Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal Etc. on 20 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc.
(Shree Ganesh CGHS)
CBI No. 67/2019
CNR No. DLCT 110002972019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1)
(Already pleaded guilty and stands convicted vide
order dated 13.08.2013)
2. Indira Aggarwal (A-2)
(Already pleaded guilty and stands convicted vide order
dated 13.08.2013)
3. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
s/o Sh Babu Lal Aggarwal
RZ 21/97 A, Gali No. 5 , Mahavir Enclave
New Delhi 110 045
4. Ghanshyam Goel (A-4)
(Proceedings stands abated vide order dated 21.2.2012)
5. Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5)
s/o Sh. Shiv Prasad Pansari
29, Fourth Floor, Kapil Vihar
Pitam Pura, Delhi -88
6. Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6)
s/o Late Sh. Lakhi Ram
r/o H.No 47 A, V& PO Bijwasan, New Delhi
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc
(Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 1 of 367 )
CBI No. 67/2019
CNR No. DLCT110002972019
7. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7)
s/o Late Sh. M.L Sharma
r/o 304 3B, Ist Floor, Gali No.20,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Institution: 19.12.2007
Date of Arguments: 28.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 20.07.2023
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
1. During the period 1970-80, certain co-operative group housing societies were registered with the office of RCS, New Delhi. Since, certain statutory requirements were not fulfilled or met by the said societies, the same were subsequently declared defunct by the office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies u/s 63 (2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act,1972. But later, some private persons in connivance with unknown officials of the office of RCS, based on forged and fake documents get revived the societies fraudulently and dishonestly with an intention to obtain land from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on concessional rates and priority basis.
2. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 02.08.2005, passed in "Civil Writ Petition Number CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 2 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 10066/2004", while expressing the concern that there is a nexus between the builders, office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and DDA and they have taken over the Cooperative Movement in Delhi to make undue profit, directed the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation in respect of 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS). Vide order dated 09.1.2006, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further directed CBI to investigate into the allotment of land allotted to 97 societies since the year 2000. A Preliminary inquiry vide PE No.EOU-I-2006-A- 0002 was registered on 20.03.2006 against the five such societies including the Shree Ganesh Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Based on the results of the said inquiry, a regular case vide RC No.EOU-1-2006-E-0019 was registered on 13.10.2006 against the accused persons.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The facts of the case as detailed in the chargesheet are that Shree Ganesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') was registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Society (for short 'RCS'), New Delhi Vide Registration No. 1402 (GH) dated 20.01.1984, at A-2, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi with 60 Promoter members. At that time, the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 3 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Managing Committee of the society consisted of the Sh. V.S. Sisodiya as President, Sh. Bhagwat Prasad Jain as Vice President, Sh. Gyan Chand Jain as Secretary and Sh. Raj Kumar Jain as Treasurer.
4. In the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 18.05.1984, 45 more persons were enrolled and finally a list of 105 members was forwarded by the Secretary of the society namely Sh. Gyan Chand on 18.06.1984 to the office of RCS with a request to onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. Accordingly, on 30.08.1984, the said list of 105 members of the society was forwarded to DDA by the office of RCS.
5. Thereafter, vide communications dated 18.04.1988 and 08.11.1989, the then Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies directed the society for calling Special General Body Meeting. In response to that the then Secretary of the society namely Ravi Kumar Gupta informed the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society that the election of the society had been held on 01.02.1990. Vide letters dated 21.03.1990 and 07.05.1990, the society was asked to furnish documents for verification of the said election. The society was further asked to hold election of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 4 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the Managing Committee vide show cause notices dated 20.08.1991, 25.11.1991 and 07.08.1992. It is alleged that aforesaid notices were never responded to by the society.
6. It is further stated that in the year 1996 i.e after a gap of 4 years, Sh.J.S Jolly, the then Assistant Registrar issued a requisition dated 30.10.1996, asking the society to call a Special General Body Meeting failing which action would be taken u/s 30(ii) of DCS Act, 1972. The said notice/requisition was not responded to by the society. Accordingly, Sh. A.K. Shankaran, Inspector of RCS Office was appointed as Election Officer for conducting the election of the society. However, Sh. A.K. Shankaran informed the Office of RCS that the society had already conducted an election for the Managing Committee and this fact was noted in the note dated 30.10.1997 by the then Dealing Assistant.
7. The proceedings dated 21.10.1996 and 08.02.1998 indicate that Ghanshyam Goel (A4), Krishan Mohan Chetani, Mukesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) and Babulal Aggarwal were elected as President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Member respectively of the Managing Committee. It is alleged that CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 5 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Sh. K.N. Chetani, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Sh. Babulal Aggarwal had never become the members of the society and they have been falsely shown as members of the society and also as members of the Managing Committee of the society.
8. As per the note dated 28.07.1998, the election and the audit of the society had not been conducted since 1989 and the list of members until 31.03.1998 had also not been submitted by the society. Therefore, the then Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued a show cause notice dated 28.07.1996 to the society for not holding elections/audit and for not submitting the list of members since 31.03.1998. The said notice was withdrawn vide order dated 20.08.1998 by the then Registrar Cooperative Societies on the grounds that audit/election had already been conducted and the list of members also had already been filed by the society. The society was directed to attend the office of RCS on 27.10.1998 along with original records in compliance to the above-mentioned order dated 20.08.1998 whereby the show cause notice issued u/s 32 of the DCS Act, 1972 was withdrawn.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 6 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
9. In response to the aforesaid notice, on 27.10.1998, Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) appeared before the Dealing Assistant of RCS and submitted the records relating to election and audit of the society. The list of resigned members during 1993-1994, the list of enrolled members during the period 1994-1995, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, were also furnished by Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). It is alleged that in the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 08.2.1998, Sh. Ghanshyam Goel (A4), Sh. K.N. Chetani, Sh. Mukesh Kumar and Sh. Babulal Aggarwal, were falsely shown elected as Vice President, Secretary and MC members of the Society. It is further alleged Sh. Hardev Singh was falsely shown as resigning on 15.03.1995 and 20 fake/non-existing persons were also shown enrolled as members of the society.
10. It is further stated that the society was asked to submit year wise details of resignations and enrollments and also to produce the records of the society for verification. On 02.11.1998, Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) appeared before the Dealing Assistant and produced the record of year wise resignations and enrollments for the period of 1993-1994 to 1997-1998, which included 86 resignations and 86 enrollments. Manoj Kumar Pansari CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 7 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-5) is said to have signed on the margin of note sheets dated 27.10.1998 and 02.11.1998.
11. Subsequently, a list of 105 members of the society was submitted to the office of RCS by Smt. Rukhmani Devi, President vide her affidavit dated 14.01.2003 for onward transmission to DDA for draw of lots. The said final list was signed by Smt. Rukhmani Devi as President, Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1) as Secretary and Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2) as Treasurer of the society.
12. Investigation has further disclosed that vide letter dated 15.01.2003, the society was asked to produce the documents for verification in connection with the approval of the said final list of members. In response to that notice, Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1), Secretary of the society appeared before the Dealing Assistant, Sh. M.P. Bajaj on 16.01.2003 and produced the original documents and records which included:
i. Individual affidavits, ii. copies of resignation letters, M.C. approval and proof of refunds, iii. copies of enrollments with applications of members, M.C. resolutions proof of share money, receipts along with proof of residence and CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 8 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 iv. Architect certificate to the effect 90% construction has been made.
13. On 17.01.2003, Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1) produced the bank statement in respect of the refund amounts. Dhurv Narain Aggarwal (A-1) is said to have signed on the margin of the notes dated 16.01.2003 and 17.01.2003. It is further stated that in the note dated 17.01.2003, Sh. M.P. Bajaj, Dealing Assistant noted that the certificates in respect of 10 per cent resignations had already been furnished by the Secretary which had been handed over to the Area Inspector for physical verification. It was further recorded that the Secretary of the society was asked to furnish documents in respect of last election and audit compliance and the Secretary was asked to come up on 20.01.2003. On 20.01.2003, Sh. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) Secretary of the society appeared before Sh. M.P. Bajaj, Dealing Assistant and furnished documents in respect of last election and audit of the society.
14. It is evident that Sh. M.P. Bajaj, Dealing Assistant, in his note dated 22.01.2003 recorded the following:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 9 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
a) Checking of original records of the society for the purpose of verification.
b) As per the affidavit filed by the President of the society the details of 192 resignations and 192 enrollments were recorded.
c) Society had furnished a copy of each resignation letter, M.C. approval and proof of refund in respect of the resigned member.
d) President had certified that refund to all resigned members has already been made;
e) Copy of each of the application forms, M.C. approval and proof of receipt of share money and individual affidavits of the members had been submitted by the society;
f) 10 percent of resignations had been physically verified by the Area Inspector.
15. It is alleged that J.S. Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) both UDCs of the office of RCS had submitted false verification reports in respect of 10 resignations each.
16. Vide note dated 22.01.2003, Sh. M.P. Bajaj, Dealing Assistant recommended that out of 105 members, the names of 103 members may be cleared and their names may be forwarded to DDA for draw of lots. The said note was approved by the then AR and finally by the then Registrar, RCS and thereafter, the said list of 103 members was forwarded to DDA vide letter dated 27.01.2003 for allotment of flats through draw of lots.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 10 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
17. During the investigation it was further revealed that the draw of lots in respect of 103 members was held on 23.02.2003. It is alleged that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has forged the signature of Smt. Rukmani Devi on the said result sheets in respect of the draw of lots as confirmed by the GEQD.
18. It is further alleged that accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwal(A-1) and Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) submitted documents in respect of 20 fake enrollments to the office of RCS. The fake enrollments of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, K.N. Chetani, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Babulal Aggarwal were shown in the meetings of the Managing Committee dated 20.03.1995 and 17.08.1996. Sh. Dr. V.K. Saini, Sh. Moti Jain, Sh. G.C. Jain and Sh. V.S. Sisodiya and Bhagwat Prasad were shown as President, Vice- President, Treasurer and the members respectively. But Sh. Ravi Kumar Gupta, who was the secretary of the society at that time had not signed the aforesaid proceedings and the proceedings are silent about his presence. The documents such as Minutes of the meeting, enrollments applications, share money receipts in respect of the aforesaid fake enrollments were submitted to the office of RCS by accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A1) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 11 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 for approval of the enrollments and resignations.
19. It is also alleged that in the minutes of the meeting dated 08.08.1997, 06.10.1997, 14.11.1997 and 24.12.1997, the Managing Committee of the society comprising of Ghyansham Goel (A-4) President, Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) Treasurer and 3 fake members namely Mukesh Kumar, Babu Lal Aggarwal and K.N. Chetani, approved the following fake enrollments:
a) Sunil Jain
b) Hanuman Singh
c) Mukesh Kumar
d) Ranvir Singh
e) K.K. Sharma
f) Sunita Devi
g) Saroj Taneja
h) S.P. Singh
i) Sandeep Dang
j) Vinod Kumar Kaul
k) Ganga Ram
l) Usha Gandhi
m) Rakesh Kumar Soni and
n) Vijay Kumar Soni.
20. It is further alleged that in the meeting dated 26.10.2000, the Managing committee of the society comprising Sh. Sushil Aggarwal, Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1), Indira Aggarwal (A-2), Sunita Devi and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5),approved the fake enrollment of two CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 12 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 non existent persons namely Brinder Singh and Om Prakash. It is alleged that the signature of Smt. Sunita Devi, who had already expired in the year 1998 and signature of Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2) could not be proved on these minutes. It is further alleged that Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal had not attended any such meeting nor to have signed any such proceedings. This shows that accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) have been responsible for this fake enrollment of these two non-existing persons.
21. It is also alleged that that accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A5) had also submitted the fake and forged documents to the office of RCS in respect of the fake resignations of the following persons:-
a. Hanuman Singh b. Sunil Jain c. Ganga Ram d. Saroj Taneja e. K.K. Sharma f. Usha Gandhi g. Sandeep Dang h. Ranvir Singh i. Om Prakash j. Rakesh Kumar Soni k. Anil Raj l. S.P. Singh m. V.K. Kaul n. K.M. Chetani CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 13 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 o. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal p. Mukesh Kumar q. B.L. Aggarwal r. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal.
22. It is further alleged that aforesaid fake resignations were accepted by the Managing Committee composed of Dhruv Narayan Aggarwal (A-1), Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2), Sushil Aggarwal and Sunita Devi in the minutes of the meeting purportedly held on 24.05.2000, 09.09.2000, 25.09.2000, 19.03.2001, 28.04.2001, 07.06.2001, 18.12.2001 and 23.01.2002. It is stated that Sunita Devi had already expired in the year 1998 and Sushil Aggarwal had not attended any such aforesaid meetings and had not signed any such proceedings.
23. It is further alleged that fake resignations of Sunita Devi and S.P. Aggarwal have been approved by the Managing Committee composed of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1), Rukhmani Devi, Indira Aggarwal(A-2) and S.K. Gupta, in the minutes of the meeting purportedly held on 06.05.2002. The fake resignation in the name of Vijay Kumar Soni has been shown as approved by the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 14 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Managing Committee composed of Rukhmani Devi, Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1), Indira Aggarwal(A-2) and S.K. Gupta in the minutes of the meeting purportedly shown to have been held on 08.10.2002.
24. It is the case of the prosecution that the opinion of GEQD clearly establishes the involvement of Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1) and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) with regard to acceptance of the aforesaid fake resignations. It was further established that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) also forged the signatures of Rukhmani Devi on the proceedings dated 06.05.2002 and 08.05.2002, which has been confirmed by the GEQD. It is stated that S.K. Gupta was a member of the society but he was never elected as member of the Managing Committee of the society and he never signed any such proceedings.
25. It is further alleged that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) never became member of the society but in the meetings dated 26.03.2002, he was shown as a President of the society and said to have signed the said meetings and also forged the signatures of Rukhmani Devi in the proceedings dated 26.03.2002.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 15 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
26. It is alleged that on 17.04.2002 and 22.04.2002 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) appeared before Sh. M.P. bajaj, Dealing Assistant, Office of RCS claiming to be the President of Society and furnished a false list of members of the Managing Committee for the period 1993 to 2000. Sh. K.M. Chetani, Sh. Babulal Aggarwal and Mukesh Kumar were falsely shown as members of the Managing Committee elected on 21.10.1996 and 08.02.1998 and Sh. S.K. Gupta and Late Smt. Sunita Devi was wrongly shown elected as members of the aforesaid managing committee.
27. It is further stated that vide letter dated 15.4.2002 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (SW), Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) submitted the Audit Report for the year 2000-2001 alongwith the list of resigned members and enrolled members. In the said list of resigned members, 10 persons who never became members of the society were falsely shown as resigned during the year 2000-2001.
28. It is the further case of the prosecution that the GEQD has also confirmed that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-
3) had signed the said list of resigned members. Vide letter dated 15.4.2002, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) had CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 16 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 also submitted the list of members of the Managing Committee from 1983 onwards and also the false minutes of the meeting dated 24.03.2002 and other election records in which S.K. Gupta was falsely shown elected as member of the managing committee, to the office of RCS. The said letter dated 15.04.2002 bears the signature of A3 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) as proved by the GEQD. He also enclosed the audit report signed by Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1), Secretary whose signature has been proved by the GEQD. The list of resigned members enclosed with the said letter dated 15.04.2002 contained the names of eight persons who never became members of the society.
29. It is further alleged that Dhurwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) had appeared in the RCS office with the original records on 16.01.2003, 17.01.2003, 20.01.2003 and 22.01.2003 and furnished the same as already described hereinabove to M.P. Bajaj, Dealing Assistant. The aforesaid documents were submitted in the RCS office under the purported signatures of Smt. Rukmani Devi Sharma which in fact were forged by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) as confirmed by GEQD. Thus, the fake and forged documents such as application forms, CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 17 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 resignation letters, refund vouchers and managing committee resolutions etc. were submitted to the RCS office and were used as genuine for approval of resignations, enrollments and final list. The GEQD has also confirmed that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) forged the signatures of Rukhmani Devi Sharma on the affidavit dated 14.01.2003, another affidavit dated nil, final list, Result sheets, list of resigned and enrolled members. He is also said to have forged the signatures of Smt. Rukhmani Devi Sharma while certifying the fake enrollment applications forms, resignation letters, fake refund vouchers, minutes of the meetings etc. which were also submitted to the RCS office which were used as genuine.
30. It is also the case of the prosecution that Dhurwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1), Secretary of the society, signed the minutes of the meeting dated 24.05.2000, 09.09.2000, 25.09.2000, 19.03.2001, 28.04.2001, 07.06.2001, 18.12.2001, 23.01.2002, 06.05.2002 and 08.10.2002 in which twenty one persons were falsely shown as resigned, out of the above, 2 proceedings were also shown to have been signed by Smt. Rukhmani Devi but as per the opinion of the handwriting expert, her signatures have been forged by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) in the above CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 18 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 proceedings.
31. It is further stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal was the promoter member of the society but he neither attended any meeting of the society at any point of time nor resigned from the membership. He has falsely been shown as resigned from the membership and negative opinion on his signatures on the resignation letter has been given by the GEQD.
32. It is the further case of prosecution that as confirmed by GEQD, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) forged the signature of Smt. Rukhmani Devi Sharma, while certifying the fake and forged records submitted in the RCS office for approval of 192 resignations and 192 enrollments and approval of final list forwarded to DDA for draw of lots. The GEQD has also confirmed that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) forged the signatures of 3 fake members namely Sh. Hanuman Singh, Smt. Santosh and Sh. Vinod Kumar Kaul in the Membership Register. Further, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged the signatures of the fake members namely Vijay Kumar Soni, Krishan Kumar Sharma, Sunil Jain, Hanuman Singh, Ganga Ram, Vinod Kumar Kaul in the resignation letters CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 19 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 as opined by the GEQD. He has also forged the signatures of the members on the bearer cheques issued from the account No. 849 in the name of the society while encasing the cheques as the refund in the name of certain fake members such as Hanuman Singh, Sunil Jain, Ganga Ram, Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal, Vinod Kumar Kaul, Smt. Rekha Goel, Smt. Pushpa, Dinesh Kumar Jain, Nirmal Kumar Guha, Vijay Kumar Soni and he also encashed the cheques as the refund by putting his signatures issued in the name of fake members such as Smt. Archana, Sh. Ravi Kumar, Smt. Santosh Sethi, Sanjeev Khurana, Smt. Sunita, Mahesh Kumar, M.P. Singh, Smt. Kamla Sharma, Anil Raj, Rakesh Kumar Soni, Sh. V. Gupta.
33. Investigation has further disclosed that Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) was also one of the account holders along with Mukesh Kumar fictitious person and A4 Ghanshyam Goel (A-4) in respect of account No. 849 maintained at Central Bank of India, Manglapuri Extension Counter where from above referred bearer cheques were issued as refund to the fake resigned members which were encashed by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), as proved by the GEQD.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 20 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
34. The GEQD has further confirmed that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) also forged the signatures of Smt. Rukhmani Devi on the letter dated 15.01.2003 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (SW) vide which the forged and fabricated documents were furnished to the RCS office for approval of resignations, enrollments and final list for draw of lots. He also forged the signatures of Smt. Rukhmani Devi on the affidavits submitted to the RCS office. He also signed the minutes of the Managing Committee purportedly held on 06.05.2002 as President in which Smt. Sunita Devi and Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal was falsely shown as resigned.
35. Dhurwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1) and Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2) had issued cheque No. 0688862 dated 11.11.2002 for Rs. 4.50 lacs and Cheque No. 068863 dated 13.11.2002 for Rs. 3.50 lacs in favour of fake member Sh. Vijay Kumar Soni from the account No. 1704015557 in the name of Shree Ganesh CGHS Ltd. at Global Trust Bank Ltd, Palam Branch, New Delhi, who was in fact, never a member of this society. He was falsely shown refunded through these cheques whereas in fact accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) had encashed these cheques, as confirmed by the GEQD.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 21 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
36. Investigation has further disclosed that Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2) was enrolled as a member based on her application dated 04.08.1997. She was shown elected as Treasurer in the forged proceedings dated 26.03.2002. The GEQD has confirmed that she signed the enclosures of the Audit Report, wherein 46 members were shown as resigned during the year 2000-01 and 32 members were shown as resigned during the year 2001-02, which included few dummy members namely Sh. S.P. Singh, Sh. V.K. Kaul, Sh. K.M. Chetani, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sh. Babu Lal Aggarwal, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and one fictitious member Mr. Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Kalu Ramji. The said audit report was submitted to the office of RCS duly signed by Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1), Vijay Kumar(A-3) and also by Indira Aggarwal(A-3) as established by the GEQD.
37. Investigation has further disclosed that the certificates in respect of verification of 10% resignations were handed over to the Area Inspectors namely J.S. Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7), who at that time were working as UDC's in the office of RCS, for conducting physical verification in respect of ten resignations each.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 22 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
38. It is alleged that J.S. Dagar(A-6) submitted a false verification report by putting the word "verified" on each confirmation letter in respect of fake resignations of eight members namely Sunita Devi, Sh. Sushil Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar Soni, Rakesh Kumar Soni, Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Krishan Kumar Sharma, Hanuman Singh, Sunil Jain and one Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Sh. Vishwanath Aggarwal (who was never a member of the society and had already expired in the year 1998). It is stated that Sh. Sushil Aggarwal had not resigned from the membership of society and the GEQD has given negative opinion in respect of his signatures on the purported resignation letter.
39. It is the case of the prosecution that Sh. Vijay Kumar Soni, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Soni, Manoj Kumar Soni, Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Sh. Hanuman Singh and Sh. Sunil Jain had never become the members of the society and their signatures on the purported resignation letters had been forged by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), as confirmed by the GEQD.
40. It is further alleged that Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) submitted false verification report of resignations by CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 23 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 putting the world "verified" in each confirmation letter in respect of seven fake members namely Usha Gandhi, Barinder Singh, Saroj Taneja, Sandeep Dang, Ranvir Singh, Om Prakash, Jai Bhagwan, Smt. Usha Gandhi, Smt. Saroj Taneja and Sh. Sandeep Dang, who never became a member of the society. Negative opinion has been given by the GEQD on the signature of Sh. Sandeep Dang on the resignation letter. The fake members namely Birender Singh, Ranvir Singh, Om Prakash and Jai Bhagwan have been found to be non-existent on the given addresses. It is further alleged that on the basis of a false verification report of 10% resignations furnished by J.S. Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), the 192 resignations and final list was approved by the RCS office.
41. It is basically the case of the prosecution that Smt. Rukhmani Devi did not sign the affidavits and other questioned documents as President, which were used in the RCS office for approval of resignations & enrollments and for approval of the final list of members and in fact her signatures were forged on such documents by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), as confirmed by the opinion of GEQD.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 24 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
42. It is alleged that all the above named accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy with an object to cheat the Govt. of NCT and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi/office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Delhi Development Authority and got the land alloted in the name of the Society at the reserved price (subsidized rate) fixed by the DDA for CGHS and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, 20 fake enrollments and 22 fake resignations were approved based on the fake and forged documents.
FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES
43. At the conclusion of the investigation, accused persons were chargesheeted for the offences u/s 120 B / 420/468/471 of IPC and section 13(2)/Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 on 19.12.2007. Here it is pertinent to mention that due to lack of evidence Smt. Rukmani Devi was placed in column no.12 by the IO and as such she was not chargesheeted.
44. Vide order dated 07.2.2008, Ld. Predecessor of this Court observed that "there is a prima-facie sufficient CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 25 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 material to take cognizance against all accused persons of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet", and accordingly, cognizance of the offences was taken and the accused persons were ordered to be summoned. Here I may mention that the order dated 7.2.2008, is silent about the cognizance being taken against said Smt. Rukmani Devi and it appears that the accused persons placed in column no.11 were summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
45. Subsequent order sheets would reveal that after the compliance of section 207 CrPC case was adjourned for argument on charge for 5.09.2008.
46. Records would indicate that when the case was at the stage of argument on charge, accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) moved two applications one u/s 197 CrPC and another u/s 19 of PC Act. Vide order dated 10.11.2009, the aforesaid applications were dismissed with cost of Rs 5000/- by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
47. It is further evident that another application u/s 173 (8) CrPC moved on behalf of the accused Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 26 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Aggarwal) (A-3) was filed on 4.12.2009, which also came to be dismissed on 30.7.2013.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED GHANSHYAM GOEL (A-4)
48. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present case, accused Ghanshyam Goel , accused no.1 expired and Proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 21.02.2012,of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court FRAMING OF CHARGES
49. Vide detailed order dated 03.08.2013, Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided the charges against the accused persons and on 13.8.2013, accused persons were charged as under:
1. Dhruwa Narain 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Aggarwal Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences under section 420/471 IPC
2. Indira Aggarwal 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 27 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
3. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences under section 420/468/471 IPC
4. Ghansham Goel (since expired)
5. Manoj Kumar Pansari 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences u/s 420/471 IPC.
6. Jagjeet Singh Dagar 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences u/s 13(1) (d) r/w u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
7. Rakesh Kumar 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sharma Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences u/s 13(1) (d) r/w u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 28 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
50. All the accused persons except accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Indira Aggarwal (A-2) pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed and claimed trial.
51. Accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Indira Aggarwal (A-2) pleaded guilty to the charges framed against them. Since, accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1) and Indira Aggarwal (A-2) pleaded guilty, therefore, vide order dated 13.8.2013, both these accused persons were convicted and sentenced by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
52. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 48 (Forty Eight) witnesses. For the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been categorized in different groups. Although, the detailed testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and their cross examinations, shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent para's, wherever necessary, however, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of these witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 29 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 come on the record.
The witnesses whose names have been shown in the final list forwarded to DDA for Draw of lots but they claimed that they were not the members of the society.
53. According to the prosecution, a final list of 105 members was submitted to the office of RCS on behalf of the Society for onward transmission to DDA for Draw of Lots. The said list was further reduced to 103 members and was sent to DDA by the office of RCS for Draw of Lots. It is the case of the prosecution that the said list was based upon forged and false documents and also fake enrollments and resignations. It is the further case of the prosecution that few persons shown as members, were never the members of the society, therefore, the question of their resignation did not arise. Out of those persons, some of them have appeared in the witness box and they have been examined as prosecution witnesses.
54. These witnesses have categorically stated that they never became the member of the society or the office bearer of the Managing Committee at any point of time. They denied having executed any affidavit or attending meetings of the society, receiving refund vouchers, resignation letters and confirmation of resignation letters CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 30 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 etc. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard are as under:
i. PW6 Hanuman Singh ii. PW8 Sunil Jain iii. PW9 Dr. Satya Pal Singh iv. PW10 Sandeep Dang v. PW11 Usha Bhatia vi. PW14 Saroj Taneja vii. PW20 Vijay Kumar viii. PW22 Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni ix. PW25 Krishan Mohan Chetani x. PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul xi. PW43 Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal xii. PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal.
55. PW6 Hanuman Singh, PW8 Sunil Jain, PW9 Dr. Dr. Satya Pal Singh, PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia and PW14 Saroj Taneja were not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
56. PW20 Vijay Kumar, PW22 Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni, PW25 Krishan Mohan Chetani, PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul and PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal have been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
57. PW43 Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal has been cross CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 31 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), but he was not cross examined by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
58. Even the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, as stated herein above, on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar (A-3) and accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-
5) was just a symbolic cross examination and only one or two questions were asked from the witnesses.
Promoter member of the society
59. PW39 Sh Virender Singh Sisodia is stated to be the president of the Shree Ganesh CGHS society at the time of its formation in the year 1983-84. He deposed that initially there were 53 members. He was the President of the society, Gyan Chand Treasurer and Y.K Saini was the secretary. He further deposed that certificate of registration of Shree Ganesh CGHS is ExPW39/A-1 and society was allotted registration no. 1402 (GH) on 23.1.1984. PW39 admitted his signatures as a President of the society on various documents such as Intensive inquiry proforma ExPW39/A-2, minutes of meeting dated 24.9.1983 ExPW39/A, Bye laws of the society Ex CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 32 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 PW39/A-4, affidavit dated 13.09.1983 ExPW39/A-5 membership register ExPW5/PX, resignation letter dated 05.03.1998 ExPW39/A-7 etc.
60. PW39 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused despite the opportunity.
The witnesses from the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS)
61. The office of RCS is the controlling and supervising Government authority over the Co-operative Group Housing Societies. It is a matter of fact that a file pertaining to each of such societies is maintained in the office of RCS from the stage of its formation and registration and all communications made with the society are placed in such a file by the office of RCS.
62. In the present case also, the allegations against the accused persons are that they submitted a false list of members which was based upon forged and fake resignations and enrollments. The file was processed in the office of RCS. Certain officials/officers during the relevant time who had actually processed the file pertaining to the present society were either posted as CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 33 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 dealing assistants, or Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and finally all proposals were approved by the Registrar, RCS.
63. The prosecution has examined the relevant officials/officers posted in the office of RCS during the relevant time who had dealt with the file pertaining to the present Society. These witnesses were examined to prove the proceedings, notings and certain communications between the office of the RCS and the society,as maintained in the office of RCS. In this regard, prosecution has examined following witnesses from the office of RCS:
i. PW1 Jitender Singh Sharma : He was posted in the office of RCS from January,2011 to April 2004 as AR (Audit) and Link AR of South and South West Zone.
During His duty was pertaining to Administration in Audit Branch, assignment work to the auditors and other staff of Audit Branch and as and when officer of South or South West Zone had been on leave , he used to look after the work of those zones as Link AR.
PW1 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
ii. PW 4 Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya : He was posted in the office of RCS from 1979 to 1985 as Sub Inspector and from 1997 to 2003 as UDC in different zones. His duties CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 34 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 as UDC were to deal with the files as assigned to him by the Senior officer. He proved various notings and note which came across his knowledge and dealt with by him during his course of duties and has proved the same.
PW4 was cross examined by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6). PW4 was not cross examined by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iii. PW19 M. P Bajaj: He was posted in the office of RCS wef 01.11.2000 to 21.7.2004 as UDC and during his tenure he remained posted in South West Zone and dealt with the file of Shree Ganesh CGHS Ltd. PW19 has deposed more or less on the lines of PW1 J.S Sharma and has proved notings pertaining to the present society maintained in the office of RCS. This witness was declared hostile on the point of identification of accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3).
PW19 was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons. He was re-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and thereafter cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and Rakesh Kumar Dagar ( A-6).
iv. PW24 Sh. Dushyant Kumar: He was posted in the office of RCS w.e.f 28.07.1998 and continued there till 19.9.2000 as Asstt. Registrar (S/W & East) and his duty was to get the files processed pertaining to Group Housing Co-operative Societies. He had AR, he had dealt with the file of Shree Ganesh CGHS.
PW24 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
v. PW35 Manoj Kumar : He was posted as Inspector-
S/W in the office of RCS w.e.f 2004 to 2007. He deposed that on 5.4.2006, he had produced certain files CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 35 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 mentioned in production cum receipt memo ExPW35/A to the CBI .
PW35 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
vi. PW36 Sh. Narender Singh Tanwar: He was posted in the office of RCS wef December 1995 to 08.11.2001 as statistical investigator. During the course of his tenure in the office of RCS, he had dealt with the file of Shree Ganesh CGHS.
PW36 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
vii. PW40 Sh. Bhupender Singh : He was posted in the office of RCS as Assistant Registrar (S/W) w.e.f May,2006 to September,2007 and as Assistant Registrar his duty was to deal with the matters pertaining to CGHS etc. He deposed that he is aware of the procedure/rules laid down in DCS Act, 1972 and DCS Rules, 1973; after going through the file of Shree Gansesh CGHS he stated that 12 new members were enrolled after 08.1.2003 in violation of 24(2) DCS Rules,1973.
PW40 was cross examined by accused J.S Dagar (A-6) but not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons.
viii. PW44 Rakesh Bhatnagar: He was posted in the office of RCS, Parliament Street as Joint Registrar w.e.f May 2002 to December,2003 and as JR was looking after about 11 charges from different branches. He had also dealt with the files of Shree Ganesh CGHS during the tenure of South West Zone.
PW44 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and J.S Dagar (A-6). PW44 was CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 36 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
Witnesses from the Banks
64. During the investigation, it was revealed that the society was maintaining the bank accounts with two banks namely Oriental Bank of Commerce and Central Bank of India. According to the prosecution, certain accounts were opened by some of the accused persons without any authority and on the basis of forged and false documents. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) had appeared before the Bank Officials at the time of opening of the Bank Account and subsequently also. Further, the cheques allegedly issued by the society either for refund towards the fake resignations of the members or otherwise were pertaining to the aforesaid accounts maintained either with Oriental Bank of Commerce or Central Bank of India.
65. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has examined officials/officers from the aforesaid banks which are as under:
i. PW17 Sh. Amarjeet Singh : He was posted as Sr. CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 37 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dabri Road , Palam Branch in the year 2006. He deposed that vide Letter dated 21.11.2006 ExPW17/A original account opening form of M/S Shree Ganesh CGHS along with relevant documents were handed over to CBI. He further deposed that as per account opening form, account holders of A/C No.1704015557 are accused Vijay Kumar (A-3), accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwal ( A-1) and Indira Aggarwal (A-2).
PW17 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
ii. PW18 Sh. Kundan Singh Kumpawat : He deposed that he was posted in Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri Ext, Counter Base Branch Janak Puri w.e.f 14.5.2007 to 31.5.2009, as incharge of the Extension Counter. He deposed that Account opening form pertaining to A/C NO. 849 ExPW18/A was opened by accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar(A-5) on 04.03.1997 without any introduction in the branch.
PW18 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iii. PW23 Sh Gulshan Rai Piplani : He was posted as Assistant Manager in Central Band of India, Mangla Puri Branch w.e.f 14.09.1993 to 6.9.1999; He deposed that extension counter at Mangla Puri Branch was opened by him and he was authorised to open the accounts in the name of individuals, firms, companies and cooperative societies. He identified the photographs of accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and accused Manoj Kumar (A-5) on the account opening form pertaining to saving bank A/C No. 849 ExPW18/A. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj Kumar (A-5) in the court . He has deposed about other relevant documents pertaining to the accounts i.e A/C no. 849, A/c No. 1172 and A/c No.1006, opened on CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 38 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 behalf of the society by the accused persons.
PW23 was cross examined by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) at length. PW23 was not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iv. PW34 Om Singh Hooda: He was working as Head Cashier in the Mangla Puri Branch of Central Bank of India in the year 2007. During his deposition before the court, various vouchers/cheques/ documents were put to this witness to which he admitted having signed by him.
PW34 was cross examined by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarawl(A-3) but not by the other accused persons despite the opportunity.
v. PW41 Sh.A.K Grover: He was posted as Manager in Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri Extn w.e.f December 2005 to May 2007. He deposed that vide letter dated 25.11.2006 ExPW41/A, documents pertaining to Shree Ganesh were handed over to CBI. PW41 was cross examined by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) but not on behalf of the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
The witnesses who became the members of the society later on .
66. There are certain persons who claim that they become the member of the society not at the time of its formation but subsequently on various dates. These persons were examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
i. PW2 Surender Kumar Gupta: He deposed that he became the member of the Society in the year 2001 through accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1). He CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 39 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 never remained officer bearer of the society at any point of time. He has also denied of having attended any of the meetings pertaining to the society.
PW2 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3).PW2 was not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
ii. PW5 Hardev Sharm: He deposed that he became a member of the Society in the year 1993-1994 and had paid Rs 1000/- for becoming the member.
PW5 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal ( A-3). but was not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iii. PW7 Sh. Sushil Kumar : He deposed that he became a member of the Society through Sh. Vishwanath Agarwal. He further deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society. This witness turned hostile on the point of identification of signatures of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) appearing on the cheques. He was cross examined by Ld. Sr PP for CBI.
PW7 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iv. PW31 Sh. Binay Prasad: He became a member of Shree Ganesh CGHS in the month of April, 2001 through accused Dhruv Narain Aggarwl(A-1) and was allotted flat no.C 503, sector 7 Shri Ganesh Apartment, Dwarka.
PW31 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
v. PW32 Sh. Niranjan Singh: He deposed that he became the member of the society in the year 1997.
PW32 was not cross examined by accused persons despite the opportunity.
Witnesses to the proceedings of taking over of specimen signatures during the investigation.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 40 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
67. Since, the main allegation of the prosecution is that the final list of 105 members which was submitted on behalf of the society to the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA for Draw of Lots was based upon forged and fake resignations and enrollments, therefore, during the investigation specimen signatures/writings of certain person including some of the accused persons were taken by the IO and the same appears to have been sent GEQD for examination. Some of the person were made witnesses to aforesaid proceedings of taking over specimen signatures/writings and they have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
i. PW26 R.S Malik: During the year 2005-2006, he was posted as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and was attached with the CBI, pursuant to the order of competent authority. He is a witness to the proceedings of taking over of specimen writings/signatures of accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1) S-355 to S359 ExPW26/A, of Smt. Rukmani Devi S-387 to S-391 ExPW26/B, of Hardev Sharma S-430 to S-435 ExPW5/E, of Vinod Kumar Kaul S-436 to S-440 ExPW26/C, of Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni S 441-445 ExPW22/F, of Satya Pal Singh S-446 to S452 ExPW9/D, of Mahipal Jain from S-470 to S474 ExPW26/D, of Om PrakashSharma as S-475 to S 479 ExPW26/E and of Ashok Jain S-480 to S-484 ExPW26/F. PW26 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
ii. PW27 SH. M.K Verma: In the year 2007, he was working as LDC in Department of Education, South CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 41 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Zone, MCD. He is a witness to the proceedings of taking over of the specimen writings/signatures of Dhruv Narain Aggarwal S-360 to S-386 ExPW27/A, of Mukesh Aggarwal S-505 to S515 ExPW27/B, of Manoj Aggarwal of S516 to S-526 of ExPW27/C and of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) S-140 to S-233 ExPW27/D. PW27 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but he was not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iii. PW29 A.Karthikeyan : During the year 2007, he was posted in the horticulture department. He is also the witness to the proceedings of taking over of the specimen signatures of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) S- 1 to S-139 ExPW29/A. PW27 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iv. PW30 Deepak Singh: He is another witness in whose presence specimen writings/signatures of Shambhu Dayal Sharma S-401 to S-500 ExPW30/A, of Sushil Kumar Aggarwal S-423 to S-429 ExPW30/B, of Hanuman Singh S-453 to S-456 ExPW6/E, of Sunil Jain S-457 to S-460 ExPW8/E, Specimen writings/ signatures of Kishan Kumar Sharma S-461 to S-465 19.1.2007 ExPW30/C, of Wing Commodore Sandeep Dang S-466 to S-469 ExPW10/E, were taken.
PW30 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity being given.
v. PW48 Sh Ram Avtar Yadav : He is the IO of the present case and carried out the investigation.
PW48 was cross examined by the accused person.
Witness from the DDA.
68. The role of DDA with regard to the co-operative CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 42 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 group housing society comes into picture when a request is made by the society through office of RCS for allotment of land. Once the land is allotted the last action on the part of the DDA is generally get executed Draw of Lots in the presence of their officers. For this purpose, at the first instance, the society would send a list of freezed members to the office of RCS with the request to onward transmission of the same to the DDA for allotment of land and subsequently another list is sent for Draw of Lots. As stated earlier, a file is maintained by the office of RCS pertaining to the society, in a similar way a file is maintained pertaining to each of such societies separately by DDA also and all proceedings and communications pertaining to the society are placed in that file. The officer who dealt with the file of present society during relevant time in the office of DDA, has been examined as prosecution witness as PW33.
69. PW33 Virender Singh Verma was posted as Assistant in the Group Housing Section of DDA and his duty was to deal with the cases pertaining to CGHS. He deposed that during his tenure he dealt with the file of DDA pertaining to the present society ExPW33/PX. He has identified all the notings and proceedings/ CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 43 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 communications, which have been either written by him or by other officials, whom he had seen writing and signing. PW33 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
Sanctioning authority.
70. In the present case, two public servants namely Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-
7) were also made accused persons. During the relevant time, both were working in the office of RCS. At the conclusion of the investigation they have also been chargesheeted. Since they were the public servants, during the investigation requisite sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained by the IO and the same was filed on record. The authorities which had accorded the sanction to prosecute the above named persons, have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
i. PW42 Sh. Vijay Dev: He was posted in the Government of NCT of Delhi as Food & Supply Commissioner during the period from 2007 to 2009. He accorded the sanction order dated 17.12.2007 ExPW42/A in respect of accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6), the then UDC posted in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi.
PW42 was cross examined by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) but not by the rest of the accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 44 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 persons.
ii. PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur: He was posted to the Government of NCT of Delhi as Dy. Director General during the period from 2007 to 2008. He granted sanction for prosecution of accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) vide sanction order dated 20.12.2007 ExPW46/A .
PW46 was cross examined by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma but not by the rest of the accused persons.
Expert Evidence
71. During the investigation certain specimen writings/signatures were sent to GEQD for examination by the CBI to establish the case of forgery and the role of accused persons who committed the forgery. The questioned documents alongwith the specimen writings and signatures were examined by an expert, who was examined as prosecution witness as PW47.
72. PW47 P. Venugopal was posted as Scientist B in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Hyderabad. He deposed that the questioned documents along with the specimen writings and signatures were received in their office on 14.04.2007 from Additional Superintendent of Police CBI, which were marked to him for examination and opinion. e compared the questioned documents with the specimen CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 45 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 hand writings and also compared the questioned writings in the form of photostat copies with the specimen writings and admitted writings and after careful examination of specimen writings, admitted writing and questioned writings, he arrived at the opinion no. CH-177/2-7 dated 19.07.2007(D-127) ExPW47/C. PW47 was cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
Formal witnesses
73. Apart from above prosecution witnesses, prosecution has also examined following witnesses, who are formal in nature:-
i. PW3 Bhagwan Singh : He was working as a postman at Rohini Post Office during the year 2006 and 2007 and was looking after the area of Sector 3, Rohini. He deposed that in Sector 3 Block B, there are blocks from B-5 to B-10 and no block by B-14 is situated at Rohini.
PW3 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons .
ii. PW12 Naresh Kapoor: He deposed that he was residing in H. No C 4 H/160 A, Janak Puri since 1973 and in the year 1991 purchased it from Vinod Kumar Goel.
PW12 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons.
iii. PW13 Sh. Jai Pal Singh: He deposed that he was posted as Postman in Rajouri Garden post office since 1981 and was looking after the area of Rajouri Garden CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 46 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Beat NO.9. He deposed that there is no address as J- 16/90 in the Rajouri Garden Area.
PW13 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity.
iv. PW15 Ms. Anuradha Wadhwa : She deposed that she was posted as Sr. Manager (Employee Relations) in Indian Oil Corporation, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi and Sh. Anil Raj was posted as Sr. Manager in Indian Oil Corporation. She further deposed that Dr. Usha Raj was also an employee of Indian Oil Corporation.
PW15 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons.
v. PW16 Anju Thareja: She deposed that she had purchased Flat No. C-801, Shree Ganesh Society in the year October 2005 in the names of herself and her daughter, from Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2, already stands convicted).
PW16 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
vi. PW21 Dr. Surender Kumar Garg: He was the director in M/S Vatika Constructions Pvt Ltd. He deposed that they did construction work for a number of cooperative societies including Shree Ganesh CGHS. His company appears to have carried out constructions of flats on the land allotted by DDA to the present society.
PW21 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
vii. PW28 Sh. Chander Bhan: He is advocate by profession and worked as Notary Public w.e.f 20.4.1992 to 20.4.2006. He has denied his signatures and seal affixed on various documents i.e Affidavits of purported members, submitted to the office of RCS on behalf of the society.
PW28 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not on behalf of the rest of the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 47 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 viii. PW37 Sh. Om Prakash Kalonia: He was posted as postman in Tilak Nagar Post Office during the relevant time. He deposed that no such address as WZ-57, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi exists in the jurisdiction of Tilak Nagar area so question of residing of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Ram Singh at the aforesaid address does not arise.
PW37 was cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not by the rest of the accused persons.
74. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr PC
75. Statements of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC were recorded on different dates, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Records would indicate that all the accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence ut no evidence was led on behalf of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7). However, accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) appeared in the witness box and has examined himself as DW1. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has examined Sanjay Kumar in his defence as DW2.
76. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the course of final arguments, it was revealed that although the statement of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 48 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 has already been recorded by the Ld predecessor of this court but the record would indicate that certain questions i.e. from question No. 70 to Question No. 89, as put to the accused, were not answered. Therefore, in the interest of justice the above questions were again put to the accused on 3-6-2023, by this court and answers given by the accused were taken on record.
77. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, the answers given by him were either " I do not know" or " It is a matter of record", except answers given differently to a few questions. Out of the questions whose answers were given differently by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, some were answered as: "I do not remember, I was part of the society for a very limited period of time on asking of Sh. Dhruv Narayan Aggarwal who was my employer." To the questions regarding the opening of account, he replied "In regard to the opening of account is correct however I don't know about the closing of account as I already resigned from the society". In respect of the questions based on the testimony of PW19 Sh. M.P. Bajaj regarding his appearance before him and submitting of the record , he replied: "I handed over the records which were kept and maintained by the society by the previous managing committee". "I handed over the records which was kept and maintained by the society by the previous managing CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 49 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 committee." "My association with the society was for a very limited period. Sh Dhruv Narayan Aggarwal was managing the affairs of the society during the time I was associated with the society. Dhruv Narayan Aggarwal was my employer and I have accompanied him a few times but I don't know exactly how many times." "As submitted above I have appeared before Sh. M.P Bajaj. In regard to Rukmini Devi, I do not remember now whether we both appeared together in front of Sh. M.P Bajaj." Regarding the questions that he has forged the signatures of Smt Rukmani Devi on various documents and there is report of GQED/Expert to that effect, he replied: "Report is faulty and not scientifically prepared. The report had been prepared at behest and tutored by CBI. I have not forged any signatures and I am an author of only those signatures which are signed by me as myself."
78. When the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) was asked why this case is against him (Q.490), he replied that " It's a false case.". In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything ( Q.493), he replied:
" It is a false case against him. CBI had earlier recorded my statement and in fact during early investigation had told me that I have to depose against Dhruv Narain Aggarwal as he misused his dominant position and used my name. I was never controlling the affairs of the society and was associated with the society for a very limited period on asking of Dhruv Narain Aggarwal as he was my employer. I resigned much before the allotment of land to the society. I have not forged any document or signatures. I am innocent and I pray to this CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 50 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Hon'ble Court to kindly acquit me."
79. Similarly, the answers given by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to him were either "I do not know" or " It is a matter of record", except for the answers given differently to a few questions. Regarding opening of account by him he replied "It is incorrect. I never went at the bank or any other place whatsoever for any said purpose." "I never appeared or visited the above said branch of Central Bank of India to sign or for any purpose whatsoever. The account was not opened by me". "I have never opened any bank account and never signed any cheque." Regarding his appearance in the office of the RCS and submitting of records as the Treasurer of the society , he replied : "I am Manoj Kumar Pansari s/o Sh Shiv Prasad Pansari. I was never a member and office bearer of Shree Ganesh CGHS Society. I have never visited RCS office for any purpose". "I have been falsely implicated in this case. I am Manoj Kumar Pansari s/o Shiv Parsad Pansari and not accused Manoj Aggarwal (A-5) and was residing at PP-33, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura at that time. Presently residing at 29. Fourth Floor, Kapil Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi -34".
80. In reply to the question why this case is made against him ( Q.490), accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-
5) replied that:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 51 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 " Because during the year 1993-1995, I and Vishwanath Aggarwal (brother and brother-in-law) of accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal(A-1) and Ghanshyam Goel(A-4) were working together and involved in a share trading business with an investment of Rs 5,00,000/- each. We were having good family relations as well. We attended wedding ceremony of each other. We used to visit each other place on regular basis. That during the course of business Vishwanath Aggarwal had access to my personal documents including photographs. Thereafter, a dispute arose between us and we broke. The account of Shree Ganesh CGHS society on which my photograph affixed was opened on the request of Vishwanath Aggarwal " as a Introducer" as per statement of PW23 Sh. Gulshan Rai Piplani. Sh. Vishwanath Aggarwal is also an accused in many cases related to CGHS Society and the said cases are pending before this Hon'ble;e Court or in other CBI Courts as well. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) is also working with Sh. Vishwanath Aggarwal. In the above said facts and circumstances it highly probable that Vihswanath Aggarwal with the help of his brother (A-1) and brother-in-law (A-4) misused my photographs and falsely implicated me in this case.
81. Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) opted to lead evidence in his defence and has examined himself as DW1. In reply to the question whether he wants to say CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 52 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 anything ( Q.493), he replied " Neither I am member of Shree Ganesh CGHS Society nor I am allottee. That I am Manoj Kumar Pansari, S/o Sh. Shiv Prasad Pansari not the Manoj Aggarwal(A-5) who is added as an accused. I had never visited the above said society nor any connection with the managing committee of the said society. That A-1 and A-4 were brother and brother-in-law of Vishwanath Aggarwal and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) were working with Vishwanath Aggarwal."
82. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6), his answers were either " I do not know" , "It is a matter of record " or "notings are matter of record", except for the answers given differently to few questions.
83. In reply to the question why this case was made against him (Q.490), accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) replied that "This is false and baseless case against me". Although, accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) opted to lead evidence in his defence but no witness was examined by him. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything ( Q.493), he replied that "I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. I pray to this Hon'ble Court to kindly acquit me in the interest of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 53 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 justice."
84. Similarly, the answers given by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to him were either "I do not know" or " It is a matter of record" or " I have no personal knowledge", except for the answers given differently to few questions.
85. In reply to the question why this case was made against him (Q.490), accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) replied that "This is false and baseless case against me". Although, accused opted to lead evidence in his defence but no witness was examined by him. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything (Q.493), he replied that "I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I am innocent and I pray to this Hon'ble Court that I may be acquitted in the interest of justice."
DEFENCE EVIDENCE LED BY ACCUSED PERSONS By Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3)
86. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) opted to lead evidence in his defence and has examined DW2 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 54 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, son of Rukmani Devi (deceased). According to the prosecution, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged the signature of Rukmani Devi on various documents and proceedings, including minutes of meetings of the Shree Ganesh CGHS society. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) examined the son of Rukmani Devi (now expired) to show that those proceedings and documents were actually signed by Rukmani Devi and not by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3). The said proceedings and documents were referred to in the deposition of DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma.
87. DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma was cross-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI. During his cross-examination, DW2 admitted that his mother was working as a mehandi applier and was allotted a flat in Shree Ganesh CGHS, but stated that he was not aware of how his mother made payment for the allotment of the flat. During his cross- examination, an affidavit dated 4.1.2003 (ExDW2/DA) was shown to him, and he identified the signature of his mother at points A and B thereon. In short, DW 2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma identified his mother Rukmani Devi's signature on all the proceedings and documents, whether shown by the prosecution or the defence, saying that these CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 55 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 were his mother's signatures. During his cross- examination a question was put to him by the Ld. PP for CBI as to when he came to know that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) worked with Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1), to which he replied that he has known this fact since a year or two after his mother was allotted a flat. He further replied that he knew Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) prior to the day when he deposed before this court as a Defence witness.
By Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5):
88. As stated herein above, accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) also opted to lead defence evidence. He appeared in the witness box and has examined himself as DW1. He tried to prove that he is not 'Manoj Kumar' as claimed by the prosecution and since the day of his birth he is known as "Manoj Kumar Pansari". In support of his deposition, he has placed on record photocopies of various documents such as his school progress report ExDW1/1, Progress report of Govt School 1980-1991 ExDW1/2, Higher secondary examination issued by Govt of Rajasthan DW1/3 school certificate issued by secondary board, Rajasthan DW1/4, receipt issued by Kalyan CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 56 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 College, Sikar ExDW1/5, Graduation Degree ExDW1/6, Pan Card ExDW1/7, Passport ExDW1/8, Aadhar Card ExDW1/9, Voter ID Card ExDW1/10. He further stated that he never became a member of the Society, did not submit any documents to the said society and was not allotted any flat in the society.
89. DW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI. During his cross-examination, the account opening form ExPW18/A and specimen signature cards ExPW7/H containing his photographs were shown to DW1, to which DW1 replied that the photographs are not his photographs and are of some person who looks similar to him, and the signatures on signature cards do not belong to him.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CBI
90. Ld. PP for CBI has made the following submissions:
i. She submitted that accused persons submitted a list of 105 members to the RCS office for onward transmission to DDA for draw of lots vide letter dated 14.1.2003, purportedly signed by Smt Rukmani Devi in the capacity of President of Shree Ganesh CGHS Ltd.
Society but the signatures of Smt. Rukmani Devi was CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 57 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3).
ii. She further submitted that in the list of 103 members submitted to the DDA by RCS two members including PW5 Hardev Sharma were falsely shown as resigned.
iii. She pointed out that in the present case, fake enrollments and resignations which were based on the forged documents submitted by the Accused persons. She further submitted that accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and Accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) submitted false verification reports in respect of certain resignations handed over to them for physical verification.
iv. She submitted that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with an object to cheat the RCS office and DDA and pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly got the land alloted the land for the society from the DDA at the subsidized rates.
v. Ld. PP for CBI further submitted that accused no.3 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was never a member of the society but he has been shown as the President of the society and he had forged the signatures of Smt Rukmani Devi on various documents and proceedings vi. By referring to various minutes of meetings of the society, which have been proved by the witnesses during their depositions, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi on these documents and this fact is corroborated by the Expert Opinion ExPW47/C. vii. She further submitted that as far as accused no.5 Manoj Kumar Pansari is concerned, he was identified by the prosecution witnesses. Accused Manoj Kumar (A-5) in CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 58 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the capacity of treasurer of the society appeared before Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya, dealing assistant in the RCS office along with original records and on the noting dated 27.10.1998, ExPW24/X, Accused no.5 has put his signature at point C in the margin of the note sheet as a token of his attending the office.
viii. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that another list of members enrolled during the year 1993,1994, 1995, 1996-1998 was furnished by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) before PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya. That list included 86 enrollments and 86 resignations. In the said list, Hardev Sharma was falsely shown as resigned, and 28 fake persons were falsely shown as enrolled, some of which were fake and some were not in existence.
ix. Ld PP for CBI pointed out that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) in the capacity of Treasurer, opened a bank account in the name of Shri Ganesh CGHS in the Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri, Delhi. She has taken me to the examination in chief of PW7 Sh. Sushil Kumr Aggarwal and submitted that PW7 has identified Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) as he is known to him for the last 15-20 years. PW7 has also identified the photograph of A-5 on the specimen signature card (D-
39) pertaining to Account No.849 of Central Bank of India.
x. By referring testimonies of PW18 Kundan Singh Kumpawat,PW23 Sh. Gulshan Rai Piplani who were working in the Central Bank of India during the relevant time, she submitted that account no.849 was opened in the Central Bank of India by Ghansham Goel(A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) on 4.3.1997 and PW23 has also identified accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5).
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 59 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 xi. Regarding the testimony of defence witness, She submitted that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) has examined himself in his defence and has produced his Aadhar Card, Pan Card, I Card in order to show that he is known as Manoj Kumar Pansari only. She further submitted that these documents were not asked or submitted at the time of opening of bank account of Shri Ganesh CGHS, as in the year 1997 there was no requirement of any identity proof to open the account.
xii. She further pointed out that PW24 Sh Dushyant Kumar has deposed that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) visited the office of RCS and had signed the margin of the note sheet dated 27.10.1998 at point C. This all shows the active involvement of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) in the present case and the fact that he had opened a bank account of the society with the Central Bank of India.
xiii. Ld. PP for CBI has also taken me to the testimony of PW48 Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav, IO of the present case and submitted that during his cross examination, IO has stated that in the application for membership form was applied in the name of Manoj Aggarwal and signed in the name of Manoj Kumar ExPW47/A-7, the father's name has been written as S.P Aggarwal which is the name of father of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) and the nominee's name has been written as Saroj Aggarwal who is the wife of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). Further, date of birth is written as 01.06.1967 which is the date of birth of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari and the address mentioned as 3222 Charan Das Street, Hauz Khazi, Delhi 06 which is the address of the sister of accused Manoj Kumar Pansai. This all shows that the plea taken by the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) that he has been wrongly implicated by the CBI, is of no help to him.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 60 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 xiv. She submitted that similarly the testimony of DW2 Sh Sanjay Kumar Sharma who is son of Rukhmani Devi, is also not reliable for the simple reason that he identified the signature of Rukhmani Devi on almost all the documents, be it genuine signatures of Rukhmani Devi, forged signatures or the specimen signatures given to the CBI. She has drawn my attention towards the fact that DW2 has failed to answer as to in what capacity his mother Rukhmani Devi had signed the documents i.e around 497 documents even though he had identified her signatures on these documents. She has also drawn my attention towards a reply given by DW2 to a court question wherein DW2 admitted that he knew accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) prior to his deposition in the present case and submitted that it shows that the DW2 is an interested witness and has deliberately identified the signatures of his mother.
xv. Lastly, she submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the accused persons qua the charges framed against them and they are liable to be convicted.
xvi. Ld. PP for the CBI has placed reliance upon following judgments:
(a) Hema Vs State of Madras , Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2013, Date of Decision 07-01-2013
(b) Murari Lal vs State of MP, 1980 AIR 531 SC
(c) State of Police Inspector Vs. Sri T. Venkatesh Murthy, Criminal Appeal No.997 of 2004, Date of Decision 10- 04-2004.
(d) State of Bihar Vs Rajmangal Ram, Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2014, Date of Decision 31-03- 2014.
(e) L. Narayana Swami Vs State of Karnataka, Crl Appeal No. 721 of 2016, date of decision 06.09.2006.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 61 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
(f) Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State Criminal Appeal 19/2007, date of decision 27-08-2009 Submissions made on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
91. Ld. Counsel for the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has made following submissions:
i. First argument of Ld. Counsel for accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) is that the order of Hon'ble High Court was with regard to the societies who were defunct but in the present case, situation is entirely different. The present society was very much in existence and there was no order of liquidation, therefore, the CBI had no jurisdiction to register an FIR and investigate the present case.
ii. By referring to the provision of Section 120 B IPC, Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that to bring a person under the ambit of said provision of law, there has to be an illegal procedure or illegal object for doing certain acts. In the present case, it has not been explained as to what was the object to be achieved by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). As far as procedure is concerned, there are only two witnesses, one is the IO and the second is a handwriting expert. He further submitted that even the period of conspiracy has not been defined by the prosecution.
iii. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that as per the charges framed, the accused has been directed to face the trial for offences u/s 120B r/w Section 420,468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of PC. Act 1988 but Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 62 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal(A-3), being a private person, cannot be directed to face the charges for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and these sections cannot even be added with section 120B.
iv. By referring to the provision of Section 420 IPC, he submitted that there has to be some inducement and delivery of property which is missing in the present case. It has not been explained as to who has been induced and what property has been delivered for the purpose of u/s 420 IPC. There has to be correspondence loss and correspondence gains. In the present case, it has not been shown who is at loss and who has gained? At the most, there are three entities which are involved, one is the office of the RCS another is DDA and the last one is an actual member but it has not been shown that any of the above entities were cheated by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-5). He further submitted that it is a settled law that membership per se is not a property.
v. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is no relation between the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) and the witnesses as examined. None of the witnesses knows him and there is no relation between them. Non monetary benefit has been gained by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). By referring to the testimony of PW47 Handwriting Expert, he tried to establish that there is material contradiction in the reasoning given by the Expert Ex. PW48/X and Ex.47/F. He submitted that during the cross- examination of PW47, it has come on the record that there is a difference of certain words as mentioned in the aforesaid two reasonings though the reasonings should should have been the exactly same and there should not have been any CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 63 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 differences, or variation. He submitted that this shows how actually this reasoning has been given. He has also taken me to the cross-examination of PW47 and submitted that PW47 did not possess any expert education to claim himself to be an expert.
vi. Ld Defence Counsel, by referring to the last para of the examination-in-chief of PW47, submitted that PW47 stated that one copy of the reasoning was given by him to the IO and one was filed at the time of his examination. Both the reasons should have been similar and identical and there should not have been any difference, as pointed out by him during the cross-examination of PW47.
vii. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the only evidence available against the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), as set up by the prosecution is the testimony of PW47 P.Venugopal, who is an expert and the testimony of PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav, who is the IO of the present case but even their testimonies are not sufficient to convict the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal for the offences charged, therefore, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) is also entitled to be acquitted.
Submissions made on behalf of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5)
92. Ld. Counsel for the Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) has made following submissions:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 64 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 i. Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that Manoj Kumar Pansari, who is facing trial in the present case, and accused Manoj Kumar are two different persons, and when the CBI was unable to trace out actual Manoj Kumar, they falsely implicated Manoj Kumar Pansari in the present case.
ii. He has drawn my attention towards ExPW47/A-7 and submitted that the particulars of the Manoj Aggarwal, as shown at Membership No. 126 do not match with the actual particulars of Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) except date, and no proof of his identity has been filed on record by the prosecution to show that Manoj Kumar Pansari is the same person as shown at Membership No.
126. Further,in the present case, names of accused Manoj Aggarwal or Manoj Kumar have been found mentioned everywhere, and not Manoj Kumar Pansari.
iii. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) during defence evidence had filed on record his identification proof documents to show that he is in fact Manoj Kumar Pansari and not Manoj Aggarwal or Manoj Kumar, as the prosecution is claiming.
iv. He submitted that Manoj Kumar Pansari has been known to Vishwanath Aggarwal, brother of Accused No. 1, Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal, for a very long time. Manoj Kumar Pansari was in the business of share trading, in which A1 Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal and A3 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal were also involved, and therefore, A-1 and A-3 had access and possession of personal information and documents of A-5, and they misused the documents of A-5. Ld. Defence counsel pointed out that A-1 Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal already CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 65 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 pleaded guilty and stands convicted, and his admission of guilt shows that he was the main culprit.
v. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) is alleged to have become a member on 5.8.1996 and resigned on 06.4.2002, and the freezed list used for allotment of flats was used for allotment of land on 10.12.1990, and RCS issued a letter to submit a list of members to seek allotment of flats on 19.3.1993, which is much prior to the period when Manoj Kumar Pansari was allegedly shown to have become a member of the society.
vi. He has drawn my attention to the fact that the handwriting specimen of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) have not been taken by the IO and no GEQD opinion was sought on the signatures of A-5 for the reasons best known to the IO.
vii. Ld. Defence counsel has further drawn my attention towards the membership No. 174 of the members of the society and submitted that Manoj Aggarwal s/o B.P Aggarwal (ExPW4/A-15) is brother-in-law of Vishwanath Aggarwal. This Manoj Aggarwal ( Manoj Kumar mentioned in the application form) was shown as a member of the society at serial no.174 but he was not examined by the prosecution although his statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded. He further submitted that the IO took the specimen signatures of Manoj Aggarwal but did not send them for GEQD opinion again for the reasons best known to him only.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 66 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 viii. It was argued that in the present case accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1), Vishwanath Aggarwal, Rukmani Devi, Babu Lal Aggarwal(PW45), Kishan Mohan Chetani ( Pw25), Surender Kumar Gupta (PW2) and Sushil Kumar Aggarwal (PW7) are related to each other in one way or another. Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) has nothing to do with the present case and he has been falsely implicated to save the real culprit namely Manoj Kumar who was the brother of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal ( PW43).
ix. Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Pansari has placed reliance on following judgments:
(a) N. Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , CBI. Manu/SC/1242/2021
(b) Aman Singh Vs State of Haryana,Manu/PH/1563/2008, Punjab & Haryana High Court
(c) Jeet Singh vs The State of Punjab , Manu/PH/0839/1995, Punjay & Haryana High Court.
(d) Binod Kumar vs State, Manu DE/3062/2018, Delhi High Court.
