FC (now BS & FB). Further, he deposed that the FIR No. 2/1999 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi, which was already Ex. PW 1/A bears his signature at point A and he signed the same being the SP of the Branch. Further, he identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW 1/A. Further, he deposed that the said FIR was marked to accused Sh. S V Raman, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of the said branch and copy of the same was sent to Ld. Special Judge CBI cases, City Civil Courts Hyderabad, A.P. which was mentioned at Sr. No. 1 on page 8 of FIR Ex. PW 1/A.
65. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. J.C. Dabas the then Joint Director (JD) at point B in the noting Para 151/N of file M-701/011 and deposed that vide the said noting Sh. J.C Dabas approved filing of charge-sheet in RC No. 2/1999 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi on 03.10.2001. Further, he deposed that the file was marked to DIG and then to him.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 49 of 95 Further, he identified his signature at point A on Ex. PW 2/A on note para 153/N through which he gave instructions that "chargesheet should be filed by 19.10.2001 positively"
and then the same was marked to accused S.V. Raman, DSP, CBI.
66. Further, he deposed that file already Ex. PW 3/C (M 701/011) was put to him by accused S.V. Raman on 17.10.2001. Further, he asked S.V. Raman to file the charge-sheet urgently vide his note at para 157/N. Further, he identified his signature at point D on noting para which is already Ex. PW 1/C and signature of accused S.V. Raman at point C. Further, he identified the signature of S.V. Raman at point A on the noting para already Ex. PW 2/B.
67. Further, he deposed that accused S.V. Raman submitted a report dated 29.10.2001 already Ex. PW 2/C, informing that charge-sheet had been filed in the Court of Ld. XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad (designated court for CBI cases) and enclosed a copy of the charge- sheet and that on the said report he identified his signature at point B. He deposed that the contents of the report find mentioned in his note at para 159, which is already Ex. PW 1/D which bear his signature at mark A. Further, he deposed that file was put up before JD, who saw the report vide his signature at point already marked B on Ex. PW 1/E, and Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 50 of 95 then the file was marked to him, which he saw on 08.11.2001 and put his signature at point C.
68. Further, he deposed that FAX Message already Mark PW 2/1, dated 23.10.2001, pertained to the filing of charge- sheet of RC 2 (E)/99 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi. He deposed that the said FAX Message bear his signature at point B with his note and signature of S.V. Raman (IO) at point A. Further, he marked the FAX Message to Head Clerk for putting the same in the file. The said Fax Message which was already Mark PW 2/1 was given identity of Ex. PW 9/A.
69. Further, he deposed that FAX message which is Ex.
PW 9/A was put up before him with the file by Head Clerk on 09.11.2001 vide para no. 163/N and he identified his signature at point A on para 164/N on the file. The note paras 163/N and 164/B are Ex. PW 9/B. Further, he deposed that the photocopy of charge-sheet of RC 2(E)/99 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi which was already Mark 3/A was forwarded by him and bear his signature at point B.
70. PW 9 Sh. Kailash Nath Tiwari was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he stated that note sheets made regarding a particular case remained in custody of Head Clerk/Crime Clerk of the branch and it is the duty of the same to put up the file to the relevant officer for whom directions are issued. Further, he stated that after Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 51 of 95 filing of charge-sheet, IO submits his report to the Senior Officer and after that a separate trial file is opened which contains further development of the case. Further, he stated that he was transferred from Branch in July 2001, and he cannot say if any trial file was opened and put up to him.
71. Further, he admitted the fact that as per the note-sheet dated 12.07.2000, para 41 of Ex. PW 3/C, accused S.V. Raman was busy in case RC No. 7-10/90-SIU-X. Further, he admitted the fact that IO of a particular case in relation to investigation had to visit different placed involved in the case throughout the country. Further, he deposed that any development in respect of the case was recorded in the note-sheet file and put up to the concerned officers.
72. PW10 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao deposed that he was posted as Under Secretary in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP&T, Government of India from the year 2012 to 2014. He deposed that, on receipt of the present case from CBI in respect of Sh S.V. Raman, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case and also the documents and statements of witnesses pertaining to the case; after exercising due diligence and application of mind and with approval of Sanctioning Authority, the present prosecution sanction was signed by him and communicated to CBI. He identified his signature at point A on the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 52 of 95 forwarding letter dated 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC- II, CBI and Sanction of the Prosecution dated 22.01.2013 at point A on each page. The forwarding letter alongwith Sanction of prosecution is Ex.PW10/A (colly 5 pages in total). PW10 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao in his cross-examination deposed that the Sanction was sought in relation to the omissions and commissions in submission of a case by the accused in the court of law. He further volunteered that in total there were four cases. During his cross examination he further denied the suggestion that he had not scrutinized the documents or that he had passed the Sanction order in a mechanical manner. He further denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind to the facts and the documents provided by the CBI to him or for this reason there was no mention of details of the documents or the list of witnesses in his sanction order.
73. PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh- deposed that he was posted as Inspector in the AC-II Zone of CBI from 1998 to December 2013. Further, he deposed that in the year 2012, an FIR vide RC 1/2012 was registered in ACU-VI Branch of CBI on 08.02.2012 against accused S.V. Raman, retired SP CBI on the allegations that he had been the IO of four cases i.e., RC 1/1998/SIU X CBI, RC 2/1999/SIU X CBI, RC 5/1999/SIU X CBI and RC 1/2005/BS & FC CBI Delhi Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 53 of 95 and that he did not file the charge-sheet of the said cases and that he had also submitted false reports to his Supervisory Officers that charge-sheet in these cases had been filed and cases are under trial in the concerned court.
74. Further, he deposed that this case was registered on the basis of complaint already Ex. PW 6/A of Sh. S L Garg. He deposed that the copy of FIR RC 01/2012/CBI/ACU (VI)/New Delhi was Ex. PW 11/A (OSR, original in CC no. 313/2019) and identified the signature of Sh. S.K. Bhagat the then SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi at point A.
