Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Shri Chand Etc. (Parwati Cghs) ... on 7 June, 2014

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS)                               Judgment dt. 07.06.2014

                     IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
                SPECIAL JUDGE­II (P.C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

I.D. No. 02404R0649712007
CC No. 42/2010
CBI Vs Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS)
RC No. EOU­I 2000 A 0009

CBI Vs 1.           Shri Chand
                    S/o Late Hari Singh
                    R/o274A, Pocket­C, Mayur Vihar, 
                    Phase­II, Delhi­110091.
          2.        Abhay Singh @ Abhay Kumar Singh @ Anu 
                    S/o Late Dhirender Kumar Singh
                    R/o Ground Floor, Plot No. 68, Sec­6, Part­II, Vaishali,  
                    Ghaziabad.
          3.         Naresh Kumar 
                    S/o Late Puran Chand Kathpalia
                    R/o 2253/C, Shadi Khampur,
                    Guru Nanak Nagar,
                    New Delhi­110008.
          4.        Vinod Kumar Pal (Expired)
                    S/O Late Khajan Singh
                    R/o 30, Ishwar Colony, 
                    Ground Floor, Bhama Shah Road,
                    Delhi­110009.
          5.        Munish Tiwari
                    S/o Late Hari Dutt Tiwari
                    R/o 16­D, Ground Floor, Old Gupta
                    Colony, Delhi­110009.
          6.        Jinendra Kumar Jain
                    S/o Sh. Anand Kumar Jain
                    R/o 31, Shankar Vihar, 

CC No. 42/2010                                                                                               Page 1 / 77
 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS)                               Judgment dt. 07.06.2014

                    Delhi­110092.
          7.        Suresh Kumar Mongia
                    S/o Late Kishan Lal Mongia
                    R/o JB­11/C, Flat No. 4, Khirki
                    Extension (Gupta Colony),
                    Malviya Nagar, New Delhi­17.
       
Date on which the final arguments were heard : 29.05.2014
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2014

J U D G M E N T

Prosecution case in brief is that The Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. was registered on 26.12.1983 with the Registrar Cooperative Societies, having 84 members, having its registered office at 30 Ishwar Colony, Bhamashah Marg, Delhi, which was the residence of Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4). However, since the society became inactive and did not hold elections etc. despite specific directions and also did not produce the records for the purpose of verification of list of members despite several letters of RCS office, the society was ordered to be liquidated u/s 63 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 vide order dt. 31.05.1994. Sh. H.K. Sharma, the Assistant Registrar was appointed liquidator vide order dt. 30.10.1995. However, he was transferred and thereafter Naresh Kumar (A­3)­Sub Inspector Grade­IV with RCS office was appointed as liquidator of the society vide order dt. 19.03.1998 of Assistant CC No. 42/2010 Page 2 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Registrar (North­West Zone). It is alleged by the prosecution that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) prepared a false proceedings in which a meeting of the members of the society was shown opining that the members were willing to revive the society and thus he recommended that the order of winding up of the society may be cancelled.

It is alleged by the prosecution that around the time when Naresh Kumar was appointed as liquidator, Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4), the original member of the society and also the office bearer of it, was having the custody of the records of the society. Vinod Kumar Pal (A­

4) handed over these documents to one Hari Dutt Tiwari (since expired). It is alleged that new members were falsely enrolled and two entries in the membership register of the society in the name of Ms. Seema and Ms. Anshul are written in the handwriting of Munish Tiwari (A­5). It is pertinent to note that accused Munish Tiwari is the son of said Late Hari Dutt Tiwari and is the husband of Ms. Seema and brother of Ms. Anshul.

Prosecution has alleged that accused Jinendra Kumar Jain (A­6) got the records of the society from accused Munish Tiwari in 1997 and he got bogus members comprising of his relatives fraudulently enrolled in the membership register of the society. The prosecution alleges that Jinendra Kumar Jain was doing all these fraudulent activities in connivance with accused Shri Chand (A­1) from whose CC No. 42/2010 Page 3 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 possession the records of the society were recovered on the search of his house by CBI. It is alleged that accused Shri Chand not only wrote fake proceedings of the society, but, also inducted his own family members in the membership register fraudulently. In writing these proceedings, he employed Abhay Kumar (A­2) to sign as the Secretary of the society and to interact with RCS officials especially Naresh Kumar (A­3). It is alleged that on the recommendation of Naresh Kumar (A­3), the society was revived by Registrar subject to various conditions including hold of etc. As per prosecution, Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7)­an official of RCS was appointed as Election Officer but he submitted a false election report dt. 19.07.1998 to the RCS office. He falsely showed the presence of 125 members in the minutes of special general body meeting of the society which included the names of bogus members and in which the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain and of Shri Chand have been shown elected as the office bearers.

Thus the society was not only fraudulently got revived but the RCS also sent the list of fake members of the society for allotment of land. It is submitted by Dr. Padmini Singh, Ld. Public Prosecutor that DDA vide letter dated 2.11.2001 offered piece of land to this society but it appears that the society could not deposit the required money with DDA and the land could not be allotted to the society.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 4 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 This fraud came to light when in Civil Writ Petition No. 11066/2000, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed directions dt. 03.10.2005 directing CBI to investigate the cases of group housing societies which had been fraudulently revived by the builders complicit with RCS officials. Parwati CGHS was found to be one of such societies during investigation.

It is further submitted that in view of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, a search of residence of accused Shri Chand was conducted by CBI, in which records of Parwati CGHS were seized.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4) had expired during trial after framing of charges and proceedings against him had abated. CHARGE On the aforesaid allegations a charge u/s 120 B r/w section 420/511/468/471 IPC r/w section 15 r/w section 13 (2) r/w section 15 of PC Act was framed against all the accused persons.

A charge u/s 468/471 IPC was framed against accused Shri Chand.

A separate charge u/s 420 r/w Section 511 IPC, Section 468 and 471 IPC was framed against accused Abhay Kumar Singh.

A separate charge u/s 468 IPC was framed against accused Munish Tiwari.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 5 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 A charge u/s 15 r/w section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of PC Act was framed against accused Naresh Kumar (A­3) and a separate charge u/s 15 r/w section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of PC Act was framed against accused Suresh Kumar Mongia.

All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Prosecution examined in all 38 prosecution witnesses. PW­1 Rajesh Kumar Jain testified that he never remained the member of this society. He denied the signatures of affidavit Ex. PA­1 and Ex. PA­2. He denied his signatures on the application framed as Ex. PA­4. He also denied his signatures of his Vinay Jain and his father on the membership of resister. He denied the signatures against his name as President of the society in the proceedings register. He denied also any of the meeting shown in the proceeding register. He denied his signatures but the affidavit of Ex. PW1/A. He proved his specimen signatures and handwriting in the year 2003 to 2007 (D­39) with the Ex. 23/B. PW­2 Niranjan Dass testified that he became the member of the society in the year 1983. He identified his signatures on the membership register and membership register. He testified that a saving bank was opened in Syndicate Bank. However, he denied his signatures on the proceedings dated 02.12.1985. He testified that CC No. 42/2010 Page 6 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Vinod Wala the cashier of the society was controlling the society. He testified, he never exhibited the affidavit dated 02.01.1998 Ex. 2/A­7. He resigned of the membership of the society in the year 1996 but he denied received the refund.

PW­3 Hari Krisan Sharma was posted in Inspector in the office register from 10.10.1994 to 23.10.1997. He proved the various proceedings including the appointment of Liquidator etc. PW­4 Kartar Singh he testified that he was Administrative Officer and he remain posted in the office of Registrar of Co­operative Societies,Parliament Street, New Delhi as Administrative Officer alongwith an additional charge of Assistant Registrar w.ef 1996 to 14.12.1992. He proved notings in file (D­7).

PW­5 Mohd. Khalid become is promoter member of of the society. He denied his signature Ex. 5/A, he also testified never in attending in meeting nor he over met in Liquidator Munish Kumar in the year 1998.

PW­6 Narender Kumar Garg testified that he never the member of the society and he denied his signatures on the membership, application, affidavits and proceedings. PW­7 Ganesh Kumar Jain testified that he was proved, he denied his signatures of the membership register, various proceedings and minutes.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 7 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 PW­8 Mukesh Prasad Director General Security presently posted at Tihar Jail remained posted as Deputy Registrar in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Society at Parliament Street, New Delhi w.e.f 1996 to May 1999. He proved various notings on the files dealt with by their office.

PW­9 Mohd. Khalid is the promoter member. He proved his signatures on the membership register and minutes of the meetings, however, denied his signatures on the affidavit Ex. PW­9/B. PW­10 Virender Singh Verma was posted as Assistant in Group Housing Society branch of DDA in the year 2003. He dealing with file Parwati CGHS. He proved various notings and correspondence. PW­11 Ajay Arora testified that he had never taken membership of Parwati CGHS. However, he and his sister in law Smt. Anita Chadha were made the members in Vinay Vihar CGHS through accused Shri Chand. He denied the in his name and in the name of Smt. Anita Chadha on the affidavits, membership applications etc. PW­12 Madan Mohan Sharma, advocate testified that accused J.K. Jain who was architect of Brahma CGHS. He testified that which was brought Sh. S.C Gola after examining the record of the society. He informed S.C.Gola this society has been Liquidated. PW13 Krishan Chandra Kathuria testified that he and his daughter Ms. Anubha Khathuria were made members of Vnay CGHS CC No. 42/2010 Page 8 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 in the year 1997 through accused Shri Chand. Since no land was alloted, Shri Chand transferred their membership to Naval Technical CGHS. He testified that after sometime he resigned from membership of Naval Technical CGHS and asked from the refund their amount. He testified that he had no son namely Abubhav Khaturia. He denied his signatures on membership register, membership application, affidavits and proceedings register etc. PW­14 Satish Chand Goel is Chartered Accountant, he conducted the audit of the society in the year 1998 as per instructions and record produced by Neeraj Aggarwal Charted Accountant. PW­15 Smt. Anshul testified that he had never taken membership of the Parwati CGHS. He denied his signatures membership register, application proceedings register etc. She testified accused Manish Tiwari as brother and she has two sister Manjul and Sanjul. PW­16 Prem Nath Manchanda as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS for various noting in the file D­7.

PW­17 V. K. Bansal testified the procedure and he also moved some of the noting and correspondence.

PW­18 Sh. Ramesh Chander Salgotra as Chief Manager­ Syndicate Bank proved the original specimen signature cards pertaining the saving bank account of Parwati CGHS. PW­19 Sh. Anna Wankhede testified that he was a UDC in DDA CC No. 42/2010 Page 9 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 and left the said department in 1997. Thereafter, one Mohan Lal introduced him to Shri Chand, who was handling the work of co­ operative society. He testified that he used to visit bank etc and other works as suggested by Shri Chand. He testified that Shri Chand the membership register and application etc. Evidence list of members proceedings register his name mentioned but his signatures did not pertaining to him. He remain associated with year 1998 and19.05.2014 and his conversion with handwriting. He proved various proceedings (D­4,D­5) which are returned handwriting of Shri Chand. He also testified that accused J.K. Jain was architect of Naval Technical CGHS also being managed by the Sh. Mohan Lal. He was also part time employee of accused Shri Chand. He testified in his family members of Shri Chand namely Satinder, Anuj, Kavita, Savita, Manisha, Sweety and Sohan Pal. He also testified that Sushil Kumar Sharma was one of the employee of Shri Chand.

