Delhi District Court
Rc No. 65(A)/00 Cbi vs . Pritam Singh & Ors. 12.02.2014 on 18 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0369752003
AC No. 4/11/03
RC No. 65(A)/00
C.B.I.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
r/o C-64, DDA Flats, Old Rajender Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Satyavir Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
r/o 185, Vill. Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad
r/o F-15A, Near Bharat Gas Agency,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Naseem Khan S/o Sh. M.A. Khan
r/o 328, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
5. Sh. S.K. Behl S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Behl
r/o 900, Vikas Kunj, New Delhi.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014
Page 1/66
Date of institution before this court: 12.09.2011
Date of reserve of order: 18.01.2014
Date of decision : 12.02.2014
JUDGMENT :
1. One DDA flat no. 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, is the subject matter of this criminal case. This flat according to the CBI was never alloted to anyone either by draw of lot or otherwise. As per CBI case no demand was ever raised by the DDA for this flat.
2. The present charge sheet has been filed by CBI against five accused persons with the allegations that A1 and A2 who were DDA officials at the relevant time in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused Anil Kumar, Nasim Khan who are property dealers and also with S.K. Behl have managed to take possession of flat no. 7129 fraudulently by forging various documents and have thus cheated DDA and also to PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh to whom this flat was sold on 04.12.1995 by A5 S.K. Behl and thus have committed offence u/s 120-B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 and substantive offence u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 2/66
3. FIR Ex.PW24/1 (D-1) in the instant case has been registered on the basis of a source information wherein it has been alleged that some private persons mostly property dealers in conspiracy with DDA officials also naming A2 Satyavir Singh have entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of getting the various DDA flats restored fraudulently and subsequently disposing of these flats at very high rates.
4. In the FIR four distinct allegations were made out. The subject flat 7129 along with one another flat 8154 was the part of the allegation no. 4 in the FIR that possession of the same have been delivered through bogus challans.
5. The charge sheet in the present case is only concerning about the allegations at serial no. 4. As per the charge sheet nothing objectionable was found concerning the flat no. 8154 and this accordingly confine itself to flat no. 7129, Block 10, Sector B, Vasant Kunj.
6. The relevant facts of this case are that A5 S.K. Behl initially had applied and alloted a DDA flat in B-1, Vasant Kunj in 1987. He was issued a demand cum allotment letter on 15.01.1988. The further case of the CBI is that one file RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 3/66 126(9)/88/VK/SFS/III was opened in his name in Housing Branch of DDA which is Ex.PW10/DA (D-18). The allotment of A5 was cancelled as he did not respond to the demand letter dated 15.01.1988. In 1991 A5 sent a letter dated 01.04.1991 Ex.PW10/U (D-18) to the Director (H), DDA for allotment letter. He was informed vide letter dated 31.01.1992 that he should apply in next release.
7. In 1994 A5 again sent a letter dated 08.12.1994 to issue allocation cum demand letter for a flat so that he may deposit the required money. The CBI case is that at this point of time A1 Pritam Singh was Assistant Director (H) and A2 Satyavir Singh was concerned Dealing Assistant (H). It is a case of the CBI that this application was processed in file D-18 by A2 Satyavir Singh. It was decided that a regret letter may be issued to A5. Accordingly a regret letter signed by A1 dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A was sent to A5. Thereafter there is no correspondence in the file D-18 between DDA and A5.
8. The case of the CBI is that both A3 and A4 were in property business. It is the CBI case that A3 was aware of the cancellation of this flat of A5 as he used to visit DDA (H). As per CBI case A4 at the instance of A3 arranged four banker's cheques RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 4/66 Ex.PW21/2 to Ex.PW21/5 (D-15) all of the date of 22.08.1995 of the total amount of Rs.2,92,225/- from account no. 1339 of his father Sh. M.A. Khan being maintained at Central Bank of India, Lado Sarai, New Delhi. The further case of the CBI is that A4 and A3 prepared four challans (D-12, D-41) in the name of A5 and deposited the same in the account of DDA without any demand letter at random in August 1995. It is the case of the CBI that these challans mention the file no. 126(9)/88/SFS/VK-III of A5 S.K. Behl and his address. The case of the CBI is that on 13.11.1995 further deposit of Rs.330/- was made through two separate banker's cheques prepared in the name of A5 and on 04.12.1995 a further deposit of Rs.100/- through another banker's cheque prepared in the name of A5. As per CBI case a total amount of Rs.2,92,655/- was deposited towards the part payment of subject flat no. 7129 though no allotment letter was ever received by the allottee. These deposits have been proved by (D-51) Ex.PW5/B and also by (D-42) Ex.PW24/19.