75. Further, he deposed that letter dated 03.04.2012 (D-8) of Sh. S.K. Bhagat, addressed to the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad requesting him to provide necessary information in respect of filing of charge-sheet in RC 02/1999/SIU X, CBI, New Delhi. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. S.K. Bhagat on the said letter which is Ex. PW 11/B.
76. Further, he deposed that letter dated 03.05.2012 (D-
9), already Ex. PW 4/A, addressed to SP CBI, ACU VI sent by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, was marked to him with annexure, already Ex. PW 4/B, by Sh. S.K. Bhagat under his signature at point B.
77. Further, he deposed that he carried out search at the residence of accused at Hyderabad on 12.02.2012 in the presence of local witnesses and vide search list, Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 54 of 95 incriminating documents were seized. He deposed that the copy of search memo dated 12.02.2012 (D-10) alongwith annexures is Ex. PW 11/C Colly (3 pages in total) (OSR, original in RC No. 313/19) and identified his signature at point A on each page. Further, he deposed that vide handing/taking over memo dated 28.02.2012 (D-11), he took over documents mentioned in the memo, from Sh. S.L. Garg, the then Inspector ACU VI CBI. Same which is Ex. PW 11/D and bear his signature at point A. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. S.L. Garg at point B.
78. Further, he deposed that vide letter dated 24.04.2012 of SP CBI, BS & FC, HOB AC-II received the documents alongwith letter, which was marked to him by endorsement of the then SP, Sh. S.K Bhagat bearing his signature at point B. Letter along with the documents is Ex. PW 11/E (OSR, original in case file no. 313/19). Further, he deposed that he signed on the letter at point A as a mark of receiving the same alongwith documents.
79. Further, he deposed that vide letter dated 01.08.2012 of SP CBI, BS & FC, the HOB AC-II received the documents alongwith letter, which was marked to him. Copy of letter (D-13) is Ex. PW 11/F (OSR, original in case file no. 313/19).
80. Further, he deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-14), he seized the documents mentioned in Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 55 of 95 the memo from Mahavir Prasad, Crime Assistant, BS & FC CBI, New Delhi. Copy of seizure memo is Ex. PW 11/G (OSR, original in case file no. 313/19). Further, he identified his signature at point A and signature of Sh. Mahavir Prasad at point B on the memo.
81. Further, he deposed that vide letter dated 16.04.2012 (D-5) of Sh. A S Dhillon, the then HOB, CBI BS & FC, New Delhi addressed to SP CBI ACU-VI, marked to him by SP Sh. SK Bhagat under his note and signature at point A. The said letter is Ex. PW 11/H (OSR, original in case file no. 313/19). Further, he identified the signature of Sh. A.S. Dhillon at point B on the said letter.
82. Further, he identified the signature of accused at point A on the reply dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HOB, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi which was Ex. PW 11/I (OSR, original in case file no. 313/19). Further, he identified the signature of Sh. K.N. Tiwari at point A and signature of accused/IO at point B and B1 on page no. 402 to 412 in the copy of charge-sheet of RC 2/1999 SIU X. The copy of said charge-sheet was Mark PW 11/X.
83. Further, he deposed that during investigation, he seized the files i.e., D-3 Ex. PW 3/D, D-4 Ex. PW 3/C and D-5 Ex. PW 3/G from S L Garg vide Ex. PW 11/D. He deposed that after conclusion of the investigation, he filed four separate charge-sheets in the present RC in matter of Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 56 of 95 RC 01/1998/SIU X CBI, RC 02/1999/SIU X CBI, RC 05/1999/SIU X CBI and RC 01/2005/BS & FC CBI, New Delhi, as these offences were found to be separate and distinct from each other. Further, he deposed that the present case CC 311/19 pertained to RC 02/1999/SIU X CBI.
84. PW 11 Sh. Bharat Singh was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he admitted the fact that record of filing of charge-sheet was maintained in concerned court. He deposed that he did not personally check the abovesaid record. He deposed that he had visited the concerned court and the concerned staff and Presiding Officer in the present case. Further, he deposed that a report regarding the filing/non filing of charge-sheet in the present matter was obtained and that he did not depute any person to check the record of court is respect of the same. Further, he admitted the fact that he did not seize the records mentioned in Ex. PW 4/A and voluntarily stated that he did not obtain the certified copies of the records as it was a court record. Further, he stated that he carried out searches of the residence of accused at Hyderabad and did not find any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. Further, he admitted the fact that Inspector S L Garg recorded the statements of witnesses during the Preliminary Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 57 of 95 Enquiry and that the said statements are not part of the charge-sheet.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE WITNESS:
85. DW-1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, SI, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e., Service Register containing some loose pages, tagged with the service register of accused S. Venkat Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. The copies of the page No. 18 to 30 of the said register were relied upon as Ex.DW1/A (colly, OSR, running into 14 pages) and copy of the order No. CBI ID No. 47/Med./PPM-PM/ID-08/PD-1617 dated 20.08.2008 was marked as Mark DW1/DX. During his cross examination he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the entry made in the register and as to who had made the entries and when they were made. He also deposed that the entries were not made in his presence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
86. Coming to the specific allegations against the case, it is the case of the prosecution that the case RC no.
SIA/1999/E0002/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi (in short "RC- 2/99") was registered in the SIU-X branch of the CBI on 04.05.1999 which is proved as Ex.PW1/A (Colly). It is Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 58 of 95 alleged that RC-2/99 was marked to the accused Sh. S.V. Raman, the then Dy. SP, CBI, who remained the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case till the conclusion of the investigation.
87. It is alleged that as per the final approval, the charge-
sheet in the said case was supposed to be filed against one M/s. A.M.E.I. and its three Directors, on the allegations that the said accused persons had cheated the State Bank of Hyderabad, to the tune of Rs. 93,99,000/-.