PW­20 Somvir Singh UDC in the office of RCS handed over 4­5 files of Parwati CGHS to Inspector Vijay Kumar.

PW­21 Praveen Kumar Mahajan clerk in Syndicate Bank handed over three regional specimen signatures card to CBI he also moved the letter (D­44) written by R.C. Salgotra Sr. Manager. PW­22 David Hangzo as Senior Manager of Indian Bank participated as the witness in operation by CBI and was conducted by CBI at CC No. 42/2010 Page 10 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 address i.e 274 A, Pocket­C Mayur Vihar Phase­II, Delhi the residence of Shri Chand. The search list was prepared vide which 14 receipt books pertaining to Parwati CGHS during the course of searches on 01.08.2005.

PW­23 Sativir Singh is a witness to specimen handwriting of Abhay Singh @ Abhay Kumar , Mohd. Khalid, Muzahid Rajesh, Ganesh and Niranjan accused Shri Chand.

PW­24 Upender Kumar as clerk in Corporation Bank is a witness to taking specimen handwriting of Vinod Kumar Pal. PW­25 Suresh Kumar Rai as witness taking specimen handwriting of Shri chand.

PW­26 Vijay Kumar accorded sanction to prosecute accused Naresh Kumar.

PW­27 Satvir Silas Bedi accorded sanction to prosecute accused Suresh Kumar Mongia.

PW­28 Inspector Vijay Kumar proved the production cum receipt memo vide he had receipt 4­5 files of Parwati CGHS. PW­29 Inspector Jyoti Kumar conducted searches and recovered various documents from the house of Shri Chand.

PW­30 Om Prakash Singh testified that he was member of Parwati CGHS to thereafter, he resigned the membership of the society. He proved his signatures of various proceedings but he never CC No. 42/2010 Page 11 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 exhibited as Ex. PW­30/A­3 and he never visited at address Pocket A­ 2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi.

He testified that he did not attend the meetings dated 25.01.1986,03.02.1986 and 19.07.1998.

PW­31 Vinay Kumar Jain never became member of the society. He denied his signatures, membership and affidavits etc. PW­32 Neeraj Kumar Chartered Accountant testified balance sheet, income expenditure, receipt etc pertaining to Parwati CGHS for the period of 1998.

PW­33 Ms. Seema Tiwari is the wife of Sh. Munish Tiwari was married on 14.02.1997. She testified prior to her residing at H.No.439,Street No.33, Omkar Nagar, Delhi­35. He testified that before marriage, I was known as Seema Sharma. She never become member of Parwati CGHS and she denied members of the society. PW­34 Atul Anand testified that he never become member of the society and denied his signatures of all the aforesaid documents. PW­35 P. Mukharjee ASP is the Investigation Officer. PW­36 Sh. Nem Kumar Jain testified that 4 relatives Ishwar Chand Jain, M.K. Jain, A.K. Jain and Satis Kumar were the members of the society and that all these four members have expired. He testified that affidavits sworn by them do not bear their signatures. PW­37 Madan Lal Kaler Assistant Registrar of RCS proved CC No. 42/2010 Page 12 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 various notings and letters.

PW­38 Mohd. Mujahid was original member of this society. He testified that he did not execute the affidavit dated 09.01.1998. GEQD REPORT, PROCEEDINGS AND NOTINGS It is pertinent to note that GEQD report was admitted by the accused persons to be correct opinion by accused Shri Chand (A­1), Ahbay Singh (A­2) and Munish Tiwari (A­5) vide their statements dated 25.04.2014.

Accused Naresh Kumar (A­3) and Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7) are public servants. During trial they have not disputed the proceedings and notings ascribed to them.

STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC Accused Shri Chand (A­1) in his statement u/s 313 CrPC submitted that he was only a consultant and had written the proceedings bonafide at the instance of accused Jinendra Kumar Jain.

Accused Abhay Singh (A­2) in his statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that he was a part time employee of accused Shri Chand and had written the proceedings in good faith at the instance of accused Shri Chand.

Accused Naresh Kumar (A­3) stated that he had acted on the instructions of senior officers. However, he stated that the proceedings conducted by him were genuine.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 13 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Accused Munish Tiwari (A­5) stated that he had written the names of his sister and wife in the membership register in good faith at the instance of A­4.

Accused Jinendra Kumar Jain (A­6) denied all the allegations of his involvement.

Accused Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7) stated that conduct of election was genuine.

DEFENCE WITNESSES Accused Shri Chand examined three witnesses in his defence as under:

A­1/DW­1 Anil Kumar testified that during the period 1995­ 2003 he used to work as driver at Mayur Vihar Phase­I, Delhi and was residing at D­43, Kondli. He met Anna Wankhede­ a dismissed employee of DDA who used to work as property dealer. This witness testified that Anna Wankhede made him the member of Bapudham CGHS and after few months he was made Treasurer of the society. He testified that since he had worked with Anna Wankhede, he was aware of his handwriting. He also testified that Anna Wankhede had involved one Sushil Kumar Sharma in the society as Secretary whose handwriting and signatures can be identified by him. He testified that pages 49, 60,61,73,81,87­90 in D­4 has been written by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 14 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 He also testified that in the proceeding register D­5(page­1), the signatures of Sushil Kumar Sharma are available at point Y at serial no. 6 and that of Anna Wankhede against serial no. 4(Q­246). He testified that on page no. 2 Anna Wankhede had signed at serial no. 4 and Sushil Kumar Sharma had signed at serial no. 6. On page no. 4 & 6, Anna Wankhede's signatures are present against serial no. 4 and Sushil Kumar Sharma's signatures are present against serial no. 6. Similarly, he testified that on page no. 7,8,9,18,19,20,21,24,25,26 to 29, 32,41 to 47, 50, 53 to 58, 60 and 64 the signatures of Anna Wankhede and Sushil Kumar Sharma were present. He testified that he had seen Anna Wankhede and Sushil Kumar Sharma signing and writing at 148E, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Delhi which is the residence of Anna Wankhede and that Sushil Kumar Sharma used to reside at 1A, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi on rent.

A­1/DW­2 Satender Kumar is the son of accused Shri Chand. He testified that accused Abhay Singh is a relative of one Dinesh Singh and that the said Dinesh Singh was Secretary of Naval Technical Officers CGHS in which he i.e. Satender Kumar was treasurer. This witness testified that Abhay Singh had never given him any tuition in computers. He further testified that accused J.K. Jain was architect in Naval Technical Officers CGHS. Sh. J.K. Jain used to have a bunch of application forms related to Parwati CGHS and used to give dictation CC No. 42/2010 Page 15 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 to Abhay Singh who used to write name, parentage, addresses in the membership register. He testified that this work used to be done in U­ 112, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi which is the office of Chamber of Indian Trade and Industries. He also testified that J.K. Jain used to bring the records of Parwati CGHS to their residence and also used to do some work with his father like giving dictation etc. and sometimes he used to leave the records of Parwati CGHS at their residence.

A­1/DW­3 Kailash Chand testified that accused Shri Chand is his jija (brother in law) and from 1997 to 2004, he used to reside with Shri Chand at Flat No. 274A, Mayur Vihar. Accused J.K. Jain used to visit the residence of accused Shri Chand one in a month of two months in the work of of Parwati CGHS. He stated that his signatures also exist at serial no. 43 at page 92 and 93 of D­4. ( I may point out that at page 92­93 of the proceeding register D­4, the minutes of meeting of General Body of Parwati CGHS are stated to have been held on 25.03.1997 to conduct the elections of members of managing committee of the society under the chairmanship of Kailash Chand.) These minutes of meeting at page 94 show Rajesh Jain, Gyanesh Jain, Abhay Kumar Singh, Anna Wankhede, Deepali, N.K. Gupta and S.K. Sharma having been elected as President, Vice­President and Executive Members respectively. He testified that these signatures were put by him in Flat No. 304A, Mayur Vihar Phase­II at the CC No. 42/2010 Page 16 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 instance of accused Shri Chand and J.K. Jain in the year 1997 or 1998. He further testified that at page 141 of D­6 (i.e. membership register), his signatures are available at serial no. 132 where his name and particulars have been written. The witness testified that his name and particulars at serial no. 132 have been written by accused J.K. Jain in his own hand. He further testified that 14 receipt books (Ext.PW20/A­1 to Ext.PW20/A­14) D­29 were delivered by J.K. Jain at their residence. Similarly, J.K. Jain had also delivered the register D­4, D­5 and D­6 to him in the year 2004. However, in cross examination he admitted that J.K. Jain did not write this entry in his presence but since J.K. Jain had brought the already written entry, therefore, he presumed that it must have been written by J.K. Jain.

Accused Abhay Singh (A­2) examined two defence witnesses as under:

A­2/DW­1 Dinesh Kumar Singh testified that accused Abhay Singh is his nephew. Father of Abhay Singh had expired in the year 1993. After completing graduation, Abhay Singh came to Delhi and he placed him as computer operator in Chamber of Indian Trade & Industries where he (i.e. the witness) was the Executive Secretary. He further testified that placed Abhay Singh with Shri Chand to teach the children of Shri Chand about the computers on part time and salary of Abhay Singh was fixed as Rs. 2000/­ per month. Later on, Abhay CC No. 42/2010 Page 17 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Singh started working with Shri Chand as his part time employee in the year 1997 till the year 2000.

A­2/DW­2 Sushil Kumar Sharma testified that he used to do field work for Naval Technical Officers CGHS and that Abhay Singh used to visit the office cum residence of accused Shri Chand in Mayur Vihar where Abhay Singh taught computer science to the children of Shri Chand. Later on, Abhay Singh started working part time with Shri Chand. He further stated that Abhay Singh used to do typing work on computers in the office of Shri Chand.

The other accused persons did not lead evidence in defence. SHRI CHAND (A­1) Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argues that the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that accused Shri Chand had ever met Vinod Kumar Pal, Hari Dutt Sharma or any of the RCS officials. Therefore, prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove that accused Shri Chand was in conspiracy in procuring the records and getting the society revived. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that although Sushil Kumar Sharma and D.K. Singh, the defence witnesses examined by Abhay Singh had testified that Abhay Singh was a part time employee of accused Shri Chand, however, their testimonies stands belied by the two defence witnesses examined by accused Shri Chand namely Satender Kumar and Anil Kumar which shows that Abhay Singh was CC No. 42/2010 Page 18 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 not the employee of accused Shri Chand, rather, he was working with accused J.K. Jain. Hence, it is submitted that evidence on record is not enough to prove that accused Shri Chand was involved in the conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution.