9. The further case of the CBI is that after such deposits A3 and A4 got issued possession letter dated 14.11.195 (D-22 & D-26) by A1 dishonestly and fraudulently pertaining to the subject flat no. 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, in favour of A5 and another copy (D-26) Ex.PW4/A was sent to the office of Executive Engineer of RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 5/66 SWD-II Division to effect the possession of the flat to A5. The case of the CBI is that there is no entry in dispatch register of DDA as to how these possession letters were sent to A5 and to the office of SWD-II Division of DDA.
10. The further case of the CBI is that on 15.10.1995 one advertisement appeared in the Hindustan Times about the sale of DDA flats in Vasant Kunj. In this advertisement contact no. 696834 of A4 installed at his residence 328, Lado Sarai, New Delhi and mobile no. 9810020120 of Anil Kumar A3 were given. On seeing this advertisement Capt. Mehar Singh PW13 contacted to his property dealer H.R. Thakkar PW11 and along with him approached Anil Kumar A3 for purchase of a flat for his brother-in-law Harminder Singh Sachar who was an NRI and was a resident of London. The further case is that A3 showed them 3/4 flats including subject flat no. 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. PW13 liked this flat and its price was settled as Rs.30 Lac. The case of the CBI is that PW13 gave a sum of Rs.5 Lac to A3 as earnest money for the flat against a receipt executed by A3 which is Ex.PW11/X-9.
11. The further case of the CBI is that on 20.11.1995 the office of Executive Engineer, SWD-II received a letter intimating the RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 6/66 allotment of subject flat to A5. This letter was marked to JE C.K. Chandran (PW12) for handing over the possession on 22.11.1995. The JE concerned handed over this flat to A5 on 25.11.1995 in the presence of A3 and also PW11 and PW13.
12. The CBI case is that at the time of delivery of flat to A5 on 25.11.1995 number of documents were signed by A5 which includes possession slip in duplicate (D-21), inventory of fittings in duplicate (D-27/A), terms and conditions of DDA (D-27/B) and possession register (D-28).
13. The further case of the CBI is that on 04.12.1995 PW11 and PW13 visited A5 and A3. A5 prepared several documents mentioned in D-24 and all these documents Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/O were signed by A5 and flat was registered in the name of Harminder Singh Sachar on 04.12.1995.
14. The case of the CBI is that PW13 took possession of subject flat on 04.12.1995 for Harminder Singh Sachar and A5 gave all documents pertaining to correspondence, challans, sales transaction and PW13 gave him 'self cheque' of Rs.4.5 lac Mark PX and balance amount of Rs.20,50,000/- in cash as price of the subject flat.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 7/66
15. Subsequently PW13 when approached the office of DDA for getting the subject flat freehold it was informed that this flat no. 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj has not been alloted to anyone.
16. The case of the CBI is that in this way all accused in conspiracy with each other have cheated and caused wrongful loss to DDA and Mehar Singh as well as he has been sold an unalloted flat.
17. In the course of investigation the documents of the case were sent to 'GEQD Shimla' on more than one occasion. The relevant opinion of handwriting expert for the instant case is Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2. In these reports the handwriting expert has confirmed that various forwarding letters and documents relating to sale of flat no. 7129 were signed by A5 and various challans and body writings on forwarding letters are in the handwriting of A3 and A4. As per these reports the dispatch number on the possession letters, specimen signature attestation form, NOC as well as writing indicating the movement of the file and writing 'P/L not issued' in the file movement register (D-29) are in the handwriting of A2 Satyavir Singh. These reports also confirmed the body writing on possession letters, No Objection slip and challan is in the handwriting of A4 Nasim Khan and also the RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 8/66 possession letters, specimen signature attestation form and no objection certificate for electricity and water connection are signed by A1.