88. It is alleged that on 03.10.2001, Sh. J.C. Dabas, the then Joint Director, CBI, EOW-IV gave his approval for filing the chargesheet which is Ex. PW1/B. Further, the prosecuting agency has alleged that Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP/CBI/BS & FC, marked the file to accused Sh. S.V. Raman with the instructions as per noting no.153/N which bears signatures of Sh.K.N.Tiwari at Point A which is Ex.PW2/A, wherein direction was given by Sh. K.N. Tiwari to file the chargesheet by 19.10.2001 positively. Further, as per noting no.157/N dated 17.10.2001 which is Ex.PW1/C and signatures of Sh.K.N. Tiwari are at point D on the said noting which have been duly proved, direction was given by Sh.K.N. Tiwari to accused Sh. S.V. Raman to file the charge sheet urgently.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 59 of 95
89. Further, the CBI has alleged that on 23.10.2001, the accused Sh. S.V. Raman sent a FAX message from Hyderabad to his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N. Tiwari that charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the court on 23.10.2001 in the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad. The copy of FAX message dated 23.10.2001 signed by the accused and Sh.K. N Tiwari is Mark PW2/1 and subsequently, proved by PW 9 Sh.K. N Tiwari as Ex.PW9/A with his signatures at point B.
90. Further, the CBI has alleged that the accused Sh. S.V. Raman submitted a report dated 29.10.2001 which is Ex.PW2/C informing that chargesheet has been filed in the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad (designated court for CBI Cases).
91. On 05.11.2008, which is Ex.PW3/H, the accused Sh.
S.V. Raman also submitted a Note stating that "the instant case is pending trial in the court of Ld. 14th MM, Hyderabad. In this case the chargesheet was filed on 25.10.2001 and is at pre-charge stage. The case was being handed by Local PP, no substantial progress will be made. As such, it is felt that the case can be entrusted to one of the panel lawyer."
92. It is alleged that on 18.05.2009, accused submitted another note that, "spoken to Sh. Rama Murthy, Special Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 60 of 95 Counsel. He has been informed that the trunk containing original documents are available in the court and the court had desired that it will issue the process in June. The file and record received from the 23rd MM Court to 14 MM Hyderabad. He had further informed that the Magistrate is busy and is given two days every week for CBI cases. Case is fixed for issuance of process to accused to 11.06.2009. He has further informed that he will try to see that the case is listed early and see that case progresses sufficiently by the end of this year."
93. CBI alleged that the accused sent a report on 15 th June 2009 to the then HOB, CBI, BS & FC regarding the status of this case, which is Ex.PW11/I. He mentioned in this report that "RC 2/99-SIU-X/DLI and RC No. 2/2004- BS&FC/DLI pending trial in the court of 14th ACMM, Hyderabad. Chargesheet has since been traced in the court and the copies of the documents have been given to the court and the copies of documents have already been given to the court. The court has fixed 26.06.2009 for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to accused."
94. Further, it is the case of the Prosecution that charge-
sheet in the above-mentioned case was never filed by accused Sh. S.V. Raman, in the Court of the Ld. XIV (14th) the MM or the Ld. XXIII (23rd) Ld. MM, Hyderabad.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 61 of 95
95. It is alleged that investigation revealed that the charge-sheet of RC 2/99 was returned by the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad on 28.01.2002, as the IO did not file the documents as per the list of documents. It is alleged that a new charge-sheet signed by the accused dated 10.03.2011 was filed on 11.03.2011 and thereafter, the said charge-sheet was also returned on 21.09.2011 as he again did not file the original documents, as per the list of documents. It is alleged by CBI that prior to 11.03.2011, the case RC 2/99 was not pending in the court either for trial or for taking cognizance.
96. Further, it is the case of the Prosecution that the accused did not file the chargesheet, as apparent from the letter/report dt. 03.05.2012 received from the Ld. CMM, Hyderabad which is Ex.PW4/A alongwith report of Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad which is Ex.PW4/B. Further, it was stated by Ld. PP for CBI that the allegations against the accused are corroborated by the emails which have been sent by PW8 K.Ram Murthy dated 19.04.2009 and 20.06.2009 alongwith his letter dated 20.06.22009 addressed to the then SP, CBI which are Ex.PW8/B (colly) (7 pages) in regard to the fact that the charge-sheet was never filed by the accused and he gave false reports to his superiors.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 62 of 95
97. In view of the aforesaid specific allegations, CBI has alleged that the accused Sh. S.V. Raman being the Investigating Officer of the case RC 2/99, by not filing the charge-sheet of case in the court, has knowingly found to have disobeyed the direction of the law with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save some persons from legal punishment. It is also alleged that the accused S.V.Raman is found to have given false reports about filling of the charge-sheet of the case to his superiors and hence, he prepared record/writing in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with an intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will cause, loss or injury to the public or to CBI, with intention to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save certain persons from legal punishment. Thus, the prosecution has alleged that the accused is guilty of commission of offences punishable u/s 217/218 IPC.
98. Now in the light of the aforesaid legal provisions, let us appreciate the evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that RC 2/99 was registered on 04.05.1999 which is Ex.PW1/A (Colly) and duly proved by the prosecution. It is also an admitted fact that RC 2/99 was marked to the accused by his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC. It is also an admitted fact that the accused sent a FAX message from Hyderabad Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 63 of 95 to his supervisory officer Sh. K.N. Tiwari on 23.10.2001 which is Ex.PW9/A (Also Mark PW2/1) informing him that the chargesheet of the said case had been filed on 23.10.2001 itself.
99. As per the CBI, the accused never filed the chargesheet in the said case and in fact, the accused gave false reports to his seniors and other officers of CBI that he had filed the chargesheet. It is the case of CBI that this act was done by the accused in order to save the persons qua whom chargesheet was to be filed.