It is further argued that accused Shri Chand never visited the old address of the society i.e. 30 Ishwar Colony, Bhamashah Marg and no witness had deposed to that effect. It is argued that the records recovered from the premises of accused Shri Chand were delivered by accused J.K. Jain for the purpose of advice and consultation. As regards the address 12A Pocket A­2 Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi where a general body meeting of the society is stated to have been held in the proceedings register, it is submitted that prosecution has not led any evidence to show that this premises belonged to accused Shri Chand. Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. submitted that he was aware of the fact that Sushil Kumar Sharm (A­2/DW­1) has testified that this premises either belonged to Shri Chand or his wife Smt. Saroj but neither prosecution nor the defence witnesses examined by co­accused have brought any documents on record in conspiracy and their statements. Hence, it is argued that in view of such bald statements of the investigating officer and one defence witness, it would not be appropriate to accept this fact. My attention has been drawn by Ld. Defence Counsel that Anna Wankhede (PW­19) and Sushil Kumar CC No. 42/2010 Page 19 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Sharma (A­2/DW­2) have already been convicted by this court in two cases of the society scams of similar nature and none of them had taken stand in those cases that they were employees of Shri Chand. Therefore, they are testifying before this court with ulterior motives. It is further submitted that Abhay Singh had never been the employee of accused Shri Chand. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Abhay Singh does not have any educational qualification to enable him to teach computer sciences. Hence, stand of accused Abhay Kumar Singh and testimony of his defence witnesses to that effect also stands falsified.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. further argues that there is no evidence that accused Shri Chand ever gave any documents to PW­32 Neeraj Kumar­Chartered Accountant. It is argued that why would Neeraj Kumar take Rs. 3000/­ to Rs. 4000/­ from Shri Chand and had paid around Rs. 9,000/­ to Rs. 10,000/­ to Satish Chand Goel from his own pocket for preparing balance sheets/audit of the society. It shows that PW­Neeraj Kumar was testifying falsely.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argued that the investigation in the present case had been extremely defective and totally partial. It is argued that the investigating officer has not conducted proper investigation in respect of accused J.K. Jain. For example, Investigating Officer has not taken the specimen CC No. 42/2010 Page 20 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 signatures/handwritings of accused J.K. Jain. However, it is argued that defence witness Anil Kumar (A­1/DW­1) had proved that his name has been written by J.K. Jain in the membership register. It is further argued that J.K. Jain was in possession of records of the society and handed it over to Shri Chand for the purpose of advise and consultation. It is argued that it is true that the documents were recovered from the house of accused Shri Chand, but, actually it was accused J.K. Jain who was controlling this society and was actually dealing all its affairs. It is submitted that after doing the required work, Shri Chand was to return these documents to J.K. Jain.

It is further argued that in the last proceedings of Parwati CGHS, Shri Chand has been shown to have been appointed as consultant and if Shri chand had the control of Parwati CGHS, then, what was the need of taking control of the record after such a long time i.e. in the year 2003. It is further argued that after getting the last proceedings written by accused Shri Chand, J.K. Jain had taken all the records and had been doing the work of Parwati CGHS using other persons like Anna Wankhede which is clear from the resolution dated NIL at page 13 of D­12 vide which Anna Wankhede had been authorized to collect the demand letter from DDA. It is further argued that investigating officer had not investigated as to who had collected the demand letter from DDA because as per DDA Policy, the ID proof of the person, who CC No. 42/2010 Page 21 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 received demand letter from DDA, is taken on record by DDA. It is further argued that investigating officer has not obtained GEQD report to know as to who had collected this demand letter. It is submitted that accused Shri Chand denies having received this letter. Although Anna Wankhede has been shown to have collected the demand letter from DDA because he had been authorized to collect it as per the authorization, referred to as above, however, as per GEQD report, the signatures appearing on resolution were not of PW­Anna Wankhede.

Hence, investigating officer should have found out if Jinendra Kumar Jain had not received the same. It is further argued that investigating officer had taken the specimen signatures of 10 members out of 260 members. It is argued that investigating officer has shown undue favour to accused J.K. Jain and that it was J.K. Jain who had forged the signatures of his family members/relatives/friends/employees in the proceeding register, membership register and audit reports and that it was J.K. Jain himself who had been attending the office of RCS impersonating as Rajesh Jain and signed as Rajesh Jain in the files of RCS. It is further argued that Shri Chand was never in possession of any particulars of relatives etc. of accused J.K. Jain and they were inducted as members by accused J.K. Jain himself. My attention has been drawn to the testimony of the investigating officer who has testified that according to his investigation, 22 members in the freeze CC No. 42/2010 Page 22 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 list of 260 members were family members/relatives/employees of accused J.K. Jain. It is argued that this fact is corroborated by Satender Kumar (A­1/DW­2). It is further argued that accused Shri Chand had never written the body of minutes and has not put/forged any signatures against any name in those minutes. My attention has been drawn to the testimony of the defence witness (A­1/DW­2) who testified that J.K. Jain used to bring the records of Parwati CGHS to their residence and also used to do some work with his father at his residence like giving dictation etc. and sometimes he used to leave the records of Parwati CGHS at their residence. It is further argued by Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. that family members of accused Shri Chand were inducted as the members of Parwati CGHS in good faith on the recommendations of accused J.K. Jain. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that accused Abhay Singh is deliberately shifting his responsibility upon accused Shri Chand. My attention has been drawn to the contents of three affidavits dt. 05.08.1998, 05.08.1998, 27.07.1998 in D­9 page 163,164 and 170­177 furnished in the office of RCS by accused Abhay Kumar Singh. It is submitted that in these affidavits, Abhay Kumar Singh has given the address U­112, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi where he used to work. This also proves the correctness of the testimony of Satender Kumar A­ 1/DW­2 who has testified that he had seen Abhay Kumar Singh CC No. 42/2010 Page 23 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 writing the documents at the aforesaid address at the instance of J.K. Jain.

During the arguments, accused had filed the list of current members and committee members downloaded from RCS office which shows that neither Shri Chand nor his family members are beneficiary of Parwati CGHS. Rather, the relatives of J.K. Jain have been shown as office bearers in the same which shows that accused J.K. Jain is still controlling the society fraudulently through those persons without their knowledge. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in Writ Petition No. 10066/2004, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given six weeks time to CBI to complete the investigation as well as registration of the cases in relation to the societies in question. It is argued that the work of investigation with regard to the said 16 societies was to be completed in six weeks. It is argued that as per the said order dt. 03.10.2005, CBI had to register the cases within six weeks from 03.10.2005. It is submitted that the instant case was registered on 14.11.2005 i.e. after six weeks. Moreover, CBI took around 16 months to file the charge sheet. Hence, it is argued that the entire investigation is illegal because CBI did not seeks any further permission from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to extend the time.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 24 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 It is further argued that the membership in the society is not the property and therefore no offence u/s 420/468/471 IPC is disclosed. Reliance is placed on Prasadi Lal Vs State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Revision no. 424/2011 decided on 23.04.2012.

It is further argued that in the present case the bank account of the society was not operated by the accused or any other person. Since without having a bank account, it was not possible for him to deposit money with DDA and to get the land. Non operation of the existing bank account or not opening a new bank account shows that all the acts of the accused persons were only at preparatory stage and no attempt to commit the offence was committed. It is further argued that in R.P. Keshari Vs Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies WP(C) No. 429/2011 decided on 23.09.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that a consultant or advisor does not have any control over the society. It is submitted that Shri Chand was working only in the capacity of consultant and therefore it cannot be said that he had any control over the society.

It is therefore argued by Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. for accused Shri Chand that from the evidence of Kailash Chand and Satender Kumar, it is clear that accused Shri Chand had written those minutes only in good faith at the instance of accused J.K. Jain. It is further argued that the investigating officer did not take the specimen signatures and CC No. 42/2010 Page 25 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 handwriting from accused J.K. Jain otherwise GEQD report could have proved the role of accused J.K. Jain. It is argued that the signatures against the name of Rajesh Jain who is the brother of accused J.K. Jain has been written by none other than accused J.K. Jain who has forged the signatures of Rajesh Jain. It is argued that the connivance between J.K. Jain and the IO is apparent from the fact that accused J.K. Jain in his statement u/s 313 CrPC has stated that the investigating officer had promised him to make a prosecution witness.

I have carefully considered the submissions of accused Shri Chand. I would take his submissions one by one.

1. His submissions in respect of accused J.K. Jain.

The same would be discussed when the role of accused J.K. Jain would be considered by me.

2. His submissions in respect of accused Abhay Singh.

The same would be discussed when the role of accused Abhay Singh would be considered by me.

3. Does the premises no. 12A, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi belonged to accused Shri Chand?

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argues that the investigating officer testifies that this premises belonged to accused Shri Chand. However, in cross examination he submits that he never visited this premises nor he collected any documents to prove its ownership. In these CC No. 42/2010 Page 26 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 circumstances, it is argued that this court cannot act on the basis of bald statement made by the investigating officer before this court. It is further argued by Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. that the another evidence is that of DW­Sushil Kumar Sharma who has testified that 12A, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi either belongs to accused Shri Chand or to his wife Smt. Saroj Chand. However, it is argued that Sushil Kumar Sharma does not testify as to on what basis he is making this testimony. Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. submits that on such evidence it could not be presume that accused Shri Chand was the owner of this premises.

I have perused the statement of Sushil Kumar Sharma (A­ 2/DW­1) examined by accused Abhay Singh (A­2). He has stated that he was associated with accused Shri Chand in respect of the work of societies. From his overall testimony, it appears that he knew the activities of accused Shri Chand and was in fact an accused in some of the trials of society scam, having a few convictions to his credit. However, this itself is not sufficient to discredit this witness. In cross examination by Sh. A.P. Singh, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, he stated that Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi is in the name of accused Shri Chand or his wife Saroj Chand. In further cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP dt. 12.05.2014, Sushil Kumar Sharma (A­ 2/DW­2) rolls out further information about the properties of accused CC No. 42/2010 Page 27 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Shri Chand including Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi. He stated that one flat no. 11A (where Sushil Kumar Sharma had been staying) of accused Shri Chand was sold and he (i.e. Sushil Kumar Sharma) was shifted to Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi for some time. This witness was duly cross examined by accused Shri Chand. In the entire cross examination, accused Shri Chand did not suggest to the witness that Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi did not belong to accused Shri Chand and that Sushil Kumar Sharma never stayed in the said flat. In view of this uncontroverted evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence of Sushil Kumar Sharma, to the fact that Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi was in the name of accused Shri Chand or in the name of his wife and that he had even stayed in the said flat is worthy of reliance, even if no supporting documents is forthcoming. In view of such a situation, the testimony of investigating officer that this flat belonged to accused Shri Chand cannot be rejected.