Submissions made on behalf of Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7)
93. Ld. Counsel for accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) has made the following submissions:
i. He submitted that the present case is not a case of revival of the defunct society as there is no liquidation CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 67 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 order passed and the society is still running.
ii. He further submitted that the allegation against both the accused person is that they conspired with other persons and thereby caused loss to the DDA during the process of allotment of land which is entirely wrong allegation because the land allotment in the present case took place much earlier before these accused person were posted in the office of RCS.
iii. He further submitted that in the present case, a letter of allotment was issued to the society by DDA on 02.06.1998 and after the society cleared all the payments, possession of land was handed over to the society on 6.9.2000 by Sh. R.S Pahwa, Assistant Director, DDA. Ld Counsel vehemently argued that during that period accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) were not even posted in the office of RCS and as such they have no role in allotment of land to the society.
iv. Ld. Counsel for the A-6 and A-7, further pointed out that during his cross examination IO Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav(PW48) has also admitted the fact that A-6 J.S Dagar and A.7 Rakesh Kumar Sharma had no role in allotment of land to the society by DDA, as during that period they were not even posted in the RCS office.
v. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused A-6 and A-
7 have nowhere stated that they have carried out the physical verification of the 10% resignations. From the very beginning it is the case of the A-6 and A-7 that they were never asked to verify the resignations physically. He further pointed out that this fact was also raised by the accused persons at the time of framing of charge and it is not the case that now they have changed their stand.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 68 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 vi. By referring to the cross examination of PW1 Sh. J.S Sharma, Ld Counsel for the accused persons submitted that PW1 has stated that the duty of the Area Inspectors was to do the verification of resignation etc. on the basis of original documents and records produced by the Managing Committee of the Society to the office of RCS and it is done u/s 54 of the DCS Act, 1972. Ld Counsel stressed upon the reply given by PW1 during his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI whereby PW1 replied that he had not used the word physical verification because there is no such provision in DCS Act and Rules.
vii. By referring to the testimony of PW19 M.P Bajaj, Ld. Counsel pointed out that it has already come during his testimony that the word 'verification' referred means that the originals furnished by the society were verified with the photocopy of resignations. He further pointed out that at that time flats were already constructed, and the only exercise remaining to be done at that point was allotment of the flats through the draw of lots.
viii. Ld. Defence Counsel further pointed out that the file was dealt with by different officers including PW19 M.P Bajaj and PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya but they were allowed to walk free and accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar( A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) have been made accused person in the present case.
ix. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is not even a single piece of evidence against these accused persons to show that they ever met with other co-accused persons or any personal or pecuniary benefit was gained by them. He further submitted that this fact has been admitted by the IO (PW48) also .
x. He submitted that in the present case, sanction was not obtained from the competent authority as sanction for CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 69 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 prosecuting accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) has been given by PW42 Sh. Vijay Dev and PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur respectively. Ld. Counsels pointed out that these two witnesses were never posted in the RCS office, therefore, the competent person to accord sanction was the then RCS,Delhi, because as per section 19 of PC Act, 1988, the person who is competent to remove the public servant, is competent to accord sanction in respect of alleged offences.
xi. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the above mentioned accused person therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
94. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the society was registered on 21.1.1984 with 60 promoter members. Subsequently, 45 more persons were enrolled and the list of 105 members was forwarded on behalf of the society to the office of RCS with a request to onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. Accordingly, on 30.8.1984 the said list of 105 members was forwarded to DDA by the office of RCS. According to the prosecution land was allotted to the society and flats were constructed thereon. But for the purpose of Draw of Lots a fake list of 105 members was made on the basis of forged and false documents by the accused persons and it was CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 70 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 submitted to the office of RCS for onward transmission to the DDA for Draw of Lots. It is alleged that the said list was prepared by creating fake resignations and enrollments.
95. That being so, the case of prosecution can be divided into following three heads:
A) The Shree Ganesh CGHS Society was registered in the year 1984 with 60 promoter members and 45 members were enrolled in the year 1984 itself.
B) Whether in 2003, the aforesaid society which was dormant, was made alive and active by submitting a false list of members which was based upon forged and false documents or not?
C) In case point 'B' is answered in affirmative, then what was the role of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7)?
A) The Shree Ganesh CGHS Society was registered in the year 1984 with 60 promoter members and 45 members were enrolled in the year 1984 itself.
96. According to the prosecution, at the time of registration of society on 20.01.1984, Sh. V.S Sisodia was the Promoter President, Sh. Bhagwant Prasad Jain, promoter Vice President, Sh. Gyan Chand Jain promoter Secretary and Sh. Raj Kumar Jain was the promoter CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 71 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Treasurer. Out of the above promoters, Prosecution has examined Sh. V.S Sisodia as PW39.
97. PW39 V.S Sisodia has deposed that the Shree Ganesh CGHS was formed sometime in the year 1983-84 and at the initial stage there were 53 members of the society; he was the President of the society, Gyan Chand was Treasurer and Dr. Y.K Saini was the Secretary of the society;the address of the society was A-2, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi; he admitted his signatures at point A and that of Gyan Chand at point B on the application ExPW39/A for registration of co-operative society in the UT of Delhi; Certificate of Registration of the society ExPW39/A-1; and society was allotted registration no.1402 (GH) on 23.1.1984; admitted his signatures on the Intensive Inquiry Proforma ExPW39/A-2; admitted his signatures at page 105 as President of the society and identified the signatures of Sh. Y.K Saini on the photocopy of minutes of meeting dated 24.9.1983 ExPW39/A; admitted his signatures on page 91 of the Bye laws of the society Ex PW39/A-4; admitted having executed affidavit dated 13.09.1983 ExPW39/A-5 and identified signature of Yogesh Kumar Saini on affidavit ExPW39/A-6; his name is shown against serial no.1 and his signature on page CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 72 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 no.1 in the membership register D-15 ExPW5/PX; admitted his signatures on the attested photocopy of resignation letter dated 05.03.1998 ExPW39/A-7; admitted having signed the attested photocopy of minutes of meetings dated 15.3.1994 ExPW39/A-8, dated 20.03.1995 ExPW39/A-9 and dated 17.08.1996 ExPW39/A-10
98. PW39 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not on behalf of the rest of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them. Even during the cross examination done on behalf of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), nothing could be brought on record to discredit the testimony of PW39 particularly with regard to the registration of the society. Rather, it was not challenged that society was registered with the office of RCS as claimed by the prosecution.
99. From the testimony of PW39, it has come on record that the first General Body Meeting of the Promoter members of the society was held on 24.9.1983. The minutes of the said meeting ExPW39/A-3 are on the record. The said meeting was attended by 60 promoter members. One of the resolutions passed in the aforesaid CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 73 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 meeting was " that the Registrar Cooperative Society, Delhi be requested to register the Society at the earliest ' '. Pursuant to the said resolution, an application ExPW39/A was moved with a request to register the society with 60 promoter members. Along With the application, requisite documents have been submitted suggesting that initially the society was registered with 60 promoter members. The certificate ExPW39/A-1 indicates that the present society was registered in the name and type of "The Shree Ganesh Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd" at S. No. 1402 (GH) on 20.1.1984 having its registered address at A-2, Prasad Nagar, Delhi.
100. Registration of the society with 60 promoter members has not been disputed by the accused persons. During the statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 CrPC, when they were asked " PW39 Sh. Virender Singh Sisodia has proved the certificate of registration of Shree Ganesh CGHS placed at page 130 ExPW39/A-1 in file D-9. The society was allotted registration no.1402 (GH) on 23.1.1984. What do you have to say", they replied that " I do not know".
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 74 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
101. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is established that the Shree Ganesh Co-operative Group Housing Society was registered on 23.1.1984 at S. No. 1402 (GH) with 60 promoter members.
B. " Whether in 2003, the aforesaid society which was dormant, was made alive and active by submitting a false list of members which was based upon forged and false documents or not?
102. In this regard, the allegations of the prosecution, as made out from the chargesheet, are as under:
i) " In the final list of 105 members of the society which was submitted to the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA for Draw of Lots, four members namely Hardev Sharma (Membership No. 100). Sh. Om Prakash Charma (Membership No. 30), Sh. Mahipal Jain (Membership No.43) and Sh. Ashok Jain (Membership No. 39) were falsely shown to have resigned in the proceedings dated 15.3.1994 and 20.3.1995."
103. Out of the above Four members who were shown to have resigned, the prosecution has examined Sh Hardev Sharma as PW5. PW5 Hardev Sharma deposed that he became a member of the society in the year 1993-1994 and had paid Rs 1000/- for obtaining the membership. He further deposed that his name is mentioned at serial no.100 on page 25 in membership Register ExPW5/PX but the purported signature at point X are not his CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 75 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signatures; admitted having executed affidavit dated 13.06.1984 ExPW5/A and his signature thereon; in the list of members ExPW5/B(colly) his name appears against serial no.100; denied his signature on the letter of resignation dated 2.3.1994 ExPW5/C; denied purported signature on the receipt letter of refund dated 30.04.1994 ExPW5/D to be his signature; admitted having given specimen signatures/writings from S-430 to S-435 voluntarily to the IO.
104. PW5 was not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons except accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), despite opportunity being given to them. Even during his cross examination on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), the testimony of PW5 Hardev Sharma has gone un-rebutted on the point that he never resigned from the society or that he never received any refund from the society. Even if PW5 did not attend any meeting of the society or did not make any inquiry from the promoter President still it would not make any difference.
105. PW5 has categorically stated that membership register ExPW5/PX does not bear his signatures at serial CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 76 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 no.100. He has also denied signatures on the alleged resignation letter ExPW5/C and also on the refund voucher ExPW5/D. The signature of PW5 on the alleged resignation letter was given as questioned document Q 402 and his signatures on the letter of receipt vide which money was allegedly returned to PW5 was given the questioned documents as Q 617. It has also come on the record that specimen signatures /writings of PW5 Hardev Sharma from S-430 to S 435 were given by him voluntarily and the same is ExPW5/E(colly). The aforesaid questioned documents i.e Q 402 and Q 617 along with specimen signatures/writings of PW5 were also sent to the GEQD for examination. The report of the expert ExPW47/C is already on the record. As per the report ExPW47/C (para 6) " the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S 430 to S 435 did not write the red enclosed writings, the photostatic reproduction of which are similarly stamped and marked Q 402 and Q 617".
106. As stated herein above, the specimen signatures/writings from S 430 to S 435 belong to PW5 Hardev Sharma. As per the opinion of experts, the questioned documents Q 402 & Q 617 do not bear the signatures of PW5. Meaning thereby, the alleged resignation ExPW5/C and refund voucher ExPW5/D were CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 77 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 never signed by PW5 Hardev Sharma.
107. Moreover, there is an apparent difference between the signatures of PW5 as made by him on the affidavit ExPW5/A submitted at the time of seeking membership of the society in the year 1994 and alleged certificate of resignation ExPW5/C and refund voucher ExPW5/D. On being compared, it can be easily said that there are material differences between the signatures of PW5 Hardev Sharma. Meaning thereby, the resignation of PW5 Hardev Sharma shown at the time of submitting the final list of 105 members for draw of lots found to be forged as PW5 never resigned from the membership of the society.
ii) " Next allegation is that in the various proceedings pertaining to the society, accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4) , Krishan Mohan Chetani, Muksh Kumar, accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) and Sh. Babulal was elected as President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Members of the Society but Sh. K.M Chetani , Sh. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal never became a member of the society and was falsely shown as a member of the Managing Committee of the society."
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 78 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
108. Prosecution has examined Sh. K.M Chetani as PW25, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal as PW43 and Sh. Babu Lal Aggarwal as PW45.
109. PW25 deposed that he never became a member of Shree Ganesh CGHS. He further deposed that in the membership register ExPW5/PX his name appears against serial no.117 on page 29 but the purported signatures at point X are not his signature; denied having moved application of membership ExPW25/A and the purported signature appearing on at point X to be his signature; denied purported signature appearing at point X on the photocopy of resignation letter dated 08.12.2001 ExPW25/B to be his signature; denied purported signature appearing at point X on the attested photocopy of voucher of refund of Rs 2200/- dated 13.4.2002 ExPW25/C to be his signature; denied having deposited any amount of Rs 110/- as shown in receipt no.212 dated 23.03.1995 ExPW25/D ; denied having received Cheque No. 027911 for an amount of Rs 2200/- dated 13.4.2002 ExPW25/E from the society and purported signatures shown at point X on the backside of the cheque to be his signature; denied having attended any meetings as shown in the minutes of meeting dated 07.04.1997,08.08.1997, CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 79 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 06.10.1997, 14.11.1997, 14.11.1997, 24.12.1997 and 12.04.1999 ExPW25/F ( colly) and purported signatures shown at point X in the minutes of meetings, to be his signatures; denied having attended any meeting as shown in the Minutes of meeting dated 30.12.1999 ExPW25/G and purported signatures shown at points X thereon. He deposed that although his name appears at serial no.9 on the general body meeting dated 20.02.2000 ExPW25/H and at serial no.36 on the the minutes of meeting dated 08.12.1998 ExPW25/J, but the purported signatures shown at points X does not belong to him and he never attended such meetings. He further deposed that his name is shown at serial no.12 as member of the society on the purported affidavit submitted by Rukmani Devi ExPW25/K (colly), which is factually incorrect.
110. PW25 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) but not on behalf of the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity given to them.
111. Even during the cross examination of PW25, as done on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-
3) nothing could be brought on record to reject the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 80 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 testimony of this witness. The testimony of PW25 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged on the material aspects of the case that he never became a member of the society and therefore the question of his resignation does not arise. He has categorically denied his signatures allegedly appearing on certain proceedings and documents which have not been, as such disputed by the accused persons.
112. The reply given to some of the questions put to PW25 during his cross examination by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) would reveal that PW25 Sh. Krishan Mohan Chetani was never a member of the society. PW25 during his cross examination replied that "
I had not deposited any money in the society. Therefore, it is correct that I was not entitled to receive any amount from the society". This reply itself shows that even as per the case of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), PW25 had not deposited any money in the society and that is why he was not entitled to receive any amount from the society.
113. PW43 Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal deposed that neither his family members including his late elder sister Sunita Devi nor he ever became a member of the society. He further deposed that he never applied for obtaining the membership of the society and in the application of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 81 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 membership purported signatures shown at point X dated 01.8.1997 ExPW43/A are not his signatures; PW43 denied purported signatures shown at point X on the resignation and refund application dated 12.1.2002 ExPW43/B to be his signatures; denied having received any refund voucher of Rs 100/- shown to be paid vide cheque no.027913 dated 13.4.2002 ExPW43/C and the purported signatures shown at point X to be his signatures; denied the purported signatures shown at point X on the application of membership dated 30.9.1997 ExPW43/D shown to be of his elder sister Sunita Devi to be that of his sister Sunita Devi; denied having deposited any amount as shown in the receipt of depositing Rs 100/- dated 09.8.1997 ExPW43/E. He deposed that in the membership register D-15 ExPW5/PX his name has been shown at serial no.164 but the purported signatures at point X are not his signatures; he also denied purported signatures shown at point X (shown against serial no.178) to be that of his elder sister Sunita Devi; admitted having given the Specimen signatures S-505 to S-515 ExPW27/B (colly) to the CBI voluntarily; on the account opening form ExPW18/A, he denied the purported signatures as well as that of his brother Manoj Kumar at points X-3 and X-4 and that the photograph shown at point 1,2 to be their CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 82 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 photographs and that the signatures at point A-2 and A-3 are not their signatures; identified the photograph shown at point 1 to be that of Ghansham Goel brother-in law of Vishwanath Aggarwal. He further deposed that Specimen signature Card ExPW7/H does not bear his or his brother's signatures at point A-2 and A-3.
114. PW43 further deposed that on the Cheques D-47 to D-59, D61 to D72, D76 to D-90 ExPW7/J (Colly) , Cheque D-43 ExPW22/E, cheque D-60 ExPW10/G, cheque D-75 ExPW14/E, 14 cheques enclosed with D-129 issued from Account NO.849 of Shree Ganesh CGHS ExPW43/F, 27 cheques enclosed with D-130 issued from Account No. 849 ExPW43/G, the purported signatures shown at points A & B are not his signatures or his brother's; denied purported signatures shown at points A & B to be his signatures or that of his brother Manoj Kumar on the letter for opening a new savings account on the letter head of Shree Ganesh dated 04.03.1997 ExPW23/B.
115. PW43 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but not on behalf of rest of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them. Even CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 83 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 during the cross examination of PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PW43 on the point that he never become the members of the society. He has denied his signatures on various documents. PW43 has denied the signatures of even his brother Manoj Kumar also.
116. Similarly, PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal deposed that he never became a member of the society. He further deposed that although in the membership register ExPW5/PX his name is shown against serial no.134 but the purported signatures do not belong to him; denied purported signatures on the application of membership dated 07.8.1996 ExPW45/A to be his signatures; denied the purported signature shown on the resignation letter dated 12.1.2002 ExPW45/B at point X to be his signatures; denied purported signatures shown on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- ExPW45/C at point X to be his signatures; denied his signatures on the receipt no.229 of Rs110/- dated 21.8.1996 ExPW45/D shown to have been deposited by him; denied having attended the meetings and his signatures thereon shown on the minutes of meetings dated 25.12.1996 ExPW45/E , 07.4.1997 and CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 84 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 8.8.1997 ExPW25/F, 06.10.1997 ExPW45/F, 14.11.1997 ExPW45/G,24.12.1997 ExPW45/H, 06.6.1998 ExPW45/J and 12.4.1999 ExPW45/K.
117. PW45 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity except one question which was asked on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) that PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal had not made any complaint to the office of RCS or before any other authority. The testimony of PW45 that he never became the member of the society, he never resigned from the society, he has not signed various documents and proceedings as he never attended any meeting, has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW45.
118. From the testimonies of PW25 K.M Chetani , PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal and PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal, which have almost gone unrebutted and unchallenged, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that these three persons never become the members of the society therefore question of their being resigning does not arise. Consequently, it also stands proved that they have falsely been shown as members of the Managing Committee of the society and having attended various meetings or CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 85 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 proceedings pertaining to the society on various dates.
(iii) In the various meetings/proceedings of the society certain members were falsely shown as enrolled and subsequently they were falsely shown as resigned. Their details have been given in preceding paras No. 19-21 of this judgement.
119. Out of the aforesaid list, prosecution has examined twelve persons as witnesses. The role of three such persons namely PW25 K.M Chetani, PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal and PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal has already been discussed under the heading (b) whereby it stands proved that they never become the members of the society and consequently question of their resignation does not arise. Rest of nine such persons are PW6 Hanuman Singh, PW8 Sunil Jain, PW9 Dr. Satya Pal Singh, PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia, PW14 Saroj Taneja, PW 20 Vijay Kumar, PW22 Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni and PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul.
120. PW6 Hanuman Singh deposed that he never became the member of the society at any point of time. He deposed that his name is shown at serial no.162 on page 35 in the membership Register ExPW5/PX but the purported signature shown at point X are not his CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 86 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signatures; denied having signed any letter of confirmation of resignation dated Nil ExPW6/A; denied having received any refund voucher of Rs 100/- ExPW6/C and his signatures thereon; denied having executed the resignation letter dated 15.5.2000 ExPW6/D and signature thereon stating that he never became member of the society. PW6 further deposed that he had given the specimen signatures/writings from S-453 to S-456 ExPW6/E to the CBI voluntarily; denied having received any Cheque no. 027836 for Rs 100/- ExPW6/F issued by the Society.
121. PW8 Sh. Sunil Jain deposed that he never became member of the society. He deposed that although in the membership register ExPW5/PX his name appears against serial no.161 but the purported signatures thereon do not belong to him; denied purported signature appearing on the letter of confirmation of resignation dated Nil ExPW8/A to be his signature; denied the purported signatures shown at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 10.06.2021 ExPW8/B. He further deposed that application of membership dated 30.07.1997 ExPW8/C does not bears his signature at point X; resignation letter dated 04.09.2000 ExPW8/D does not CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 87 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 bear his signatures. He further deposed that specimen signatures/writings S-457 to S-460 ExPW8/E was given by him voluntarily to the CBI. He further deposed that he never received any Cheque no. 578536 for Rs 100/- dated 10.06.2001 from the society and denied purported signature appearing on the back of the cheque ExPW8/F to be his signatures; denied having received Rs 100/- dated 09.08.1997 ExPW8/G stating that he never became member of the society.
122. PW9 Dr. Satya Pal Singh deposed that he never became member of the society. He deposed that in the membership register ExPW5/PX his name appears against serial no.173 but the purported signature at point X are not his signatures; denied the purported signatures shown at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 18.07.2021 ExPW9/A, to be his signatures; denied the purported signature appearing on point X on the application of membership dated 27.9.1997 ExPW9/B to be his signature; denied the purported signature at point X on the resignation letter 30.05.2001 ExPW9/C to be his signature. PW9 admitted having given specimen signatures/writings from S-446 to S-452 ExPW9/D voluntarily to the CBI.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 88 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
123. PW10 Sh. Sandeep Dang deposed that he never became member of the society. Address C-4/H/19 Janak Puri, New Delhi 58 was left by him about 10 years ago and no RCS offical had come for any verification in the year 2003. He further deposed that in the Membership register ExPW5/PX although his name has been shown against serial no.175 but the signatures at point X are not his signature; denied his purported signatures on the letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW10/A, purported signature appearing at point X on the a refund voucher of Rs 100/- 18.07.2021 ExPW10/B, signatures at point X on the application of membership 29.09.1997 ExPW10/C and purported signature on the resignation letter 16.09.2000 ExPW10/D, to be his signatures. PW 10 admitted having given the Specimen signatures/writings S-466 to S-469 ExPW10/E, voluntarily to the CBI. He denied having received Cheque no. 037109 for an amount of Rs 100/- dated 18.7.2001 ExPW10/F issued in his name from the society.
124. PW11 Ms. Usha Bhatia deposed that she never became member of the society. She is resident of A-1/75, Sector 5, Rohini and no person by the name of Usha Gandhi resided at the above mentioned address. She CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 89 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 further deposed that in the membership register ExPW5/PX her name appears against serial no.185 but the purported signature at point X are not her signatures. PW11 denied purported signatures appearing on the letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW1/C-1, at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 10.06.2021 ExPW11/A, at point X on the application of membership dated 15.12.1997 ExPW11/B and at point X on the resignation letter dated 19.09.2000 ExPW11/C, to be her signatures.
125. PW14 Ms Saroj Taneja deposed that she never became member of the society. She further deposed that in the membership register ExPW5/PX although her name appears against serial no.171 but the purported signature at point X are not her signatures; she denied purported signature appearing at point X on the letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW14/A to be her signatures. She further deposed that the purported signatures appearing at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 18.07.2021 ExPW14/B, at point X on the application of membership dated 25.09.1997 ExPW14/C , at point X on the resignation letter dated 04.09.2000 ExPW14/D and at point X on the back side of the Cheque CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 90 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 no. 037108 for Rs 100/- dated 18.07.2001 ExPW14/E , to be her signatures.
126. PW20 Sh. Vijay Kumar deposed that he never became member of the society and in the membership register ExPW5/PX, although his name appears against serial no.189 but the purported signatures at point X are not his signature. He further deposed that the purported signature appearing at point X on the letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW20/A, at point X on the application of membership dated 19.12.1997 ExPW20/B, at point X on the resignation letter dated 01.10.2002 ExPW20/C and the purported signature appearing at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/-dated 13.11.2002 ExPW20/D, to be his signatures. He denied having received the cheques bearing no. 068862 of Rs 4,50,000/- dated 11.11.2002 ExPW20/E and Cheque no. 068863 for Rs 3,50,000/- dated 11.11.2002 ExPW20/F and the purported signatures appearing at the back side of the aforesaid cheques at point X respectively to be his signatures.
127. PW22 Sh. Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni deposed that he never became member of Society at any point of time and although in the membership register CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 91 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 ExPW5/PX his name is shown against serial no.188 but the purported signature at point X are not his signature. He further deposed that the purported signature appearing at point X on the letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW22/A, at point X on the photocopy of application of membership dated 18.12.1997 ExPW22/B, at point X on the resignation letter 19.04.2001 ExPW22/C and the purported signature appearing at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 10.06.2001 ExPW22/D, are not his signatures. PW22 denied having received the Cheque no. 578533 for Rs 100/- dated 10.06.2001 ExPW22/E from the society and deposed that the purported signature appearing at the back side of the cheque at point X are not his signatures. He admitted having given the Specimen signatures S-441 to S-445 ExPW22/F to the CBI voluntarily.
128. PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul deposed that he never became member of the society at any point of time. He further deposed that in the membership register ExPW5/PX his name appears against serial no.182 but the purported signatures at point X are not his signatures; he denied having moved an application for membership dated 07.11.1997 ExPW38/A and his signatures thereon;
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 92 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 denied purported signature appearing at point X on the resignation letter dated 31.5.2001 ExPW38/B and at point X on the refund voucher of Rs 100/- dated 18.7.2001 ExPW38/C, to be his signatures. He denied having received Cheque no.037107 for a sum of Rs 100/- dated 18.7.2001 ExPW38/D from the society and purported signatures shown at X on the back side of the cheque to be his signatures. He admitted having given Specimen signature writings S-436 to S-440 ExPW26/C voluntarily to the CBI.
129. PW6 Hanuman Singh, PW8 Sunil Jain, PW9 Dr. Satya Pal Singh, PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia, PW14 Saroj Taneja , PW 20 Vijay Kuamr, PW22 Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni and PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul, were not cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite the opportunity given to them except one or two questions being asked on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). The record would indicate that testimonies of these witnesses have gone without any challenge or objection. Not even a suggestion was put to them that they are deposing falsely or that they were the members of the society or their resignations as such are genuine. It is a well settled preposition of law CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 93 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 that if a prosecution witness is not cross examined despite the opportunity being given, his testimony, otherwise reliable, has to be accepted. Same is in the present case. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, which have gone unrebutted. That being so, it stands established that aforesaid person were falsely shown enrolled as members in various meetings of the society and consequently their resignations are also forged and false.
130. From the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that a false list of members, which was based upon false and forged documents and proceedings, was submitted to the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land.
(C) In case point 'B' is answered in affirmative, then what was the role of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7)?
Role of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal( A-3)
131. According to the prosecution, allegations against the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) are basically that CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 94 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 he had signed certain documents and proceedings in the name of Rukmani Devi though he is claiming that he was neither a member of the society nor was the office bearer of the Managing Committee of the society. It is further alleged that he has forged certain documents and proceedings, which were the basis for finalization of a false list of 105 members which was submitted to the office of RCS and then was forwarded to the DDA for Draw of Lots.
132. PW19 Sh. M.P Bajaj was posted in the office of RCS during the relevant time as UDC. He has categorically stated that noting dated 05.04.2002 ExPW1/PA-1 bears his signature at point X and it was placed before PW1 Sh. J.S Sharma, the then AR(SW) and in response to the noting dating 05.04.2002 ExPW1/PA-1, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), President of the Society had filed list of Managing Committee in respect of previous three years whereas the society had been asked to furnish the list of MC since its formation. He further deposed that vide noting dated 17.04.2002 ExPW1/PA-2, society was asked to place on record the requisite information on 22.4.2002. He further deposed that Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has put his signature on CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 95 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 17.4.2002 on the noting ExPW1/PA-2 at point A. On 22.4.2002, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) President of the society appeared and filed list of the managing committee of the society for the different period.
133. PW19 Sh. M.P Bajaj further deposed that Dhruwa Narain (A-1 already stands convicted), Secretary and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) President of Shree Ganesh CGHS used to appear before him in the present case and they had produced records of the society as and when required in the matter.
134. PW19 was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI .
During his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he admitted that his statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by the CBI. He also admitted that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, present in the court, is the same person who had appeared as President of the Society. He further admitted that Rukmani Devi never appeared before him.
135. Although, PW19 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but the testimony of PW19 M.P Bajaj on material points has gone unrebutted to the effect that accused Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 96 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3) had appeared before PW19 M.P Bajaj, who was working as UDC in the office of RCS and submitted certain records. One of the replies given by PW19 during the cross examination done on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) to the effect that " it is correct that as per noting 17.4.2002 as well as 22.4.2002, Sh. Vijay Kumar(A-3) appeared on behalf of the society. However, thereafter he never appeared", would indicate that even the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) is admitting that he had appeared before PW19 on behalf of the society on 17.04.2002 and 22.04.2002. The notes dated 17.04.2002 and 22.04.2002 would indicate that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) appeared on 17.4.2002 in the office of RCS before PW19 M.P Bajaj and put his signatures on the noting on 17.4.2002 and also appeared on 22.4.2.2002 in the capacity of President of the society and filed the list of managing committee of the society for the different period.
136. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani after going through the account opening form pertaining to the account No. 1006 ExPW23/A-2, deposed that the account No. 1006 was opened on 11.4.1998 by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) r/o RZ-686/Z-21, Main Road, Palam CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 97 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Colony, New Delhi. PW23 identified the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) at point B on the account opening form ExPW23/A-2(collectively) while deposing that he (accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal) has put his signatures before him (PW23). PW23 also identified the photograph of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal at point C.
137. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani further deposed that another account No. 1172 was opened by accused Indira Aggarwal(A-2 already stands convicted) on 17.07.1998 and he identified the signatures of Indira Aggarwal(A-2) and her photograph also. Said account opening form is ExPW23/A-3.
138. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani was not cross examined by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-2) despite the opportunity being given to him. Meaning thereby, the testimony of PW23 has not been disputed by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3). That being so, it has come on record that account no. 1006 was opened by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) on 11.04.1998 vide account Opening form ExPW23/A-2, which bears his signature as well as photograph. Similarly, another account No. 1172 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 98 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 was also opened by Indira Aggarwal (A-2, already stands convicted) in the same bank and it bears her signature and photograph on the account opening form ExPW23/A-3).
139. Here it is pertinent to mention that accused Indira Aggarwal(A-3) has already been convicted vide order dated 13.08.2013 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, therefore, it would not be appropriate to discuss the evidence available on record against her. However, in the present case, all the accused persons are facing trial for the offence of criminal conspiracy also therefore, for the acts of one accused, other accused persons, who committed the offences in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, would also be responsible. In the present case, it is not denied that accused Indira Aggarwal (A-3) is the wife of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), therefore, the fact that opening of account pertaining to the society by accused Indira Aggarwal(A-2) and also by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), would be relevant fact to lend credence to the story of the prosecution, as against the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3).
140. In the final list of 105 members, ExPW1/PB-1, the name of Smt Indira Aggarwal has been shown at serial CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 99 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 no.19 against the membership no.169. The aforesaid list was sent by the society to the office of RCS for onward transmission to the DDA . Finally, vide communication dated 27.1.2003 ExPW1/PB-3, a final list of 103 members was sent to DDA by the office of RCS for Draw of Lots. The name of Smt Indira Aggarwal has been shown at serial no.28 against Membership no. 169 in the said list ExPW1/PB-3. The result of Draw of Lots is ExPW1/PB- 5, wherein the name of Smt Indira Aggarwal has been shown at serial no.7 against the membership no.169. This further indicates that Smt. Indira Aggarwal was allotted flat no.C 801 under the category 'B'. Therefore, there is no dispute that Smt. Indira Aggarwal(A-2) who is wife of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) was allotted a flat in the present Society which was sold by her to PW16 Smt. Anju Thareja for a valuable consideration.
141. In this sequence, the testimony of PW16 Smt. Anju Thareja would be relevant. Although her testimony is running into six lines only, but her testimony is very relevant and material to fix the role of accused Vijay Kumar Agagrwal(A-3). PW16 Smt. Anju Thareja deposed that she had purchased the flat no. E 801, Shree Ganesh Society, Plot No. 12 B, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi in CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 100 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the year 2005. This house was purchased from Smt. Indira Aggarwal (A-2, already stands convicted) w/o Vijay Aggarwal(A-3) and the payment was made through cheque pertaining to Punjab & Sind Bank.
142. PW16 Smt. Anju Thareja has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them. Meaning thereby, it has come on record that the flat which was alloted in the name of Indira Aggarwal(A-2), who is wife of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), was purchased by PW16 Smt Anju Thareja. The aforesaid deposition is sufficient to establish the motive on the part of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). In the background of aforesaid facts, the contention of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) that he has nothing to do with the society and he had not received any monetary benefit, is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected out rightly.
143. PW17 Amarjeet Singh also deposed that " I have seen the account opening form pertaining to Account no. 1704015557 which was opened in the erstwhile Global Trust Bank Ltd. And later on taken over by Oriental Bank of Commerce. It was opened by Shree Ganesh CGHS. The account holders, as per account opening form, are Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 101 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar, Dhruv Narain Aggarwal and Indira, the documents from page 1 to 24 is collectively ExPW17/D ". The aforesaid testimony of PW17 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged for the reasons that he was also not cross examined by the accused persons including accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) despite the opportunity.
144. From the aforesaid discussion, it has come on record that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) appeared in the office of RCS and represented himself as President of Shree Ganesh Society and submitted certain documents and records pertaining to the society.
145. Now, it has to be seen whether the documents and records submitted to the office of RCS were forged and false and if so, who had forged the same?