18. As per the case of the CBI A5 was never issued any allotment letter after regret letter dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A was conveyed to him and the matter was closed qua him in DDA concerning allotment of a flat to him. As per CBI case no other flat was ever alloted to him. According to the CBI a conspiracy in this case has been hatched whereby movement of file (D-18) was manipulated. Fake possession letter was sent to Executive Engineer SWD-II for delivery of possession, advertisement was given in Hindustan Times on 15.10.1995 and 22.10.1995 and the subject flat was fraudulently got delivered to A5 on 25.11.1995 though it was never alloted to him in the records of DDA nor any demand was raised for this flat nor A5 made any payment. This flat was subsequently sold by A5 to PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh on 04.12.1995 for a price consideration of Rs.30 lac within nine days of taking over the possession by A5.
19. Vide order dated 27.08.2004 charge u/s 120-B r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 was framed against all the accused. Charge for substantive offences RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 9/66 u/s 467/468 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 was also framed against A1 Pritam Singh, charge u/s 468 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 was framed against A2 and also charge u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against A3 Anil Kumar, A4 Nasim Khan and A5 S.K. Behl. They denied the charge and claimed trial.
20. To prove its case the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused pleaded their false implication. A1 while denying the charge that possession letters, NOC, attestation form were signed by him has also examined handwriting expert D1W1 V.C. Mishra in defence,. A5 also examined three witnesses in defence. D5W1 is constable Anuj Kumar who was to produce the record of complaint filed by PW11 after coming to know that this flat was not alloted in the records of DDA to A5. The record was found not traceable. The other two witnesses were concerning with physical disability of A5.
21. In considered view of this court three questions falls for consideration and decision in this case. First question is on the point of position of the subject flat in DDA records, second question is regarding the delivery of possession of the subject flat which has been claimed by CBI as handed over to A5 S.K. Behl on 25.11.1995 and if the finding on first two questions is that the RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 10/66 subject flat was unallotted flat and fraudulently delivered to A5 as claimed by CBI, then third question is how A1 to A5 are involved in the transaction and the relevant evidence connecting them in this case.
22. On the first question it has been argued by the ld. PP for CBI that this flat was never allotted to anyone including A5 in DDA records. A1 in reply to question 11 and 12 of his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has not disputed this fact. However claim of A5 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that he is a lawful allottee of this flat. A2 in his statement has shown ignorance of this and the same is the position with A3 and A4.
23. To support his stand that the subject flat 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was an unalloted flat, CBI has been deriving support from report Ex.PW12/B dated 12.07.1995 (D-44) and also report Ex.PW12/F (D-44). These two reports have been collected by the IO PW24 Nirbhay Kumar from PW1 Harbhajan Singh, AE, DDA, vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A (D-43).
24. As per report Ex.PW12/E dated 15.07.1995 flat no. 7129 is vacant upto 12.01.1995. In report Ex.PW12/F this flat is missing from the list of vacant flats. Ex.PW6/A (D-46) is the annual RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 11/66 action plan report and page 301 of this report this flat has been shown vacant as on 01.04.1995. The seizure memo of this plan is Ex.PW24/21 (D-45). The letter dated 06.06.2002 Ex.PW24/23 (D-49) sent by R.S. Sharma, Executive Engineer, SWD-II DDA also shows that the subject flat was vacant upto 31.10.1995 and possession of the same was handed over to A5 S.K. Behl on 25.11.1995 by JE C.K. Chandran.
25. In the course of the investigation IO PW24 Nirbhay Kumar also seized possession register (D-28) vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/1 (D-5). This register shows that at page 5 there is an entry Ex.PW12/D at serial no. 27 showing that the possession of this flat no. 7129 has been handed over to A5 S. K. Behl and A5 has also signed against acknowledgment of the same at point A.
26. Ex.PW9/A is a letter dated 06.03.2002 (D-16) sent by Nanak Chand, Asstt. Director (Housing) by which he has informed that no possession letter has been issued in respect of subject flat till that date from N & C Branch, Delhi.