100. In regard to the false reports given by the accused, CBI had alleged that the report of the accused sent by way of FAX message by the accused dated 23.10.2001 from Hyderabad to his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N. Tiwari that charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the court on 23.10.2001 which is Ex.PW9/A (Also Mark PW2/1) is false. CBI has also alleged that the notings made by the accused dated 05.11.2008 which is Ex.PW3/H and 18.05.2008 are false. The prosecution also alleged that the report sent to DIG/BS&FC dt. 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW11/I, in which the accused has reported that RC 2/99 was pending trial in the court of Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad and the chargesheet had been traced and copies of documents were given, and the court had fixed Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 64 of 95 26.06.2009 for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused was a false report.
101. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the letter dated 03.05.2012 received from Sh. Sanga Reddy, the Ld. CMM, Hyderabad alongwith report/letter from Smt. R. Radha Devi, Ld. XIVth ACMM, Hyderabad which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively; to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet in either the court of Ld. XIVth ACMM, Hyderabad or in the court of Ld. CMM, Hyderabad or any court for that matter. The said letter which is Ex.PW4/A is addressed to CBI, SIU-X, New Delhi and is written by Ld. CMM, Hyderabad. The said letter was written as a response to an earlier letter dated 03.04.2012 from Sh. S.K. Bhagat, the then SP, ACU-VI, New Delhi which is Ex. PW11/B.
102. The relevant portion of the said letter which is Ex.PW4/A written by Ld. CMM, Hyderabad, is reproduced below:
"...In turn, the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has submitted to this court, information stating that, the charge-sheet in RC No. SIA/1999/E0002/SIU-X/CBI/N.Delhi was filed and the same was returned on 21.09.2011 and thereafter, there is no entry in the Court records of taking cognizance of such case. The crime record is available and not transferred to any other court. Such case is still at the stage of taking cognizance subject to production of old returned charge-sheet etc..."Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 65 of 95
103. Further, the relevant portion of the said letter/report of Ld. XIVth ACMM which is Ex.PW4/B is reproduced below:
"With reference to the subject cited above, I submit that on receipt of letter, I asked the office to put the information and the necessary record was placed before me toady i.e., 16.04.2012.
I submit that as per the record available, it came to the notice the booklet of the charge-sheet filed on 11.03.2011 pending and returned on 21.09.2011. Initially the charge-sheet in RC No. SIA/1999/E 2022/ SIU-X/CBI/N New Delhi the charge-sheet was filed and got returned acknowledged on 28.01.2002 as per the charge- sheet checking register. There is no entry in the record of this Court taking cognizance of the case. I further submit that the crime record was available and is not transferred to any other court. The case was not pending for trial but was at the stage of taking cognizance subject to production of old returned charge-sheet..."
104. The prosecution attempted to prove the said letter Ex.PW4/A and the report Ex.PW4/B by summoning a witness, PW4 Sh.S. Pratap Reddy who deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as a Superintendent in the court of Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad, previously, 23rd Ld. MM, Hyderabad. He deposed that Ld. CMM, Hyderabad was the author of the said letter. PW4 Sh. S. Pratap Reddy identified the writing and signature of ld. CMM and Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad. He deposed that on the basis of the said letter, the Ld. XIVth ACMM directed that the connected relevant Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 66 of 95 documents be placed before her and the Ld. CMM, Hyderabad based on the report of the Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad issued a letter to CBI.
105. Further, CBI relied upon the testimony of PW8 K. Ram Murthy who deposed that he was posted as Special PP of CBI, Hyderabad from 2007 to 2011 and from 2012 to 2014. Further, he deposed that he was stationed at Hyderabad, CBI court as well as XIV MM court dealing with CBI cases and was also assigned some CBI cases to conduct prosecution at Special Court, Hyderabad. He deposed that he was assigned amongst other cases, the present RC 2/99 titled as CBI vs. K.V. Satya Narayana and others pending before Ld. 14th ACMM, Hyderabad. He deposed that he did not receive any document or information regarding the pendency of the said case before any court. Further, he deposed that Sh. Mahipal Yadav, SP, CBI had inquired over the phone about the status of certain cases which included RC No. 2/99 and to which he informed that they were not traceable. He deposed that in this regard he wrote emails dated 19.04.2009 and 20.06.2009 (along with annexure which is a letter dated 20.06.2009) which are Ex.PW8/B (Colly 7 pages) duly supported with a Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW8/A. The relevant portions of the said emails are reproduced below.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 67 of 95 Ex.PW8/B (colly): Email dated 19.04.2009:
"Sir, In this connection I wish to submit that in Ir. No: 1226 and 1228, the CC Numbers, and the next date of hearings, or the stage of the cases etc.., were not intimated to me, and except the above said letter, a copy of the charge-sheet, 161 C.PC statements, and Documents etc., not made available to me. As such you have kindly be Pleased to make a note that unless these particular are Provided to me, I may not be in a position to make my appearance in the above referred Sl.No.: 1 & 2 cases before the Hon'ble 14 Addl. C.M.M. Court, Hyderabad.
Sir, In these circumstances I request your good- self to kindly make me to know that, shall I come over to your esteemed Office, for collecting the above narrated case papers in the above mentioned 3 cases, and get instructed / guided by your Office, i.e. By the Investigation Officer, or Piravy Officer, or Sr. PP of our Esteemed Branch, Or your good- self is making arrangements to provide me all the above narrated documents and instructions. I once again wish to submit and make it very clear that I may be in a position to conduct the cases on receipt of the above described case papers only."
Email dated 20.06.2009 :
Sir In this connection I wish to submit that in Ir No.:1226 and 1228, dated 01.04.2009, issued from your esteemed office, regarding the cases mention at "a" and "b" above, in which case number of the Court, i.e., CC Numbers, and the next date of hearings, or the stage of the cases etc., were not intimated to me, and except the above said letter, a copy of the charge-sheet, 161 Cr.PC Statements, and Documents etc., not made available to me. As such you may kindly be Pleased to make a note that unless these particular are Provided to me, I may not be in a position to make my appearance in the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 68 of 95 above referred Sl.No: 2 & b, cases before the Hon'ble 14 Addl. C.M.M. Court, Hyderabad.