146. In this regard testimony of PW5 Hardev Sharma, PW6 Hanuman Singh, PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, PW8 Sunil Jain, PW9 Dr. Satya Pal Singh, PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia, PW14 Saroj Thareja, PW20 Vijay Kumar, PW22 Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni, PW25 Krishan Mohan Chetani, PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul, PW43 Mukesh Kumar and PW45 Babul Lal CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 102 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal, is relevant. Here I may mention that the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses have already been discussed in detail in proceedings para's while deciding the allegation that certain members were falsely shown as enrolled and subsequently as resigned. For the sake of brevity, it would not be appropriate to discuss the testimonies of above witnesses again. All the above witnesses have deposed that they never became the members of the society at any point of time and they had given their specimen signatures voluntarily to the IO/CBI during the investigation, which were subsequently sent to the GEQD for expert opinion.
147. There are a number of documents upon which PW47 Sh.P Venugopala has given his expert opinion ExPW47/C. In the present case, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma as DW2 in his defence. To understand in a better way as to which documents have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), I have divided the documents in three categories i.e Category A, Category B and Category C .
148. Category A: According to the prosecution, certain documents and proceedings are said to have been CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 103 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signed purportedly by Smt. Rukmani Devi but the signatures of the Rukmani Devi on these documents and proceedings have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). Meaning thereby, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi on various documents and proceedings. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has examined Sanjay Kumar Sharma son of Rukmani Devi in his defence, who has deposed that said documents and proceedings bear the signatures of Rukmani Devi. Therefore, an attempt was made by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) to prove that said proceedings and documents, in fact, were actually signed by Smt. Rukmani Devi and not by him. Thus, Category A consists of the documents/proceedings upon which signatures of Rukmani Devi have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but as per DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma these documents/proceedings bear signatures of his mother Rukmani Devi. The same are being tabulated as under :
CATEGORY-A The documents/proceedings upon which signatures of Rukmani Devi have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) but as per DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma these CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 104 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 documents/proceedings bear signatures of his mother Rukmani Devi.
Sl.No Nature of Dated Exhibit/ Remarks
Questioned Mark
Document
which was sent
to the GEQD
for examination
1. Q 863 13.04.2002 As per the
Managing report of the
Committee Expert
meeting ExPW47/C,
minutes Q 863 has
been signed
by Accused
Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
2. Q 923 ExPW47/A-59 As per the
(photostatic) report of the
signature of Expert
Rukmani ExPW47/C,
Devi on the Q923 has
declaration been signed
of nomination by Accused
form of the Vijay
candidate for Kumar
contesting Aggarwal
election as (A-3)
Vice
President of
the Society
3. Q 964 26.03.2002 ExPW47/A-53 As per the
signature of report of the
Rukmani Expert
Devi on the ExPW47/C,
minutes of Q964 has
meeting been signed
by Accused
Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 105 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
4. Q 181 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), list of Q 181 has subsequently been signed resigned by Accused members Vijay (serial no 35 Kumar MP No. 181 Aggarwal M.P Singh). (A-3)
5. Q 182 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), 2nd page of Q 182 has the list of been signed subsequently by Accused resigned Vijay members. Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
6. Q 183 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C( Devi on the para 14), Q 2nd page of 183 has the list of been signed subsequently by Accused resigned Vijay members. Kumar (serial no. 32 Aggarwal Usha (A-3) Gandhi )
7. Q184 09.03.1995 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 106 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), membership Q 184 has application been signed of by Accused Ghanshyam Vijay Goel Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
8. Q185 09.03.1995 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 185 has application of been signed Mudit by Accused Sharma Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
9. Q 186 10.03.1995 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 186 has application of been signed Suman Jain by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
10. Q 187 09.03.2005 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 187 has application of been signed Neelam by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 107 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Jalota Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
11. Q 188 11.03.1995 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 188 has application of been signed Bharat by Accused Bhushan Vijay Chadha Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
12. Q 189 11.03.1995 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 189 has application of been signed Amrita by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
13. Q 190 14.03.1995 ExPW25/A As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), membership Q 190 has application of been signed Krishan by Accused Mohan Vijay Chaitani Kumar ( PW25) Aggarwal (A-3)
14. Q 191 15.03.1995 ExPW47/A-5 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 108 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 191 has Application been signed of Mukesh by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
15. Q 193 14.03.1995 ExPW47/A-6 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 193 has Application been signed of Anoop by Accused Mahajan Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
16. Q 195 5.08.1996 ExPW47/A-7 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 195 has Application been signed of Manoj by Accused Aggarwal Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
17. Q197 05.08.1996 ExPW47/A-8 As per purported ExPW47/C signature of (para 14), Rukmani Q 197 has Devi on the been signed Membership by Accused Application Vijay of Ranvir Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 109 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Singh Aggarwal (A-3)
18. Q201 28.07.1997 ExPW47/A-9 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para14), Q Membership 201 has Application been signed of Makhan by Accused Lal Sharma Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
19. Q 203 30.07.1997 ExPW47/A-10 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 203 has Application been signed of Kavita by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
20. Q 207 30.07.1998 ExPW6/C As per the purported report of the signature of expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 207 has Application been signed of Hanuman by Accused Singh (PW6) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
21. Q 209 01.08.1997 ExPW47/A-11 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 110 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 209 has Application been signed of Sangeeta by Accused Devi Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
22. Q 211 01.08.1997 ExPW43/A As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 211 has Application been signed of Mukesh by Accused Kumar Vijay (PW43) Kumar Aggarwal(A
-3)
23. Q 213 02.08.1997 ExPW47/A-12 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 213 has Application been signed of Ranvir by Accused Singh Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
24. Q 215 02.08.1997 ExPW47/A-13 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 215 has Application been signed of Krishan by Accused Kumar Vijay Sharma Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 111 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3)
25. Q 217 02.08.1997 Mark DW2/7 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 217 has Application been signed of Ravi by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
26. Q 219 02.08.1997 ExPW47/A-4 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 219 has Application been signed of Sunita by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
27. Q 221 25.09.1997 ExPW14/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 221 has Application been signed of Saroj by Accused Taneja Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
28. Q 223 27.09.1997 ExPW9/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 112 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 223 has Application been signed of S.P Singh by Accused (PW9) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
29. Q 225 27.09.1997 ExPW47/A-15 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 225 has Application been signed of Manoj by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
30. Q227 29.09.1997 ExPW10/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 227 has Application been signed of Sandeep by Accused Dang (PW10) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
31. Q 229 29.09.1997 ExPW47/A-16 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 229 has Application been signed of Santosh by Accused Sethi Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 113 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
32. Q 231 29.09.1997 Mark DW2/F As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 231 has Application been signed of Pushpa by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
33. Q 233 30.03.1997 ExPW43/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 233 has Application been signed of Sunita by Accused Devi (elder Vijay sister of Kumar PW43 Aggarwal Mukesh (A-3) Aggarwal)
34. Q 235 05.11.1997 ExPW47/A-17 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 235 has Application been signed of Ganga by Accused Ram Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
35. Q 237 06.11.1997 ExPW47/A-17 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 114 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 237 has Application been signed of Naresh by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
36. Q 239 07.11.1997 ExPW47/A-17 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 239 has Application been signed of M.P Singh by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
37. Q 241 07.11.1997 ExPW38/A As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 241 has Application been signed of Vinod by Accused Kumar Kaul Vijay ( PW38) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
38. Q 243 10.11.1997 ExPW47/A-18 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 243 has Application been signed of Archana by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 115 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
39. Q 245 15.12.1997 ExPW47/A-18 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 245 has Application been signed of Vandana by Accused Bhatia Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
40. Q 247 15.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW11/B Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 247 has Application been signed of Usha by Accused Gandhi Vijay ( PW11) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
41. Q 249 16.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW47/A-19 Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 249 has Application been signed of Ashok by Accused Kohali Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 116 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
42. Q 251 17.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 251 has Application been signed of Sunita by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
43. Q 253 18.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW22/B Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 253 has Application been signed of Rakesh by Accused Kumar Vijay (PW22) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
44. Q 255 19.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW20/B Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 255 has Application been signed of Vijay by Accused Kumar Vijay (PW20) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
45. Q 257 20.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW47/A-19 Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 117 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 257 has Application been signed of by Accused Membership Vijay Application Kumar R. S Valia Aggarwal (A-3)
46. Q 259 20.12.1997 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 259 has Application been signed of Sarla by Accused Rana Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
47. Q 261 23.05.1998 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 261 has Application been signed of Gurpreet by Accused Kaur Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
48. Q 263 27.05.1998 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 263 has Application been signed of Rama Bai by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 118 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
49. Q265 30.05.1998 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 265 has Application been signed of Naresh by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
50. Q 267 07.04.1999 ExPW7/B As per the purported report of the signature of ExPW47/A-19 Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 267 has Application been signed of Sushil by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
51. Q 269 08.04.1999 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 269 has Application been signed of Savita by Accused Sharma Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 119 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
52. Q 271 14.05.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 271 has Application been signed of M.S by Accused Chadha Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
53. Q 273 14.05.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 273 has Application been signed of Surjeet by Accused Kaur Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
54. Q 275 16.05.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 275 has Application been signed of Ram by Accused Niwas Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
55. Q 277 18.05.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 120 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 277 has Application been signed of Jai by Accused Bhagwan Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
56. Q 279 19.05.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 279 has Application been signed of Param Bir by Accused Singh Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
57. Q 281 14.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 281 has Application been signed of Hawa by Accused Singh Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
58. Q 283 14.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 283 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 121 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Application been signed of Birender by Accused Singh Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
59. Q 285 14.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 285 has Application been signed of Om by Accused Prakash Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
60. Q 287 18.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported 18.07.2000 report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 287 has Application been signed of Sunita by Accused Sharma Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
61. Q 289 18.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 289 has Application been signed of Asha Rani by Accused Bhatia Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 122 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
62. Q 291 18.07.2000 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the these Q Membership documents Application have been of Sudershan signed by Kaushik Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
63. Q 293 15.01.2002 ExPW47/A-19 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Membership Q 293 has Application been signed of Uma by Accused Chaudhary Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
64. Q 295 to Q ExPW47/A-20 As per the 328 (colly) report of the Expert Q 295 to Q 05.11.1997 ExPW47/C 299 ( para 14) , purported purported signatures of signatures Rukmani of Rukmani Devi on the Devi on list of these Q resigned documents members have been after 03.04.1998 signed by registration. accused Vijay Resignations Kumar Aggarwal(A CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 123 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q 300 -3) purported signature of Rukmani Devi 03.04.1998 (resignation of V.S Sisodia).
Q301 purported signature of Rukmani Devi 01.09.2000 (resignation of Om Pal Singh) Q 302 purported signature of Rukmani 02.04.2012 Devi (resignation of M.L Rawal) Q 303 purported signature of Rukmani 09.03.1994 Devi (resignation of Abhijeet ) Q 304 purported signature of Rukmani Devi 04.05.1997 (resignation of Ravi CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 124 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar ) Q 305 (purported signature of Rukmani Devi 08.04.1993 (resignation of K.K Saxena ) Q 306 purported signature of Rukmani 04.03.1994 Devi (resignation of Krishna Sood) Q 307 purported signature of Rukmani 06.09.1994 Devi (resignation of Y.K Garg) Q 308 purported signature of Rukmani Devi 03.04.1998 (resignation of Raghu Nath) Q 309 purported signature of Rukmani Devi 02.04.1998 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 125 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (resignation of Ram Chandra ) Q 310 purported signature of Rukmani 02.04.1997 Devi (resignation of Pradeep Puri ) Q 311 purported signature of Rukmani 07.04.1998 Devi (resignation of K.K ) Q 312 purported signature of Rukmani Devi 08.04.1998 (resignation of Anita Khullar) 07.04.1998 Q 313 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Devender Sood) 07.04.1998 Q 314.
purported signature of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 126 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani Devi Q 315 purported 02.04.1996 signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of V.K Dhawan Q 316 purported 09.04.1998 signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of V. Gupta ) Q317 purported signature of 09.04.1998 Rukmani Devi (resignation of Lalit Gaur) Q 318 19.04.2001 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Savita Grover) Q319 10.05.1997 purported signature of Rukmani CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 127 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi (resignation of Vinod Kumar Gupta
l) 19.04.2001 Q320 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of B.B Aggarwal ) 06.03.1994 Q321 purported signature of Rukmani Devi ( resignation of Savita Grover ) Q322 12.05.1997 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Santosh Gupta) 12.05.1997 Q323 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Rajinder Singh Saini 12.05.1997 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 128 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q324 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Bhagwant) 15.03.1995 Q325 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Amalul) 13.05.1997 Q326 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Moti Jain ) Q327 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Suresh Aggarwal) Q328 purported signature of Rukmani Devi (resignation of Rajender Kumar Gupta.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 129 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
65. Q 330 to Q ExPW47/A-21 As per the 342 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the ( para 14) , following these Resignation Questioned letters. documents have been Q 330 Om 05.03.1995 signed by Prakash Accused Vijay Q331 11.03.1995 Kumar Satendar Jain Aggarwal (A-3) Q332 .. Jain 13.05.1997 Q333 Tibam 15.03.1995 Chand Q334Virende 13.05.1997 r Kumar Jain Q335 Nanak 16.03.1995 Chand Q336 01.04.1997 Rajender Kumar Shah Q337 Shri Pal 13.05.1997 Jain Q338 08.11.1996 Rishabh Jain Q 339 Ashok 15.03.1995 Kumar Jain 13.12.1996 Q340 Hans CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 130 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Raj 11.11.1996 Q341 Laxmi 13.02.1997 Q342 Pawan Kumar Jain
66. Q 344 to ExPW47/A-22 As per the Q358 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the these following Questioned Resignation documents Letters have been signed by Q 344 06.11.1996 Accused Mahipal Vijay Kumar Q345 Din 11.03.1995 Aggarwal Bahadur (A-3) Gupta Q346 Ashok 06.03.1994 Chendia Q347 Sunil 06.03.1994 Kumar Jain Q348 10.05.1997 Debashish Ojha Q349 Aman 06.04.1997 Ojha Q 350 P.K 10.15.1997 Bagh 04.03.1994 Q351 Shishir CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 131 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Mehta 03.04.1997 Q352 Yogesh Kr 06.11.1997 Q353 Raj Kumar Jain 06.11.1997 Q354 Dinesh Kumar Jain 02.03.1994 Q355 Anil Singhal 12.05.1997 Q356 G.C Jain 06.03.1994 Q357 Ravi Sharma 09.03.1994 Q358 Gian Chand Jain
67. Q360 to Q ExPW47/A-27 As per the 401 purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (Para 14), following these resignation Questioned letttes documents have been Q 360 06.11.1997 signed by Vijender Accused Kumar Jain Vijay Kumar Q361 Suman 07.03.1994 Aggarwal Jain (A-3) Q362 Kailash 03.04.1997 Jain CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 132 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q363 07.11.1997 Mukesh Kumar Saini Q364 Meera 09.03.1994 Jain Q365Deepak 06.03.1994 Q366 Ashok 06.11.1996 Kumar Arora Q367 Sunil 06.03.1994 Kumar Goel Q368 K.K 04.03.1994 Monga Q369 Beena 10.05.1997 Jain Q370 Suresh 10.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q371 Ashok 12.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q372 03.04.1997 Shriniwas Q373 Pawan 12.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q374 Kailash 04.03.1994 Chand Jain Q375 Ajay 07.03.1994 Kumar Mehta Q376 Navin 06.03.1994 Kumar Jain CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 133 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q377 02.04.1997 Mukesh Kumar Jain Q378 Anil 12.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q379 Inder 03.04.1997 Kumar Jain Q380 Shashi 08.11.1997 Singhal Q381 Rama 08.11.1997 Kansal Q382 Pushpa 04.08.1997 Jain Q383 Anju 04.08.1997 Jain Q384 Sushil 09.04.1998 Jain Q385 Satish 18.12.1996 Chand Jain Q 386 Shashi 18.12.1996 Prabha Jain Q 387 19.07.2000 Sanjeev Kumar-
Q388 Suresh 18.02.1997
Jain
Q 389 16.12.1996
Mukesh
Kumar Jain
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 134 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q390 Sumeet 06.11.1996 Jain Q391 16.03.1995 Mahender Jain Q392Vinod 08.11.1996 Kumar Q393 08.04.1997 Vijender Kumar Jain Q394 11.03.1995 Surender Kumar Gupta Q395 Rakesh 06.11.1996 Kumar Q 396 Anand 11.11.1996 Kumar Jain Q397 K.M 11.12.2000 Agarwal Q398 Kamla 19.04.2001 Sharma 29.11.2000 Q399 Rekha Goyal 20.04.2001 Q400 Anil Raj 01.09.2000 Q 401 Pawan Kumar
68. Q 403 02.03.1994 ExPW5/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 135 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), Q (resignation 403 of Hardev document Sharma has been ( PW5) signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
69. Q405 To Q ExPW47/A-24 As per the 412 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), following these Resignation Questioned letters documents have been Q 405 05.03.1994 signed by Madan Lal Accused Vijay Q 406 B.M 17.04.2001 Kumar Gupta Aggarwal (A-3) Q 407 Shalini 13.05.1997 Agrawal Q408 13.05.1997 Kamlesh Mittal Q409 10.11.1997 Sudeshan Kur.
Aggarwal
Q410 initials 17.01.2002
Q411 M.K 01.08.1997
Bhasin
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 136 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q412 Mudit 01.08.1997
70. Q 414 11.02.2001 ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), Q (resignation 414 of Mukesh ) document has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
71. Q 415 06.04.2002 ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), Q (resignation 415 has of Anook been signed Mahajan by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
72. Q 417 06.04.2002 ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 417 has of Manoj been signed Kumar ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 137 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
73. Q 418 Nil ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt of Q 235 has 10100/- been signed Ranvir Singh by Accused r/o Kidwai Vijay Nagar Kumar (membership Aggarwal no. 127) (A-3)
74. Q420 08.04.1998 ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 420 has of Anita been signed Khosla ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
75. Q 421 17.07.200 ExPW-47/A-25 As per the purported 0 report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 421 has of Narender been signed Singh by Accused Shekhawat Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 138 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
76. Q 423 12.01.2002 ExPW45/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 423 has of Babu Lal been signed Aggarwal by Accused (PW45) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
77. Q 424 08.04.2002 ExPW47/A-26 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 424 has of been signed membership by Accused no.156) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
78. Q 426 18.05.2000 ExPW47/A-26 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 426 has of Makhan lal been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
79. Q 428 18.05.2000 ExPW47/A-26 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 139 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 428 has of Kavita ) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
80. Q 430 04.09.2000 ExPW8/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 430 has of Sunil been signed (PW8) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
81. Q 432 15.05.2000 ExPW6/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 432 has of Hanuman been signed Singh (PW6) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
82. Q 434 08.12.2001 ExPW47/A-27 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 434 has of Sangeeta) been signed CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 140 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
83. Q 436 12.01.2002 ExPW43/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 436 has of Mukesh been signed Aggarwal by Accused (PW43) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
84. Q 438 18.09.2000 ExPW47/A-28 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 438 has of Ranvir been signed Singh from by Accused membership Vijay no. 165) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
85. Q 440 01.09.2000 ExPW47/A-28 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 440 has of Krishan been signed Kumar) by Accused Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 141 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3)
86. Q 442 19.07.2000 ExPW47/A-28 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 442 has of Ravi been signed Kumar ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
87. Q 444 18.09.2000 ExPW47/A-28 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 444 has of Suneeta) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
88. Q446 26.10.2000 ExPW47/A-28 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 446 has of Mahesh been signed Kumar by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
89. Q448 04.09.2000 ExPW14/D As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 142 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 448 has of Saroj been signed Taneja by Accused ( PW14) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
90. Q450 20.07.2000 ExPW47/A-29 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 450 has of Veena) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
91. Q452 30.05.2001 ExPW9/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 452 has of S.P Singh been signed (PW9) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
92. Q 454 11.07.2001 ExPW47/A-30 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 454 has of Manoj been signed Kumar ) by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 143 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
93. Q456 16.09.2000 ExPW10/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 456 has of Sandeep been signed (PW10) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
94. Q458 16.05.2000 ExPW47/A-31 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 458 has of Santosh) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
95. Q460 16.09.2000 ExPW47/A-31 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 460 has of Pushpa ) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
96. Q462 27.04.2002 ExPW47/A-314 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 144 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 462 has of Sunita been signed Devi) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
97. Q464 04.09.2000 ExPW47/A-31 As per the purported ( ExPW47/A- report of the signature of 59) Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 464 has of Ganga been signed Ram) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
98. Q465 18.09.2000 ExPW47/A-31 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 465 has of Naresh been signed Kumar by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
99. Q467 27.10.2000 ExPW47/A-31 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 467 has of M.P been signed Singh ) by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 145 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
100. Q469 31.05.2001 ExPW38/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 469 has of Vinod been signed Kumar by Accused (PW38/B) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
101. Q471 15.05.2000 ExPW47/A-32 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 471 has of Archana) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
102. Q473 04.09.2000 ExPW47/A-32 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 473 has of Vandana been signed Bhatia by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
103. Q477 28.08.2000 ExPW47/A-33 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 146 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 477 has of Ashok been signed Kumar ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
104. Q479 17.09.2000 ExPW47/A-33 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 479 has of Sunita ) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
105. Q483 01.10.2002 ExPW20/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 483 has of Vijay been signed Kumar by Accused (PW20/C) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
106. Q485 16.05.2000 ExPW47/A-34 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 485 has of Ravinder) been signed by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 147 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
107. Q487 04.09.2000 ExPW47/A-34 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 487 has of Sarla been signed Rana) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
108. Q488 03.11.2001 ExPW47/A-34 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 488 has of Gurpreet been signed Kaur) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
109. Q490 03.11.2001 ExPW47/A-34 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 490 has of Rama Bai ) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
110. Q492 03.11.2001 ExPW47/A-34 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 148 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 492 has of Naresh been signed Kumar ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
111. Q494 27.04.2002 ExPW7/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 494 has of Sushil been signed Kumar by Accused Aggarwal Vijay from Kumar membership Aggarwal no.197) (A-3)
112. Q496 27.04.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 496 has of Savita been signed Sharma) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
113. Q 497 30.04.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 497 has of M.S. been signed Chadha ) by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 149 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
114. Q498 30.11.2000 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 498 has of Surjeet been signed Kaur) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
115. Q500 09.03.2001 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 500 has of Ram been signed Niwas) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
116. Q502 24.10.2000 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 502 has of Jai been signed Bhagwan by Accused from Vijay membership Kumar no.202 ) Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 150 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
117. Q504 26.10.2000 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 504 has of Pram Bir been signed Singh from by Accused membership Vijay no. 203 ) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
118. Q506 26.10.2000 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 506 has of Hawa been signed Singh ) by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
119. Q508 01.09.2000 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 508 has of Birender been signed Singh from by Accused membership Vijay no.205 ) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
120. Q510 10.03.2001 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), of resignation Q 510 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 151 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 of Om been signed Prakash by Accused (membership Vijay no.206 is of Kumar Om Prakash) Aggarwal (A-3)
121. Q 512 06.07.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 512 has of Sunita) been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
122. Q 513 21.02.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 513 has of been signed membership by Accused no. 211 Vijay Suresh Kumar Kumar) Aggarwal (A-3)
123. Q514 09.07.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 514 has of been signed Sudarshan by Accused Kaushik ) Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 152 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
124. Q515 08.12.2001 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 515 has of B.S Saini been signed from by Accused membership Vijay no.240) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
125. Q 517 03.10.2002 ExPW47/A-35 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (resignation Q 517 has of been signed membership by Accused 268 Uma Vijay Chaudhary) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
126. Q 518 05.03.1998 ExPW39/A-7 As per purported ExPW47/C signature of (para 14), Rukmani Q 518 has Devi been signed (resignation by Accused of V.S Sisodia Vijay (PW39) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
127. Q519 to ExPW47/A-36 As per the Q546 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the these Refund Questioned Vouchers documents CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 153 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 shown to have been have been signed by issued to Accused following Vijay persons Kumar Aggarwal Q 519 Om 05.02.1999 (A-3) Pal Singh Q520 M.L 05.02.1999 Rawal Q521 10.06.2001 Abhijeet Q522 Ram 22.04.1994 Kumar Q523 K.K 10.06.1997 Saxena Q524 Dr. 06.02.1999 Karuna Q525 Y.K 13.05.1994 Garg Q 526 Raghu 13.05.1994 Nath Q527 Ram 05.02.1999 Chandra Q528 05.02.1999 Pradeep Puri Q529 K.K 12.05.197 Dwivedi Q530 Anita 10.06.2001 Q531Devend 05.02.1999 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 154 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 er Sood Q532 05.02.1999 initials Q533 V.K 05.02.1999 Dhawan Q534 06.02.1999 V.Gupta Q535 Lalit 05.02.1999 Gaur Q536 B.K 05.02.1999 Bahal Q537 Vinod 10.06.2001 Kr.
Q538 B.B 10.06.2001
Aggarwal
Q539 .. 16.04.1994
Grover
Q540 Santosh 19.06.1997
Gupta
Q541 19.01.1997
Rajinder
Singh Saini
Q542 25.04.1997
Bhagwat
Prasad
Q543 07.02.1998
A.Chand Jain
Q544 Moti ---
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 155 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Jain 545 Suresh -
Aggarwal 546 Rajindner Kr. --
Gupta
128. Q548 to ExPW47/A-37 As per the Q616 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani ( para 14), Devi on the these Refund Questioned Vouchers documents shown to have been have been signed by issued to the Accused following Vijay persons. Kumar Aggarwal(A Q548 Om 25.07.1997 -3) Prakash Q549 25.04.1997 Satender Jain Q550 19.06.1997 Dharampal Q551 Tikam 10.05.1997 Chand Jain Q552Virende 19.06.1997 r Kumar Jain Q553 Nanak 10.05.1997 Chand Q554 22.05.1997 Rajender CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 156 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Saha Q555 Shri Pal 19.05.1997 Jain Q 556 10.05.1997 Rishabh Jain Q557 Ashok 29.04.1997 Kumar Jain Q558 Hans 16.05.1997 Raj Jain Q559 Laxmi 0702.1998 Devi Q560 Mr. 19.06.1997 Pawan Kumar Jain Q561 10.05.1997 Mahipal Jain Q562 Din 25.04.1997 Bandhu Gupta 25.04.1997 Q563 Ashok Chordia Q564 Sunil 22.04.1994 Kumar Jain Q 565 10.06.1997 Debasis Ojha Q566 Aman 22.08.1997 Jha Q 567 P.K 10.06.1997 Bagh CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 157 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q568 13.05.1994 Shishir Mehta Q569 Yogesh 22.05.1997 Kumar Saini Q570 Raj 05.03.1998 Kumar Jain Q571 Anil 22.04.1994 Singhal Q572 G.C 10.06.1997 Jain Q573 Ravi 15.04.1994 Sharma Q574initials 30.04.1994 Q 575 05.03.1998 Vijender Kumar Jain Q576 Suman 15.04.1994 Jain Q577 Kailash 07.02.1998 C Jain Q578 05.03.1998 Mukesh Kumar Saini Q579 Meera 16.04.1994 Jain Q580 13.05.1994 Deepak Nayyar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 158 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q581 Ashok 10.02.1997 Kumar Arora.
Q582 Sunil 30.04.1994
Kr. Goel
Q583 K.K 15.04.1994
Monga
Q584 Beena 10.06.1997
Jain
Q585 Suresh 10.06.1997
Kumar Jain
Q586 Ashok 10.06.1997
Kumar Jain
Q587 22.05.1997
Sriniwas Jain
Q588 Pawan 10.06.1997
Kumar Jain
Q589 Kailash 15.04.1994
Chand Jain
Q590 Ajay 16.04.1994
Kumar Mittal
Q591 Navin 30.04.1994
Kumar Jain
Q592 07.02.1998
Mukesh
Kumar Jain
Q593 Anil 10.06.1997
Kumar Jain
Q594 Inder 22.05.1997
Kumar Jain
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 159 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q595 Shashi 05.03.1998 Singhal Q596 Rama 05.03.1998 Kansal Q 597 Pushpa 14.10.1997 Jain Q598 Anju 14.10.1997 Jain Q 599 Sushil 21.11.1998 Jain Q600 Satish 10.05.1997 Chand Jain Q601 Shashi 13.12.1996 Prabha Jain Q602 10.06.2001 Sanjeev Kumar Q603 Suresh 12.02.1997 Jain Q604 10.05.1997 Mukesh Kumar Jain Q605 07.02.1998 Sumeet Jain Q606 25.04.1997 Mahender Jain Q607 Vinod 10.05.1997 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 160 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Jain Q608 22.05.1997 Vijender Kumar Jain Q 609 25.04.1997 Surender Kumar Gupta Q610 Rakesh 10.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q611 Anand 10.05.1997 Kumar Jain Q 612 K.M Aggarwal 10.05.1997 Q 613 Kamla 10.05.2001 Sharma Q 614 Rekha 10.06.2001 Goyal Q615 Anil 10.06.2001 Raj Q 616 Pawan 10.06.2001 Kumar
129. Q618 refund 30.04.1994 Ex PW5/D As per the voucher report of the Hardev Expert Sharma ExPW47/C (PW5) (para 14), Q 618 has been signed by Accused Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 161 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
130. Q620 to ExPW47/A-38 As per the Q625 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the these Refund Questioned vouchers documents shown to have been have been signed by issued to the Accused following Vijay membership Kumar Aggarwal Q 620 Madan 16.04.1994 (A-3) Lal Q621 B.M 10.06.2001 Gupta Q622 Shashi 19.06.1997 Aggarwal Q623 19.06.1997 Kamlesh Mittal Q624 05.03.1998 Sudershan Kumar Aggarwal Q 625 13.04.2002 Ghanshyam Goel
131. Q627 to Q ExPW47/A-38 As per the 634 purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 162 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Refund these vouchers Questioned shown to documents have been have been issued to the signed by following Accused persons. Vijay Kumar 03.10.1997 Aggarwal Q627 (A-3) Maninder Kaur Bhasin 13.10.1997 Q628 Mudit Sharma 19.02.2002 Q629 Suman Jain 17.05.2000 Q630 Neelam Jalon 25.02.2002 Q631 Bharat Bhushan 29.04.2000 Q632 Anita 13.10.1997 Q633Manoj Kumar Nirala 08.04.2002 Q634 Santosh
132. Q635 13.04.2002 ExPW25/C As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Refund Q 635 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 163 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Krishan Aggarwal Mohan (A-3) Chetani (PW25)
133. Q636 to Q ExPW47/A-39 As per the 648 report of the Purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani ( para 14), Devi on the these Refund Questioned vouchers documents shown to have been have been signed by issued to the Accused following Vijay persons. Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) Q 636 P.K 04.06.2001 Basu Q637 20.02.2002 Sandeep Chopra Q638 03.12.1997 Jayendra Kr.
Chawla
Q 639 Baldev 03.10.2000
Parkash
Q640 ... 14.12.1998
Q641.. 14.12.1998
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 164 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q642 08.04.2002 Mukesh Kumar Q643 Anoop 18.05.2002 Mahajan Q644 Majoj 29.07.2002 Kumar Q645 Ranvir 01.11.2007 Singh ( M. No. 127) Q646 Hira Nil Lal Arora Q 647 Anita 06.02.1999 Khosla Q 648 20.11.2000 Narender Singh
134. Q649 13.04.2002 ExPW45/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 649 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Babu Lal Aggarwal Aggarwal (A-3) (PW45)
135. Q 650 to Q ExPW47/A-40 As per the 662 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 165 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Refund these vouchers Questioned shown to documents have been have been issued to the signed by following Accused persons. Vijay Kumar Q 650 Om 20.02.2002 Aggarwal Prakash (A-3) Q651.. 09.04.2002 Q652 Nil Abhilesh Dave Q653 Meenal Nil Arora Q654 . 02.05.2001 Sandeep Q655 03.02.2001 Rajender Chhatwal Q656 Mala 31.08.2001 Singh Q657 Mala 15.10.2001 Singh Q658 Ravi 01.08.2001 Krishnan Q659.. 02.05.2002 Q660 Tarun 28.08.2000 Kapoor Q661 Sushil 30.06.2002 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 166 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q662 H.K Shahani 09.06.2002
136. Q664 10.06.2001 ExPW47/A-40 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 664 has Voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Makhan Lal Aggarwal Sharma (A-3)
137. Q666 10.06.2001 ExPW47/A-40 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the these Q receipt documents Voucher have been shown to signed by have been Accused issued to Vijay Kavita Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
138. Q667 10.06.2001 ExPW8/B As per the purported (84/C D-7) report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 667 has Voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued Sunil Kumar Jain (PW8) Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 167 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
139. Q669 01.06.2001 ExPW6/B As per the purported ( 83/C D-7) report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 669 has Voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Hanuman Aggarwal Singh (PW6) (A-3)
140. Q671 13.04.2002 ExPW47/A-40 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 671 has Voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sangeeta Aggarwal Devi (A-3)
141. Q673 (ExPW43/C) As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Receipt Q 673 has Vouchers been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Mukesh Aggarwal Kumar (A-3)
142. Q 674 to Q ExPW47/A-42 As per the 678 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14) , Receipt these CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 168 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vouchers Questioned shown to documents have been have been issued to signed by following Accused persons. Vijay Kumar Q674 18.07.2001 Aggarwal Ranvir Singh (A-3) Q675 10.06.2001 Krishan Kumar Sharma Q676 Ravi 01.06.2001 Kumar Q677 Sunita 08.06.2001 Q678 08.06.2001 Mahesh Kumar
143. Q679 18.07.2001 ExPW14/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Receipt Q 679 has Voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Saroj Taneja Aggarwal (PW14) (A-3)
144. Q 680 10.06.2001 PW47/A-43 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), receipt Q 680 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 169 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Smt Kumar Veena Sahni Aggarwal (A-3)
145. Q681 18.07.2001 ExPW9/A (73/C As per purported D-7) ExPW47/C signature of (para 14), Rukmani Q 681 has Devi on the been signed receipt by Accused voucher Vijay shown to Kumar have been Aggarwal issued to S.P (A-3) Singh (PW9)
146. Q 682 13.04.2002 ExPW47/A-44 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C, Devi on these Q receipt documents voucher have been shown to signed by have been Accused issued to Vijay Manoj Kumar Kumar Aggarwal (A-3).