27. Along with this letter Ex.PW9/A he has also enclosed 23 challans which are the pages of the relevant dispatch register proved as Ex.PW9/B1 to B5, Ex.PW9/C1 and C2, Ex.PW9/D1 to RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 12/66 D7, Ex.PW9/E1 to E5 and also Ex.PW9/F1 to F4 in support of his assertion.
28. The further support on this point may also be taken from Ex.PW10/C (D-17) which is a letter dated 13.03.2002 submitted to the IO that no possession letter dated 14.11.1995 was issued by the N&C neither to the concerned Executive Engineer nor to the allottee Sh. S.K. Behl. As per statement of PW10 Prehlad Singh no allotment letter has been issued in respect of the subject flat till date.
29. The further support is from the letter dated 21.03.2002 Ex.PW5/A (D-3) of PW5 S.S. Gehlot, Accounts Officer, DDA which shows that this flat was vacant in DDA records till the date of issuing of the letter. This letter also shows that cost of subject flat in the year 1995 was Rs.5,99,866/- and no payment pertaining to this flat was made by A5 in DDA records. As per this letter the flat is still vacant in DDA records.
30. It is argued by the defence counsel that as per own case of CBI in this case the payment of total amount of Rs. 2,92,655/- has been made to DDA in the name of S.K. Behl A5 till date which is also confirmed by statement Ex.PW5/B (D-51) and RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 13/66 also in Ex.PW24/19 (D-42). It is submitted that it cannot be said that no payment has been made to DDA concerning the subject flat.
31. The evidence of PW10 Prehlad Singh, Asstt. Director, SFS DDA is relevant on this point. PW10 in his deposition has detailed about the procedure of payment acknowledged in DDA. As per the witness any payment is to be certified in DDA only when a copy of the payment challan is submitted by the depositor in DDA Office to the Management Wing from where this copy of challan is submitted to the Accounts Branch of DDA who certify the payment.
32. As per PW10 Prehlad Singh in the present case no copy of challan of deposit has been submitted to DDA in the Management Wing by depositor.
33. This position as explained by PW10 has also been confirmed by PW5 S.S. Gehlot, Sr. Accounts Officer in his letter proved as Ex.PW5/A (D-3). It is stated in this letter that DDA of its own does not take any cognizance of any payment unless the copy of payment challan is submitted in Management Wing. This position has also been confirmed by IO Nirbhay Kumar PW24.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 14/66
34. The defence in the present case has failed to show that copy of payment challan in this case has been submitted to the Management Wing of DDA by the depositor.
35. In view of this position even if payment in the name of S.K. Behl is certified in statement Ex.PW5/B and also Ex.PW24/19 but they are not the certified payments as per DDA records and be treated as unrecognized payment
36. The oral and documentary evidence as discussed above would prove that flat no. 7129, Block-B, Sector 10, Vasant Kunj has not been alloted to anyone as per DDA record. This evidence further proves that no payment of this flat has been received in DDA records as confirmed by Ex.PW5/A (D-3). In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the stand of A5 is that he is a lawful allottee of the subject flat but the evidence adduced in support by the CBI proves it otherwise. A5 has not adduced any evidence to support his claim. The flat applied earlier by him in B Block Vasant Kunj has already been cancelled and his subsequent requests have also been regretted by DDA finally by letter dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A as conveyed to him. He has not shown that he had applied for any other flat in DDA thereafter. He has also not adduced any evidence that he made any payment in DDA for the RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 15/66 allotment of subject flat. The finding on question no. 1 is returned accordingly holding that the subject flat no. 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj is an unallotted flat as per DDA record till date.
37. On the second question of delivery of possession of the subject flat 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj to A5 the CBI besides deriving support from the own statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of A5 admitting that possession of flat was delivered to him on 25.11.1995 has also been relying on statement of PW11 H.R. Thakkar, PW12 C.K. Chandran and PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh.
38. The statement of PW12 C.K. Chandran, JE DDA in the office of Executive Engineer, SWD-II Division is that on 25.11.1995 he was entrusted to deliver the possession of the subject flat to A5 S.K. Behl on the basis of possession letter dated 14.11.1995 Ex.PW4/A (D-26) and Ex.PW11/S (D-27) received from the office of Assistant Director (H). It has been deposed by PW12 that A5 S.K. Behl the allottee of the flat approached him to take possession of the flat. As per PW12 he prepared in duplicate copies of (i) possession slip, (ii) inventory of fittings, one copy for the allottee and another copy for the office purpose. PW12 has confirmed that possession of subject flat was handed over to A5 S.K. Behl on RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 16/66 25.11.1995 after taking his signatures on the above said documents and he gave key of the flat to A5.