Sir I wish to submit that further that after completion of the court proceedings in RC.3(E)/1999-BS&FC/DLI (CC 1 of 2002), I along with the above said CBI officer were made serious efforts to trace out the stage of the cases i.e. RC.2(E)-2004-BS&FC/DLI in a case between CBI. BS&FC New Dlehi Vs K.V. Gopala Krishna and Others, and also in another case i.e. RC.(E)/1999- SIU-X/DLI in a case between CBI. BS&FC New Delhi vs. K.V. Satya Narayana and Others pending before the Hon'ble 14th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at 14 CMM Court at Hyderabad. On the result we both came to a prima facie conclusion that charge-sheets of these two cases were not been filed or the court has not given any CC Number to these two case. We both also searched in the court records as well as in the Record Room of the court. In spite of our entire day's search with help and assistance. Advise of the Staff of the Hon'ble 14th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, we were not traced out the Case number. As such we came to a primary conclusion that Charge-sheets might have misplaces some where else, or not been filed in the Court. As such the Hon'ble Court has not taken any cognizance of these 2 cases. Till today.
Sir, I wish to further submit that as the Charge- sheets are not available in the court and no proceedings are going on. In these circumstances, holding the two letters, with me i.e., Ir.No.:1226 and 1228, dated 01.04.2009 issued from your office engaging me as Special Counsel in these two cases. i.e., 1) RC.2(E)-2004-BS&FC/DLI And (2) RC.2(E)/1999-SIU-X/DLI, will not serve any purpose. Thus I request your good-self to kindly REVOKE those letters, until the said case come to the court for adjudication, and the Proceedings were taken up. As there is no roll to be played by me in these two case, until the Charge-sheets are properly filed / properly resubmitted to the Hon'ble Court and accused are summoned to court.Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 69 of 95 Sir in alternate to my request at para 5 of this letter, if possible your good-self may be pleased to send the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and who file the will accompany the said officer of our Esteemed Office and both together will put efforts in tracing out the above said two cases and I will also try to convince the Hon'ble Court, with regard to dely if any in resubmission of the said charge-sheets. And I also will try to make my representation on behalf of our Esteemed Organization / CBI in taking the cognizance of these cases, and to continue further proceedings in this case. Your good-self may also be kindly make a note till to-day I have not filed my vakalatnama in those two cases. As in those cases no Proceedings are going on."
106. It is settled law that it is the duty of each party to lead best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy. Further, in case, such material evidence is withheld, the court has the discretion to may draw adverse inference U/s. 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). The same was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam [(2009) 14 SCC 541. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence (vide Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 70 of 95 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif [AIR 1968 SC 1413])."
107. The aforesaid position of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 360.
108. Another principle of law is that it is the solemn duty and responsibility of the prosecution to place the best evidence before the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774 also emphasized the role of the Investigating Officer not to only collect evidence to strengthen the prosecution case but to conduct fair investigation which brings out the truth. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth..."
"12. As neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons, including Laldhari and Ramanandan, were injured, Courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done, within limits, to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case."Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 71 of 95
109. Applying the aforesaid legal position of law to the facts of the case, it is seen that the issues in controversy are whether the accused filed the chargesheet or not and whether the noting and reports sent by the accused to his superiors in this regard were false. This court is required to see whether the prosecution has brought the best evidence in its possession to show that the accused did not file the chargesheet and sent false reports to his superiors in this regard. Further, this court is to see whether the Investigating Officer conducted fair investigation which brought out the truth or whether he collected evidence only with intention to bolster the case of the prosecution.
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS SUPERIORS WERE FALSE?
110. In the present case, the best evidence to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet would have been the Institution Registers/ Other relevant registers from the concerned courts i.e., of the court of Ld. 14 th/XIV ACMM (previously designated as the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad or the Ld.CMM, Hyderabad and/or from the Filing Counter, if in existence at that time. Further, the best Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 72 of 95 witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed would have been the Ahlmad/ Record Keeper of the files of that period i.e., 23.10.2001 of the said courts or any official from the Filing Counter of the said courts, if existing at that point of time. Further, CBI alleged that the charge-sheet of RC 2/99 was returned by the court of Ld. XXIII MM, Hyderabad on 28.01.2002 as the IO did not file the documents as per the List of documents. It is also alleged that a new charge-sheet signed by the accused dated 10.03.2011 was filed on 11.03.2011 and thereafter, the said charge-sheet was also returned on 21.09.2011. Hence, the best witness to prove the fact that the charge-sheet was returned would have been the Ahlmad/Record Keeper of the files of the period 28.01.2002 and 21.09.2011 of the said courts or any order of the said court reflecting this aspect of return.
111. As per the prosecution case, in the alleged false reports sent by the accused to his superiors including the FAX message, he stated that the chargesheet was filed on 23.10.2001. It is the case of the prosecution that the chargesheet was not filed on 23.10.2001 and not filed prior to 11.03.2011 when a new chargesheet was filed. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW4 S. Pratap Reddy in his cross-examination deposed that in the year 2001 to 2003, he was not working in the Court of 23 rd Ld. MM , Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 73 of 95 redesignated as 14th Additional CMM, Hyderabad and he did not remember where he had worked during the said period. Considering the testimony of PW4 S. Pratap Reddy, it is apparent that he was not the Record Keeper or custodian of the files in the year 2001 and 2002 and hence, he is not a witness to the fact whether the chargesheet was filed or not and whether it was returned to the accused on 28.01.2002. Further, PW4 S. Pratap Reddy in his cross- examination deposed that the Ld. CMM or Ld. ACMM, Hyderabad did not send any document in support of Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B to CBI. He deposed that it is not mentioned in Ex.PW4/B as to when the original chargesheet in RC 2/99 was filed in the court of Ld. 23 rd MM, Hyderabad. Further, the said letter is silent as to what record has been checked by the Ld. ACMM (14 th), Hyderabad to conclude that the final report has not been filed. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that PW4 Sh. S.Pratap Reddy's testimony and letter Ex.PW4/A and the letter/ report Ex.PW4/B do not assist the prosecution in proving its case that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said notings and the said reports given by the accused to his superiors about filing of the chargesheet and status of the case were false.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 74 of 95
112. The prosecution failed to cite Ahlmads of the Ld. ACMM (14th), Hyderabad or/and that of the court of Ld. CMM, Hyderabad or /and any officials from Filing Counter as prosecution witnesses in the present case. The record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts or /and any officials from Filing Counter of the periods 2001 and 2002 could give the direct evidence with regard to the receiving /non receiving and return of the chargesheet which would be the best evidence. It is pertinent to note that no order sheet of the concerned courts in regard to return of the chargesheet and to whom it was returned is filed by CBI. Further, the non- production of the said registers and not citing the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts of the period 2001, 2002 and 2011 as witnesses has prejudiced the fair trial of the accused.
113. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 671 held that, the non-examination of a material witness would give rise to an inference that if he is examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the fact that the Ahlmad/ Record keepers of the relevant period (year 2001 and 2002) have not been cited as a prosecution witness, which gives rise to an Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 75 of 95 inference that in case they were joined as witnesses, they would not have supported the case of the prosecution.
114. The deposition of another witness, PW-6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg is also important. He had conducted the preliminary inquiry on the basis of complaint received from BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V. Raman for not filing the chargesheet. In his cross examination, PW-6 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge-sheet by the accused as claimed by him. He deposed that the said statements recorded during preliminary inquiry are not made part of present chargesheet. No plausible explanation came forward to state as to why the said statements of the relevant court staff members recorded during preliminary inquiry being important for adjudication of the present case were not filed. Since the said statements were admittedly available with CBI yet not filed, an adverse inference is drawn against it owing to the fact that material evidence has been withheld by the prosecution.
115. Now, coming to an argument of Ld. PP for CBI made in this regard, wherein he argued that the said registers were not summoned as it would have disturbed the daily proceedings of the concerned court. I find no merit in the submission made by Ld. PP for CBI, considering that it is not believable that the said register would be used till date.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 76 of 95 Moreover, CBI did not bring any evidence to show that the said register was being used till date which would have allegedly caused inconvenience to the said court.
116. Ld. PP for CBI argued that PW8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy who was the Special PP of CBI, Hyderabad from 2007 to 2011 is also a witness to the fact that the charge-sheet was never filed by the accused, as evident from the emails he had sent to SP, CBI which are dated 19.04.2009 and 20.06.2009 which are Ex.PW8/B (colly). Considering that PW 8 Sh.K. Ram Murthy was not the Public Prosecutor of CBI when the chargesheet was allegedly filed in the year 2001 or when it was allegedly returned in 2002, his testimony does not assist in proving the case of the prosecution. Further, PW8 K. Ram Murthy in his cross- examination deposed that he did not check any other record except his office and court record of Ld. 14 th ACMM, Hyderabad and most importantly, he deposed that he did not remember, if he had checked the chargesheet registration register to conclude that the chargesheet was not filed in RC 2/99. Considering that the best evidence was not checked by PW8 Sh. K. Ram Murthy, I do not find any merit in the argument of Ld. PP for CBI.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 77 of 95
117. During Final Arguments, Ld. PP for CBI had argued that PW-11, the Investigating Officer Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that during investigation he obtained search warrants from the court and vide a search list, incriminating documents were seized from the residence of the accused. He argued that PW 7 Sh. G.S. Meena deposed that charge- sheet of RC No. 2/99 was assigned to him vide letter dated 09.08.2012 which is Ex.PW7/A as the accused had not filed the charge-sheet. PW 7 Sh. G.S. Meena deposed that on perusal of the list of documents enclosed with the charge-sheet signed by the accused and forwarded by the then SP, CBI, Sh. K.N.Tiwari dated 23.10.2001, only 47 documents were cited as relied upon but the accused provided only 19 documents on 02.03.2012 which shows that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused. Ld. PP for CBI also argued that the case/trial court diary was not filed by the accused. This contention lacks merit as the best evidence were the said registers and not the fact that documents were lying in the Malkhana or that the case/trial diary was not filed, as explained above in detail.
118. Further, Ld. PP for CBI argued the letter of Ld. CMM and report of Ld. (14th) ACMM are enough evidence to conclude that the chargesheet was not filed. He argued that the Ld. 14th ACMM and Ld.CMM were not summoned as Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 78 of 95 witnesses to prove the letter authored by Ld. CMM and report given by Ld. ACMM which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively, as per Section 121 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). Section 121 IEA specifically provides for protection of the Judges/Magistrates from being unnecessarily exposed as witnesses before a court. In this regard, he relied upon various judgments passed by the different courts in the cases of Yuvaraj vs. The State Rep. in Criminal O.P. No. 7668 of 2019 and M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 and Criminal M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 decided on 03.06.2019, C.B.I. Thru S.P., New Delhi vs. The State of U.P. And Anr. decided on 14.12.2020 and Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr 1977 AIR 2445. He argued that the reason why the Ld. Magistrates or Judges are not summoned as witnesses was succinctly explained in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr (supra), wherein it was held that the Judges or Magistrates will be put to embarrassing and objectionable proceedings wherein they will be asked to testify as to what weighed in their mind in reaching their verdict which is undesirable. He also argued that by summoning Judges, public administration will suffer.
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 79 of 95
119. This contention of Ld. PP for CBI lacks merit as the witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed was the Record Keeper or Ahlmad and not the concerned Judge who was admittedly not the Judge at the time of filing of the chargesheet. Hence, this court is of the opinion that a mere reply by the Ld. CMM, based on the report of Ld. ACMM to a letter sent by CBI does not prove the prosecution's case of the accused committing the alleged criminal offences.