147. Q683 18.07.2001 ExPW10/B As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 683 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sandeep Aggarwal Dang(PW10) (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 170 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
148. Q 684 to ExPW47/A-45 As per the Q689 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on these receipt Questioned voucher documents shown to have been have been signed by issued to Accused following Vijay persons. Kumar Aggarwal Q684 01.06.2001 (A-3) Santosh Sethi Q685 Pushpa 18.07.2001 Q686 Sunita 27.07.2002 Devi Q687 Ganga 10.06.2001 Ram Q688 Naresh 10.06.2001 Kumar Q689 M.P 08.06.2001 Singh
149. Q690 18.07.2001 Ex PW38/C As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 690 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Vinod Kumar Aggarwal CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 171 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (Pw38) (A-3)
150. Q691 01.06.2001 ExPW47/A-46 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 691 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Archana Aggarwal (A-3)
151. Q692 18.07.2001 ExPW47/A-46 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 692 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Vandana Aggarwal Bhatia (A-3)
152. Q694 10.06.2001 ExPW11/A As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 694 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Usha Gandhi Aggarwal (A-3)
153. Q696 18.07.2001 ExPW47/A-47 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 172 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 696 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Voucher Aggarwal Ashok Kohli (A-3)
154. Q697 18.07.2001 ExPW47/A-47 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 697 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Voucher Aggarwal Sunita (A-3)
155. Q699 10.06.2001 ExPW22/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 699 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Rakesh Aggarwal Kumar (A-3) (PW22)
156. Q701 13.11.2002 Ex PW20/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 7044 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 173 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 issued to Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
157. Q 702 10.06.2001 ExPW47/A-48 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 702 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar R.S Walia Aggarwal (A-3)
158. Q703 08.06.2001 ExPW47/A-48 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 235 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sarla Rana Aggarwal (A-3)
159. Q704 15.12.2001 ExPW47/A-48 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 704 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Gurpreet Aggarwal Kaur (A-3)
160. Q705 08.02.2002 ExPW47/A-48 As per the Purported report of the signature of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 174 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 705 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Rama Bai Aggarwal (A-3)
161. Q706 11.03.2202 ExPW47/A-48 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 706 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Naresh Aggarwal Kumar (A-3)
162. Q707 29.07.2002 ExPW7/D As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 707 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sushil Aggarwal Agarwal (A-3) (PW7)
163. Q708 29.07.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 708 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 175 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Savita Devi Aggarwal (A-3)
164. Q709 27.01.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 709 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar M.S Chadha Aggarwal (A-3)
165. Q710 02.02.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 710 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Surjeet Kaur Aggarwal (A-3)
166. Q711 04.06.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 711 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Ram Niwas Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 176 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
167. Q712 03.01.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 712 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Jai Kumar Bhagwan Aggarwal (MP No.202) (A-3)
168. Q713 19.01.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 713 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Parambir Aggarwal Singh (A-3)
169. Q714 09.01.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 714 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Hawa Singh Aggarwal (A-3)
170. Q715 12.10.2000 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 177 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 715 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Birender Aggarwal Singh (A-3)
171. Q 716 24.05.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 716 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Om Kumar Prakash Aggarwal (A-3)
172. Q717 16.09.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 717 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sunita Aggarwal Sharma (A-3)
173. Q718 21.09.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 718 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 178 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sunita Aggarwal Sharma (A-3)
174. Q719 28.02.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 719 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Asha Rani Aggarwal Bhatia (A-3)
175. Q720 12.02.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 720 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Asha Rani Aggarwal Bhatia (A-3)
176. Q721 30.04.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 721 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Suresh Aggarwal Kumar (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 179 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
177. Q722 13.09.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 722 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Sudershan Aggarwal Kaushik (A-3)
178. Q723 05.04.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 723 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to B.S Kumar Saini Aggarwal (A-3)
179. Q724 02.08.2001 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 724 has voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Rakesh Aggarwal Kumar Verma (A-3)
180. Q725 18.12.2002 ExPW47/A-49 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), receipt Q 725 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 180 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher been signed shown to by Accused have been Vijay issued to Kumar Uma Aggarwal Chaudhary (A-3)
181. Q726 15.03.1994 ExPW39/A-8 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the , these Q minutes of documents meeting have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
182. Q 727 20.03.1995 ExPW39/A-9 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 727 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
183. Q731 15.11.1996 EPW47/A-50 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 731 has meeting of been signed AMC by Accused Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 181 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3)
184. Q736 25.12.1996 ExPW45/E As per the purported (page 29/C report of the signature of D-7) Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 736 has meeting of been signed AMC by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
185. Q737 and Q 07.04.1997 ExPW47/A-50 As per the 742 report of the purported (ExPW25/F) Expert signature of (document ExPW47/C Rukmani contains (para 14), Devi on the purported Q 737 and minutes of signature of 742 have meeting of K.M Chetani been signed AMC PW25 and Babu by Accused Lal Aggarwal Vijay PW45 as well) Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
186. Q 743 and Q 17.05.1997 ExPW47/A-50 As per the 747 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 743 and meeting of 747 have AMC been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 182 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
187. Q752 08.08.1997 ExPW25/F As per the purported ExPW45/F report of the signatures of (document Expert Rukmani contains ExPW47/C Devi on the purported (para 14), minutes of signature of Q 752 has meeting of K.M Chetani been signed AMC PW25 and Babu by Accused Lal Aggarwal Vijay PW45 as well ) Kumar Aggarwal ExPW47/A-50 (A-3)
188. Q757 06.10.1997 ExPW25/F As per the purported ExPW45/G report of the signatures of (document Expert Rukmani contains ExPW47/C Devi on the purported (para 14), minutes of signature of these Q meeting of K.M Chetani documents AMC PW25 and Babu have been Lal Aggarwal signed by PW45 as well ) Accused Vijay ExPW47/A-50 Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
189. Q762 14.11.1997 ExPW25/F As per the purported ExPW45/H report of the signatures of (document Expert Rukmani contains ExPW47/C Devi on the purported (para 14), minutes of signature of Q 762 has meeting of K.M Chetani been signed AMC PW25 and Babu by Accused Lal Aggarwal Vijay PW45 as well ) Kumar Aggarwal ExPW47/A-50 (A-3)
190. Q763 and Q 15.04.1998 ExPW47/A-50 As per the 767 report of the purported Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 183 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14),Q Devi on the 763 and 767 minutes of have been meeting of signed by Managing Accused Committee Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
191. Q772 06.08.1998 ExPW47/A-50 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), minutes of Q 772 has meeting been signed by Accused ExPW45/K Vijay 22/C Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
192. Q773 and Q 24.05.2000 ExPW7/E As per the 778 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on Q 773 and minutes of Q 778 have meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
193. Q779 and Q 26.07.2000 ExPW7/E As per the 783 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 779 and CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 184 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 meeting 783 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
194. Q785 and Q 09.09.2000 ExPW7/E As per the 789 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the Q 785 and minutes of 789 have meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
195. Q791 and 25.09.2000 ExPW7/E As per the Q794 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the Q 791 and minutes of 794 have meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
196. Q797 and Q 03.11.2000 ExPW7/E As per the 801 purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 797 and meeting 801 have been signed by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 185 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
197. Q807 07.12.2000 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), minutes of Q 807 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
198. Q812 09.01.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 812 has meetings been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
199. Q816 19.03.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on (para 14), minutes of Q 816 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 186 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
200. Q822 28.04.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 822 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
201. Q823 and 07.06.2001 ExPW7/E As per the 829 purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 23 and meeting 829 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
202. Q833 01.07.2001 ExPW7/E As per the signature of report of the Rukmani Expert Devi on the ExPW47/C m MC (para 14), Minutes of Q 833 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
203. Q838 08.10.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 187 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 838 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
204. Q843 12.11.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 843 has Meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
205. Q848 18.12.2001 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 848 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
206. Q853 23.01.2002 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 853 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 188 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3)
207. Q858 02.03.2002 ExPW7/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 858 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
208. Q859 and Q 13.04.2002 ExPW7/E As per the 864 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on Q 59 and minutes of 864 have meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
209. Q 861 13.04.2002 --do-- As per the (photostatic) report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the Q 861 has 2nd page of been signed the minutes by Accused of meeting Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
210. Q869 and 06.05.2002 ExPW7/E As per the Q867 ( during the report of the ( photostatic) testimony of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 189 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 purported PW47 it has ExPW47/C signatures of been referred to (para 14), Rukmani as ExPW7/E ) Q 869 and Devi on the whereas PW7 867 has minutes of deposed about been signed meeting 21/C to 6/C by Accused only and this Vijay doc is at 5/C D- Kumar
7) u decide Aggarwal please what to (A-3) do
211. Q870 ExPW7/E ) As per the signature of report of the Rukmani Expert Devi on the ExPW47/C minutes of ( para 14), meeting these Q documents have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
212. Q874 15.07.2002 No exhibit As per the (photostatic) found report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on Q 874 has minutes of been signed meeting by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
213. Q875 15.07.2002 ExPW7/E (21/C As per the purported to 6 C D-7) report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 190 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 minutes of Q 875 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
214. Q876 and 14.09.2002 ExPW7/E As per the Q881 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on the Q 876 and minutes of Q881 have meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
215. Q882 and Q 08.10.2002 ExPW7/E As per the 885 purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 882 and meeting Q 885 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
216. Q887 to Q ExPW47/A-51 As per the 907 (colly) report of the Expert Q 887 to Q ExPW47/C 891 (para 14) , purported these signature of ExPW47/A-51 Questioned Rukmani (colly) documents CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 191 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on the have been list of total signed by 192 enrolled Accused members for Vijay allotment of Kumar land. Aggarwal (A-3) Q892 to Q ExPW33/PX 894 purported signatures of Rukmani Devi on the list of existing members Q895 to Q ExPW33/PX-14 897 ( details of flats category/floor wise of SGHS (List of Category A) and Q898 to Q 899 ( details of flats category/floor wise of SGHS list category B) Q901 To Q 907 purported signature of Rukmani Devi on the list of members for approval and onward CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 192 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 transmission to DDA for Draw of lots
217. Q932 24.03.200 ExPW2/E-6 As per the ( photostatic) 2 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukhmani (para 14), Devi at serial Q 932 has no.29 on the been signed minutes of by Accused meeting of Vijay General Body Kumar Meeting Aggarwal (A-3)
218. Q939 24.03.2002 ExPW2/E-6 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi (para 14), (photostatic) Q 939 has on the been signed resolutions by Accused passed in the Vijay General Body Kumar Meeting Aggarwal 24.3.2002 (A-3)
219. Q957 to Nil ExPW1/PB-5 As per the Q962 report of the Expert Q957 and Q ExPW47/C 958 purported (para 14), signatures of these Q Rukmani documents Devi on the have been List of 34 signed by members Accused (Category B) Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 193 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 ( may be its Kumar list of allottee Aggarwal members) (A-3) Q959 , Q960 and Q 961 purported signature of Rukmani Devi on the list of members (Category A)
220. Q 962 03.02.2002 ExPW47/A-52 As per the signature of report of the Rukmani Expert Devi on the ExPW47/C minutes of (para 14), meeting Q 962 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
221. Q 962/1 03.02.2002 ExPW47/A-52 As per the signature of report of the Rukmani Expert Devi on the ExPW47/C minutes of (para 14), meeting Q 962/1 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
222. Q963 03.02.2002 Ex PW47/A-52 As per the signature of report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 194 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani Expert Devi on the ExPW47/C minutes of (para 14), meeting Q 963 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
223. Q965/1 ExPW47/A-53 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 65/1 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
224. Q966 15.01.2003 ExPW1/PB-2 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi letter (para 14), to AR (SW) Q 966 has requesting for been signed approval of by Accused final list of Vijay members for Kumar draw of lots Aggarwal (A-3)
225. Q 967 15.01.2003 ExPW1/PB-2 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukhmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), 2nd page of Q 967 has letter to AR been signed (SW) by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 195 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 requesting for Vijay approval of Kumar final list of Aggarwal members for (A-3) draw of lots
226. Q 968 16.01.2003 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), letter Q 968 has addressed to been signed AR (SW) by Accused requesting for Vijay approval of Kumar final list of Aggarwal members for (A-3) draw of lots.
227. Q 969 Nil Page 69 C D-5 As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on a (para 14), certificate Q 969 has that no court been signed case is by Accused pending of Vijay the society Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
228. Q971 14.01.2003 ExPW2/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C( Devi on the para 14), Q minutes of 971 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 196 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
229. Q 971/1 14.01.2003 ExPW2/E As per the (photostatic) report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C( Rukmani para 14), Q Devi on the 971/1 has minutes of been signed meeting by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
230. Q 972 14.1.2003 ExPW2/E As per the ( photostatic) report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C( Rukmani para 14), Q Devi on the 972 has minutes of been signed meeting by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
231. Q974 14.01.2003 ExPW2/E As per the purported report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), minutes of Q 974 has meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
232. Q 975 These ExPW2/E As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on a during (para 14), certificate PW2 Q 975 has CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 197 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 certifying that been signed there is no by Accused inspection u/s Vijay 54 & inquiry Kumar u/s 55 & 59 Aggarwal pending (A-3) against the society
233. Q 976 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on during the (para 14), certificate testimony Q 976 has submitted to of PW2 been signed AR(SW) by Accused RCS, Vijay certifying that Kumar there is no Aggarwal dispute (A-3) regarding the category of Flats.
234. Q 977 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on letter during the (para 14), to AR (SW) testimony Q 977 has reg fixation of PW2 been signed of qualifying by Accused amount for Vijay draw of lots Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
235. Q978 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on during (para 14), contribution PW2 Q 978 has list of been signed CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 198 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 members by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
236. Q 979 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on during the (para 14), contribution testimony Q 979 has list of of PW2 been signed members by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
237. Q 980 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on during (para 14), contribution PW2 Q 980 has list of been signed members by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
238. Q 981 These As per the purported documents report of the signature of were not Expert Rukmani exhibited ExPW47/C Devi on a during (para 14), certificate PW2 Q 981 has certifying that been signed in the by Accused meeting of Vijay Managing Kumar Committee Aggarwal held on (A-3) 14.1.2003 to CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 199 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 seek condonation from RCS for the lapsed occurred in the past for irregularities and to request the RCS to approve the final list of the members
239. Q 982 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 982 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay (List of 105 Kumar enrolled Aggarwal members ) (A-3)
240. Q983 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 983 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 2nd page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal ( list of 192 (A-3) resigned members)
241. Q 984 ExPW25/K As per the purported Nil report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 200 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 984 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 3rd page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal (list of 192 (A-3) resigned members)
242. Q 985 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 985 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 5th page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal (list of 192 (A-3) resigned members)
243. Q 986 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 986 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 7th page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal (list of 192 (A-3) resigned members)
244. Q 987 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 201 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 987 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 8th page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal (ist of 192 (A-3) resigned members)
245. Q 988 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 988 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay 9th page of Kumar affidavit Aggarwal (list of 192 (A-3) resigned members and list of new 192 enrollment)
246. Q 989 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 989 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay (list of new Kumar 192 Aggarwal enrollment) (A-3)
247. Q 990 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 202 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 990 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay (list of new Kumar 192 Aggarwal enrollment) (A-3)
248. Q 991 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 991 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay (list of new Kumar 192 Aggarwal enrollment) (A-3)
249. Q 992 Nil ExPW25/K As per As purported per the signatures of report of the Rukmani Expert Devi on an ExPW47/C Affidavit (para 14), shown to Q 992 has have been been signed filed by her. by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
250. Q 993 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 993 has shown to been signed have been by Accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 203 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 filed by her. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
251. Q 994 Nil ExPW25/K As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on an (para 14), Affidavit Q 994 has shown to been signed have been by Accused filed by her. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
252. Q 995 to Q ExPW1/PB-1 As per the 1004 report of the purported Expert signature of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi list of these Q 105 members documents forwarded have been for approval signed by and Accused transmission Vijay to DDA for Kumar draw of lots Aggarwal (A-3)
253. Q1006 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), Q list of 1006 has members been signed resigned by Accused during the Vijay year 2001- Kumar 2002 Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 204 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
254. Q1008 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), list of Q 1008 has members been signed enrolled by Accused during the Vijay year 2001- Kumar 2002 Aggarwal (A-3)
255. Q1009 As per the purported report of the signatures of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), list of records Q 1009 has as on been signed 31.3.2002 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
256. Q1010 and Q As per the 1011 report of the purported Expert signatures of ExPW47/C Rukmani (para 14), Devi on Q 1010 and affidavit Q 1011 has affirming that been signed the by Accused resignations Vijay accepted by Kumar the MC of Aggarwal Shree Ganesh (A-3) Society are genuine and full and final payment to all the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 205 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 resigned members have been made
257. Q 1019 As per the (photostatic) report of the signature of Expert Rukmani ExPW47/C Devi on the (para 14), declaration Q 1019 has by the been signed candidate for by Accused nomination Vijay for contesting Kumar election as Aggarwal Vice (A-3) President of the MC of Shree Ganesh CGHS
149. PW29 A. Karthikeyan, who was posted in the Horticulture Department of MCD, deposed that on 10.1.2007, he had gone to the CBI office. He further deposed that the specimen writings/signatures of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) S-1 to S-139 were taken in his presence and also in the presence of another witness Sh. Ramesh Kumar; specimen writings were given voluntarily by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). PW29 identified accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal before the court.
150. PW27 Sh. M.K Verma deposed that in the year CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 206 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 2007, he was working as LDC in Department of Education, South Zone and on 17.2.2007, on the instruction of his senior officers, he attended the office of CBI. In his presence specimen writings/signatures of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal S-140 to S-233 ExPW27/D (collectively) were taken by the CBI. He put his signatures as one of the witnesses at points X on each sheet thereof. Specimen writings were given by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) voluntarily. PW27 also identified accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) before the Court.
151. PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav deposed that specimen signatures /writings of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) S-1 to S-233 were given voluntarily by him. Specimen writings S-1 to S-139 are ExPW29/A which bears his signatures at point X and specimen writings S- 140 to S-233 ExPW27/D bears his signatures at point Z. As stated herein above, expert opinion was sought on the questioned documents and vide letter dated 22.3.2002 ExPW47/A .
152. PW27 Sh. M.K Verma, PW29 A Karthikeyan and PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav have been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) but CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 207 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 during their cross examination, nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses to the effect that specimen signatures/writings of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) were taken by the IO during the investigation. Even if the witnesses were unable to tell as to how many times they had gone to the office of CBI, the number of persons whose specimen signatures were taken in their presence, how long they remained in the office of CBI on a particular day etc. would not be sufficient to reject their testimonies.
153. As per the report of the Expert ExPW47/C, the aforesaid questioned documents, as referred to in table A were written by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), as per para 14 of the said report.
154. Now, take the testimony of DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, who is the son of Rukmani Devi (deceased). He deposed that his mother Rukmani Devi expired in the year 2008. She was a member of Shree Ganesh CGHS and he can recognize her signature. He further deposed that his mother was allotted a flat in the said society and he had attended the meeting of Shree Ganesh CGHS with his mother once or twice. He identified his signatures on as CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 208 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 many as 487 documents .
155. DW2 was cross-examined by Ld. PP for the CBI.
During his cross-examination, DW2 admitted that his mother was working as a mehandi applier and was allotted a flat in Shree Ganesh CGHS, but stated that he was not aware of how his mother made payment for the allotment of the flat. During his cross-examination, an affidavit dated 4.1.2003 ExDW2/DA was shown to him, and he identified the signature of his mother at points A and B thereon. DW 2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma identified his mother Rukmani Devi's signature on all the proceedings and documents, whether shown by the prosecution or the defence, saying that these signatures were his mother's signatures. During his cross-examination, a question was put to him by the Ld. PP for CBI as to since when accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) worked with Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1), to which he replied that he knows this fact for the last one or two years after his mother was allotted a flat. He admitted that he knew accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) prior to his deposition as made before this court as a Defence witness.
156. Even the testimony of DW2 would not be CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 209 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution as set up against the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) for the reasons that, Firstly, during the cross examination of DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, it has come on record that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) is known to him; Secondly, it has not been explained by DW2 as to on what basis he could identify the signatures of his mother Rukmani Devi. It is not the case of DW2 that he has seen his mother signing and writing on several occasions. Merely claiming that Rukmani Devi had signed his school report card, would not be a cogent explanation to believe the version of DW2. Moreover, even if for the sake of argument, the stand of the DW2 is accepted that his mother Smt Rukmani Devi, used to sign his school report card, it is very surprising that how DW2 could remember the signature of his mother from his childhood until the day he deposed before this court i.e., in the year 2022.Thirdly, the testimony of DW2 in this regard appears to be general and vague in nature. Further, DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma appears to have been made a defence witness to depose before this court in favour of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) as Rukmani Devi is no more alive.
157. Moreover, a careful examination of Table A CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 210 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 would make it clear that at least two documents, placed at serial no. 1 Q 863 and at serial no.126 Q 518, purportedly signed by Rukmani Devi, have not been referred during the testimony of DW2. DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma is silent about these documents. Whereas, as per the report of the Expert PW47/C, these two documents were also signed by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3).
158. Category B: This category is of those documents, where in addition to the allegations of the prosecution that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi, some of the prosecution witnesses have also denied their signatures on the said questioned documents and execution thereof. Category B is the tabulation of these documents which is as under:
Category B The documents where the signatures of Rukmani Devi have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and prosecution witnesses have denied having executed these documents and their signatures thereon .
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 211 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Sl. Nature of Dated Exhibit/ Remarks No Questioned Mark Document which was sent to the GEQD for examination
1. Q 190 14.03.1995 ExPW25/A Denied by purported (D-7) PW25 Krishan signature of Mohan Rukmani Devi Chetani and on the signature membership thereon.
application of Krishan As per the Mohan report of the Chaitani expert ( PW25) ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 190 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
2. Q199 07.08.1996 ExPW45/A Denied by purported PW45 Babu lal signature of Aggarwal and Rukmani Devi signature on the thereon at Membership Q200 Application of As per the Babu Lal report of the Aggarwal expert (PW45) ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 199 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 212 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
3. Q205 30.07.1997 ExPW8/C Denied by purported PW8 Sunil signature of Jain and his Rukmani Devi signature on the thereon at Q Membership 296.
Application of
Sunil Jain As per the
(PW8) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
205 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
4. Q 211 01.08.1997 ExPW43/A Denied by
purported PW43 Mukesh
signature of Kumar and his
Rukmani Devi signature
on the thereon at Q
Membership 212.
Application of
Mukesh As per the
Kumar report of the
(PW43) expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
211 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 213 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
5. Q 221 25.09.1997 ExPW14/C Denied by purported PW14 Saroj signature of Taneja and Rukmani Devi signature on the thereon at Q Membership 222 as well.
Application of
Saroj Taneja As per the
(PW14) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
221 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
6. Q 223 27.09.1997 ExPW9/B Denied by
purported PW9 S.P
signature of Singh and
Rukmani Devi signature
on the thereon at Q
Membership 224 as well.
Application of
S.P Singh As per the
(PW9) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
223 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 214 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
7. Q227 29.09.1997 ExPW10/C Denied by purported PW10 Sandeep signature of Dang and Rukmani Devi signature on the thereon at Membership Q228.
Application of
Sandeep Dang As per the
(PW10) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
227 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
8. Q 233 30.03.1997 ExPW43/D Denied by
purported PW43 Mukesh
signature of Aggarwal
Rukmani Devi having been
on the signed by his
Membership elder sister
Application of Sunita Devi
Sunita Devi and her
(elder sister of signature
PW43 thereon at
Mukesh Q234 as well.
Aggarwal)
As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 215 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 233 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
9. Q 241 07.11.1997 ExPW38/A Denied by purported PW38 Vinod signature of Kumar Kaul Rukmani Devi and his on the signature Membership thereon at Application of Q242 as well.
Vinod Kumar As per the
Kaul (PW38) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
241 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
10. Q 247 15.12.1997 ExPW47/A- Denied by
purported 19 PW11 Usha
signature of ExPW11/B Bhatia and her
Rukmani Devi signature
on the thereon at Q
Membership 248 .
Application of As per the
Usha Gandhi report of the
(PW11) expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
247 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 216 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
11. Q 253 18.12.1997 ExPW47/A- Denied by purported 19 PW22 Rakesh signature of ExPW22/B Kumar and his Rukmani Devi signature on the thereon at Membership Q254 .
Application of As per the
Rakesh report of the
Kumar expert
(PW22) ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
253 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
12. Q 255 19.12.1997 ExPW47/A- Denied by
purported 19 PW20 Vijay
signature of ExPW20/B Kumar and his
Rukmani Devi signature
on the thereon at Q
Membership 256.
Application of As per the
Vijay Kumar report of the
(PW20) expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
255 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
13. Q 403 02.03.1994 ExPW5/C Denied by
purported PW5 Hardev
signature of Singh and his
Rukmani Devi signature
(resignation of thereon at
Hardev Q403.
Sharma As per the
( PW5) report of the
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 217 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 403 document has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
14. Q 423 12.01.2002 ExPW45/B Denied by purported PW45 Babu signature of Lal Aggarwal Rukmani Devi and signature (resignation of thereon at Babu Lal Q422.
Aggarwal As per the
(PW45) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
423 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
15. Q 430 04.09.2000 ExPW8/D Denied by
purported (278/C D-7) PW8 Sunil and
signature of his signature
Rukmani Devi thereon at Q
(resignation of 429 as well.
Sunil (PW8) As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
430 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 218 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
16. Q 432 15.05.2000 ExPW6/D Denied by purported PW6 Hanuman signature of Singh and Rukmani Devi signature (resignation of thereon at Hanuman Q431.
Singh (PW6) As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
432 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
17. Q448 04.09.2000 ExPW14/D Denied by
purported PW14 Saroj
signature of Taneja and
Rukmani Devi signature
(resignation of thereon at Q
Saroj Taneja 447.
( PW14) As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
448 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 219 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
18. Q452 30.05.2001 ExPW9/C Denied by purported PW9 and her signature of signature Rukmani Devi thereon at Q (resignation of 451.
S.P Singh As per the
(PW9) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
452 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
19. Q456 16.09.2000 ExPW10/D Denied by
purported PW10 Sandeep
signature of and his
Rukmani Devi signature
(resignation of thereon at
Sandeep Q455.
(PW10) As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
456 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
20. Q469 31.05.2001 ExPW38/B Denied by
purported PW38 Vinod
signature of Kumar and his
Rukmani Devi signature
(resignation of thereon at Q
Vinod Kumar 468.
(PW38/B)
As per the
report of the
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 220 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 expert ExPW47/C Q 469 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
21. Q475 16.09.2000 ExPW11/C Denied by purported PW11 Usha signature of Bhatia and Rukmani Devi purported (resignation of signature Usha Gandhi ) thereon at (PW11/C) Q47.
As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 475 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
22. Q481 19.04.2001 ExPW22/C Denied by purported PW22 Rakesh signature of Kumar and Rukmani Devi signature (resignation of thereon at Q Rakesh 480).
Kumar As per the
(PW22/C) report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
481 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 221 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (A-3)
23. Q483 01.10.2002 ExPW20/C Denied by purported PW20 Vijay signature of Kumar and Rukmani Devi signature (resignation of thereon at Vijay Kumar Q482.
(PW20/C) As per the
report of the
expert
ExPW47/C
(para14), Q
483 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
24. Q494 27.04.2002 ExPW7/C Denied by
purported PW7 Sushil
signature of Kumar
Rukmani Devi Aggarwal at Q
(resignation of 493.
Sushil Kumar
Aggarwal As per the
( membership report of the
no. 197) expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
494 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 222 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
25. Q618 refund 30.04.1994 Ex PW5/D Denied by PW voucher 5 Hardev Hardev Sharma and Sharma signature (PW5) thereon at Q617.
As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 618 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
26. Q635 13.04.2002 ExPW25/C Denied by purported PW25 Krishan signatures of Mohan Rukmani Devi Chetani and on the Refund signature voucher thereon at shown to have point X. been issued to Krishan As per the Mohan report of the Chetani expert (PW25) ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 635 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
27. Q649 13.04.2002 ExPW45/C Denied by PW purported 45 Babu Lal signature of Aggarwal and Rukmani Devi signature on the receipt thereon at CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 223 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 voucher point X. shown to have been issued to As per the Babu Lal report of the Aggarwal expert (PW45) ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 649 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
28. Q667 10.06.2001 ExPW8/B Denied by purported PW8 Sunil signatures of Jain and Rukmani Devi signature on the receipt thereon.
Voucher
shown to have As per the
been issued report of the
Sunil Jain expert
(PW8) ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
667 has been
signed by
accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
29. Q669 01.06.2001 ExPW6/B Denied by
purported PW6 Hanuman
signatures of Singh and
Rukmani Devi signature
on the receipt thereon at Q
Voucher 668.
shown to have
been issued to As per the
Hanuman report of the
Singh (PW6) expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 224 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 669 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
30. Q679 18.07.2001 ExPW14/B Denied by purported PW14 Saroj signature of Taneja and Rukmani Devi signature on the Receipt thereon at Voucher point X. shown to have been issued to As per the Saroj Taneja report of the (PW14) expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 679 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
31. Q681 18.07.2001 ExPW9/A Denied by purported (73/C D-7) PW9 S.P signature of Singh and Rukmani Devi signature on the receipt thereon at voucher point X. shown to have As per the been issued to report of the S.P Singh expert (PW9) ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 681 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 225 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
32. Q683 18.07.2001 ExPW10/B Denied by purported PW10 Sandeep signature of Dang and Rukmani Devi signature on receipt thereon.
voucher
shown to have As per the
been issued to report of the
Sandeep Dang expert
(PW10) ExPW47/CC
(para 14), Q
683 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
33. Q690 18.07.2001 Ex PW38/C Denied by
purported PW38 and
signature of signature
Rukmani Devi thereon at
on receipt point X.
voucher
shown to have As per the
been issued to report of the
Vinod Kumar expert
(PW38) ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
690 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
34. Q694 10.06.2001 ExPW11/A Denied by
purported PW11 Usha
signature of Bhatia and
Rukmani Devi signature
on receipt thereon at
voucher point X.
shown to have
been issued to As per the
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 226 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Usha Gandhi report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 694 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
35. Q699 10.06.2001 ExPW22/D Denied by purported PW22 Rakesh signature of Kumar and Rukmani Devi signature on receipt thereon at Q voucher 698.
shown to have
been issued to As per the
Rakesh report of the
Kumar (PW22 expert
ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
699 has been
signed by
Accused Vijay
Kumar
Aggarwal
(A-3)
36. Q707 29.07.2002 ExPW7/D Denied by
purported PW7 Sushil
signature of Aggarwal and
Rukmani Devi signature
on receipt thereon at
voucher point X.
shown to have
been issued to As per the
Sushil report of the
Agarwal expert
(PW7) ExPW47/C
(para 14), Q
707 has been
signed by
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 227 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
37. Q726 15.03.1994 ExPW39/A-8 Admitted by purported PW 39 V.S signature of Sisodia and his Rukmani Devi signature at on minutes of point X. meeting As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C, these Q documents have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
38. Q736 25.12.1996 ExPW45/E Denied by PW purported 45 Babu Lal signature of Aggarwal Rukmani Devi having on the attended the minutes of meeting and meeting his signature thereon at point at Q 735.