Now I would like to discuss discuss the proceedings dt. 24.05.1998 (page 26 to 31 of D­5) which contains the description of the minutes of special general body meeting of Parwati CGHS called by Naresh Kumar­Liquidator at Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi to seek the view/opinion/consent of the CC No. 42/2010 Page 28 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 members of the society regarding the proposal for revival/withdrawal of the liquidation order dt. 31.05.1994. In these proceedings, 115 members have been shown to have attended the meeting in which the matter was discussed and it was shown to have resolved with the Registrar may be requested to cancel the liquidation order and Abhay Kumar was authorized to represent the society before the office of Registrar for withdrawal of the liquidated order. Similarly, the proceedings dt. 19.07.1998 (from page 32 to 38 of D­5) show that the special general body was convened to hold election of the managing committee of Parwati CGHS after its revival.

It is interesting to note that except the special general body meeting dt. 19.07.1998 which was shown to have been conducted at 30, Ishwar Colony, New Delhi vide which the elections were held by Suresh Mongia­Election Officer, of other meetings have been shown at the address Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi which belongs to accused Shri Chand, as discussed above. This is a clear cut evidence of accused Naresh Kumar being in conspiracy with accused Shri Chand.

It is must not be forgotten that this register (D­5) containing the proceeding dated 24.5.1998 and 19.7.1998 was recovered from the possession of Shri Chand. Therefore, it can be inferred from this evidence that accused Shri Chand was in conspiracy with accused CC No. 42/2010 Page 29 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Naresh Kumar, the liquidator, and Suresh Kumar Mongia, who wrote the fake proceedings of election.

4. Whether accused Shri Chand is a simple consultant of the society or actual manager/handler of the society?

Accused Shri Chand has argued that he was only a bonafide writer of the proceedings and had no other involvement in the society. It is argued that accused J.K. Jain was actually handling the society and was the custodian of the documents and he used to hand over the documents to accused Shri Chand for the purpose of writing minutes etc. Ld. Defence Counsel has also referred to R.P. Keshari Vs Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr. WP(C) No. 429/2011 decided on 23.09.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which it was held that anything written in good faith would not amount to forgery. On this legal point, there cannot be any difference of opinion. However, let me discuss as to what proceedings have been written by accused Shri Chand. Vide proceedings/minutes of the year 1986 in the proceeding register, accused Shri Chand has included his family members as the members of the society. If accused Shri Chand was simply a writer of the proceedings or was simply a consultant, he had no capacity to include his family members in the proceedings. It must be kept in mind that vide proceedings written in hand of Shri Chand, the member strength of the society increased from 84 to 262. More CC No. 42/2010 Page 30 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 the members, greater is the chance of getting a bigger piece of plot and in case the flats are built, accused Shri Chand would be having control over many flats at his own disposal to be sold at market rate. The perusal of the entire proceedings discussed above would show that all the proceedings are being written in the directions of revival of the society. It must be kept in mind that society was under

liquidation. Therefore, as a consultant, he must be knowing that the same cannot be revived under the existing circumstances, then, what can be the purpose of this consultation. I have no doubts that this is not a "consultancy". This is a "conspiracy". Furthermore, the holding of elections at his own residence i.e. Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi by the RCS official i.e. Naresh Kumar is another indicator which proves that accused Shri Chand was also in conspiracy with the public servants and he was not acting in good faith. It is interesting to note that in the proceedings dt. 15.02.2001 at pages 67 & 68 of D­5, the managing committee has been shown to have resolved that accused Shri Chand shall be a consultant of the society and that his decision in respect of the society will be treated as final. These proceedings show that under the disguise of consultency, it was accused Shri Chand who had complete dominion over the documents of the society. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid proceedings which have been marked as Q­78 & Q­79 which CC No. 42/2010 Page 31 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 as per the GEQD are in the handwriting of accused Shri Chand himself.

5. Whether special general body meeting dt. 24.05.1998 had taken place at Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi?

It is pertinent to note that as many as 115 members have been shown to have attended the said meeting. At serial no. 1, the name of Abhay Kumar Singh is written and the signature (Q­167) in front of it have been opined to be that of Abhay Kumar Singh as per GEQD report. Abhay Kumar does not deny this fact. At serial no. 2 in front of Anna Wankhede's signatures (Q­61), GEQD has not given any opinion. However, Anna Wankhede (PW­19) has testified that his signatures at this point do not belong to him. Against the name of Anshul (serial no. 20) Q­169, GEQD has not given any opinion on the signatures. However, Anshul was examined as PW­15 and she denied her signatures on this point.

I have already discussed that Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi belongs to accused Shri Chand. Kailash Chand at serial no. 4 was examined as defence witness (A­1/DW­3) by accused Shri Chand. This witness had stated that he had not attended any meeting of Parwati CGHS at any point of time. These testimonies prove that no such meeting had been convened at that address.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 32 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Hence, I have no doubt in holding that Naresh Kumar (A­3) the liquidator had written false minutes of meeting at this address and it also stands proved that the members of society did not resolve to revive the society.

6. Whether the investigation and charge sheet of the present case are illegal?

Ld. Defence Counsel submits that since the investigation was not completed within the period directed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the same are to be held illegal. I disagree with these submissions. Law provides no limitation for completing the investigation of the offences under the scrutiny of this court. At the most, it was a minor irregularity to which the attention of the court should have been drawn at the very initial stages, which the accused did not do. Hence, on this account the court cannot hold the investigation to be illegal.

7. Whether membership in a society is a property.

Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to A.P. Narang Vs CBI 2011 LawSuit (Del.)68 decided on 17.01.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I fully agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that membership is not a property. However, I make it clear that the membership register, the proceeding registers etc. are the properties of the society.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 33 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 CHANGE OF ADDRESS The address was changed vide proceedings dt. 28.03.1997 at page 96/97 of D­4. The proceedings have been written in the hand of accused Shri Chand and signed at Q­18 by Abhay Singh. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to D­8 in which the letter dt. 04.04.1998 Ext.PW8/PA­26 written by Abhay Singh to Assistant Registrar mentions that vide the GBM held on 25.03.1997, the address of the society has been shifted from 30 Ishwar Colony, Bhamashah Marg, Delhi to Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­ III, New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention here that this letter was written after about one year from the stated shift of address. This shows that RCS office was never intimated about the change of address in the year 1997. The noting file D­7 also shows that new proceedings started from 04.03.1998. In such circumstances, it is clear that at least in 1998, if not prior, the address of the society had ceased to be at 30, Ishwar Colony, Bhama Shah Marg. WHO HELD THE RECORDS OF THE SOCIETY It is very clear from the evidence on record that large number of proceedings register have been written by accused Shri Chand (A­

1) in his own hand writing. In the proceedings dated 3.2.1986 and 15.3.1986, accused Shri Chand (A­1) has also inducted his family members as the members of the society. Further, in the proceedings CC No. 42/2010 Page 34 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 dated 15.2.2001 (at page 67 and 68 of D­5, written in his own hand writing), it has been shown that the decision of accused Shri Chand (A­1) shall be treated as final in respect of the matters of the society. All these facts clearly prove that accused Shri Chand (A­1) was effectively handling and writing the records of the society as per his choice and dealing with the RCS and DDA officials. The proceedings in the year 1986 (D­4), his relatives have been shown as the members of the society. The noting file D­7 (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW3/A) shows that there is no intimation of inducting new members in the year 1986. Thus, it is clear that all these proceedings are antedated. The noting file dated 20.12.1993 and the prior noting show that as many as five letters had been written to the society sent at 30, Ishwar Colony, Bhama Shah Marg but records were not produced by society and ultimately vide office order dated 31.5.1994, the liquidation proceedings were initiated against the society. In such circumstances, it is clear that all the proceedings, written in D­4, from the year 1986 to 25.3.1997 are antedated. I also hold that the proceedings dated 25.3.1997 at page 92 to 97 of D­4 are also antedated because these proceedings show the continuation of the society by adding new members and electing its office bearers. Had they been so active, they must have been intimating the RCS about it. However, the noting file D­7 shows that after the year 1994, the CC No. 42/2010 Page 35 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 proceedings start on 4.3.1998. Therefore, it is clear that all these false records were creaed by accused Shri Chand (A­1) with a view to get the society revived. Therefore, it is not surprising that the membership register, proceedings register etc. are found at the residence of accused Shri Chand (A­1), when the raid takes place in the year 2005.

I would like to mention here one small point raised by Ld. Counsel for accused Shri Chand (A­1). The above stated documents were recovered in a search during the investigation of RC­9(E)/2005­ EOW/New Delhi in respect of Taj CGHS Society. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that the said case was closed by CBI, therefore, the documents seized in the said case, cannot be used by CBI in the present case. I disagree with this submission. This practice is a perfectly valid practice. It does not create double jeopardize and it does not violate the rights of accused in any manner. The Investigating Officer has testified that he has seized the documents vide proper seizure memo. I may point out that the only manner in which a document can become inadmissible is to show through Indian Evidence Act that such a document is either irrelevant or has not been proved as per the rules of Indian Evidence Act. Since no such pleas has been raised, these documents have to be admitted in evidence.

In view of above discussions, I find no substance in the CC No. 42/2010 Page 36 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 arguments that accused Shri Chand (A­1) was a bonafide writer of the proceedings having no interest in the revival of the society.

Here I would like to refer to the testimony of Neeraj Kumar (PW­32) the Chartered Accountant who testified that he had prepared the balance sheet, income expenditure, receipt payment and other statements pertaining to Parwati CGHS for the period 1985­86 to 1996­97, as per the instructions of accused Shri Chand in the year 1998. It is pertinent to note that the audit of the society was required to be conducted so as to facilitate the revival of the society. I may mention here that in the noting dt. 28.05.1998 Ext.PW8/PA­1 of Naresh Kumar­Liquidator, it has been specifically mentioned at point 6(r) that the photocopy of the audit report has also been filed and nothing adverse has been reported by auditor. I may point out that Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argues that PW­32 Neeraj Kumar is testifying falsely at the instance of CBI. It is submitted that as per his statement, he had prepared the balance sheets etc. of Parwati CGHS, but, audit of the society was conducted by Satish Chand Goel. It is submitted that he had obtained a fee of Rs. 3000/­ or Rs. 4000/­ from Shri Chand for preparing financial statements, as reflected in the audit reports from 1985 to 1997 (D­14 to D­25 Ext.PW14/1 to Ext.PW14/12). My attention is drawn by Ld. Defence counsel to the testimony of PW­14 Satish Chand Goel who stated that he had conducted the audit of the CC No. 42/2010 Page 37 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 society for the aforesaid period in the year 1998, as per the instructions and the records produced by Neeraj Aggarwal, but, as per his statement u/s 161 CrPC, he had paid Rs. 9000/­ to Rs. 10,000/­ to Shri Chand. I am of the opinion that how much money was given by Neeraj Aggarwal to Satish Chand Goel is not brought in evidence before this court. Hence, this argument is of no worth.