39. The CBI has also proved following documents containing signatures of A5 at the time of taking possession of the subject flat on 25.11.1995. They are (i) possession slip of the flat Ex.PW11/X-8 (D-21) which is the allottee copy, (ii) possession slip of the flat Ex.PW12/A (D-25) which is the office copy of SWD-II Division, (iii) inventory of fittings of the flat proved as Ex.PW12/C (D-21) which is allottee copy, (iv) possession register Ex.PW11/D (D-25). It is the office copy of SWD-II Division.
40. It has been deposed by PW12 that at the time of handing over possession to A5 he had obtained his signatures on the office copy of (i) possession slip Ex.PW11/A (D-25), (ii) inventory of fittings Ex.PW11/T (D-25), (iii) check list Ex.PW11/R (D-27/A), (iv) letter of terms and conditions of DDA Ex.PW11/Q (D-27/B), (v) possession register Ex.PW12/D (D-28) and (vi) possession letter Ex.PW4/A (D-26).
41. It may be noted that the above said documents at serial no. 1 to 6 were seized from the office of SWD-II Division of DDA. These documents prove that S.K. Behl was delivered possession of RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 17/66 the subject flat on 25.11.1995 by PW12 C.K. Chandran, JE, DDA of SWD-II, Division of DDA.
42. The support on the fact of delivery of possession of the subject flat to A5 S.K. Behl may also be derived from the statement of PW11 H.R. Thakkar and PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh. In their statements made on oath in the court they have deposed that they had requested A3 Anil Kumar to inform them about the date of delivery of possession of the subject flat to A5 S.K. Behl by DDA official. It is the evidence of PW11 and PW13 that they were informed by A3 and as such they were present on 25.11.1995 when possession of the subject flat was delivered to A5 by PW12.
43. There is no challenge to the abovesaid evidence of PW11, PW12 and PW13. In view of this unrebutted evidence of these three witnesses coupled with the support of admission of this fact by A5 in his own statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the finding is recorded that possession of subject flat 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj was delivered to A5 by PW12. The finding of question no. 2 is returned accordingly.
44. It is a CBI case in the charge sheet is that subject flat was an unallotted flat in DDA records and possession of the same RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 18/66 has been fraudulently delivered to A5 in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy between A1 to A5. It is submitted by ld. PP that period of conspiracy in this case is between August 1995 to December 1995. It is submitted that both A1 and A2 were aware that a regret letter dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A has been issued by A1 to A5 at the instance of A2 Dealing Assistant in respect of his earlier flat allotted to him and which was cancelled because of the non payment by A5. It is submitted that it was within the knowledge of A1, A2 and A5 that no other flat has been applied by A5 in DDA records thereafter. It is submitted that there was no other file in the name of A5 S.K. Behl in DDA (H) pertaining to the allotment of subject flat 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
45. It is submitted by the ld. PP that subject flat 7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was not alloted to anyone including A5 and no payment was received pertaining to this flat. It is submitted that within nine days of the allotment on 04.12.1995 the subject flat in conspiracy has been sold by A5 to PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh for a price consideration of Rs.30 Lacs. It is submitted that this way A1 to A5 have not only cheated DDA by obtaining fraudulent possession of an unallotted flat without any payment but they have also cheated PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh by putting him on a wrongful loss of the amount of Rs.30 Lacs by giving him a flat RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 19/66 which is never alloted in DDA record to anyone including A5.
46. It is submitted that CBI has brought sufficient evidence on record against each of the five accused to prove their involvement. The defence however disputes the correctness of the case put up by the CBI. This court would now examine the role of each of the accused and also the material against them placed on record against them to see what offence if any is committed by each of them.
Role of A1 Pritam Singh :
47. It is argued by the ld. PP that at the relevant time A1 Pritam Singh was working as Assistant Director (H) in DDA. It is submitted that A1 was aware that a regret letter dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A has been issued to A5 against his earlier allotment which was cancelled by DDA. It is also submitted that A1 was also aware that there was no other flat allotted to A5 by DDA.