120. The next point to consider is whether the Investigating Officer in the present case conducted fair investigation or collected only that evidence which would bolster the case of the prosecution.
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION?
121. In this regard, the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW 11 Sh. Bharat Singh is relevant. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not personally check the record of the concerned court, where the official record of chargesheet is maintained. The deposition of PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh in this regard is reproduced below:
Case No. 311/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 80 of 95 "It is correct that a record of filing of chargesheet is maintained in the concerned court. I did not personally check the above said record".
122. PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh in his cross-examination also deposed that he did not depute any person to check the record of the court in respect of the filing of the chargesheet. PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh failed to give any explanation as to why he did not personally check or depute any person to check the record in the concerned court.
123. The fact that the investigating agency did not make any efforts to check the record of the concerned courts personally for seizing or inspecting the official record makes the case of the prosecution very weak. It is apparent that efforts were not made to collect the best evidence itself which would prove the fact that the chargesheet was never filed in the year 2001 or returned to the accused in the year 2002.
124. Further, PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed in his cross-
examination that during his visit to the concerned Court, it was confirmed that chargesheet was never pending trial in the said Court. Apart from the letter of Ld. CMM based on the report of Ld. (14TH) ACMM, Hyderabad which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and the emails of PW8 Sh. K. Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 81 of 95 Ram Murthy which are Ex.PW8/B(Colly), there is no other document to show as to how the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the chargesheet of "RC-2/99" was never filed. The investigating officer PW 11 Sh. Bharat Singh should have personally checked the record if he was conducting fair investigation or deputed any person to check the record. Without personally checking the records of the court of Ld. ACMM (14 TH) or Ld. CMM, Hyderabad and without summoning the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts, it cannot be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that the chargesheet of "RC-2/99 was not filed by the accused. S.V. Raman. Hence, it is apparent by the conduct of the Investigating Officer/Sh. Bharat Singh that he failed in collecting the best evidence in this case, by not checking the record.
125. In this regard, Ld. PP for CBI had argued that evidence of Police Witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to Police Force owing to the reason that they are interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. He argued that the credibility of any witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness and there is no rule of law that no conviction can be recorded merely on the testimony of Police Officials. In this regard he relied upon the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 82 of 95 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 617 and Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2021 decided on 30.08.2022. He also argued that the testimony of Police witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are biased as the correct test of biasness would be whether there appears to be a "real danger of bias" and the probability or preponderance of probability of such bias would not be relevant and in this regard, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the test in checking the presence of bias is that there may be "real danger of bias" and the bald plea of the investigation not being fair has to be tested on this.
126. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the present case, investigation was conducted fairly and there was no danger of bias against the accused S.V. Raman who was the investigating officer working in CBI. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra) itself points out that as a rule of prudence, the court is to carefully scrutinize and independently appreciate the evidence of police witnesses, Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 83 of 95 as they are interested in the outcome of result of the case. Considering the testimonies of all the police witnesses in the present case, after carefully scrutinizing and appreciating their evidence, it is apparent that they have not come out with the truth. PW10 Bharat Singh being the investigating officer should have personally checked the record of the concerned but he and the other prosecution witnesses have proved to be only interested in the success of the outcome of the present case and hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Ld. PP for CBI.
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE
PROSECUTION CASE:
127. After careful perusal of the evidence, adduced in proof of the fact that the accused allegedly did not file the chargesheet, there are other glaring missing links. Those missing links are factors which make the prosecution doubtful. Those factors include the fact that the prosecution failed to produce its own dispatch register of the year 2001; all the part files pertaining to RC-2/99 were not part of the record; belated response from CBI despite regular inspection by superiors of the accused and no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were allegedly saved from legal punishment.
Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 84 of 95 a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER:
128. Firstly, PW-2 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the Public Prosecutor deposed that as per procedure, after the finalization of investigation, after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO, the final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC is prepared by the IO., after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO. He deposed that subsequently thereafter, the chargesheet is marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting and after the vetting, the charge-sheet is finally prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in Court of Competent Jurisdiction. He deposed that the charge-sheet also bears the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the Court.
129. PW-1 Sh. Rajiv Kumar deposed that he who was working with CBI in SIU-X during the period 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 as LDC, Crime Clerk. He stated that he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the said branch. PW1 Sh. Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that the office used to maintain dispatch register, wherein office maintains the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR etc. Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 85 of 95 He deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
130. Further, PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, who deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. His duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch. PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination also deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
131. Considering the aforesaid procedure deposed by PW1, it was imperative for CBI to have file the dispatch register of the year 2001 to prove that the accused did not file the charge-sheet in the concerned court. The fact that CBI failed to file register and did not give any reasonable explanation as to why the dispatch register was not filed, raises a doubt on the prosecution case.
b) SUPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS PERTAINING TO RC-2/99:
132. It is pertinent to note that as per testimonies of PW1 Rajiv Kumar, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad and PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey who are all officers of CBI, it is apparent Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 86 of 95 that all the notings/part files pertaining to RC-2/99 are admittedly not before this court.
133. In this regard, PW1 Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that: "it is correct that if compared with seizure memo, all the files pertaining to RC-5/99 SIU- X, CBI are not part of the court record". Further, he deposed that: "I do not maintain any separate record to show how many part files are opened in a particular case. I cannot say after seeing a notesheet file that how many part files were opened in a particular case."
134. Further, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed in his cross examination that: "It is correct that all the files pertaining to RC-5(E)/99/SIU-X, CBI not available on record of the court." Moreover, PW5 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination deposed that: "It is correct that after seeing the note sheet file, I cannot say how many part files were opened in this case".