Thus, the clear evidence is forthcoming on the record that in the year 1998 (as per the testimony of PW­32), accused Shri Chand was getting the audit of the society conducted. Further, the proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the society, as contained in D­ 4 (from page 40 onwards) & D­5 have been admittedly written in the hand of Shri Chand (A­1). In these proceedings, new members including the relatives of Shri Chand were shown to have been inducted by accused Shri Chand fraudulently, and thereby increasing the strength of members from 84 to 262. It is also proved that the address of the society was changed to 12A, Pocket A­2 Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi, which belongs to accused Shri Chand. In fact, the meeting dt. 24.05.1998 conducted by accused Naresh Kumar­ Liquidator (minutes of which are Ext.PW8/PA­6 written in the hand of Naresh Kumar Liquidator himself) has been shown to have taken place at this address. I may point out that in these minutes, it has been shown that members of the society were desirous of the revival CC No. 42/2010 Page 38 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 of the society. I have already held that these were fake proceedings. I further point out that vide minutes of meeting dt. 15.02.2001 (Ext.PW15/D placed at page 65 to 68 of D­5), it was shown that Shri Chand shall be consultant of the society and his decisions in respect of the society will be treated as final. It is further important to note that PW­35 P.Mukherjee­the investigating officer has testified that he received the proceeding registers, membership registers etc. of the society from malkhana after permission of the Special Judge. It is submitted that CBI had seized the said documents during the course of searches vide search list Ext.PW22/A from the residence of Shri Chand on 01.08.2005 pertaining to Taj CGHS. The cumulative effect of all this evidence is that from 1998 till 2005, accused Shri Chand was in possession of the documents of the society and was doing everything including hobnobbing with the RCS officials for getting the society revived. Hence, I do not find any substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused Shri Chand that he was simply a writer of the proceedings at the instance of J.K. Jain.

ABHAY KUMAR SINGH (A­2) It is argued by Sh. Riyaz Ahmad Bhatt, Adv. and Sh. Amit Satija, Adv. Ld. Defence Counsels that accused Abhay Singh was simply an employee of accused Shri Chand and he used to do whatever was directed by accused Shri Chand. It is submitted that he CC No. 42/2010 Page 39 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 had written the proceedings in good faith as per the directions of accused Shri Chand. Objecting to this submission, Ld. Public Prosecutor referred to the proceedings dt. 24.05.1998 vide which Naresh Kumar called the meeting of the members of the society at Flat No. 12A, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi to seek the opinion of the members of the society regarding the proposal of revival/withdrawal of the liquidation order. Abhay Singh has been shown at serial no. 1 and the signatures in front of his name at Q­167 have been opined by GEQD to be that of Abhay Kumar Singh. Accused does not dispute his signatures. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that in such a situation, he should have come out clearly as to whether such meeting had taken place or not. It is submitted that question in respect of these proceedings was put to him in form of "Q­ 80" of statement u/s 313 CrPC, but, accused had given an evasive answer that he does not know. In response to Q­334, he further stated that when he used to work with accused Shri Chand he used to write and put his signatures/signatures of other persons also without reading the contents.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the membership register (D­6), where name of Abhay Singh has been shown at serial no. 262 at page 26 and the same entry is in the handwriting of Abhay Kumar Singh himself, as per the GEQD report in CC No. 42/2010 Page 40 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 respect of Q­35. It is pertinent to note that Q­35 is the handwriting in which the names of the members have been written from serial no. 257 to 262, which as per GEQD report is in the handwriting of Abhay Kumar Singh. The date of enrollment of Abhay Kumar Singh is shown to be 10.05.1986. As per his own statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused Abhay Singh came in contact with Shri Chand in the year 1997. It is submitted that this means that when Abhay Kumar Singh made the aforesaid entry of his own name in the membership register, he knew that he was showing these entries ante­dated. It is submitted that as per the GEQD report, the entire membership register from serial no. 93 to 262 is written in the hand of accused Abhay Kumar Singh.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that in the proceeding register D­4, the proceedings have been written by accused Shri Chand and Abhay Kumar Singh put his signatures as Secretary and also the signatures of Deepali at Q­182 in the proceedings dt. 05.10.1998 (D­5) page 41. The signatures of Deepali has been opined to have been written by Abhay Kumar Singh, as per the GEQD report. However, on all other places, he has put his signatures at Secretary of the society.

Similarly, in the proceedings written in D­4, he has signed as Secretary at Q­18 and as Executive Member in the same proceeding at CC No. 42/2010 Page 41 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Q­17. Further the signatures of Abhay Kumar Singh appeared in the noting file D­7 at Q­569 in respect of the noting dt. 07.04.1998 in which it is written that Abhay Kumar Singh­Secretary had informed that the elections had been conducted on 25.03.1997.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Abhay Kumar Singh also attended the RCS office on 13.04.1998 and put his signatures at Q­570. In this proceedings, he only sought adjournment. Thereafter, his signatures appeared at Q­571 against the noting dt. 04.05.1998 and he presented photocopies of the documents in the office of RCS. His further signatures are appearing at Q­572 against the noting dt. 03.08.1998 in which he produced false documents before Naresh Kumar. He again represented the society in RCS along with the records, as reflected from the noting dt. 23.12.1999 and put his signatures at Q­573. He again produced the records before the RCS as Secretary. Thus, it is argued that there is profuse evidence to prove that this accused was duly involved in the conspiracy.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. for accused Shri Chand had argued that Abhay Singh was not his employee, rather, he was the employee of J.K. Jain. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of his son Satender Kumar (A­1/DW­2) who has testified that he knew Abhay Singh through Dinesh Singh who was maternal uncle of Abhay Singh and was Secretary of Naval Technical Officers CC No. 42/2010 Page 42 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 CGHS. It is pertinent to note that accused Shri chand was an office bearer of Naval Technical Officers CGHS. Thus, it is submitted that Satender Kumar was in touch with Abhay Singh. He testified that Abhay Singh had never given him or his brother and sisters any tuition in computers. He further testified that Sh. J.K. Jain was architect of Naval Technical Officers CGHS and that Sh. J.K. Jain used to have the bunch of application forms related to Parwati CGHS and used to give dictation to Abhay Singh who wrote the names, parentage, address etc. in the membership register. This witness testified that this work used to be done in U­112, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi­ 92 which was an office of Chamber of Indian Trade & Industries. He submitted that he used to visit Abhay Singh at the said address for the work of Naval Technical Officers CGHS. He further testified that he could specifically recall this fact because J.K. Jain had specifically asked him if the spelling and particulars including the addresses of his brother and sisters in the application forms and the membership register were correct or not. When hen (i.e. this witness) told J.K. Jain that address of his brothers and sisters in the membership register is not correct, J.K. Jain told him not to worry. This witness further testified that J.K. Jain used to bring the records of Parwati CGHS to his residence and used to do some work with his father like giving dictation etc. Thus, it is argued by Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. for CC No. 42/2010 Page 43 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 accused Shri Chand that accused Abhay Singh used to work with J.K. Jain.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. has further drawn my attention to an affidavit filed by Abhay Kumar Singh before RCS in which he has signed as Secretary of the society and had taken responsibility of all the documents being correct.

Ld. Counsel for accused Abhay Singh argues that accused was very young at that time and he used to sign whatever documents were presented to him. My attention has been drawn by Sh. Amit Satija, Adv. for accused Abhay Singh to the affidavit of Abhay Kumar Singh (Ext.PW8/DC) which is unsigned. It is argued that had he been actually acting under malafide intentions, he would have put his own signatures on this affidavit.

I have considered all the facts and circumstances. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh (A­2/DW­1) examined by Abhay Kumar Singh has testified that father of Abhay Kumar had expired in the year 1993 and after completing his graduation, he came to Delhi in search of job. This witness testified that he placed him as computer operator in Chamber of Indian Trade & Industries. Since Abhay Kumar Singh was going through financial difficulties after the death of his father, he also placed him with Shri Chand to teach his children. Later on, Abhay Kumar also started working as part time employee of Shri CC No. 42/2010 Page 44 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Chand in the year 1997.

I have considered the submissions. As per charge sheet, the date of birth of this accused is '27.05.1974'. In the year 1997 & 1998, this accused was barely 23 or 24 years or age. I find substance in the submissions that possibility of his acting at the instance of accused Shri Chand totally placing reliance upon him and without knowing the nature of the work which was being got done through him might not have descended upon his immature and inexperienced mind. For the sake of argument, even if it is presumed that accused Abhay Singh was working with J.K. Jain, as per the testimony of Satender Kumar (A­1/DW­2), Abhay Singh was writing as per the dictation given by J.K. Jain. It is true that he had been appearing as Secretary of the society and had even filed an affidavit in that capacity, the possibility of his acting totally in innocent manner signing and writing wherever he was asked to do and taking the records to the RCS office might be without any understanding as to what was being done thorugh him. I have also seen his affidavit in D­10 at page 1126 to 1124A along with its annexure. However, I am of the opinion that there is a strong possibility that accused Abhay Kumar Singh could have been innocent and had been misused by his employers. It must not be forgotten that he is involved only in one case of society scam unlike accused Shri Chand and J.K. Jain. Accordingly, I give him benefit of doubt and CC No. 42/2010 Page 45 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 acquit him.

JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN (A­6) It is pertinent to note that the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain have been shown as inducted as member in the membership register D­6 from page 19 onwards. First member is Anand Kumar Jain­father of Jinendra Kumar Jain at serial no. 182. At page 21, Smt. Priya Jain has been shown at serial no. 189, Gyanesh Kumar Jain at serial no. 191 and Rajesh Jain at serial no. 192 to have been inducted as members on 15.03.1986. Similarly, other relatives like Vinay Jain have been inducted in the year 1986.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention the statement of PW­31 Vinay Kumar Jain as under:

"I have seen membership register D­6 already exhibited as Ext.PW7/PX. In the said membership register, name of my brother Sh. Rajesh Jain has been shown against serial no. 192, Sh. V.K. Jain s/o Sh. Shikhar Chand my uncles at serial no. 202 on page 21, Smt. Arti Jain at serial no. 206 & Sh. Sidharth at serial no. 207 are my cousins and they are children of Shobha whose name is mentioned at serial no. 208. She is my bua. Smt. Trishla Jain w/o Sh. S.K. Jain is my bua whose name is mentioned at serial no. 209 page 22. Late Sh. Naresh Chand Jain whose name has been mentioned against serial no. 184 page 19 was brother in law of my younger brother Sh. Jinendra Kumar Jain. Smt. Priya Jain is the wife of Sh. Jinendra Kumar Jain whose name is mentioned at serial no. 189 on page 20.

Sh. Jinendra Kumar Jain (accused present in the court) is my younger brother who is architect by profession."

Sh. Ashok Arora, Adv. argues that there is no evidence to show CC No. 42/2010 Page 46 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 that names of the relatives were written at the instance of accused Jinendra Kumar Jain. It is argued that Jinendra Kumar Jain and Shri Chand had worked together in Naval Technical Officers CGHS and Shri Chand knew the names of the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain and had misused their names. He has drawn my attention to the testimony of Anna Wankhede (PW­19) who has testified that his name has been shown in the membership register, however, he never signed the same. Similarly, the defence witness Sushil Kumar Sharma (A­ 2/DW­2) has testified that Shri Chand had even used his name. In view of such evidence, it is argued that Shri Chand was habitual in misusing the names of other persons without their knowledge so that when land is alloted, their resignations are shown and new members are included.