48. It is submitted by the ld. PP that A1 has dishonestly signed possession letters (D-22 and D-26), NOC (D-23) and attestation form of A5 (D-27). It is submitted by him that the signatures of A1 has been confirmed by the two reports of PW28 Nato Singh, handwriting expert which are Ex.PW24/17-1 and RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 20/66 Ex.PW24/17-2.
49. According to the ld. defence counsel the imputed signatures on the documents D-22, D-23, D-26 and D-27 are forged signatures. It is submitted that GEQD report is not correct and report of handwriting expert V.C. Mishra D1W1 examined by A1 supports him that the signatures are not of him.
50. It is submitted by the ld. PP that GEQD reports may be given more credence. These reports are based on similarities of disputed signatures and specimen signatures of A1. These reports have been prepared by two experts Amar Singh and Nato Singh and both of them have come to the same conclusion. It is further argued by the ld. PP that the expert report Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2 are based on sound reasoning and does not need any corroboration.
51. It is submitted that D1W1 V.C. Mishra is a paid witness of A1 and he has prepared a report to favour him. Reliance has been placed on Gulzar Ali vs. State of HP 1998 (2) SC 192. It is submitted that even otherwise the report Ex.D1W1/1 prepared by him cannot be acted upon as it is not prepared on the basis of comparison of original documents but on the basis of photostat of RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 21/66 documents supplied to A1 and even the photographs have been taken for comparison not by D1W1 himself but by his associate.
52. Reliance has also been placed by the ld. PP on judgment of our own High Court in the matter Jaipal vs. State 2011 Cri.L.J. 4444. It was a murder case and a ransom note written by accused was the sole evidence. The expert confirmed that the ransom note was written by accused on the basis of which the court held the accused guilty and there was no other corroboration to this ransom note.
53. It may be noted that in Jaipal case (supra) the court had taken the support of judgment where the question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal vs. State of MP AIR 1980 SC 531. In this case the Apex Court had observed that handwriting expert is not accomplice. It was held that if the court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert opinion without corroboration. In para 11 of the judgment in Murari Lal case it was observed (quoted in extenso in the judgment of Jaipal) (supra) that reasons for the opinion must be carefully examined. All other evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. The court further RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 22/66 held in this case that in cases where the reasons of opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an expert may be accepted. The court held that there cannot be inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. In para 12 of the judgment of Murari Lal case as quoted in the judgment of Jaipal (supra) it was observed that the argument that the court should not venture to compare writing itself as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force.
54. In Jaipal case (supra) the court itself had examined the ransom note, specimen handwriting and also the report of the expert and then had come to the conclusion that ransom note was written by the accused.
55. In the instant case except the alleged four forged signatures as attributed to A1 there is no other evidence against him on record. Accused has been profusely denying the same submitting that they are forged.
56. It is indeed true that in the instant case PW28 Nato Singh, handwriting expert has found in his reports Ex.PW24/17-1 RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 23/66 and Ex.PW24/17-2 that questioned signatures on D-22, D-23, D-26 and D-27 are by the same person who wrote the admitted and specimen writing but a comparison of the disputed signatures and also of the specimen and admitted signatures of this accused would show that four questioned signatures appears to be more close to each other rather than the specimen signatures S-214 to S-217 Ex.PW24/6 to Ex.PW24/9 and also S-323 to S-332 Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/10 and also his admitted signatures in file Ex.PW27/E. The four questioned signatures appear to be more in common with each other in features, characteristics with rest of the specimen and admitted signatures. There appears to be a marked difference from the bare eye to the very first letter of signatures of A1 appearing in all four questioned signatures on the one hand and specimen and admitted signatures on the other hand. This first letter in all the questioned signatures appears to be similar to each other then it is so in rest of the signatures with whom they have been compared with. It would show that the first letter on all the four questioned signatures starts from a high level in comparison to the gap with the first letter in the set of specimen signatures and admitted signatures which are starting from low lying level.