135. Further, PW-9 Sh. K.N. Tiwari, who was the then SP and superior of accused in his cross examination deposed that the jurisdiction of SIU-X, branch of CBI was throughout the country and the IO of a particular case in relation to investigation had to visit different places Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 87 of 95 involved in a case throughout the country. Further, PW9 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that any development in respect of the case is recorded in the notesheet file and put up to the concerned officers. He deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the charge-sheet in this case was submitted in the court by some other officer instead of the accused as he did not know. In the absence of the complete note sheets, the aforesaid testimony of PW9 Sh. K.N. Tiwari casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
136. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010 decided on 23.05.2014 wherein it was held that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross- examination, he would not get an opportunity to explain a particular issue and hence, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue cannot be raised. Ld. PP for CBI also relied upon the judgment pronounced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 decided on 15.05.2024 in regard to the importance of giving suggestions and the consequence of failure to give it. Ld. PP for CBI had argued that Ld. Counsel for accused failed to put questions to the prosecution witnesses in regard to the exact notesheets and Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 88 of 95 part files which were not part of the charge-sheet filed against the accused and the contents of the said notesheets and part files. He argued that since those questions were not asked, the prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to explain as to which notesheets and part of files were not produced and in case they were asked specific questions in regard to the exact notesheets and part of files, it would not have favoured the accused and thus, this court should draw an adverse inference against the accused.
137. This Court is not satisfied with the argument made by Ld. PP for CBI as Ld. Counsel for the accused could have put the questions in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses, in regard to the exact notesheets and part files, which were deliberately suppressed only if the accused had access to it. Without access to the complete part files and the notesheets, Ld. Counsel for accused could not have asked specific questions. In fact, Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out the discrepancies in the case of prosecution by asking the prosecution witnesses as to whether all the notesheets and part files were made part of record and to which they answered in the negative. The CBI is guilty of suppression of notings wherein officers record the developments of a case. The prosecution failed to give Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 89 of 95 any plausible explanation as to why the complete part files and notesheets were not produced. in It is well apparent it CBI is being selective in filing of the notings and something is being hidden from the Court. Accordingly, adverse inference is drawn against CBI in this regard for suppression of the notesheets and part files.
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS, THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING INFORMATION:
138. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar and PW-4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed in their cross examination that the record maintained by the Crime Section was inspected by Senior officers, including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. As per the prosecution, the accused had sent a false report about the chargesheet being filed by way of FAX message on 11.12.2001 which is Ex.PW9/A (also mark PW2/1). It is also alleged that the accused sent a false status report to HOB, CBI, BS & FC on 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW 11/I in which the accused has reported that that RC 2/99 was pending trial in the court of Ld. XIV ACMM, Hyderabad and the chargesheet had been traced and copies of documents were given and the court had fixed 26.06.2009 for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 90 of 95 accused. If the record was being regularly inspected by the said senior officers, then it is not clear as to why CBI made inquiries about the chargesheet so belatedly, in the year 2012 from the Ld. CMM, vide Letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the then SP concerned which is Ex.PW11/B. This is also a gap which was not explained by the prosecution.
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:
139. As per Section 217 and 218 of IPC, one of the ingredients to be fulfilled for the accused to be held liable is that the accused should have committed the offences with intention to save or knowing that he is likely to save any person from legal punishment. The entire chargesheet is silent on this aspect. The prosecution failed to bring any material evidence on record to show as to how the accused had an intention or knowledge to save the persons from legal punishment. Further, no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were saved from legal punishment was carried out.
140. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubansh Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0033/1957 AIR 1957 SC 486 wherein it was Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 91 of 95 held that the intention of the accused that he deliberately made wrong entries has to be gathered from the acts of the accused for him to be liable for the offence punishable U/s 218 IPC. In the light of the said legal position, CBI failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the accused had benefited by way of monetary means or otherwise.
There is no iota of evidence in this regard. In this regard, testimony of the investigating officer, PW11 Sh. Bharat Singh is important who deposed that he had carried out searches of the residence of the accused at Hyderabad but he did not find any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. If the story of the prosecution is to be believed, some benefit should have been accrued to the accused as a motive for deliberately not filing the chargesheet, but in the absence of any evidence, this ingredient could not be fulfilled
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND CARELESSNESS:
141. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC stated that the motive of CBI to file the present case was to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI, at the relevant point of time and he was made a scapegoat. He stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including that of investigation, supervision of Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 92 of 95 investigation, searches etc. There is a difference between being careless and having criminal intention and criminal knowledge to commit offences punishable under penal laws, such as IPC. Considering that the superiors of the accused, themselves woke up after several years from the date when the false report in regard to the filing of the chargesheet was given shows that there may have been office politics and the accused may have been made a scapegoat. There is a possibility that the file had gone missing, and the liability was fixed on the accused who was the smallest fish amongst his superiors.
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.PP FOR CBI:
142. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the statement U/s 313 Cr.PC , the accused should have disclosed the information which was in his special knowledge but he remained evasive in his answers and hence, the case of the prosecution stands proved. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw SC 932 and Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168, wherein it was held that the Statement of the Accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC can be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution case and Case No. 311/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 93 of 95 may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
In the case of Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra (Supra), it was held that if there are facts within the special knowledge of the accused which are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor which could be used against the accused. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence, as held in the judgment of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) itself and it does not discharge the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. Further, the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that burden cannot be put on the accused. In the present case, the burden has not been discharged by the prosecution which failed to produce the best evidence to prove its case.
CONCLUSION:
143. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused person.Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001 ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 94 of 95
144. In view of the above discussion, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, hence, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC.
145. Bail bonds/Surety bonds U/s. 437 CrPC stand canceled.
146. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 28.06.2024 (SONAM SINGH-I) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI. Digitally signed SONAM by SONAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.06.28 16:27:07 +0530 Certified that this Judgment contains 95 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SONAM SINGH-I)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROUSE AVENUE DISTT. COURTS
NEW DELHI. Digitally signed
by SONAM
SONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.06.28
16:27:31 +0530
Case No. 311/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR: RC NO. 217/2012/A0001
ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 95 of 95