It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that it is not possible for Shri Chand to know the names of so many family members of Jinendra Kumar Jain unless the same are given by Jinendra Kumar Jain himself. It is submitted that many of the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain were his distant relatives and their names could have been given by Jinendra Kumar Jain himself. Ld. Public Prosecutor as well as Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. for accused Shri Chand have drawn my attention to the testimony of defence witnesses namely Kailash Chand (A­1/DW­3) who testified that Jinendra Kumar Jain used to visit the CC No. 42/2010 Page 47 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 residence of Shri Chand in respect of the work of Parwati CGHS. Kailash Chand admitted that his signatures are present at serial no. 43 on page 92 of D­4 on the minutes of meeting of General Body of Parwati CGHS. He stated that he had put this signature at the instance of Jinendra Kumar Jain in the year 1997 or 1998. Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that in these proceedings, the names of the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain having attended the meeting have appeared for the first time. It is submitted that although they have been inducted as members vide proceedings of the year 1986, but, for the first time, the presence of these members have been shown in the year in which the signature of Kailash Chand are present. Therefore, it is argued that the testimony of Kailash Chand should be accepted to be true.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has further drawn my attention to the testimony of A­2/DW­2 Sushil Kumar Sharma who has admitted that Jinendra Kumar Jain was involved in Parwati CGHS also along with Shri Chand.

Sh. Ashok Arora, Ld. Defence Counsel agues that had Jinendra Kumar Jain been controlling the society, there was no reason that his relatives could have resigned. My attention has been drawn to the proceeding dt. 15.02.2001 (D­5) page 65 vide which the resignations of all the relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain have been approved. It is CC No. 42/2010 Page 48 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 argued that this was despite the fact that the offer of land was made to DDA vide letter dt. 02.11.2001 (Ext.PW10/PA­16). Hence, it is argued that the names of relatives of Jinendra Kumar Jain have been misused by Shri Chand and that benefit of doubt should be given to Jinendra Kumar Jain.

Ld. Defence Counsel has also assailed the reliability of defence witnesses examined by Shri Chand on the ground that DW­Satender is the son and DW­Kailash Chand is the brother­in­law of Shri Chand.

I fully agree with the submissions of Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. that the names of such a large number of relatives could have been given by accused J.K. Jain to Shri Chand. Even if I presume that these names were got written by J.K. Jain through Abhay singh and proceedings in respect of these relatives inducted as members and office bearers was being done at the instance of accused J.K. Jain, still, I would hold that evidence in this respect is not very substantial. Prosecution examined PW­12 Madan Mohan Sharma, an Advocate to prove that J.K. Jain had sought his services for verification of the records of Parwati CGHS in the year 1997. He admitted that he had verified the documents of Parwati CGHS but stated that the same were produced before him by one S.C. Gola and not by any J.K. Jain. This witness turned hostile and prosecution could not connect accused J.K. Jain as one of handlers of the documents of the society. In such CC No. 42/2010 Page 49 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 circumstances, prosecution wants this court to presume that only J.K. Jain could have given these names. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the above quoted portion of the testimony of PW­31 Vinay Kumar Jain. It is further argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that the proceeding sheets/minutes of meeting (D­5) would show that in all the meetings except last one dt. 15.02.2001, Rajesh Jain and Gyanesh Jain are being shown as President and Vice­President of the society. It could have been possible only if J.K. Jain is commanding the affairs of this society. Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argues that had Shri Chand been controlling the documents of the society, Shri Chand would have made his members as President and Vice­President etc. Accordingly, it is argued that the testimony of the defence witnesses namely Satender Kumar and Kailash chand that J.K. Jain was having the custody of the documents and Shri Chand used to write at his instance should be accepted. It is argued by accused Shri Chand that this case has not been properly investigated and it was accused J.K. Jain who had been attending the RCS office and signing as Rajesh Jain. It is further argued that accused J.K. Jain was in touch with the Chief Minister of Delhi and was instrumental in getting this society revived.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. has drawn my attention to the testimony of DW­Kailash Chand (A­1/DW­3) who has stated that in the CC No. 42/2010 Page 50 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 membership register D­6, his signatures are available against serial no. 132 at point A (Page 14). It is stated that his name and particulars at this point have been written by accused J.K. Jain in his own handwriting. He also mentioned that J.K. Jain had brought these three registers at his residence in the year 2004. Thus, it is argued by Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. that J. K. Jain is the builder, who got the society revived.

Sh. Ashok Arora, Adv. had argued that it is on record that accused J.K. Jain was architect in the Naval Technical Officers CGHS which was being controlled by accused Shri chand. It is further argued that the relations between J.K. Jain and Shri Chand got strained and that is why Shri Chand is now creating a new story to falsely implicate J. K. Jain.

In nutshell, Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. argued that defence witness Sushil Kumar Sharma has testified that J. K. Jain was involved in Parwati CGHS. Kailash Chand has testified that J. K. Jain had got his signatures in the membership and had delivered the records of Parwati CGHS to Shri Chand. Defence witness Satender has testified that the names of family members of Shri Chand were got written at the instance of J. K. Jain by Abhay Singh. It is further argued that as per investigation also accused J. K. Jain had procured records of Parwati CGHS and had included the names of his relatives in the CC No. 42/2010 Page 51 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 membership register. Hence, it is argued that J. K. Jain is fully involved in the present case.

I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. I am of the opinion that DW Sushil Kumar Sharma has not explained as to what extent and in what manner J. K. Jain was involved in the affairs of Parwati CGHS. Therefore, from this testimony, it is not possible to understand the role of J. K. Jain in fraudulent revival of the society. Now, this court is to consider the statements of DW Satender Kumar and Kailash Chand in the backdrop of the stand of Abhay Singh that he was a part time employee of Shri Chand and had done writing work as per instructions of Shri Chand. It must be kept in mind that Abhay Singh had nowhere taken a stand that he was an employee of J. K. Jain or he had done the writing work in the membership register at the instance of J. K. Jain.

It is pertinent to note that in the year 2005 CBI had seized these registers from the house of accused Shri Chand.

However, perusal of D­6 would show that entries of members from serial no. 93 to serial no. 262 are written in one hand and in the same ink and same pen. Admittedly, the handwriting is that of Abhay Kumar Singh. In this handwriting, it appears that all these names were written by one person in one point of time. Perusal of this list would show that the names of the relatives of accused Shri Chand CC No. 42/2010 Page 52 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 namely Sohan Pal, Kavita, Savita and Kailash Chand find place from serial no. 129 to serial no. 132. I have already stated that the names from serial no. 93 to serial no. 262 have been written at one time with the same pen and same ink. Thus there are only two possibilities. Either the same is prepared by Abhay Singh under the instructions of J.K. Jain or that of Shri Chand. It must be kept in mind that stand of Abhay Kumar Singh that he had done all the work at the instructions of Shri Chand and he has examined two witnesses to prove that he was a part time employee of Shri Chand. On the other hand, Shri Chand has also examined two witnesses to show that the names of members were written by Abhay Singh at the instance of J. K. Jain. In such a scenario, there are two possibilities either the entire list was prepared at the instance of J.K. Jain, as testified by Satender Kumar or the entire list was prepared at the instance of Shri Chand which is the stand of accused Abhay Kumar Singh. To my mind, safer course would be to accept the possibility which favors this accused. Consequently, I give benefit of doubt to accused Jinendra Kumar Jain and acquit him.

MUNISH TIWARI Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the membership register (D­6). It is submitted that upto serial no. 84, the CC No. 42/2010 Page 53 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 names of the original members are written. Thereafter, new and fake entries were made. As per GEQD report, this handwriting Q­42 matches with the specimen handwriting of Munish Tiwari. Munish Tiwari admits this fact. However, he submits that these documents were being handled by his father and accused Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4). It is pertinent to note that Vinod Kumar Pal was the original office bearer of the society and as per prosecution he handed over the records of society to Hari Dutt Tiwari, who is the father of Munish Tiwari. However, during the trial Vinod Kumar Pal had expired. It is argued that he had written these names in good faith at the instance of Vinod Kumar Pal. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the names of the wife and sister of Munish Tiwari have been written as the member who were inducted on 08.04.1985. These are the dates when Munish Tiwari must not have been married as he was minor at that time. Moreover, the particulars of the name of his wife must have come to his knowledge after his marriage. Therefore, he knew that he was making false entries in the register.

I have considered the submissions. As per the charge sheet itself, accused Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4) was the original office bearer of the society and was having the custody of the records of the society. It is alleged in the charge sheet that despite issuance of the order of liquidation on 31.05.1994 by RCS, he did not hand over the records to CC No. 42/2010 Page 54 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 the RCS office, but, fraudulently handed over the said records to Late Hari Dutt Tiwari. Accused Munish Tiwari has taken the defence in his statement u/s 313 CrPC (Q.No. 334) that he had made the entries in the membership register of his wife and sister at the instance of Vinod Kumar Pal. It is argued that he made the entries at the instance of Vinod Kumar Pal.

I have considered the submissions and I am of the opinion that possibility of Munish Tiwari being involved in the conspiracy are not very substantial. It is possible that he might have written two names i.e. of his wife and sister in the membership register at the instance of his father Sh. Hari Dutt Tiwari who later on expired and at the instance of Vinod Kumar Pal (A­4), without knowing the actual impact of his act. Accordingly, I give him benefit of doubt and acquit him.