As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 736 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 228 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
39. Q737 and Q 07.04.1997 ExPW47/A- Denied by 742 50 PW25 K.M purported Chetani having signature of ExPW25/F attended the Rukmani Devi said meeting on the and his minutes of the signature meeting thereon at Q 744. Denied by PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal having attended the meeting and his signature thereon at Q 741 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 737 and 742 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
40. Q752 08.08.1997 ExPW25/F Denied by purported ExPW45/F PW25 K.M signatures of ExPW47/A- Chetani having Rukmani Devi 50 attended the on the said meeting minutes of and his meeting signature thereon at Q 750 point X. Denied by CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 229 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal having attended the meeting and his signature thereon at Q 748 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 752 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
41. Q757 06.10.1997 ExPW25/F Denied by purported ExPW45/G PW25 K.M signatures of ExPW47/A- Chetani having Rukmani Devi 50 attended the on the said meeting minutes of and his meeting signature thereon at Q 753 point X. Denied by PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal having attended the meeting and his signature thereon at Q 756 point X. As per the report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 230 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 expert ExPW47/C, these Q documents have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
42. Q762 14.11.1997 ExPW25/F Denied by purported ExPW45/H PW25 K.M signatures of Chetani having Rukmani Devi attended the on the said meeting minutes of the and his meeting signature thereon at Q 760 point X. Denied by PW45 Babu Lal Aggarwal having attended the meeting and his signature thereon at Q 759 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 762 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 231 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
43. Q772 ExPW47/A- Denied by purported 50 PW45 Babu signatures of ExPW45/K Lal Aggarwal Rukmani Devi having on the attended the minutes of meeting and meeting his signature thereon at Q 769 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 772 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
44. Q773 and Q 24.05.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by 778 PW7 Sushil purported Kumar signatures of Aggarwal and Rukmani Devi his signature on the thereon Q 777 minutes of point X. meeting As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 773 and Q 778 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 232 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
45. Q779 and Q 26.07.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by 783 purported PW7 Sushil signatures of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal and on minutes of his signature meeting thereon Q 784 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 779 and 783 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
46. Q785 and Q 09.09.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by 789 PW7 Sushil purported Kumar signatures of Aggarwal and Rukmani Devi his signature on minutes of thereon Q 790 meeting point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 785 and 789 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 233 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
47. Q791 and 25.09.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by Q794 PW7 Sushil purported Kumar signatures of Aggarwal Rukmani Devi having attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 796 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 791 and 794 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
48. Q797 and Q 03.11.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by 801 PW7 Sushil purported Kumar signature of Aggarwal Rukmani Devi having on the attended the minutes of said meeting in meeting the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 802 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 234 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (para 14), Q 797 and 801 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
49. Q807 07.12.2000 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 806 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 807 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
50. Q812 09.01.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 235 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 his signature thereon Q 811 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 812 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
51. Q816 19.03.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 817 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 816 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 236 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
52. Q822 28.04.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 821 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 822 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
53. Q823 and 829 07.06.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signatures of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 828 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 23 and 829 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 237 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
54. Q833 01.07.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by signature of PW7 Sushil Rukmani Devi Kumar on minutes of Aggarwal meeting having attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 832 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 833 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
55. Q838 08.10.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 837 point X. CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 238 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 838 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
56. Q843 12.11.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signatures of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 842 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 843 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
57. Q848 18.12.2001 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signatures of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 239 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 847 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 848 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
58. Q853 23.01.2002 ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 852 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 853 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 240 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
59. Q858 sur ExPW7/E Denied by purported PW7 Sushil signature of Kumar Rukmani Devi Aggarwal on minutes of having meeting attended the said meeting in the capacity of president and his signature thereon Q 856 point X. As per the report of the expert ExPW47/C (para 14), Q 858 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
60. Q966 15.01.2003 ExPW1/PB-2 Admitted by purported PW1 J.S signatures of Sharma Rukhmani having Devi on the received the letter to AR same from (SW) Society requesting for approval of As per final list of ExPW47/C members for (para 14), Q draw of lots 966 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 241 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
159. There are certain documents where the signatures of Rukmani Devi have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) and the same have been detailed under the Category A. Out of the aforesaid documents, some of the documents are said to have been signed by few members of the society. Some of them appeared in the witness box as a prosecution witnesses and they have denied their signatures on such documents, as tabulated under Category B. Meaning thereby, the said prosecution witnesses also have corroborated the story of prosecution that these documents were never executed by genuine members and final list of the members, which were submitted to the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA for Draw of Lots, was based upon fake enrollments and resignations of the members. It also supports the fact that the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal has forged the signature of Rukmani Devi on these documents.
160. The Category B of the documents, as narrated herein above, would make it crystal clear that PW5 Hardev Singh, PW6 Hanuman Singh, PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, PW8 Sunil Jain, PW9 S.P Singh, PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia, PW14 Saroj Taneja, PW20 Vijay Kumar, PW22 Jitender Kumar @ Rakesh CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 242 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Soni, PW25 Krishan Mohan Chetani, PW38 Vinod Kumar Kaul, PW43 Mukesh Kumar and PW45 Babu Lal have categorically denied of having executed the aforesaid documents and their signatures thereon. These witnesses have not been as such cross examined on behalf of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and their testimonies have gone unrebutted and unchallenged on material points.
161. Category C: This category belongs to the rest of the documents i.e Firstly, where as per the report of the Expert ExPW47/C, documents have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal( A-3) and the persons whose signatures have been forged, have not appeared in the witness box. Secondly, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) has not forged the signatures of anyone but he forged the document by signing the same in the capacity of President of the Society as per the report of the expert ExPW47/C, whereas he claims that he was never the president of the society. The aforesaid documents are being tabulated as under:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 243 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 CATEGORY C The rest of the documents upon which signatures of some persons were forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) and some of the documents have been forged by him by signing the documents in the capacity of President of the Society Sl. Nature of Dated Exhibit/ Remarks No Questioned Mark Document which was sent to the GEQD for examination
1. Q25 name of ExPW5/PX (D- As per the Santosh Sethi 15) report of the has been shown expert at serial no. 176 ExPW47/C, and purported ( para 14 ), signature at Q25 has point X in been signed membership by Accused register Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
2. Q44 signature 01.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal (A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque issued Q44 has in the name of been signed Archana by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
3. Q46 signature 01.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal(A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 244 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 of cheque D-48 Q46 has issued in the been signed name of Ravi by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
4. Q 48 signature 01.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal(A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-49 Q48 has issued in the been signed name of by Accused Santosh Sethi Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
5. Q 52 signature 08.06.20001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal(A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-52 Q52 has issued in the been signed name of Sanjeev by Accused Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
6. Q 54 signature 08.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal(A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-51 Q54 has issued in the been signed name of Sunita by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
7. Q 56 signature 08.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 245 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-53 Q56 has issued in the been signed name of by Accused Mahesh Kumar Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
8. Q 58 signature 08.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal (A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-54 Q58 has issued in the been signed name of M.P by Accused Singh Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3).
PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1467 and 11468 respectively.
9. Q 62 signature 10.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal(A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-55 Q62 has issued in the been signed name of Kamla by Accused Sharma Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 246 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3).
PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1473 and 1474 respectively.
10. Q 67 signature 10.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the of accused (colly) report of the Vijay Kumar expert Aggarwal (A-3) ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-59 Q67 has issued in the been signed name of Anil by Accused Roy Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3).
PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1481 and 1482 respectively.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 247 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
11. Q 75 purported 10.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the signature of (colly) report of the Ganga Ram on expert the back side of ExPW47/C, cheque D-64 ( para 14 ), issued in the Q75 and Q name of Ganga 76 have Ram been signed by Accused Q 76 signature Vijay Kumar of accused Vijay Aggarwal Kumar(A-3)on (A-3) the back side of PW43 cheque D-64 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1493 and 1494 respectively.
12. Q 80 purported 10.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the signature of (colly) report of the signature of expert Bharat Bhushan ExPW47/C, on the back side ( para 14 ), of cheque D-66 Q80 has issued in the been signed name of Bharat by Accused Bhushan Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 248 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1499 and 1500 respectively.
13. Q 81 purported 10.06.2001 ExPW7/J As per the signature of (colly) report of the Rekha on the expert back side of ExPW47/C, cheque D-67 ( para 14 ), issued in the Q81 has name of Rekha been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3).
PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1501 and 1502 respectively.
14. Q 87 purported 18.07.2001 ExPW7/J As per the signature of (colly) report of the Pushpa on the expert back side of ExPW47/C, CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 249 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 cheque D-71 ( para 14 ), issued in the Q87 has name of Pusha. been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures shown to have been signed by him or his brother at Q 1509 and 1510 respectively.
15. Q 124 purported 05.03.1998 ExPW43/G As per the signature of report of the Suresh Kumar expert Jain and Q 125 ExPW47/C, signature of ( para 14 ), Vijay Kumar Q124 and Aggarwal(A-3) 125 have back side of been signed cheque issued in by Accused the name of Vijay Kumar Suresh Kumar Aggarwal Jain. (A-3).
PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures to be his or his CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 250 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 brothers at Q 1553 and 1554 respectively.
16. Q 129 signature 05.02.1999 ExPW23/A-1 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the back side expert of cheque D-45 ExPW47/C, issued in the ( para 14 ),, name of V. Q129 has Gupta been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
17. Q 130 back side 06.02.14999 ExPW43/F As per the of cheque report of the issued in the expert name of ExPW47/C, Nirmal Kumar ( para 14 ), Guha Q93 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) PW43 Mukesh Aggarwal denied purported signatures to be his or his brothers at Q 1561 and 1562 respectively.
18. Q 158 purported Nil ExPW47/A-1 As per the signature of Jai report of the Bhagwan on the expert confirmation of ExPW47/C, resignation ( para 14 ), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 251 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Q158 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
19. Q 173 signature Nil ExPW47/A-2 As per the of Krishan report of the Kumar on expert confirmation of ExPW47/C, resignation ( para 14 ), Q173 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
20. Q 174 Nil ExPW47/A-2 As per the handwriting of report of the Krishan Kumar expert Sharma on ExPW47/C, confirmation of ( para 14 ), resignation Q174 has been written by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
21. Q 180 purported Nil ExPW47/A-3 As per the handwriting of report of the Prem Bir Singh expert on confirmation ExPW47/C, of resignation ( para 14 ), Q180 has been written by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
22. Q463 purported 04.09.2000 ExPW47/A-59 As per the signature of report of the Ganga Ram on expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 252 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the resignation ExPW47/C, letter from ( para 14 ), Q membership 463 has been signed by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
23. Q 863 signature 13.04.2002 ExPW7/E As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of President, on ExPW47/C, the minutes of ( para 14 ), meeting Q 863 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
24. Q868 signature 06.05.2002 ExPW7/E As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of President, ExPW47/C, minutes of the ( para 14 ), meeting Q868 has 06.05.2002 been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
25. Q 879 signature 14.09.2002 ExPW7/E As per the of Vijay Kumar. report of the in the capacity expert of President, ExPW47/C, on the minutes ( para 14 ), of meeting Q879 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 253 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
26. Q 920 signature EXPW47/A-59 As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of president, on ExPW47/C, the list of ( para 14 ), managing Q920 has committee been signed elected by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
27. Q 921 signature EXPW47/A-59 As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of President, on ExPW47/C, the list of ( para 14 ), members Q921 has resigned during been signed the year 2001- by Accused 2002 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
28. Q 922 signature EXPW47/A-59 As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of President, on ExPW47/C, the list of ( para 14 ), members Q922 has enrolled during been signed the year 2001- by Accused 2002 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
29. Q 926 signature 24.03.2002 ExPW2/E-6 Denied by of Vijay Kumar PW2 on the General Surender Body Meeting Kumar Gupta and signature thereon .
As per the report of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 254 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 expert ExPW47/C, ( para 14 ), Q926 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
30. Q 944 signature 24.3.2002 ExPW2/E-6 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the expert resolutions ExPW47/C, passed in the ( para 14 ), General Body Q944 has Meeting been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
31. Q 948 signature 26.03.2002 ExPW9/E-5 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on Minutes of expert meeting ExPW47/C, ( para 14 ), Q948 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
32. Q965 signatures 26.3.2002 ExPW47/A-53 As per the of Vijay Kumar, report of the in the capacity expert of President, on ExPW47/C, the minutes of ( para 14 ), meeting Q965 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 255 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
33. Q 1005 ExPW47/A-54 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar, in expert the capacity of ExPW47/C, President, on ( para 14 ), the list of Q1005 has members been signed resigned during by Accused 2001 -2002 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
34. Q 1007 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar, in expert the capacity of ExPW47/C, President. on ( para 14 ), the list of Q1007 has members been signed enrolled during by Accused 2001 -2002 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
35. Q1020 and Q ExPW47/A-55 As per the 1021 signatures report of the of Vijay Kumar expert on the ExPW47/C, declaration by ( para 14 ), the candidate Q1020 and filing his 1021 have nomination for been signed contesting by Accused election as Vijay Kumar President of the Aggarwal Managing (A-3) Committee
36. Q1061 and Q ExPW47/A-60 As per report 1062 signatures ExPW47/C, of Vijay Kumar Q1061 and on the letterhead 1062 have of Shree Ganesh been signed CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 256 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 CGHS by Accused mentioning the Vijay Kumar names of Aggarwal members of (A-3) present Managing Committee as well as previous one. In this document name of Vijay Kumar has been shown as President of the present Managing Committee
37. Q 1012 22.05.2002 ExPW47/A-55 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar. in expert the capacity of ExPW47/C, President, on ( para 14 ), letter dated Q1012 22.05.2002 documents addressed to have been AR(SW) (sub: signed by submission of Accused audit and Vijay Kumar election Aggarwal records) (A-3)
38. Q1013 01.04.2000 ExPW47/A-55 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the letter ExPW47/C, addressed to ( para 14 ), Q AR, Co-op 1013 has Societies (sub been signed Election) by Accused conveying Vijay Kumar information of Aggarwal new Managing (A-3) Committee wherein Vijay CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 257 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar(A-3) has been shown as President
39. Q1014 , Q1015 03.02.2002 ExPW47/A-55 As per the and Q 1016 report of the signatures of expert Vijay Kumar ExPW47/C, on the minutes (para 14 ), of meeting these Questioned documents have been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
40. Q1017 signature ExPW47/A-55 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on Declaration expert by the ExPW47/C, Candidate by ( para 14 ), Dhruwa Narain Q 1017 has Aggarwal for been signed contesting the by Accused election as Vijay Kumar Member of the Aggarwal MC of Shree (A-3) Ganesh CGHS
41. Q1018 signature ExPW47/A-55 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on Declaration expert by the ExPW47/C, Candidate by ( para 14 ), Q Rukmani Devi 1018 has for contesting been signed the election as by Accused Vice President Vijay Kumar of the MC of Aggarwal Shree Ganesh (A-3) CGHS.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 258 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 In this document signature of Rukmani Devi at Q 1019 has also been signed by Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
42. Q1024 is ExPW47/A-55 As per the signature of report of the Indira Aggarwal expert on the ExPW47/C, declaration by ( para 14 ), Q the candidate 1024 has Smt Indira been signed Aggarwal (A-2) by Accused regarding Vijay Kumar nomination for Aggarwal contesting (A-3) election as member of the Managing Committee of Shree Ganesh CGHS.
43. Q1025 is the ExPW47/A-55 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the declaration ExPW47/C, by the candidate these Q Smt Indira documents Aggarwal have been regarding signed by nomination for Accused contesting Vijay Kumar election as Aggarwal member of the (A-3) Managing Committee of Shree Ganesh CGHS.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 259 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
44. Q1027 and Q ExPW47/A-55 As per the 1028 signature report of the of Vijay Kumar expert on MoM ExPW47/C, 24.03.2002 ( para 14 ), Q 1027 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
45. Q1029 signature ExPW47/A-55 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the expert photocopy of ExPW47/C, savings bank ( para 14 ), Q passbook 1029 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
46. Q1030 signature 15.04.2002 ExPW47/A-56 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on letter expert addressed to ExPW47/C, AR(SW) ( para 14 ), IQ 1030 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
47. Q1031 ExPW47/A-56 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the check list ExPW47/C, for submission ( para 14 ), Q of audit report 1031 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 260 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Aggarwal (A-3)
48. Q1123 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the Audit Report ExPW47/C, for previous ( para 14 ), Q year collected 1123 has on 06.12.2001 been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
49. Q1124 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the Balance expert sheet as of 31st ExPW47/C, March,2002 ( para 14 ), Q 1124 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
50. Q1125 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the receipt expert and Payment ExPW47/C, account for the ( para 14 ), period Q1125 has 01.04.2001 to been signed 31.03.2002 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
51. Q1126 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of accused Vijay report of the Kumar on the expert Income & ExPW47/C, Expenditure ( para 14 ), Account for the Q1126 has year ending 31st been signed CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 261 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Mark, 2002 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
52. Q1127 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the Bank ExPW47/C, reconciliation (para 14 ), Q statement as on 1127 have 31.03.2002 been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-
3)
53. Q1128 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of accused Vijay report of the Kumar on the expert bank ExPW47/C, reconciliation ( para 14 ), as on Q 1128 has 31.03.2002 been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
54. Q1129 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the bank expert reconciliation ExPW47/C, as on ( para 14 ), 31.03.2002 Q 1129 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
55. Q1130 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the list of ExPW47/C, Managing ( para 14 ), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 262 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Committee Q 1130 has elected signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
56. Q1131 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the list of expert members ExPW47/C, resigned during ( para 14 ), the year 2001- Q 1131 has 2002 been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
57. Q1132 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar on expert the list of ExPW47/C, members ( para 14 ), enrolled during Q 1132 has the year 2001- been signed 2002 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
58. Q1133 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the list of expert amount payable ExPW47/C, to Ex-Members ( para 14 ), Q1133 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
59. Q1134 signature ExPW47/A-57 As per the of Vijay Kumar report of the on the list of expert CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 263 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 members with ExPW47/C, their balances as ( para 14 ), on 31.03.2002 Q1134 has been signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
60. Q1135 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar expert on the 2nd page ExPW47/C, of the list of ( para 14 ), members with Q 1135 has their balances as been signed on 31.03.2002 by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
61. Q1136 ExPW47/A-57 As per the signature of report of the Vijay Kumar expert on the 3rd page ExPW47/C, of the list of ( para 14 ), members with Q 1136 their balances as hasbeen on 31.03.2002 signed by Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3)
162. There are certain documents upon which the signatures of fake members of the society have been forged by the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and few documents have been forged by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal by signing the same in the capacity of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 264 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 society. Neither it is the case of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) that he was the member of the society nor he was ever elected as a president of the society. That being so, he had no authority to submit these documents to the office of RCS for finalization of the list of members to be sent to the DDA for draw of lots.
163. Here it is pertinent to mention that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) is heavily placing reliance on the testimony of DW2 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, who is the son of Rukmani Devi and tried to prove that he had not forged the signature of Rukmani Devi. This court has already rejected the testimony of DW2, however, even if for the sake of argument, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) that as deposed by DW2, the documents and proceedings have been signed by Rukmani Devi, still there is other material on record indicating that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged not only the signatures of Rukmani Devi but of other members also, as narrated and tabulated under Category B and C. How the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) can be allowed to run away from the factual position that he has forged the documents pertaining to the society, as submitted to the office of RCS CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 265 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 by him in the capacity of President of Society.
164. Here, I may mention that PW47 P. Venugopal has been cross examined on behalf of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3). The fact of receiving of the request from the IO ExPW7/A and ExPW 47/B, as such has not been challenged by the accused person during the cross examination of PW47. The testimony of PW47 to the effect that they have received the specimen signatures of various persons including accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3), has also gone unchallenged. Further, the fact that the aforesaid questioned documents were examined by PW47 Sh. P Venugopal and thereafter, he had given the report ExPW47/C, as such has also not been disputed. A careful examination of cross examination of PW47 would indicate that the main challenge was to the reasoning given by PW47 P. Venugopal in support of his report ExPW47/C.
165. PW47 P. Venugopal has deposed that his detailed reasons for the opinion running into 13 sheets were forwarded to the CBI and the same are ExPW47/F. PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav, who is the IO of the present case deposed that the reasons in support of the opinion was CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 266 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 received vide letter dated 01.01.2001 and the said reasons are ExPW47/F. He further deposed that original letter along with original reasons, which were received in the office of CBI on 04.1.2008 is now ExPW48/X. Meaning thereby, ExPW48/X appears to be copy of the reasons ExPW 47/F. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) tried to show that there is a material differences between the reasons ExPW47/F, as sent by PW47 to the CBI office and the copy which was filed by the IO Ex PW48/X. At the outset, I may say that it is true that there are few differences but PW47 has explained the same. One such difference, as pointed out, was that at point Z on ExPW48/X it does not have Hindi Letter whereas at point X on ExPW47/F one Hindi letter is written. PW47 has explained that he must have missed. Further, cross examination would not go to the root of the matter regarding the age of the questioned documents, location of middle bar, variation in the nib of the pen etc. Merely on the aforesaid basis, the detailed report ExPW47/C of the Expert cannot be rejected.
166. In a case titled as Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, it was observed that :
7. In the first place, it may be noted that the appellant was at the material time a Guard in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 267 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 employment of the Railway Administration with his headquarters at Agra and he had nothing to do with the train by which wagon No. SEKG 40765 was dispatched from Munda to Bikaner with the train which carried that wagon from Agra to Ludhiana. He was not a Guard on either of these two trains. There was also no evidence to connect the appellant with the theft of the blank Railway Receipt at Banmore Station. It is indeed difficult to see how the appellant, who was a small employee in the Railway Administration, could have possibly come into possession of the blank Railway Receipt from Banmore Station which was not within his jurisdiction at any time. It is true that B. Lal, the handwriting expert, deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt Ex. PW 10/A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwritings Ex.
PW 27/37 to 27/57, that is the appellant, but we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381 ) that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa [AIR 1963 SC 1728 , that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] where it was pointed out by this Court that experts evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 268 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 : ] and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands [1822 5 B and Ald 330] and Matter of Alfred Foster's Will [34 Mich 21] . The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last- mentioned case:
"Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship
-- Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil."
We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself from the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.
167. In another case reported as Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy, (2019) 14 SCC 220 , it was held:
10. By now, it is well settled that the court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 269 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 4 SCC 596 .
11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v.
Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
12. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Evidence Act") expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 , without referring to Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, and stressed that the court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 270 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
13. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. Clearly, these observations in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 do not go against the proposition stated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence.
168. In another case titled as State of Bombay v.
Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1962) 3 SCR 10, it was held that :
10. "To be a witness" may be equivalent to "furnishing evidence" in the sense of making oral or written statements, but not in the larger sense of the expression so as to include giving of thumb impression or impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of the body by an accused person for purpose of identification. "Furnishing evidence" in the latter sense could not have been within the contemplation of the Constitution makers for the simple reason that -- though they may have intended to protect an accused person from the hazards of self-incrimination, in the light of the English law on the subject -- they could not have intended to put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions of parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice.
Furthermore it must be assumed that the Constitution-makers CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 271 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 were aware of the existing law, for example, Section 73 of the Evidence Act or Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act (33 of 1920). Section 5 authorises a Magistrate to direct any person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken, if he is satisfied that it is expedient for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure to do so:"Measurements" include finger impressions and foot-print impressions. If any such person who is directed by a Magistrate, under Section 5 of the Act, to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken resists or refuses to allow the taking of the measurements or photographs, it has been declared lawful by Section 6 to use all necessary means to secure the taking of the required measurements or photographs. Similarly, Section 73 of the Evidence Act authorises the court to permit the taking of finger impression or a specimen handwriting or signature of a person present in court, if necessary for the purpose of comparison.
11. The matter may be looked at from another point of view. The giving of finger impression or of specimen signature or of handwriting, strictly speaking, is not "to be a witness". "To be a witness" means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral statements or statements in writing, by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a court or to a person holding an enquiry or investigation. A person is said "to be a witness" to a certain state of facts which has to be determined by a court or authority authorised to come to a decision, by testifying to what he has seen, or something he has heard which is capable of being heard and is not hit by the rule excluding hearsay, or giving his opinion, as an expert, in respect of matters in controversy. Evidence has been classified by text writers into three categories, namely, (1) oral testimony; (2) evidence furnished by documents; and (3) material evidence. We have already indicated that we are in agreement with the Full Court decision in Sharma case [(1954) SCR 1077] that the prohibition in clause (3) of Article 20 covers not only oral testimony given by a CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 272 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 person accused of an offence but also his written statements which may have a bearing on the controversy with reference to the charge against him. The accused may have documentary evidence in his possession which may throw some light on the controversy. If it is a document which is not his statement conveying his personal knowledge relating to the charge against him, he may be called upon by the court to produce that document in accordance with the provisions of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, which, in terms, provides that a person may be summoned to produce a document in his possession or power and that he does not become a witness by the mere fact that he has produced it; and therefore, he cannot be cross- examined. Of course, he can be cross-examined if he is called as a witness who has made statements conveying his personal knowledge by reference to the contents of the document or if he has given his statements in court otherwise than by reference to the contents of the documents. In our opinion, therefore, the observations of this court in Sharma case [(1954) SCR 1077] that Section 139 of the Evidence Act has no bearing on the connotation of the word "witness" is not entirely well-founded in law. It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against self-incrimination by an accused person. Self- incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of a document which is in his writing or which contains his signature or his thumb impression. The production of such a document, with a view to comparison of the writing or the signature or the impression, is not the statement of an accused person, which can be said to be of the nature of a personal testimony. When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 273 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the nature of a "personal testimony". The giving of a "personal testimony" must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression "to be a witness".
169. From the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, one may say that it is settled law that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration and this rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. but it is not always true. In few cases , such an opinion , may be acted upon without asking for further corroboration. In the case of Murari Lal (supra), as relied upon by Ld. PP for the CBI, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 274 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.
12. The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which Judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and two [ Vide Correction slip No. F. 3/79 (Ed.J) dt. 21-8-80] voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar [AIR 1967 SC 1326] and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 ] were cases where the Court itself compared the writings."
170. Now take the case in hand. In the present case expert opinion has been given by GEQD and the same is ExPW47/C. The report of the Expert is corroborated by CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 275 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the prosecution witnesses to the effect that certain documents/proceedings do not bear their signatures and they have denied having executed such documents etc. In these circumstances, it would be within the settled parameters of law, as narrated herein above, if the said report of the Expert ExPW47/C, is accepted and acted upon by this Court even without asking for further corroboration.
171. In view of my aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) to the effect that he forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi and other members on certain documents and proceedings and had also submitted false and fabricated record to the office of RCS including the documents and proceedings signed by him in the capacity of the president of the society.
Role of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari
172. Briefly stated allegations against the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) are that he appeared before dealing assistants in the office of RCS on 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998 and submitted the records related to the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 276 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 elections/Audit, enrollment of certain members etc. According to the prosecution, the records submitted by him were found to be false and forged and the members shown as enrolled were found to be either fake or not in existence. It is further alleged that if he was not even the member of the society as claimed by him, then how he represented himself as the treasurer of the society.
173. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined a few witnesses whose testimonies are relevant to fix the responsibility and role of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). In this regard first in line is PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya. PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya deposed that during the years 1979 to 1985, he was posted in the office of RCS as Sub Inspector and from 1997 to 2003 as UDC in different zones and his duty was to deal with the files as assigned to him by the senior officers. He further deposed that on 27.10.1998, he put up a note pertaining to the society. Said note bears his signatures at point A and that of Dushyant Kumar (PW24) at point B. The note is ExPW24/X. He further deposed that it also bears the signatures of Manoj Kumar (A-5) at point C in the margin of the note sheet.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 277 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
174. PW24 Dushyant Kumar has deposed on the lines of PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya while deposing that on 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998, a note was placed before him and both the aforesaid notes bear his signatures as stated herein above. PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya and PW24 Dushyant Kumar have not been cross examined on behalf of the accused persons except accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6). The testimony of PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya and PW24 Dushyant Kumar has gone unrebutted and unchallenged qua other accused persons including accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5).
175. PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya has further referred to a note dated 2.11.1998 and deposed that the said note bears his signature at point A, same is ExPW24/Y and also note of Dushyant Kumar and his signature thereon at point X, ExPW24/Z. for the sake of convenience the note dated 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998 are reproduced as under:-
Noting dated 27.10.1998 " In compliance of the call letter Sh. Manoj Kumar, Treasurer of the society was present alongwith original record/s which reveals as under:
1) Election of the society was last held on 08.2.1998.
2) Audit of society is complete upto 31.8.1998 ( P/copy enclosed), CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 278 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
3) List of members as on 31.03.1998 has been filed.
The representation of the society was directed to submit year wise detail of enrollment and resignation after the approval of freeze list and also directed to produce records for verification of resignations and enrollment. Next date is fixed for 2.11.1998 at 12 noon.
AR(SW)"
Noting dated 02.11.1998 "Present: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Treasurer of the society alongwith original records in connection with the compliance of order u/s 32.
1) Audit of the society is complete upto 31.3.1998.
2) Election was last held on 08.2.1998 as per order 32.
3) List of members already filed.
4) The society has filed year-wise resignations and enrollments in the society which is as under:
Sl. No. Year No. of No. of
resignation Enrollments
1) 1993-94 20 Nil
2) 1994-95 10 20
3) 1995-96 Nil Nil
4) 1996-97 12 14
5} 1997-98 44 52
May kindly see for information and further necessary action pl.
(AR (SW)"
176. From the aforesaid notings it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manoj Kumar (A-5), Treasurer of the society was present on above CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 279 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 mentioned dates and submitted certain records pertaining to the society. It has also come on record that he has signed on the margin of the note sheet which is evident from the file ExPW1/PA also. This file pertains to the society containing the notings. The defence of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari, is that he is never known by the name of "Manoj Kumar" or "Manoj Aggarwal" and his name is " Manoj Kumar Pansari" and every documents pertaining to him is in the name of "Manoj Kumar Pansari". In this regard, he has appeared in the witness box also and has examined himself as DW1.
177. Here two things are very important. Firstly, the identification of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) and secondly the fact whether accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) is the same person, who had appeared before the officials of RCS on the aforesaid dates or any other person, as claimed by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). In the present case, surprisingly the specimen signatures of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-
5) have not been taken by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him and I would be discussing later on, which could have been a corroborative evidence to establish that on 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998, accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 280 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) had actually appeared before PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya and PW24 Dushyant Kumar, in the office of RCS. Despite that lacuna left over by the IO, there is sufficient material available on record, which is sufficient to hold that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-
5) had actually appeared in the office of RCS and had submitted false documents i.e copies of minutes/proceedings of various meetings of the Managing Committee of the Society and the cheques issued by the society to various members as refund of the money.
178. The next relevant witness is PW18 Kundan Singh Kumpawat. PW18 Kundan Singh Kumpawat deposed that during the period 14.5.2007 to 31.5.2009, he was posted in the Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri Extn Counter Base Branch, Janak Puri, New Delhi as Incharge of the Extention Counter. He further deposed that account No. 849 was opened by Ghansham Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) on 4.3.1997 without any introduction vide account opening form ExPW18/A. PW18 Kundan Singh Kumpawat has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
Meaning thereby, they are not disputing the account opening form ExPW18/A. CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 281 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
179. PW23 Sh. Gulshan Rai Piplani deposed that during the period from 14.9.1993 to 6.9.1999, he was posted in the Mangla Puri Delhi Branch of Central Bank of India as Assistant Manager and Extention Counter was opened by him on 14.9.2003 and he was the first officer/incharge of the said counter. He further deposed that he was authorized to open accounts in the name of individuals, firms, companies and cooperative societies; while opening a fresh account in the bank, a person after obtaining an application form for opening the account has to submit two photographs and introduction of the existing account. PW23 further deposed that the account No. 849 ExPW18/A was opened on 4.3.1997 by Ghansham Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) and they had put their signatures before him. Their photographs were also enclosed on the account opening form and he identified their photographs at points X which bears his (PW23) signatures at point X-1 on the back side of the account opening form. PW23 identified signatures of Ghanshyam Goel (A-4, proceedings already stands abated) at point X-2, Mukesh Kumar at point X-3 and Manoj Kumar (A-5) at point X-4, while stating that they had signed in his presence.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 282 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
180. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani also identified accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) in the court. He deposed that aforesaid account was opened on behalf of the society and Ghanshyam Goel (A-4 proceedings already stands abated), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) signed as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society and the account was opened with an amount of Rs 5000/-. PW23 further deposed that account holders enclosed true copy of resolution no.3 of the MC meeting held on 27.2.1997 ExPW23/A, request letter dated 4.3.1997 ExPW23/B duly signed by Gulshan Piplani(PW23), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5). Copy of the registration certificate ExPW23/C, copy of Bye laws of the society ExPW23/D.
181. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani further deposed that aforesaid account was opened at the request of Vishwa Nath Aggarwal, who already had an account existing in the Bank. Vishwa Nath Aggarwal was asked to sign as introducer on 2-3 occasions but he did not appear hence, the column in this regard remained blank. PW23 further deposed that two specimen signature cards ExPW7/H of Ghanshyam Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) bears his (PW23) signatures at point A and CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 283 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 that of Ghanshayam Goel (A-4) at point A-1, of Mukesh Kumar at point A-2 and that of Manoj Kumar (A-5) at point A-3 and they had signed before him (PW23).
182. PW23 has identified the photographs of the aforesaid persons on the specimen signature cards also at point X. PW23 further deposed that the cheques ExPW7/K(colly), ExPW22/E, ExPW8/F, ExPW10/G and ExPW14/E, were issued by the Central Bank of India in respect of account No. 849 pertaining to the society, which bears the signature of accused Manoj Kumar (A-5). PW23 has identified the signatures of accused Manoj Kumar (A-5) on these cheques at point X.
183. He further deposed that 14 cheques ExPW43/F in respect of account No. 849 pertaining to the society have signatures of Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-
5) at points A & B and he identified the same. The said cheques were passed by him after comparing the signatures with the specimen available in the bank and the aforesaid cheques are having his (PW23) signatures at point X. CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 284 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
184. PW23 further deposed that 27 cheques ExPW43/G in respect of account No. 849 pertaining to the society have signatures of Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) at point A & B and he identified the same. The said cheques were passed by him after comparing the signatures with the specimen available in the bank and the aforesaid cheques are having his (PW23) signatures at point X.
185. PW23 was cross examined at length on behalf of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) but not by the rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity. A careful examination of the cross examination of this witness done on behalf of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) would indicate that the material deposition of PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani has gone unrebutted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. During the cross examination of PW23, Ld. Counsel for the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) confronted the witness with the account opening form ExPW18/A and tried to bring on record the contents of the said document. One of the replies given by this witness was that " It is correct that the stamp of the society is affixed below the signatures marked X-2, X-3 and X-4; it is correct that the column for special instruction for operation of the said CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 285 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 account has not been filed up and is blank", would indicate that even accused Manoj Kumar Pansair (A-5) has not disputed the account opening form ExPW18/A.
186. Further, It does not make any difference if the stamp of the society is affixed just below the signatures marked X-2,X-3 and X-4 on account opening form or above it. I have gone through the account opening form ExPW18/A, which is on the record. Account opening form has been signed by accused Ghansyam Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) at point/mark X- 2,X-3 and X-4 respectively.
187. PW23 was also confronted with the specimen signature cards ExPW7/H and ExPW23/DA(on the back side of the 2nd specimen Card). Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) has not disputed the aforesaid specimen signature cards also but the only objection appears to be that these cards do not have instructions regarding operation of the Account. Further, account opening form ExPW18/A and one specimen signature card ExPW23/DA is having photographs of the aforesaid three persons namely accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4) , Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). One of the questions CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 286 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 which was put to PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani during his cross examination , is reproduced as under:
" Q Whether the photos affixed on the account opening form ExPW18/A and ExPW23/D have been stamped by the bank seal or the signatures of the bank incharge?"
188. PW23 replied that "neither it is stamped nor signed by the bank incharge". Meaning thereby, the fact that there are three photographs of accused Ghanshyam Goel(A-4), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-
5) on the account opening form ExPW18/A and also on of the specimen signature card ExPW23/DA, has not been disputed by the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5). From a bare perusal of these photographs from the naked eye, it can be easily said that one of the photographs at serial no.3 pertains to accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5).
189. As stated herein above, there are two specimen signature cards ExPW7/H and ExPW23/D. One of the questions put to PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani during his cross examination by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) was regarding why there were two specimen cards pertaining to the society. It was explained by the PW23 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 287 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 while replying that " at the time of opening the account, extension counter was having low business, but, subsequently when the business increased, teller was posted in the branch who was making payments upto some specified limits. As such he also required one signature card for his doing normal business of the bank was required with the branch head because he had also to honour the cheques above the limit fixed for the teller. I do not know if there is teller system in Mangla Puri Branch. During my tenure upto September-1999, no teller was posted there".
190. . PW23 Sh. Gulshan Rai Piplani was also confronted with the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC and PW23 admitted that in the statement u/s 161 CrPC he had stated that " to the best of my memory one specimen signature card without photographs was brought to me found already signed since they had not signed in my presence. I asked them ie Mr. Ghanshaym Goel, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Manoj Kumar to sign in my presence at Mangla Puri Extension Counter of the bank. Accordingly, they signed on the specimen signature card in my presence which is placed at page no.36 and their respective photographs were stapled on this specimen signature card".
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 288 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
191. Further, the the copy of the resolution ExPW23/A indicates that the society empowered Ghansyam Goel (A-4, proceedings abated), Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (A-5) as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society to open and operate the bank account with the Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri, Palam. This has also not been challenged by accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5).
192. In the second signature card ExPW23/DA, accused Manoj Kumar (A-5) was shown as President. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani during his cross examination done on behalf of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-
5), has explained while stating that it appears that in one signature card erroneously Mr. Manoj Kumar is mentioned as President.
193. PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani was also confronted with the copies of minutes of meetings dated 15.11.996, 25.12.1996, 07.4.1997, 17.5.1997, 8.8.1997, 06.10.1997, 14.11.1997, 15.04.1998 and 16.08.1998 and in addition to that he was further confronted with the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC, by the Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) to which PW23 replied it is CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 289 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 correct that in my statement to the CBI that " sometimes Sh. Ghanshyam Goel, Sh. Manoj Kumar, the said said account holders in respect of Shree Ganesh CGHS Ltd. Had also visited the said counter alongwith Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and had signed the cheques pertaining to the account no. 849 in the name of Shree Ganesh CGHS Ltd. " PW23 denied the suggestion that he had identified the signatures of Manoj Kumar (A-5) on the said proceedings on the pressure of CBI.
194. Here I may mention that even if the account opening form is not having any account operating instructions and the same is found missing in the specimen cards also, it would not make any material difference. It has come on record that account 849 was opened in the Central Bank of India, Mangla Puri Branch pertaining to the society. This account was opened by accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4), Mukesh Kumar and accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5). The account opening form and specimen signature Cards (Ex PW23/DA) is having/bearing photos of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5). This all shows and establishes the involvement of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5). Even if there were some irregularities on the part of the bank officials in opening and operating the account, it would CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 290 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 not come to the rescue of the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5).
195. Further, PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal deposed that he had identified accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) as he is known to him for the last 15-20 years. He further revealed that he knows him through Vishwa Nath Aggarwal who is running a timber business. PW7 further deposed that the specimen signature card is bearing the photograph of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) at point X and he identified the same to be that of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5). Since PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal was unable to identify the signatures of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari on various cheques i.e ExPW2/A-3 and PW7/Z , he was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for the CBI. PW7 has not been cross examined by the accused persons including accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) despite opportunity. Meaning thereby, the testimony of PW7 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. One may argue that since PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal turned hostile, therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon. I am not inclined to accept the same for the reasons that it is well settled that even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 291 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 prosecution.
196. Now, let me advert to the Defence Evidence.
Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) appeared in the witness box and has examined himself as DW1. He deposed that he is always known by the name of 'Manoj Kumar Pansari' and nowhere he is known as 'Manoj Kumar' or 'Manoj Aggarwal'. He produced the school progress report of the year 1971-1979 ExDW1/1, Progress report of Govt School of the year 1980-1991 ExDW1/2, Higher secondary examination issued by Govt of Rajasthan DW1/3, school certificate issued by secondary board, Rajasthan DW1/4, receipt issued by Kalyan College, Sikar ExDW1/5, Graduation Degree ExDW1/6, Pan Card ExDW1/7, Passport ExDW1/8, Aadhar Card ExDW1/9, Voter ID Card ExDW1/10. DW1 Manoj Kumar Pansari further deposed that the person shown in the name of 'Manoj Kumar' in the documents filed by the prosecution is not of him and he never became a member of the society and never submitted any documents to the society.
197. DW1 Manoj Kumar Pansari was cross examined on behalf of the CBI. During his cross examination he CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 292 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 replied that photograph at point 3 in the account opening form ExPW18/A is not of him and the photograph is of some other person who looks similar to him. He has denied his signature also. Similarly, he further replied that photographs at point 3 on the second signature card ExPW7/H is not of him. That photograph is of some person who looks similar to him. He has denied his signature also at point A3 on both the signature cards.
198. At the very outset, I may say that the defence evidence led by the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) would also not be sufficient to save him from the clutches of Law. It is not denied or disputed that in all the documents produced by him at the time of his deposition as DW1, his name has been shown as Manoj Kumar Pansari. It is a matter of fact that in the school/college records or in the documents issued by other government departments like passport authorities, Income Tax authorities or any other government department, the full name of a person is shown with a surname. But in routine discharge of work, particularly in case of private departments or business, short names are also used.Therefore , the fact that his name has been shown as 'Manoj Kumar Pansari' in all the aforesaid documents CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 293 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 would not be sufficient to presume that he never appeared before dealing assistants of the RCS office and therefore, question of submitting false and forged documents does not arise.
199. As discussed herein above, it has already come on the record that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) had actually appeared before PW4 Dilip Bhatacharya, the then dealing assistant in the office of RCS and submitted certain documents including 21 fake enrollments. It has also come on the record that he had signed various cheques ExPW7/J (colly) in the capacity of Treasurer of the society. He has been identified by PW23 Gulsahan Rai Piplani. Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-3) could have been identified by PW4 Dilip Bhattacharya also but he was not present at the time when the testimony of PW4 was concluded on 4.2.2014. On that day, accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-3) had moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said application is on the record. In para 5 of the application, it is stated that "That the accused/applicant does not dispute the identity of the accused persons and is not seeking any adjournment on this ground and undertakes to abide by the proceedings on this date of hearing". The averments made in the application would indicate that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-3) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 294 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 has not disputed his identity and the fact that he could have been identified in the court by PW 4 Dilip Bhatacharya,.
200. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, one of the questions asked (Q No. 111) put to accused Manoj Kumar Pansaari (A-5) was that PW7 Sushil Kumar Aggarwal has identified his(A-5) photograph affixed on the specimen signature Card ExPW7/H, to which accused replied " I do no know". Similarly, when another question ( Q 237) to the effect that PW23 Gulshan Rai Piplani has identified his photograph on the said specimen signature card ExPW7/H, was asked to which he replied that he was never the member of the society and had not signed any document. He kept silent on the question of his photographs available on the specimen signature cards. Meaning thereby, he was not disputing his photographs attached with the specimen signature card but during his cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI at the time of defence evidence, he replied that photographs affixed thereon are of some other person who to some extent looks similar to him.
201. While replying to one of the questions (Q 490) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 295 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 put to him during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, that why this case is against him, he stated that he had good relations with one Vishwa Nath Aggarwal, who is brother in law of accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Ghansyam Goel (A-4). During the course of business, said Vishwa Nath Aggarwal had access to his (A-5) personal documents including photographs. Later on a dispute arose between him and accused Vishwa Nath Aggarwal and his photographs were misused by said Vishwa Nath Aggarwal to falsely implicate him.
202. If the aforesaid version, as given by the accused is to be believed, then two things are very clear i.e Specimen Signature Card and Account opening form ExPW18/A were having his photographs, secondly, these photographs were misused by said Vishwa Nath Aggarwal. But this stand is contrary to the stand taken by the accused during his examination as defence witness(DW1). During his deposition, he straightway denied his photographs appearing on the aforesaid two documents while stating that the said photographs do not belong to him and the same belong to some other person who looks similar to him. This also goes against the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) and there would be CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 296 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 no difficulty to outrightly reject the defence as raised by the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5).
203. Another interesting fact of the present case is that the accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) is claiming that he is always referred to and known by the name of 'Manoj Kumar Pansari' and not by the name of 'Manoj Kumar' or 'Manoj Aggarwal' but in all the proceedings, either 'denied by him or admitted by him, he has signed as " Manoj Kumar". He has not used his surname "Pansari". According to the prosecution, accused Manoj Kumar Pansari(A-5) had signed on the margin of the note sheet dated 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998. He is stated to have signed account opening form ExPW18/A and two specimen signature cards ExPW7/H and ExPW23/DA. He further signed his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC and then he appeared in the witness box and everywhere he has signed as 'Manoj Kumar' and not 'Manoj Kumar Pansari', which lends the credence to the case of the prosecution that he has also known by the name of 'Manoj Kumar'.
204. Further, according to section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the court has power to compare the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 297 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 purported signatures/writings or seal with one which is admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine.
205. In a case titled as Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
12. Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") deal with opinion of experts and comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. Section 45 itself provides that the opinions are relevant facts. It is a general rule that the opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible. There was no challenge to the expertise of V.K. Sakhuja. He deposed to have testified in about ten thousand cases relating to disputed documents.
Though the employee highlighted certain adverse remarks, it cannot be lost sight of that they were about four decades back. But we need not go into that aspect in detail as no infirmity in the report acted upon by the authority in the present case was noticed or could be pointed out.
13. It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with the disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of the handwriting expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 298 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when an expert's evidence is not there, the court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. (See Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704 ).
206. In another case titled as Raghuvir Acharya, B. v.
CBI, (2014) 14 SCC 693 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
28. In Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704 ,this Court held that in scenarios where there is an absence of expert opinion, a second screening in the form of the court's assessment is essential to ascertain the authorship of document:
(SCC p. 712, para 12) "12. ... There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 were cases where the Court itself compared the writings."
32. This Court in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326] has held that the premise of the witness claiming familiarity with the handwriting of the author must be tested: (AIR p. 1328, para 11) "11. Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 299 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case."
207. Accordingly, if the signature of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) as appearing on the admitted proceedings i.e his statements recorded u/s 313 CrPC, his deposition as DW1 are compared with his disputed signatures appearing on various documents like notesheets dated 27.10.1998 and 2.11.1998, account opening form ExPW18/A and specimen signature card etc., there would not be any difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the signatures on all the aforesaid proceedings, whether admitted or denied by him, are identical and similar. This fact also goes against him.
208. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that he fraudulently and dishonestly represented himself as the Treasurer of the Society, though he was not even a member of the society and appeared in the office of the RCS on behalf of the society and submitted certain documents which were found to be forged and fabricated.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 300 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Role of Accused persons Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7)
209. As per the story of prosecution, the society was registered on 20.1.1984 with 60 Promoter members and further 45 more members were enrolled on 18.5.1984. A list of 105 total members was sent to the office of RCS by the Secretary of the Society on 18.6.1984 and the same was onward transmitted to DDA by the office of RCS on 30.8.1984 for allotment of land.
210. It is further a case of the prosecution that on 06.9.2000, DDA allotted Land in Dwarka to the society on which 105 flats are said to have been constructed. Later on, vide a letter dated 15.1.2003, office of RCS was requested to approve 192 resignations and 192 new enrollments and also for approval of final list of 105 members for forwarding to DDA for Draw of Lots. According to the prosecution the said letter dated 15.1.2003, was a forged letter under the forged signature of Smt Rukmani Devi, who was shown as President of the society. It is also alleged that along with said letter other forged and fabricated documents were also submitted.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 301 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
211. Here comes the role of these two accused persons namely Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7). According to the prosecution, accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were directed to conduct physical verification in respect of 10 resignations each out of above mentioned 192 resignations submitted to the office of RCS vide letter dated 15.1.2003. It is alleged that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy both the above accused persons submitted a false verification report. Both the accused persons were given the aforesaid task as they were Area Inspectors.
212. Both the accused persons namely Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) have not denied the fact that they were handed over 10 resignations each for verification as Area Inspector. The only objection is that they were supposed to verify the said resignations on the basis of documents only submitted by the society and they were not supposed to verify it physically.
213. It is also not denied that vide note dated 17.1.2003 of Sh. M.P Bajaj, the then Dealing Assistant, the certificates in respect of verifications of said CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 302 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 resignations were handed over to them. Sh.M.P Bajaj has been examined as PW19. He deposed that " I have seen another noting dated 17.1.2003 placed at page 23/N already exhibited as ExPW1/PA-8. Sh. Dhruv Narain- Secretary of the society filed a bank statement in respect of refund made. The society had already filed certificate in respect of 10 % resignation which were being handed over to Area Inspectors for verification and Secretary of the society was asked to furnish documents in respect to last elections and audit compliance. The said noting bears my initials on page 23/N at point -10 & that of J.S Sharma-AR(SW) at point X-11 and that of Dhruv Narain at point X".
214. Sh J.S Sharma has been examined as PW1 who has supported and corroborated the testimony of PW19. PW1 Sh. J.S Sharma deposed that on 17.1.2003, Dealing Assistant Sh. M.P Bajaj put up another note wherein he mentioned that " certificates in respect of 10% resignations have been furnished, which are being handed over to Area Inspector for verification. Secretary of the society has been asked to furnished documents in respect of last election and other audit compliance." PW1 further deposed that said noting dated 17.1.2003 was approved by him on 17.1.2003 and it bears his signature also.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 303 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
215. During the examination of PW1 Sh. J.S Sharma, certain questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Prosecutor for CBI, which are material and have bearing on the decision of the present case. The same are being reproduced as under:
"Q. What was the duty of Area Inspector while conducting verification of resignations, as deputed by you vide noting dt. 17.1.2003 placed at page 23/N Ext. PW1/PA-8 ( D-3 & D-4)? A. The Area Inspectors do the verification of resignation etc. on the basis of original documents and record produced by the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Group Housing Society in the office of RCS.
Q. What is the meaning of Area Inspector ?
A. Mostly, Area Inspectors do the work to verify the societies u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972.
Q. Please tell the duty of Dealing Assistant in respect of verification of resignations? A. The Dealing Assistant also does the verification of records, resignations etc., on the basis of original documents/records produced by the Managing Committee of CGHS.
Q. Can you explain the reason for deputing Area Inspectors Sh. J.S Dagar and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma for verification of resignation when the Dealing Assistant Sh. M.P.Bajaj had the record of the society in the file?
A. Since there was a final draw of lots (flats ) of the society, I thought necessary to get the records of the society i.e resignations etc. cross checked by the above noted officials/Area Inspectors to avoid any mistake in the final draw of lots. Further, there is no provision in the Cooperative Act, 1972 and Cooperative Rules, 1973 for physical verification of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 304 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the resignations, it was directed to verify the resignation on the basis of records produced by the society so that it may be cross checked and no mistake is done.
216. PW1 J.S Sharma was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI and was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. The cross examination of PW1 by Ld. PP for CBI is also relevant and the same is being reproduced as under:
" It is correct that I had made a statement to CBI. However, it is incorrect to suggest that I had asked Rakesh Sharma and J.S Dagar to physically verify the resignations and that I had given oral instructions to them to do so ( confronted with portion A to A of the statement Ext.PW1/PX u/s 161 CrPC of J.S Sharma, where it is so recorded) ( Voltd. I might have asked them to cross check these documents. I had not used the work physical verification because there is no such provision in DCS Act and Rules). It is incorrect to suggest that I had not asked for cross check, rather, had asked for physical verification of the resignations. I have been shown the resignations which are placed at page 539 to 530 of D-7 ( now collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/C-
1) and resignations placed at pages 529 to 520 of D-7 ( now collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/C-2). Due to lapse of long time, I am unable to identify the signatures placed at point A ( purportedly to have been signed by Rakesh Sharma) and point B ( purportedly to have been signed by J.S Dagar). It is incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the signatures of Rakesh Kumar Sharma at points A and that of J.S Dagar at points B. It is incorrect to suggest that I had orally directed Rakesh Kumar Sharma and J.S Dagar to physically verify the aforesaid resignations. ( Confronted with portion A to A of the further statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC dt. 05.11.2007, now exhibited as ExPW1/PX-1, where it is so recorded. ) It is incorrect to suggest that I had intentionally and deliberately not disclosed about the physical verification in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 305 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 note sheet. It is further incorrect to suggest that I have not deliberately identified the signatures of Sh. Rakesh Sharma and J.S Dagar in order to save them in tis case. It is further incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely on the aspect of physical verification of resignations by the Area Inspectors.
It is correct that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma was my dealing assistant in National Building Organization CGHS."
217. PW1 J.S Sharma was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Whereas PW19 MP Bajaj was cross examined on behalf of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) but not on behalf of the accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) despite the opportunity.
218. The cross examination of PW19 Sh. M.P Bajaj on behalf of accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) is not so lengthy therefore, same is being reproduced as under:
"I remained posted in the office of RCS somewhere from the year 2000 to 2004. Presently, I do not remember the exact dates. I was posted as UDC/Dealing Asstt in South West Zone. It is correct that I must have dealt with the files of large number of societies and today I am not in a position to recall all those societies or those files. It is correct that membership is the prerogative of the managing committee of the society. There is no provision of physical verification of members of the society. As per noting dated 17.1.2003 Ext. PW1/PA-8, it is correct that bank statement as well as certificate in respect of 10% resignations were furnished by the Secretary of the society Dhruv Narain Aggarwal. It is correct that the word 'verification' which is referred in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 306 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 aforesaid noting means the originals which were furnished by the society were to be verified with the photocopy of the respective documents/resignations submitted by the society."
219. PW19 M.P Bajaj was re-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and certain questions were put to him, which are as under:
Q. Did you ask from the society regarding furnishing of 10 % certificates of resignation prior to the noting dt. 17.1.2003 Ext. PW1/PA-8?
A No. It is correct that the resignation letters were already available on record in file D-7.
Q. I put it to you that in the noting dt. 17.1.2003 available on page 23/N in file D-4 Ext. PW1/PA-8 you had recommended for handing over the 10% resignations to the area inspectors which was duly approved by the AR Sh. J.S Sharma on 17.1.2003 itself. What have you to say? A. It is correct.
Q. Please explain as to for what purpose the area inspectors are required to be appointed? I put it to you that the 10 % of the resignations were handed over to the area inspectors so that they could physically verify the correctness of the resignations at the given addresses after contacting the concerned member. What you have to say?
A. Area Inspectors are appointed for the purpose of inspection u/s 54 and inquiry u/s 55 of DCS Act, 1972 for the purpose of inspection of the records and inquiry to look into the allegations of a complaint which is done by area inspectors by visiting the particular society. In the present case, the verification of the resignation letters were directed by the concerned AR.
Q. Under what provisions you had recommended for verification of 10 % resignations in this matter?
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 307 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 A. There is no such provision in DCS Act or Rules. This is purely a departmental practice.
It is correct that neither in the noting dt. 17.1.2003 it is mentioned by me as the area inspectors would verify from the record available in the office nor it has been mentioned by the area inspectors that they had verified from the such record. It is incorrect to suggest that there is any provision for any physical verification by he area inspectors.
Q. I put it to you that you had stated in your statement u/s 161 CrPC that Sh. Rakesh Sharma and Sh. J. S Dagar both UDCs were orally directed by J.S Sharma for conducting 10% of physical verification in respect of resignations of members and not only a verification as disclosed by you today before the court. What have you to say?
A. It is correct. Again said, I had not stated so before CBI. ( Confronted with portion A to A Ext. PW19/PA where it is recorded that Sh. Rakesh Sharma and Sh. J.S Dagar both UDCs were orally directed by J.S Sharma for conducting 10 % physical verification in respect of resignations of members. It is incorrect to suggest that I have intentionally not disclosed the word' physical verification' only to save the accused persons particularly Rakesh Sharma and J.S Dagar.
220. I have reproduced the deposition of PW1 J.S Sharma and PW 19 M.P Bajaj i.e examination in chief, cross examination and also re-examination, for the simple reason that the testimonies of these two witnesses is very lengthy and is running around in 42 pages. Therefore, only the relevant portions of their testimonies have been reproduced which is necessary to understand the role of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 308 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Sharma (A-7) and to appreciate the evidence appearing against them.
221. Now, let us examine the testimony of PW1 J.S Sharma and PW19 M.P Bajaj, as recorded herein above. To one of the questions, PW1 replied that mostly, Area Inspectors do the work to verify the society u/s 54 of DCS Act,1972. Similarly, to one of the questions asked from PW19, he replied that Area Inspectors are appointed for the purpose of inspections u/s 54 and inquiry u/s 55 of DCS Act,1972 (for short 'Act') i.e for the purpose of inspection of the records and inquiry to look into the allegations of a complaint which is done by area inspectors by visiting the particular society. Both the aforesaid witnesses have referred to the provisions of Section 54 of DCS Act,1972.
222. Section 54 of DCS Act,1972 says:
54. Inspection of societies. - The Registrar, or any person authorised by general or special order in this behalf by him, may inspect a co-operative society. For the purpose of inspection, the Registrar or the person so authorised by him shall at all times have access to all books, accounts, papers, vouchers, securities, stock and other property of the society and may in the event of serious irregularities discovered during inspection take them into custody and shall have power to verify the cash balance of the society and subject to the general or special order of the Registrar CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 309 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 to call a committee meeting and a general meeting. Every officer or member of the society shall furnish such information with regard to the working of the society as the Registrar or the person making such inspection may require.
223. It is true that as per section 54 of DCS Act 1972, the Registrar or any persons authorized by a general or special order in this behalf may inspect a cooperative society. But it does not mean that the order of inspection carried out in the present case becomes illegal merely on the ground that it has not been specifically directed by the Registrar. Sec 2 (n ) of the Act says " Registrar" means a person appointed to perform the functions of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies under this Act, and includes any person appointed to assist the Registrar when exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar".
224. Section 3 of the Act says that the :
Registrar. -
(1) The Lieutenant-Governor may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the Union territory of Delhi and may appoint other persons to assist him.
(2) The Lieutenant-Governor may, by general or special order, confer on any person appointed to assist the Registrar all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act.
(3) Every person appointed to assist the Registrar shall exercise the powers conferred on him under sub section (2) subject to the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 310 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 (4) The Lieutenant-Governor may, by notification in the Delhi Gazette and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, confer all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act on any federal society, or an officer of such federal society; and every such federal society or officer on whom the powers of the Registrar are so conferred shall exercise such powers under the general guidance,superintendence and control of the Registrar.
225. Noting dated 17.1.2003 Ext. PW1/PA-8 is on the record. The said noting was initiated by PW19 M.P.Bajaj as a Dealing Assistant and was approved by Assistant Registrar Sh. J. S Sharma (PW1). The appointment of Assistant Registrar is by Lieutenant Governor to assist the Registrar. Further, it is not the case of these accused persons that the directions vide which they were asked to verify the resignations, were illegal or without any authority. That being so, even in the absence of a specific order by the Registrar of Society to verify certain resignations, the said order would remain in force.
226. PW19 M.P Bajaj has categorically stated that in the present case, the verification of the resignation letters were directed by the concerned AR. It has come on the record that at that time concerned AR was Sh. J.S Sharma (PW1). PW19 further deposed that he had proposed or recommended for verification of 10% resignations in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 311 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 present case as it was purely a departmental practice. This all is sufficient to hold that the order made vide noting dated 17.1.2003 ExPW1/PA-8, was as per the practice and rules applicable.
227. It is true that PW1 turned hostile on the aspect of physical verification of resignations but still his testimony can be relied upon to the extent it supports the story of prosecution. It is a settled position of law that even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.
228. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka ,(1980)1 SCC 30, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
" the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny.
229. In another case titled as Khujji v. State of M.P. , (1991) 3 SCC 627 it was held that:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 312 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 "6. ... The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by the trial court because they were declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor as they refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. But the counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and the part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon."
230. The above position in law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, wherein the Court held that:
"31. The next aspect which requires to be adverted to is whether testimony of a hostile witness that has come on record should be relied upon or not. Mr Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that as PW 7 has totally resiled in his cross-examination, his evidence is to be discarded in toto. On a perusal of the testimony of the said witness, it is evincible that in examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution story in entirety and in the cross-examination, he has taken the path of prevarication. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389 , it has been laid down that even if a witness is characterised as a hostile witness, his evidence is not completely effaced. The said evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence."
231. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the testimony of PW1 J.S Sharma may still be considered, if it is relevant and essential for the just decision of the case.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 313 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
232. During his cross examination by CBI, PW1 admitted that he had made a statement to CBI but when confronted to it, he denied that he had asked accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-
7) to physically verify the resignations and for that he had given oral instruction to them. Whereas the same was found recorded in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC. It is neither the case of the accused persons nor of this witness that the statement recorded by CBI under section 161 CrPC is false or was given under some pressure or CBI has manipulated the same. It has come on record that one of the accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) was Dealing Assistant of PW1 J.S Sharma in National Building Organisation CGHS. In this background the possibility of PW1 J.S Sharma being interested to save accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) cannot be ruled out.
233. Further, PW19 M.P Bajaj to one of the questions put to him replied that Area Inspectors are appointed for inspections of the record which is done by them by visiting the particular society. This lends credence to the case of prosecution that both the accused persons, being Area Inspectors, were supposed to visit the society and to CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 314 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 verify the resignations handed over to them physically. The explanation as given by PW1 J.S Sharma that to ensure that there is no mistake in the verification of resignation certificates, both the accused persons namely Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were asked to simply verify the same on the basis of the record produced by the society, is not acceptable and liable to be rejected. It has come on the record that it was the duty of Dealing Assistant to verify the certificate of resignation on the basis of the record. That being so, there was no occasion to refer the matter to the Area Inspector for verification of a few resignation certificates only on the basis of records. The term 'Area Inspector' itself is sufficient to indicate that they were supposed to visit the Area or society to verify the certificate of resignations physically.
234. The case of the prosecution that both the accused persons i.e accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were supposed to verify the certificates of resignations physically further finds support from the testimony of PW44 Rakesh Bhatnagar. PW44 deposed that in the noting dated 22.1.2003, ExPW1/PA- 10, it has been specifically mentioned that "10% of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 315 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 resignations have been physically verified from the area inspector. Hence, the remaining 105 resignations/105 enrollments may be taken on records. The society has also furnished a copy of the resolution dated 14.01.2003. vide which the RCS has been requested to condone the procedural lapses."
235. PW44 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) but not by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) despite opportunity. Even during his cross examination, the testimony of PW44 has gone unrebutted on the aspect of physical verification of 10 % resignation as noted in the noting dated 22.01.2003 ExPW1/PA-10.
236. From the aforesaid discussion, it stands established that both the accused persons namely accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-
7) were given resignation certificates for physical verification only and not on the basis of records. That being so, now it is to be seen whether they performed their duties, as directed or made a false report for ulterior motives.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 316 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
237. PW19 M.P Bajaj deposed that accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) had submitted verification reports in respect of Usha Gandhi, Membership Number (in short MS No.) 185, Barender Singh MS No. 205, Ravi Kumar M.S No. 167, Veena Sahni MS No. 172, Saroj Taneja MS No. 171, Sandeep Dang MS No. 175, Ranvir Singh MS No. 165, Om Prakash MS No. 206, Jai Bhagwan MS No. 207 and Kavita MS No. 160. He further deposed that he identified the signatures of accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma at point A on the verification report placed at page 539/C to 530/C Ext. PW1/C.
238. Out of the above 10 verifications of resignation certificates allegedly pertaining to the members of society, prosecution has examined three persons as witnesses namely Usha Gandhi (PW11), Sandeep Dang (PW10) and Saroj Taneja (PW14)
239. The testimonies of Sandeep Dang({W10), Usha Gandhi (PW11) and Saroj Taneja(PW14) have already been discussed in detail in the preceding paras and the same is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. It has already come on the record during their testimonies that they never became the members of the society, therefore, CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 317 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the question of their being resigning does not arise. These witnesses have categorically denied having received any refund vouchers and their signatures on the alleged resignation certificates.