NARESH KUMAR Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3), Sub­ Inspector Grade­IV, RCS office, Delhi was appointed Liquidator of the Parwati CGHS in terms of order dated 19.3.1998 of the Assistant Registrar (NW). Sh. Naresh Kumar ( A­3) submitted a detailed report in his capacity as the Liquidator of The Parwati CGHS in terms or order dated 19.3.1998 of the Assistant Registrar (NW). Sh Naresh Kumar (A­3) submitted a detailed report in his capacity as the CC No. 42/2010 Page 55 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Liquidator of The Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Society on 28.05.1998 to Sh. M.L. Kaler, the then Assistant Registrar. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) mentioned in his report in the notesheet file that Sh. Abhay Kumar Singh (A­2), the Secretary of the society had attended RCS Office on 07.04.1998, 13.04.1998 and 04.05.1998 and furnished photocopies of various documents i.e. minutes of the meeting of Managing Committee, applications of 175 members etc. besides the original affidavits of 175 members enrolled during 1985­86, fresh affidavits of all existing members and list of 260 members with a request to approve the same for the purpose of allotment of land. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) further mentioned in his report that the members of the Managing Committee of the society had requested the RCS Office to approve the list of members of the society for the purpose of its onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) had also mentioned in his report in the notesheet file that the applicant i.e Sh. Abhay Kumar Singh (A­2), the Secretary of the society had requested for the revival of the above society and for sending a list of 262 members to DDA following which he, in his capacity as the Liquidator of the society, had called for a Special General Body Meeting of the members of the society on 24.05.1998 at 12A, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­91 to ascertain the CC No. 42/2010 Page 56 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 willingness of the members as to whether they were interested in reviving the society. He also mentioned in his report that the said Special General Body Meeting was attended by 115 members who passed a resolution unanimously to request the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Delhi to consider sympathetically its demand for the revival of The Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Limited and cancellation of the liquidation order dated 31.05.1994. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) also mentioned in his report that the said General Body Meeting passed a resolution to authorize Sh. Abhay Kumar Singh who was not even a member of the above society to represent other members of the society before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Delhi and other officials with regard to the decision of the Special General Body Meeting for the withdrawal of the liquidation order/cancellation of winding up order dated 31.05.1994. It submitted that the aforesaid premises at 12A, Pocket­A­2 Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­91 where the purported Special General Body Meeting was shown to have been held by Sh. Naresh Kumar was not the registered office of the Society and the said premises belonged to Shri Chand (A­1) who was not a member of the Society. Moreover, the Investigating Officer contacted the persons, who were shown to have attended the meeting. But most of them were not available. Whoever was available was not found to be the members of the CC No. 42/2010 Page 57 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) mentioned in his report that the members of the above society were willing to revive the society in order to fulfill their object of obtaining a flat at concessional rate through Cooperative Society. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) recommended in his note that the order of winding up of The Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Society might be cancelled with the prior approval of the concerned Minister in view of the provisions of section 63 (3) of the DCS Act, 1972 and minutes of the meeting dated 01.05.1998 of the Working Committee of Delhi Cooperative Development Board. He also highlighted the fact that the above society not been offered land by the DDA prior to its liquidation/winding up and the members of the society were willing to run the society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the aforesaid report of Sh. Naresh Kumar was submitted to Sh. M.L. Kaler, the then Assistant Registrar who recorded a note on 29.05.1998. Sh. Kaler mentioned in his note that as per the report of Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) Liquidator dated 28.05.1998, there was every possibility that the society might continue to exist and fulfill its objects if the order of winding up of the society was cancelled. Sh. Kaler submitted the aforesaid report to the Deputy Registrar (North West), Sh. Mukesh Prasad for orders.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 58 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that Sh. Mukesh Prasad, the then Deputy Registrar (North­West) recommended vide his note dated 01.05.1998 that the proposal for the cancellation of winding up order dated 31.05.1994 might be considered subject to the following conditions:­

(a) After the cancellation of the winding up order, the election of the society shall be held within one month, perused by an Election Officer appointed by the RCS.

(b) The new Managing Committee shall get the list of members verified by the RCS Office.

(c) The new Managing Committee shall call an Annual General Body Meeting of its members as required u/s 29 (1) of the DCS Act, 1972 within the stipulated time, inter alia, to consider the Audit Reports of all the pending previous years.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the aforesaid note was submitted to Sh. N.K Sharma, the then Joint Registrar, North­West on 01.06.1998 by Sh. Mukesh Prasad, Deputy Registrar. Sh. N.K. Sharma forwarded the aforesaid note to the RCS on the same date Sh. Gopal Dikshit, RCS vide his note dated 02.06.1998 mentioned that the matter regarding the revival of the liquidated society i.e. The Parwati CGHS had been examined in detail and in view of the decision taken in the first meeting of the Working Committee of Delhi Cooperative CC No. 42/2010 Page 59 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Development Board held under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 01.05.1998, each and every case of the liquidated society was required to be examined strictly on merit and put up to the Chief Minister with recommendation before the revival of the society. Sh. Gopal Dikshit, also mentioned in his note that the case of the above society had been examined on merit and it deserved consideration for revival by cancelling the winding up order dated 31.05.1994 subject to certain conditions. He submitted the aforesaid note for approval to the Secretary (Cooperative)/Chief Minister.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the aforesaid note was perused by Sh. D.S. Negi, Development Commissioner/Secretary (Cooperation) who vide his note dated 2.6.1998 observed that before the exercise of the power by the Registrar u/s 63 (3) of the DCS Act 1972 for cancellation of the winding up order, he would like the Registrar to be personally satisfied that there was ample justification for doing so especially since it was an old case. SH. Negi marked the file back to Sh. Gopal Dikshit, the then RCS on 4.6.1998.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Gopal Dikshit, the then RCS again marked the file to the Secretary (Coop) on 04.06.1998, mentioning in his note that the above case had been examined strictly on merit and certain conditions had been imposed before the revival of the society. The Secretary (Cooperation) Sh. D.S. CC No. 42/2010 Page 60 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Negi recorded a note on 07.06.1998 on the above file requesting the Chief Minister to peruse his observations. Late Sh. Sahib Singh Verma, the then Chief Minster approved the revival of the above society on 10.6.1998 with the proposed conditions.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that pursuant to the receipt of administrative approval of the Chief Minister of Delhi, an order u/s 63 (3) of the DCS Act, 1972 was issued under the signature of Sh. Gopal Dikshit, the then RCS on 18.06.1998 for revival of the society by cancelling the winding up order dt. 31.05.1994.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. M.L. Kaler, Assistant Registrar approved a note dated 19.6.1998 of Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) for the appointment of an election officer for holding the election of The Parwati CGHS within 30 days and issued an order for the appointment of Sh. Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7), Sub­ Inspector Grade­IV, RCS office, Delhi.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7), election Officer submitted a false election report dated 19.07.1998 to the RCS Office, Delhi. He falsely showed the presence of 125 members in the minutes of Special General Body Meeting of the society which inter alia included the names of bogus members I.e Anna Wankhede, Abhay Kumar Singh (A­2), Atul Anand, N.K. Gupta and K.C. Kathuria. He also falsely mentioned in his report that S/Sh.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 61 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Rajesh Jain, Gyanesh Jain, Anna Wankhede, Abhay Kumar Singh, S.K. Sharma, Ms. Kavita and Ms. Deepali had been declared elected in the aforesaid election. Investigation has revealed that none of the aforesaid persons was the member of the above society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) submitted a note on 03.08.1998 and 03.08.1998 regarding the receipt of the result of election of the society, request of the society for approval of the list of members for allotment of land and the production of the records of the society for the above purpose.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) submitted a note on 03.08.1998 that SH. Abhay Kumar Singh (A­

2), Secretary of the society had attended RCS office and produced the records of the society i.e the Proceedings Registrar/membership register, application and affidavit of all members, Proof of Share Receipt, Cash Book, Pass Book, Ledger, Resolution of Managing Committee approval.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) submitted a report on 06.08.1998 regarding the verification of complete records for the approval of the final list of The Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited. He mentioned in the said report that Sh. Abhay Kumar Singh (A­2) had appeared in the RCS Office for verification of the records of the society which had shown CC No. 42/2010 Page 62 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 the enrollment of a total of 262 members. Sh. Naresh Kumar(A­3) also mentioned in the above report that fresh affidavits of the aforesaid 262 members had been submitted and the accounts of the society had been audited upto 1996­97. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) recommended in his note that a list of 260 members might be approved.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar submitted the above note to Sh. M.L. Kaler, Assistant Registrar (North­West) on 6.8.1998 who also recommended the above proposal on 07.08.1998. The aforesaid recommendation of Sh. M.L. Kaler, was approved by the Deputy Registrar (NW), Sh. Mukesh Prasad and Sh. N.K. Sharma, Joint Registrar (NW) on 11.08.1998 and th file was marked by the joint Registrar (NW)to Sh. Gopal Dikshit, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Sh. Dikshit, RCS approved the note regarding the approval of the list of 260 members and its transmission to DDA for allotment of land.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that consequent upon the approval of above note by the RCS, Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) submitted a note on 12.8.1998 for the issuance of a letter to the Policy Section of RCS Office for onward transmission of the list of 260 members to DDA fro allotment of land. Sh. M.L. Kaler, Assistant Registrar (NW),approved the note Parwati Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was forwarded to the Deputy Director(Group Housing), Delhi CC No. 42/2010 Page 63 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Development Authority, New Delhi on 31.08.1998.

Ld. Public Prosecutor further submits that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­

3) recorded a note on 23.12.1999 regarding the appearance of Sh. Abhay Kumar Singh, Secretary of the above society in the RCS office alongwith original records of the society. Sh. Naresh Kumar (A­3) further mentioned in his note that original records of the society had been checked by him and the same were found correct and that nothing adverse had been noticed.

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the meeting called at 12A Mayur Vihar, Delhi was a fake meeting and in fact no such meeting was held. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statements of PW­19 Anna Wankhede, PW­15 Ms. Anshul, PW­30 Om Prakash Singh and that of A­2/ DW­1 Sushil Kumar Sharma who had stated that they never attended this meeting.

It is pertinent to note that accused Abhay Kumar Singh has been shown to be present in the said meeting and he has admitted his signatures. This meeting is shown to have taken place at 12A Mayur Vihar, Delhi belonging to Shri Chand itself is a pointer that Shri Chand was very much involved in showing this meeting at this place. Further, it is argued that it is surprising that when notices were not reaching at the original address i.e. 30, Ishwar Colony, Bhamashah Marg, Delhi and the society was not responding, how suddenly after CC No. 42/2010 Page 64 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 appointment of Naresh Kumar as Liquidator, Abhay Singh started appearing before the RCS for the purpose of revival. It is argued that even in his noting he did not mention as to when the society was not functioning, how its members increased from 84 to 262. It is submitted that the members are being shown to have been enrolled since 1986 but no objection was raised as to why the intimation of newly inducted members was sent to the RCS. Furthermore, no question was asked as to why the society did not inform the RCS of new managing committee being elected and why the information of change of address was not given to the RCS. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that all the notings have been written by Naresh Kumar with the full knowledge with the fake members are being inducted fraudulently with a view to get the society revived illegally instead of pointing out the discrepancies, he proceeds to recommend the revival of the society. It is pertinent to note that no verification of the newly inducted members was got done. It is further argued that no query was to put to the society on the aforesaid points which it was natural for him to do.

Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. argues that in his noting he has put all the facts and has not concealed anything. It is argued that it was for the higher officers to see the irregularities in the functioning of the society. It is argued that even Gopal Dixit had examined the case of CC No. 42/2010 Page 65 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 society on merit but he was not made an accused. It is argued that if Gopal Dixit, the Registrar has not committed any offence, how can a poor clerk be presumed to be hobnobbing with the private persons simply on the basis of the notings in question.

I have considered the submissions. The most important document, relevant to this accused is D­5. Naresh Kumar, who was appointed as a liquidator of the society, wrote the proceedings dated 24.5.1998 in the proceedings register (D­5) of the society. these proceedings are written from page 26 to 31 and have been marked as Ex.PW8/PA­6. In these minutes, it is written that the member of the society wanted the revival of the society and cancellation of liquidation order dated 31.5.1998. In these proceedings, names of 115 members are written and their signatures have been procured. Prosecution examined Anna Wankhede mentioned at serial no.2 as PW19. On seeing these proceedings, he stated that signature at Q261 does not pertain to him. He also denied his signatures in other proceedings, which are Q246 to Q278. Prosecution examined Ms Anshul (mentioned as Ansul at serial no.20) as PW15. she denied her signatures against her name in these proceedings. All the aforesaid witnesses denied having ever become the member of the society. Ms Seema has been shown at serial no. 46 in this proceedings at page 28. She was examined as PW33. She also denied having become a CC No. 42/2010 Page 66 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 member of this society. V. K. Jain mentioned at serial no.85 (page

29) was examined as PW31. He denied having become a member of this society. Same is the case of K. C. Kathuria (PW13) mentioned at point 5, who denied having ever become the member of Parwati CGHS. One argument of accused Naresh Kumar is that people came, signed and went away intimating him their desire to revive the society and that he was not required to check the identity cards of those persons. I am of the opinion that the society was not responding to the notices of RCS as clearly reflected in the noting file D­7, which resulted in issuance of the show cause notice to liquidate the society, was it not surprising that suddenly in the year 1997 the society reports to Naresh Kumar on his notice with all the records including the increase of members from 84 to 262, that too, in the year 1986 itself. I may point out that in the membership register (D­6) all the new members have been shown to have been enrolled in the year 1986. D­4 and D­5, which are the proceedings registers of the said society in the hand of accused Shri Chand would show discussion about the conduct of audit in the year 1995. In the minutes of 15.1.1996, there is discussion that list of members has yet not been approved so far. The proceedings dated 15.2.1997 show that a meeting held in the chairmanship of Kailash Chand and office bearers having been elected but interestingly Naresh Kumar does not note as CC No. 42/2010 Page 67 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 to why such an active society came on the verge of being liquidated and still not interacting with the RCS office. In such a situation, calling of the meeting at 12­A, Mayur vihar, Delhi, which pertains to accused Shri Chand itself clearly shows that fake proceedings of meeting have been written in complicity with accused Shri Chand, who was holding the documents of this society. In his notings also, he did not point out as to why the increase of members from 84 to 262 was not reported to RCS office. He does not insist for verification of any of the newly enrolled members. In his noting, although he has written that the society had not been appearing with the records, he did not mention that proceedings appeared to be fraudulent. I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the arguments of accused Naresh Kumar that he was not required to see the identity cards. In fact except signatures of Abhay Kumar singh, which were found to be genuine, none of the persons, who could be found by the CBI testified having attended this meeting. Hence, I am convinced that not only Naresh Kumar abused its official position to procure pecuniary advantage to Shri Chand but also he was colluded with him. SURESH KUMAR MONGIA The allegations against accused Suresh Kumar Mongia is that revival order was subject to the condition that society would conduct election within one month. For that purpose, accused Suresh Kumar CC No. 42/2010 Page 68 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Mongia was appointed as the Election Officer. The minutes of meeting Ex.PW31/C (placed at page 32 to 38 of D­5 dated 19.7.1998) show that as many as 125 member attended the said meeting. As per these minutes, the meeting was convened at 30 Ishwar Colony, New Delhi. It is pertinent to note that this was original registered address of the society but with the change of hands, as already discussed, the society came in the hands of accused Shri Chand. As per Clause 6A at page 21/N written by Naresh Kumar (A­3), the society had changed its address. Perusal of the said letters would show that address was changed from 30 Ishwar Colony, New Delhi to 12­A, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi to Mayur Vihar address. Therefore, even the meeting of members to know their opinion about the revival was called by Naresh Kumar at Mayur Vihar address. It is not explained as to how he was able to conduct this meeting at 30 Ishwar Colony, Bhama Shah Marg, Delhi. The noting file clearly shows that repeated letters were sent at the original address but the society did not respond. Further more, some of the members were examined by prosecution, who have been shown to have attended this election namely Anna Wankhede (PW19), V. K. Jain (PW31). Anshul (PW15), Niranjan Dass (PW2) and K. C. Kathuria (PW13) but all of them have testified that they had never been the members of this society. it is pertinent to note that in these proceedings accused has shown Rajesh Jain as the President, CC No. 42/2010 Page 69 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Gyanesh Jain as Vice President and Anna Wankhede, S. K. Sharma, Kavita, Deepali and Abhay Kumar Singh as MC members. Prosecution examined Rajesh Jain as PW1, Gyanesh Jain as PW7 and Anna Wankhede as PW19. All of them denied having become the members of this society, what to talk of being the office bearers of the society. Suresh Kumar Mongia did not even ask the identity proof of these office bearers. I am convinced with the prosecution that these proceedings are absolutely fake. Further more, the register (D­5), in which these proceedings are written, was found in possession of Shri Chand and all the proceedings prior and after the election proceedings (except a meeting dated 24.5.1998 by Naresh Kumar) are in hand writing of Shri Chand. This is ample proof that accused Shri Chand and Suresh Kumar Mongia were in conspiracy with each other when these fake election proceedings were written.

GOPAL DIXIT Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. has taken me through the noting file (D­7) especially the order dt. 02.06.1998 at page 27/N of Gopal Dixit, where the Registrar has written that the present case has been examined on merit and observations consideration for revival. It is argued that Gopal Dixit is fully involved in the present conspiracy and it is at his directions that Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia acted. I feel that the submissions of Sh. R.P. Shukla, Adv. are CC No. 42/2010 Page 70 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 not superfluous and hold that the conduct of Gopal Dixit is not free from doubt. However, in statement u/s 313 CrPC neither Naresh Kumar nor Suresh Kumar Mongia have specifically named Gopal Dixit. It is pertinent to note that accused Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia has made vague allegations that they had acted on the instructions of their senior officers. They stated that the meetings held by both of them were genuine. However, this defence stands falsified because a meeting dt. 24.05.1998 had not taken place and Naresh Kumar has falsely shown that the members were interested in revival of the society. Similarly, the general body meeting dt. 19.07.1998 was also not convened by Suresh Kumar Mongia and false minutes to that effect have been procured. Therefore, accused Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia do not benefit in any manner on account of the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel against Gopal Dixit.

CONSPIRACY In view of the above discussion, I give benefit of doubt to accused Abhay Singh, Munish Tiwari and Jinendra Kumar Jain.

However, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Shri Chand had procured the documents of the society and thereafter he introduced large number members fraudulently increasing the number of the members from 84 to 262. It CC No. 42/2010 Page 71 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 is clear that this was done so that a larger piece of plot is alloted to him. Since, the old members never never knew about the revival of the society and new members (except some relatives of accused Shri Chand) never knew inclusion of their names, it was clear that in case of allotment of land, everything must have come in hands of Shri Chand and he would have been able to sell off those flats by introducing new genuine members at premium. For this purpose, accused Naresh Kumar, the liquidator wrote fake minutes in the noting dt. 24.05.1998 that members expressed desire for revival of the society. When the society was revived, because Suresh Kumar Mongia wrote fake minutes of holding elections dt. 19.07.1998. This resulted in not only sending the list of members of society by RCS to DDA for allotment of land and thereafter issuance of offer of allotment of land by DDA to Parwati CGHS.

ATTEMPT Ld. Defence Counsels have strongly argued that the offence is only at the stage of preparation. I disagree with them. The entire home work had been completed by presenting fake proceedings by accused Shri Chand to RCS through accused Abhay Singh. RCS officials Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia also fully cooperated with Shri Chand by falsely showing the minutes and elections, as discussed above and thereafter, after revival, a list of 262 CC No. 42/2010 Page 72 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 members was sent to DDA for allotment of land vide noting dt. 06.08.1998 and 07.08.1998 (Ext.PW8/PA­17 & Ext.PW8/PA­19). Matter did not stop here. In fact, the DDA also offered the land vide letter dt. 02.11.2001 Ext.PW10/PA­16. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that perhaps accused Sri Chand could not arrange the money which resulted in the failure of the attempt. Whatever may be the reason, I am of the opinion that last proximate step in the direction of the offence and completion of the conspiracy had been taken by sending of the list of members to the DDA. It is argued that the attempt would have been completed if accused Shri Chand would have deposited the money and thereafter he were caught before the allotment of land. I again disagree with this submission. In fact, his attempt was complete as soon as he submitted all the fake documents, proceeding registers etc. with the RCS and the attempt on the part of public servants was complete as soon as the society was revived. It must be proved that by revival of the society, it came in the hands of a person who had never been its member.

In view of the above discussion, I convict accused Shri Chand (A­1), Naresh Kumar (A­3) and Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7) u/s 120­ B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC r/w Section 511/468/471 IPC and Section 15 r/w Section 13(2) 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

I further convict accused Shri Chand (A­1) u/s 468/471 IPC.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 73 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 I further convict accused Naresh Kumar (A­3) and Suresh Kumar Mongia (A­7) u/s 13(1)(d) & Section 13(1)(2) r/w Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Announced on this 07th day of June, 2014.

(Vinod Kumar) Addl. Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge­II, CBI, Rohini CC No. 42/2010 Page 74 / 77 CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR SPECIAL JUDGE­II (P.C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI I.D. No. 02404R0649712007 CC No. 42/2010 CBI Vs Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) RC No. EOU­I 2000 A 0009 CBI Vs 1. Shri Chand S/o Late Hari Singh R/o274A, Pocket­C, Mayur Vihar, Phase­II, Delhi­110091.

2. Naresh Kumar S/o Late Puran Chand Kathpalia R/o 2253/C, Shadi Khampur, Guru Nanak Nagar, New Delhi­110008.

3. Suresh Kumar Mongia S/o Late Kishan Lal Mongia R/o JB­11/C, Flat No. 4, Khirki Extension (Gupta Colony), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi­17.

ORDER ON SENTENCE 9.6.2014 Present: Dr. Padmini Singh, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI.

Convict Shri Chand, Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia on bail with counsel Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 75 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 Ld. Public Prosecutor prays for full dose of sentence to the convicts specially to Shri Chand, who has already been convicted in three other cases.

On the other hand, Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. argues that convict Shri Chand is suffering from diabetes and if he is sent to jail, he will not get bail from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for next one month due to summer vacations. It is therefore argued that a very lenient view should be taken in sentencing the convicts.

I have considered all facts and circumstances and I sentence the convicts as under :

All the convicts are hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ u/s 120­B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC r/w Section 511/468/471 IPC and Section 15 r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

I further sentence convict Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar Mongia to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ u/s 13(1)(d) & Section 13(1)(2) r/w Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

CC No. 42/2010 Page 76 / 77

CBI Vs. Shri Chand etc. (Parwati CGHS) Judgment dt. 07.06.2014 I sentence convict Shri Chand to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 468 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

I further sentence convict Shri Chand to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

Convict Shri Chand had remained in judicial custody from 5.12.2006 to 12.4.2007 and thereafter from 9.12.2013 to 31.3.2014.

Benefit under Section 428 CrPC be given to convict Shri Chand.

Bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 09th day of June, 2014.

(Vinod Kumar) Addl. Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge­II, CBI, Rohini CC No. 42/2010 Page 77 / 77