240. PW10 Sandeep Dang, PW11 Usha Bhatia and PW14 Saroj Taneja were not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity. There is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies which have gone unchallenged and is supported by documentary evidence as well. Meaning thereby, accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) never visited the area or the society and did not verify the genuineness of the resignation certificates.
241. One of the certificates of resignation purportedly belongs to someone namely Jai Bhagwan placed at 531/C ExPW1/C-1. Said Jai Bhagwan has been shown as resident of WZ 57, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi having membership no. 202. But during the investigation, it was revealed that no such address is in existence. PW37 deposed that he was posted as postman in Tilak Nagar Post Office for about 29 years and is well acquainted with the location of Tilak Nagar Area. He deposed that no such address as WZ-57, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi is in the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 318 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 jurisdiction of Tilak Nagar area so question of residing of Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Ram Singh at the aforesaid address does not arise.
242. PW37 was not cross examined by Accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma)A-7) despite opportunity, so the same has to be believed without any iota of doubt. The accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) has given the verification certificate in respect of this person also, which was found to be not in existence.
243. Similarly, one of the letters of confirmation placed at 538/C ExPW1/C-1 pertains to Sh. Birender Singh r/o Sector 3, Plot No 14 B, Rohini Delhi having membership no. 205. But during investigation this man was also found to be not in existence. PW3 Sh. Bhagwan Singh deposed that he was working as postman at Rohini Post Office during the year 2006 and 2007 and was looking after the area of Sector 3, Rohini. He deposed that in Sector 3 Block B, there are blocks from B-5 to B-10 and no block by B-14 is situated at Rohini.
244. PW3 was also not cross examined by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) despite opportunity CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 319 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 therefore his testimony is reliable and sufficient to hold that this certificate is also forged and verification done by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) is not genuine.
245. Same is the case with the letter of resignation pertaining to one Ranvir Singh placed at 533/C, ExPW1/C1, who has been shown as the resident of C/4
-H/160 -A, Janak Puri, Delhi having membership no.165. In this regard PW12 Naresh Kapoor deposed that he has been residing at H. No C 4 H/160 A, Janak Puri since 1973 and in the year 1991 purchased it from Vinod Kumar Goel. He further deposed that no person by the name of Ranvir Singh s/o B.S Rana had ever resided at this address at any point of time.
246. PW12 was also not cross examined by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), which establishes that letter of confirmation of resignation in respect of Mr. Ranvir Singh is also forged and has not been verified by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) and a false report was given by him.
247. Now, let us see the verification done by accused Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6). PW19 M.P Bajaj CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 320 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 deposed that accused J.S Dagar had submitted verification reports in respect of Sunita Devi- membership no.178, Sangeeta Devi-MS No. 163, Sushil Aggarwal-MS No. 197, Vijay Kumar-MS No. 189, Rakesh Kumar-MS no. 188, Manoj Kumar -MS No. 174, Krishna Kumar Sharma-MS No.166, Hanuman Singh-MS No. 174, Krishan Kumar Sharma-MS No. 166, Hanuman Singh
-MS No. 162, Sunil Jain-MS No. 161 & Prem Bir Singh- MS No.203. PW19 identified signatures of accused J.S Dagar (A-6) at points B placed at pages 529/C to 520/C ExPW1/C-2.
248. Out of the above referred to 10 persons, whose resignations were allegedly verified by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6), prosecution has examined five persons as witnesses i.e Sh. Hanuman Singh (PW6), Sh Sushil Aggarwal (PW7), Sunil Jain (PW8), Vijay Kumar (PW20) and Rakesh Kumar (PW22).
249. Here also, I may mention that the testimonies of Hanuman Singh (PW6), Sushil Aggarwal(PW7), Sunil Jain (PW8), Vijay Kumar (PW20) and Rakesh Kumar (PW22) have already been recorded on earlier occasions in the preceding paras. Thus, the same is not being CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 321 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 reproduced again for the sake of brevity.
250. PW 6 Sh. Hanuman Singh, PW7 Sh Sushil Aggarwal, PW8 Sh. Sunil Jain, PW20 Sh. Vijay Kumar and PW22 Sh. Rakesh Kumar were not cross examined by the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) despite opportunity. It means, accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) has not disputed the testimonies of these witnesses which lends credence to the case of the prosecution that verification of letter of confirmation of resignation were false and not genuine.
251. Here I may refer to the relevant portion of cross examination of PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav, who is the IO of the present case, as done on behalf of the accused person namely Accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7). Even during his cross examination by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), PW48 replied that "as per his investigation there was prevalent procedure for conducting physical verification at random by the Area Inspector. However, it is correct that no rule has been cited for conducting physical verification". PW48 denied the suggestion that physical verification/inspection by the Area Inspector is not based on any evidence.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 322 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
252. One of the arguments made on behalf of these accused persons is that at the time when the land was alloted by the DDA to the present society, both the above- mentioned accused persons were not even posted in the office of RCS. It was stated that they had nothing to do with the allotment of land, therefore, they have been unnecessarily made an accused persons in the present case.
253. By referring the testimony of PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav, who is the IO of the case, he submitted that during the cross examination of PW48 by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) PW48 replied that accused J.S Dagar (A-6) had no role in the allotment of land to the society and no written order was found available on the record of RCS for inspection u/s 54 of the DCS Act. He further admitted that accused J.S Dagar (A-6) was not a member of the society and he was not present at the time of draw of flats.
254. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused J.S Dagar (A-
6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were the members of the society or that they were involved in the allotment of the land to the society by the DDA at the subsidized rates.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 323 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Their role came into picture at the stage of Draw of Lots. One has to understand that allotment of land and Draw of Lots are two different stages in the process of allotment of flats to the members of a Society. In the present case, the list of 105 members, which was submitted to the DDA in the year 1984 by the then Managing Committee of the Society, is different from the list of 103 members which was submitted to the DDA for Draw of Lots. The said difference was due to the fake enrollments and resignations based upon forged documents submitted by the accused persons.
255. It was the duty of these two accused persons to verify the said resignations physically which they have not done and gave a false report. The final list of 103 members which was sent to DDA for Draw of Lots and on the basis of which flats were actually alloted, included the names of fake members also. The said list of 103 members was based upon the verification reports submitted by the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7). It is very easy to say that they had no role to play in allotment of flats and they have simply verified the resignation certificates. The fact of the matter is that had there been a genuine verification report CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 324 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 in respect of the resignation certificates entrusted to them, the inclusion of fake members in the final list, submitted to the DDA for allotments of flats, could have been avoided. Their action itself is sufficient to believe beyond reasonable doubt that it was done dishonestly and fraudulently.
256. Surprisingly, the record would indicate that all the 20 letters of confirmation of resignations, as verified by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) are identical and similar. For the sake of convenience one of the such letters is being reproduced as under :
Dated ______ To The Asstt. Registrar (South West), Cooperative Societies, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 Sub:- Confirmation of Resignation.
Sir, This is to inform you that I was the member of 'The Shree Ganesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (Regd. No. 1402(GH) vide membership number __, due to my personal reason. I had resigned from the membership and received my full and final payment from the society. Now I am not concerned with the above society.
Signature____ Name_____ Address_____ ____________ CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 325 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
257. The above so-called confirmation of resignation letters would indicate that the same has either been copied or typed at the same time from the same system. The said letter is undated. In all the letters of confirmation of resignation, the reason for resignation has been shown as " Due to my personal reason". This also goes against the accused persons.
258. The signature of Sushil Kumar Aggarwal (PW7) on the alleged confirmation of resignation letter ExPW7/A, has been given a questioned document as Q
165. The signature of Jitender Soni @ Rakesh Kumar Soni (PW22) on the alleged letter of resignation dated 19.04.2001 ExPW22/C has been the questioned document as Q 480. The signature of Sunil Jain (PW8) on the alleged letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW8/A has been given as questioned document Q 177. The signatures of Sandeep Dang (PW10) on the alleged letter of confirmation of resignation ExPW10/A has been questioned document as Q 151 and on the alleged letter of resignation dated 16.9.2000, ExPW10/D has been given the questioned document as Q 455.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 326 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
259. It has come on the record that the specimen signatures of the aforesaid witnesses were taken by the IO during the investigation of the present case. The taking over of the specimen signature has already been discussed in detail while discussing the role of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3). It has also come on the record that their specimen signatures were sent to the GEQD for examination.
260. PW47 Sh. P.Venugopal is an expert witness who has given his report as ExPW47/C. As per the said report, the aforesaid documents, which were given the questioned documents as Q 165, Q 480 , Q 177, Q 155 and Q 455 were not written by the aforesaid witnesses.
261. PW42 Sh Vijay Dev deposed that he remained posted in the Government of NCT of Delhi as Commissioner, Food & Supply w.e.f 2007 to 2009. During the year 2007, he received investigation report from the CBI through Director (Vigilance) regarding grant of sanction in r/o Sh. Jagjeet SinghDagar (A-6) in the year 2007; he admitted having accorded the sanction order dated 17.12.2007 ExPW42/A in respect of accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6), the then UDC posted in the office of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 327 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi; Letter dated 17.12.2007 vide which sanction order ExPW42/A was conveyed to Economic Offence-1, CBO Complex, New Delhi; he identified signatures of Sh. P.C Thakur the then Food and Supply Officer (Vigilance) on ExPW42/B .
262. PW42 was cross examined by accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6). During his cross examination, PW42 replied that he did not remember the date of receipt of request for granting the sanction, however, it was sometimes before the date of sanction; he was never posted in the office of RCS or in DDA at any point of time in his career. He denied the suggestion that draft sanction letter was just signed by him mechanically without application of his mind to the facts of the case.
263. PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur deposed that he remained posted in the Government of NCT of Delhi as Dy. Director General w.e.f 2007 to 2008. During 2007, he received an investigation report from the CBI through Director (Vigilance) regarding grant of sanction in respect of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), the then UDC posted in the office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi; he granted sanction for prosecution of accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 328 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) vide sanction order dated 20.12.2007 ExPW46/A.
264. PW46 was cross examined by accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7). During his cross examination, PW46 Mahesh Mathur replied that he does not remember the date of receipt of request of sanction of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, however, it was sometimes before the date of sanction; he was never posted in the office of RCS or in DDA at any point of time in his career. PW46 denied the suggestion that the draft sanction letter was just signed by him mechanically without application of his mind to the facts of the case.
265. One of the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) was that PW42 Sh. Vijay Dev and PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur never worked in the RCS office therefore they were not competent to remove the above mentioned accused person, as accused persons were working in the office of RCS during the relevant time. That being so, the sanction granted by PW 42 Vijay Dev as against accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and by PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur as against accused Rakesh CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 329 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Kumar Sharma(A-7), has no value in the eyes of law and solely on this basis above named accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
266. Since the requirement of obtaining sanction is contained in Section 19(1) of the PC Act, it would be proper to reproduce the same. For our purposes, reproduction of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the PC Act shall suffice which I reproduce herein below:
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 330 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
267. As is clear from the plain language of the said section, the court is precluded from taking "cognizance" of an offence under certain sections mentioned in this provision if the prosecution is against the public servant, unless previous sanction of the Government (Central or State, as the case may be) has been obtained. What is relevant for our purposes is that this section bars taking cognizance of an offence.
268. The public policy behind providing immunity from prosecution without the sanction of the State is to insulate the public servant against harassment and malicious prosecution. This protection is only to ensure that a public servant serves the State with courage, confidence, and conviction. Statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either under Section 19 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of protecting a public servant. These protections are not available to other citizens because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect them. However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices. The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a sanction by the appointing authority.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 331 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
269. In the case of L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 9 SCC 598, as relied by Ld PP for CBI, one of the questions referred to was "Whether a public servant who is not on the same post and is transferred (whether by way of promotion or otherwise to another post) loses the protection under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, though he continues to be a public servant, albeit on a different post"? In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"21. It clearly follows from the reading of the judgments in Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, (2011) 7 SCC 141 and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 that if the public servant had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which he was holding on the date when cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. It is also made clear that where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check-up period, but had ceased to hold "that office" or was holding a different office, then sanction would not be necessary. Likewise, where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held at the time of taking cognizance, there will be no necessity to take the sanction. However, one discerning factor which is to be noted is that in both these cases the accused persons were public servants in the capacity of Member of Legislative Assembly by virtue of political office. They were not public servants as government employees. However, a detailed discussion contained in these judgments would indicate that the principle laid down therein would encompass and cover the cases of all public servants, including government employees who may otherwise be having constitutional protection CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 332 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 under the provisions of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution."
270. In the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 , it was held:-
49. It is said that Section 6 envisages that the authority competent to remove a public servant from the office should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office exists. Section 6 applies only in cases where there is a vertical hierarchy of public offices and the public servants against whom sanction is sought from the sanctioning authority. Where the office held by the public servant is not a part of vertical hierarchy in which there is an authority above the public servant, then, Section 6 can have no application. We have been referred to the observations of Desai, J., in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183 " That competent authority alone would know the nature and functions discharged by the public servant holding the office and whether the same has been abused or misused. It is the vertical hierarchy between the authority competent to remove the public servant from that office and the nature of the office held by the public servant against whom sanction is sought which would indicate a hierarchy and which would therefore, permit inference of knowledge about the functions and duties of the office and its misuse or abuse by the public servant.
That is why the legislature clearly provided that that authority alone would be competent to grant sanction which is entitled to remove the public servant against whom sanction is sought from the office."
50. With the utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the above observations. It seems to us that these observations were not intended to lay down the law that CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 333 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office of the public servant exists. That was not the issue in that case. The observations therefore, are not meant to be and ought not to be regarded as laying down the law. It has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that judgments are not to be read as statutes. In our opinion, it is not necessary that the authority competent to give sanction for prosecution or the authority competent to remove the public servant should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office of the public servant exists. There is no such requirement under Section 6. The power to give sanction for prosecution can be conferred on any authority. Such authority may be of the department in which the public servant is working or an outside authority. All that is required is that the authority must be in a position to appreciate the material collected against the public servant to judge whether the prosecution contemplated is frivolous or speculative. Under our enactment the power has been conferred on the authority competent to remove the public servant. Under the British Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906 the power to give consent for prosecution for an offence under that Act has been conferred upon the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
271. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 334 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under
an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 335 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
272. Nothing has been brought on record indicating that the sanctioning authority had not considered the evidence and the material placed before it before giving the sanction for prosecuting the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7). PW42 Sh. Vijay Devi who had accorded the sanction in the present case as against accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6), deposed that " on receipt of the CBI report, I perused the report and the appended calender of evidence both documentary as well as oral to form a view to sanction prosecution of the accused under relevant provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. After considering all the facts, I accorded the sanction to prosecute Jagjeet Singh Dagar. This sanction was given pertaining to Shree Ganesh CGHS". Although PW42 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) but even during his cross examination, nothing could be brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW42.
273. Similarly, PW46 Sh. Mahesh Mathur who had accorded the sanction in the present case as against accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) , deposed that " on receipt of the CBI report, I perused the report and the appended calender of evidence both documentary as well as oral to form a view to sanction prosecution of the accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 336 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 under relevant provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. After considering all the facts, I accorded the sanction to prosecute Rakesh Kumar Sharma. This sanction was given pertaining to Shree Ganesh CGHS". PW46 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) but even during his cross examination also , nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PW46. .
274. Moreover, in the present case, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of L. Narayan Swami( Supra), even if there is no sanction to prosecute the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), it would not affect the case of prosecution as both these accused persons had abused the office and position while working in the office of RCS during the relevant time but when the cognizance of the offence was taken, they had ceased to hold that office and was holding a different office.
275. Next argument made on behalf of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-
7) was that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution which could indicate that these accused persons had ever received any pecuniary gain or any other benefits. There is no evidence indicating that these CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 337 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 accused persons ever met co-accused persons though they are facing trial for criminal conspiracy also.
276. This will also not extend any benefit to accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar(A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) for the simple reason that hardly any direct evidence is available in case of conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence. The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are:
1. an agreement between two or more persons.
2. agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
277. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B IPC, it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 338 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
278. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540 held:
"9. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 :
thus:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 339 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 'The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, 1860, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable.' We are in respectful agreement with the above observations with regard to the offence of criminal conspiracy."
279. In another case Saju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378 : , it was held:
8. In a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is a settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against another.
However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the court must have reasonable CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 340 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 grounds to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is only then that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. This Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 has held : (SCC pp. 649-51, para 45) "Section 120-A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and Section 120-B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. Section 10 reads:
'10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.--Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.' This section mainly could be divided into two :
the first part talks of where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, and it is only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the subsequent part of the section comes into operation and it is material to note that this part of the section talks of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 341 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together and this evidently has reference to Section 120-A where it is provided 'when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done'. This further has been safeguarded by providing a proviso that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy. It will be therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10. The second part of section talks of anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose for proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It is clear that this second part permits the use of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person. It is well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other. But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of the section is clearly established i.e. there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language of Section 120-A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682 : Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra] Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) analysed the provision of Section 10 and made the following observations : (SCR pp. 389-91) 'This section, as the opening words indicate, will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 342 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co- conspirators. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the others, not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression "in reference to their common intention" is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of" in the English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co- conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only "as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it". It can only be used for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. In short, the section can be analysed as follows : (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 343 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour.' "
280. It was further held : (SCC pp. 734-35, paras 278-
80) :
"278. From an analysis of the section, it will be seen that Section 10 will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence. There should be, in other words, a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirator. Once such prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others. It is relevant not only for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy, but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. It is true that the observations of Subba Rao, J., in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682 :sub nom Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra] lend support to the contention that the admissibility of evidence as between co-conspirators would be (sic more) liberal than in English law. The learned Judge said :
(SCR p. 390) CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 344 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 'The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression "in reference to their common intention" is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of" in English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it.'
279. But, with respect, the above observations that the words of Section 10 have been designed used to give a wider scope than the concept of conspiracy in English law, may not be accurate.
This particular aspect of the law has been considered by the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor [AIR 1940 PC 176 : at p. 180, where Lord Wright said that there is no difference in principle in Indian law in view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
280. The decision of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar case [AIR 1940 PC 176 : has been referred to with approval in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 747, 760 : where Jagannadhadas, J., said : (SCR p. 193) 'The limits of the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases under Section 10 of the Evidence Act have been authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 345 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 [AIR 1940 PC 176 :] . In that case, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that Section 10 of the Evidence Act must be construed in accordance with the principle that the thing done, written or spoken, was something done in carrying out the conspiracy and was receivable as a step in the proof of the conspiracy. They notice that evidence receivable under Section 10 of the Evidence Act of "anything said, done, or written, by any one of such persons" (i.e. conspirators) must be "in reference to their common intention". But their Lordships held that in the context (notwithstanding the amplitude of the above phrase) the words therein are not capable of being widely construed having regard to the well-known principle above enunciated.' "
9. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80] this Court reiterated that the essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. After referring to the judgments in Noor Mohd. Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696 : and V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 665 :] it was held in S.C. Bahri case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : as under : (SCC p. 134, para 96).
"[A] cursory look to the provisions contained in Section 120-A reveals that a criminal conspiracy envisages an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act which by itself may not be illegal but the same is done or executed by illegal means. Thus the essential ingredient of the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 346 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact- situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions in such a situation do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B since from its very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may be frustrated and it is common experience CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 347 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately drawn."
281. In view of the above mentioned principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There is sufficient material available on record to establish that the accused persons have conspired with each other and they were party to the conspiracy.
282. It is very much available on record that the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy submitted the false verification report resulting in making of final list of members based upon fake enrollments and resignations and on the basis of which flats were allotted by the DDA in the Draw of Lots.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 348 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
283. One of the arguments made by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons was that it is the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy that accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma(A-7) had taken any monetary or pecuniary advantage by abusing their position. In the present case accused persons have been charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy also. In case of criminal conspiracy direct evidence of any pecuniary or monetary benefits, is hardly available and the same is to be inferred from the circumstances. Pecuniary or monetary advantage may come in innumerable forms making it difficult for the prosecution to establish it but it does not mean that accused persons have not received any such monetary benefits.
284. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the investigation was not fair and the other officers working in the office of RCS during the relevant time, who had processed the file pertaining to the society for Draw of Lots on the basis of the same documents, were not made the accused in the present case and were allowed to walk free.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 349 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
285. It is true that in the present case the request made by the society in the year 2003 for sending the list of 105 members to DDA for Draw of Lots, which was primarily based upon forged and false documents and record, was processed in the office of RCS by the then Dealing Assistant, AR, DR and by the then Registrar. It is a matter of fact they have not been made the accused persons. This court is having similar matters pertaining to the societies where the allegations are almost identical and similar. Every such matter has been investigated by different Investigating officers. In some cases, the officers of RCS have been made accused persons but in few cases, they have not been. At times, this Court fails to understand as to on what basis a decision is taken by the investigating agency/IO to prosecute or not to prosecute a person/official posted in the office of RCS.
286. Be that as it may, it is a well settled law that the benefit of defective investigation carried out by IO, can not always be a ground for acquittal of the accused persons.
287. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 350 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 "5.....In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the invest igation is designedly defective....."
288. Similarly in the case of C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial....."
289. In a case 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1497 Saroj Bhola v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2021, it was held that :
22. It is well settled that the defective investigation cannot itself be a ground for discharge. If negligent investigations and calculated omissions or lapses become the basis for acquittals/discharge, the faith and confidence of people on CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 351 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the criminal justice administration will be eroded. It is well settled that where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agencies or omissions either negligently or with a design to favour the accused, then it becomes the obligation of the Court to ensure that proper investigation is carried out. The Courts must not close its eyes to the fact that it is the victim who knocks the doors of the Court and seeks justice must not left high and dry with the feeling that the accused have escaped due to the perfunctory/faulty/defective investigation.
290. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, has observed as under:
"18. It is clear that a fair trial must kick off only after an investigation is itself fair and just. The ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked, and those who have not are not arraigned to stand trial. That this is the minimal procedural requirement that is the fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be doubted. It is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21 over CrPC that must needs inform the interpretation of all the provisions of CrPC, so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed both in letter and in spirit."
291. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, even if, investigation itself was not fair and just and found to be defective, it cannot be a ground for acquittal. As CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 352 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 discussed herein above, there is sufficient evidence against accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7), as well to hold them guilty.
292. I have already dealt with some of the arguments made on behalf of the accused persons. Now, I will deal with the rest of the arguments made on behalf of them. One of the arguments was that in the present case, CBI had no jurisdiction as the society was very much in existence and there was no order of liquidation, therefore, CBI had no jurisdiction to register an FIR and to investigate the present case.
293. PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav, who is the IO in the present case deposed that vide order dated 03.10.2005 and 09.1.2006 ExPW48/A-1, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 10066/2004 and CM No. 10514/2005 directed the CBI to investigate into the allotment of land, as alloted to 97 Co-operative Group Housing Societies including the present one. This fact has not been, as such disputed by the accused persons during the cross examination of PW48 by them. The said orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are not in dispute. It is not the case of the accused CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 353 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 persons that they have challenged the same and the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi were reversed. Even otherwise also, nothing prevents the CBI to register a case as CBI is empowered to investigate the matter as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Solely on this ground, the investigation done by the CBI would not be vitiated.
294. Next argument was that there is no delivery of property, period of conspiracy has not been defined and it has not been explained as to who was at loss. It was further argued that membership per se is not a property. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. Circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, committed by illegal means.
295. In the present case, it is very easy to say that no one has gained and no one has suffered the loss. But the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 354 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 fact of the matter is that accused persons have gained in different modes and the members of the society, who were actually alloted the flats by the DDA,on the basis of fake enrollments and resignations, have gained. In addition to that the offices of RCS and DDA have also been cheated by concealing the material facts and instead submitting a false list of members for draw of lots, which was based upon forged documents and proceedings.
296. At times, it is difficult to define the exact period of conspiracy as conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and only the conspirators know the day, time and place of their meeting of minds for doing an illegal act. For the prosecuting agency, it would be next to impossible to find out exactly as to when the conspiracy started resulting in allotment of flats.
297. In the present case, the role of each of the accused persons has already been established beyond reasonable doubts. The role assigned to the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) is that he forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi and other persons on certain documents and proceedings and represented himself as President of CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 355 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the Society, though he was not even a member of the Society. It has also come on the record that he appeared in the office of RCS on behalf of the society and had also opened the bank account pertaining to the society. Further, the wife of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) namely Indira Aggarwal (A-2, already stands convicted), had been alloted a flat which was sold by her later on for valuable consideration.
298. Similarly, it stands established that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), who was not even a member of the society, fraudulently and dishonestly represented himself as Treasurer of the Society, had appeared in the office of RCS on behalf of the society and submitted forged and false documents and had also opened the bank account pertaining to the society.
299. The role of accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) was that they had given a false verification report in respect of the alleged fake resignations, which was also the basis of submitting a false list of members for Draw of Lots to DDA.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 356 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
300. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid acts of the accused persons, when taken together on their face value, indicate beyond reasonable doubt, meeting of minds amongst aforesaid accused persons for the intended object of committing an illegal act i.e submitting a false list of members for Draw of Lots, which was based upon forged documents, fake enrollments and resignations. This is sufficient to hold that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy for ulterior motives for doing an illegal act.
301. During the argument, Ld. Counsels appearing for the accused persons have referred to at length the cross examination of the IO PW48 Ram Avtar Yadav and an attempt was made to make out a case that the investigation was not fair. The main emphasis of the Ld. Defence Counsels was on following points, which emerged during the cross examination of PW48:
i. Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari was not the member of the society and he never submitted any application seeking membership of the society. ii. IO could not point out the proceedings dated 21.10.1996 vide which accused Manoj Kumar Pansari was elected as a Treasurer.
iii. The report of A.K Shankaran, Inspector, office of RCS was not available on record.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 357 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 iv. IO has not verified the fact that the address 3222, Charan Dass Street, Hauz Khas, Delhi is the residence of sister of Manoj Kumar Pansari. v. Specimen signatures/hand writing of accused Manoj Kumar Pansari were not taken. vi. IO did not send the specimen signatures of Manoj Aggarwal for comparison with the specimen card ExPW18/A. vii. IO has not carried out the investigation in respect of certain cheques used on behalf of the society. viii. One Vishwa Nath Aggarwal, who was involved in the present case,was not examined. ix. During the investigation, statement of Shambhu Dayal Sharma was recorded but the same was not relied upon.
x. IO did not collect any document indicating that "Manoj Kumar" and " Manoj Kumar Pansari" is the same person.
xi. IO has not recorded the statement of other probable prosecution witnesses. xii. IO has not carried out the investigation with regard to certain members to know as to how they got the membership in the society. xiii. Nothing was mentioned about joining the investigation by Gyan Chand Jain and Bhagwat Prasad Jain in the chargesheet filed in the court. xiv. Some of the persons have not been made accused persons by the IO deliberatly. xv. IO had taken the specimen writings/signatures of some of the persons but they were not sent to GEQD for comparison.
302. At the outset, I may mention that there are defects in the investigations and the IO appears to have CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 358 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 adopted his own procedure and parameters to take a call as to who has to be made an accused or not, for the reasons best known to him. The aforesaid drawbacks, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsels for the accused, could have been an additional evidence on record, to strengthen the story of prosecution. However, even in the absence of the same, the evidence available on the record are sufficient to fix the accused persons for the alleged offences for which they have been charged.
303. This court has already observed that benefit of defective investigation, carried out by the IO cannot always be a ground for acquittal of the accused persons, who are facing the trial. In the case of investigation of a criminal case, IO is the first Judge to take a call regarding who is to be made an accused and who is to be made a prosecution witness. It is also decided by the IO as to for which offence or offences, accused persons so made, are to be chargesheeted. If IO is not performing his duties in accordance with law and investigation done by him found to be defective, in that eventuality the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting the accused persons solely on this ground. Thus, the deficiencies as noted herein above, CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 359 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 which were recorded during the cross examination of IO PW48 Ram Avtar, would not affect the case of the prosecution as against the accused persons, who were sent for trial.
304. I have also gone through the judgments as relied upon by Ld. Counsels appearing for the accused persons. Here it is pertinent to mention that there is no doubt about the proposition of law, as laid down by Hon'ble Courts and observation made therein but in view of discussions and the judicial pronouncements citied, the same would not extend any benefit to them being distinguishable on the basis of facts.
CONCLUSION
305. In the present case, seven accused persons were chargesheeted and subsequently were charged by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Accused Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal (A-1) and Indira Aggarwal (A-2), pleaded guilty to the charges framed against them and they were convicted vide order dated 13.8.2013 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The proceedings against accused Ghanshyam Goel (A-4) were abated vide order CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 360 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 dated 21.2.2012. Rest of the four accused persons namely accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) pleaded not guilty and have faced the trial.
306. All the aforesaid four accused persons namely accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3), accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5), accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were charged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court for the offences under section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13( 1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 against accused J.S Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, for substantive offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC against accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) and for substantive offences u/s 420/471 IPC against accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5).
307. In view of my discussion, this court has already decided, that accused persons have conspired together to commit the offences in question and there is sufficient evidence proving that accused persons were party to the CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 361 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 conspiracy. Hence, the ingredients of section 120 B IPC stands proved against all the accused persons facing trial.
308. Apart from the offence of criminal conspiracy, accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) is facing trial for offences u/s 420//468/471 IPC and accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) for the offfences u/s 420/471 also.
309. The offence of cheating has been defined u/s 415 IPC and whosoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person shall be punished as provided under section 420 IPC. For bringing the actions under the aforesaid provision of law, there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning.
310. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for committing the forgery for the purpose of cheating. The term forgery has been defined u/s 463 IPC. The basic element of forgery are the making of a false document or part of it and such making should be with such an intention as is specified in the Section.
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 362 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
311. Section 471 IPC says that whosoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses a genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to be believed to be forged shall be punished as provided in the section.
312. In the present case, it has already come on the record that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) has forged the signatures of Rukmani Devi and other purported members on various documents and proceedings which were submitted to the office of RCS for getting approved the false list of members of the society, so that same is forwarded to DDA for Draw of Lots. The aforesaid forged documents/proceedings were used and submitted to the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA for Draw of Lots. It has also come on the record that DDA alloted the flats as per the said list believing it to be a genuine list whereas the said list was based upon false and forge documents.
313. It is further stands proved that accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) was not even a member of the society but he fraudulently and dishonestly represented himself as a Treasurer of the society, signed certain cheques and documents/proceedings and appeared before CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 363 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 the office of RCS on behalf of the society.
314. Thus, the actions of the accused Vijay Kumar Aggawal (A-3) and Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) , as noted earlier, is covered by the provisions of law under section 420/468/471 IPC and 420/471 IPC respectively.
315. In addition to that accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) are facing the charges for the substantive offences u/s section 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, also.
316. Prior to amendment of section 13 of PC Act, 1988, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or (ii) or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
317. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the above mentioned three CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 364 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of criminal misconduct under section 13(1) (d). Undoubtedly, all the above three clauses are independent, alternative and disjunctive.
318. At the time of deciding the role of the accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-
7), this court has already reached at a conclusion that both these accused persons in furtherance of the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently submitted a false verification report regarding fake resignations, on the basis of which a final list of members was made which was ultimately transmitted to DDA for Draw of Lots.
319. In the present case, it is not in dispute that accused Jagjeet Singh Dagar (A-6) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) were public servants at the relevant time. The above actions of the said accused persons, as discussed, squarely come under the ambit of section 13(1)
(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 365 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019 Decision
320. In view of my aforesaid discussions, accused accused persons are convicted as under:
(a) Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal(A-3) is convicted for the offence u/s 120 B IPC read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 420//468/471 IPC.
(b) Accused Manoj Kumar Pansari (A-5) is convicted for the offence u/s 120 B IPC read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 420//471 IPC.
(c) Accused Jagjeet Singh Daagar (A-6) is convicted for the offences under section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 (prior to the amendment).
(d) Accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma (A-7) is convicted for the offences under section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 (prior to the amendment).
CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 366 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019
321. All the above convict persons shall be heard separately on the point of sentence.
322. Copy of this Judgment be provided to each of the Convicts free of cost .
Digitally signed byRAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR GOEL Date: 2023.07.22 02:18:25 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16 Rouse Avenue District Courts New Delhi/ 20.07.2023 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 20.7.2023 CBI Vs. Dhruwa Narain Aggarwal etc (Shree Ganesh CGHS) Date of Judgment 20.07.2023 (Page 367 of 367 ) CBI No. 67/2019 CNR No. DLCT110002972019