57. The science of handwriting is not a complete perfect science. After all the expert opinion is only an opinion in the matter.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 24/66 Considering to the position in this case concerning the four questioned signatures on the one hand and also to the set of specimen signatures and admitted signatures of A1 it would be more prudent to seek corroboration from other evidence which is absent in the present case against A1. In view of this position this court is of the view that it would not be safe to rely upon the two reports of GEQD as a conclusive proof to hold A1 guilty on the basis of the same.
58. The judgment of Jaipal vs. State (supra) was based on its own facts. In Jaipal case it was a four page letter which was a ransom note giving much scope for the handwriting expert for his expert opinion. However in this case there are only four signatures on four different documents. So there cannot be any comparison.
59. A support may be taken from Ram Narain vs. State of UP 1973 Cri.L.J. 1187 SC where it was held that opinion of handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion but such opinion is worthy of acceptance if there is internal and external evidence relating to the writing in question supporting the expert view. It was further held in this case that question of each case falls for determination of the course of appreciation of evidence.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 25/66
60. In absence of any corroboration coming on record to GEQD reports it would be more appropriate to give him a fair chance of benefit of doubt then to convict him on this piece of evidence alone. It is ordered accordingly.
Role of A2 Satyavir Singh :
61. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that A2 Satyavir Singh at the relevant time was working as UDC of SFS (Housing) of DDA. This fact has been admitted by A2 in his statement that he has been relieved from the section only on 4.9.95 in reply to very first question of his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. Even PW-10 Prahlad Singh Asst. Director has testified that A2 was relieved from SFS and joined Pay and Accounts office on 4.9.95.
62. The allegations against A2 is that he was involved in preparing of the possession letter D-22 Ex.PW4/B and D-26 Ex.PW4/A where Q-139 are of A2 in D-26 and Q-182 are of him in D-22. The further allegations against A2 is that he dishonestly and fraudulently made false entry in File Movement Register Ex.PW10/B (D-29) on page 3 of this register where two false entries Q-263 and Q-264 has been imputed to A2 which shows that file D-18 has been sent to HAU on 11.4.95. Other entry shows that file has been marked to Asst. Director on 17.8.95.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 26/66
63. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that on page 2 of File Movement Register (D-29) Ex.PW10/B an entry has been recorded by A2 which is Q-261 by writing 'P/L issued'. It is submitted that he has also added word 'Not' in (Q-262) that P/L has not been issued. These entries in File Movement Register are Ex.PW24/15, Ex.PW24/16-1 and Ex.PW24/16-2 which according to Ld. PP are false and fabricated entries.
64. It is submitted that handwriting is of A2 has been proved by PW-28 Nato Singh, handwriting expert.
65. Regarding alleged fake entries made by A2 it has been deposed by PW-24 Nirbhay Kumar IO that entries Q-263 and Q-264 attributed to A2 at page 3 of the File Movement Register Ex.PW10/B (D-29) has been made by A2. According to PW-24 entry Q-264 shows that file has been sent to HAU on 11.4.95. It has been deposed by PW-24 that this entry was made to create an impression that for verifying of the documents for Flat No. 7129 file has been sent to Accounting Wing. It has been further deposed by this witness PW-24 that another fake entry has been made by A2 in the file whereby file has been marked to Asst. Director on 17.8.95. This entry was made to create an impression that after verification the file has been sent to the office of Asst. Director for issue of RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 27/66 possession letter. IO has also deposed that the two entries Q-261 and Q-262 were made by A2 in the Movement Register (D-29).
66. In his statement PW-10 Prehlad Singh Asst. Director has also confirmed about the entries Q-261 to Q-264 in File Movement Register. According to PW-10 there is no corresponding noting in the note sheet portion of this file marked 126 (9)/88/SFS/VK-III. It has been deposed by him that had there been any movement as shown in File Movement Register then corresponding entries should have been made in the noting portion of the file (D-18).
67. On the entry appearing in Movement Register 'P/L not issued' (Q261 and Q262) it has been deposed by PW-10 that he had obtained a report from Deputy Director N&C Branch (Housing) which reveal that no possession letter dated 14.11.95 was issued to concerned Executive Engineer or to S.K. Behl against file no. 126(9)/88/SFS/VK (D-18).
68. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A2 has not denied of dealing with the file (D-18) Ex.PW10/DA where he admitted that entry has been made by him in his own handwriting concerning issuing of a regret letter dated 29.3.95. He had full RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 28/66 knowledge that file D-18 was closed after issuing of regret letter dated 29.3.95 Ex.PW10/A in file Ex.PW10/DA (D-18) and as such there was no occasion for any movement of the file for the issuing of a flat to A5 thereafter.
69. The imputed entries have been proved by handwriting expert PW-28 Nato Singh. A2 has only denied the allegations that entries are not in his handwriting. However, this bare denial will not be of any benefit to him. He was the concerned dealing clerk. He was aware that a regret letter had been issued in File D-18 to A5 on 29.3.95. Since he was a dealing clerk he was also aware that no Flat bearing no.7129 was ever allotted to A5. At the relevant time he was posted in the same section and it has not been ruled out by A2 that it was not possible for him to record these questioned entries in File Movement Register and Possession Letter.
70. His case is different from the case of A1 Pritam Singh. In the case of Pritam Singh only his four questioned signatures were the matter of controversy which according to A1 are forged by someone else but in the case of A2 it is a matter of handwriting appearing in File Movement Register D-29, Q-261 to Q-262 and possession letter (D-22) and (D-26) in Q-139. Both PW-4 T.C. Narang and PW-27 J.R. Gupta have identified his handwriting.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 29/66
71. No suggestion has been given to PW-28 Nato Singh in cross examination that A2 is not the writer of questioned, specimen or admitted writings.
72. The questioned writing of A2 as proved by CBI would prove the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against him. He made false entries in D-29 and also in Possession Letters (D-22 and D-26) for the purpose of cheating and charge under Section 468 IPC is also proved against him. By resorting to forgery he has also abused his official position as Public Servant and as such he is also liable for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
73. The sanction to prosecute A2 has been proved as Ex.PW16/B. There is no challenge to the issue of sanction by the competent authority.
Role of A3 Anil Kumar :
74. It is submitted by the ld. PP that A3 was working as a property dealer and was having a shop in premises no. 328, Lado Sarai which is owned by father of A4. It is submitted that A3 is involved in this conspiracy since beginning. It is submitted that he has arranged the amount of Rs.2,92,225/- through A4 Nasim Khan RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 30/66 from account no. 1339 of M.A. Khan father of A4 Nasim Khan through four different banker's cheques (D-15) prepared in the name of DDA. It is submitted that this amount of Rs.2,92,225/- was deposited through four different challans prepared in the name of A5 S.K. Behl giving the particulars of the file D-18 which was originally allotted to A5. It is submitted that particulars of file D-18 were either to the knowledge of A1, A2 or A5 and reference of the same in challans filled up by A3 and A4 would only show that they were in conspiracy with each other. It is submitted that his handwriting appears in challan no 23406 and 23408 for a sum of Rs.69,840/- each both of the date of 29.08.1995 at point Q-257 in Ex.PW8/A1 and at point Q-258 in other challan Ex.PW8/A2 which has been confirmed by PW28 Nato Singh, handwriting expert.
75. It is submitted that in advertisement in newspaper Hindustan Times dated 15.10.1995 Ex.PW24/4 one of the contact number given was 9810020120 which is of A3. It is submitted that mobile number of A3 has been proved by PW7 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Tele Venture Ltd. It is submitted that the statement of PW11 H.R. Thakkar and PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh bring sufficient evidence on record to show the involvement of A3 right from the beginning of the transaction when these two persons contacted him till when this flat was disposed of by A5 to PW13 RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 31/66 Capt. Mehar Singh. It is submitted that in their statements PW11 and PW13 have deposed that in connection with the subject flat they met A3 only and price of flat was settled for Rs.30 Lac out of which a sum of Rs.5 Lac was given as advance by PW13 to A5 for which he executed receipt Ex.PW11/X-9. It is submitted that as per the statement of PW11 and PW13, A3 was also present at the time of delivery of the possession to A5 by PW12. He was also present when the subject flat was finally sold to PW13 by A5 on 04.12.1995.
76. It is submitted that handwriting of A3 also appears on various documents and challans which includes Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A7 (D-19) relating to the payments claimed to be made by A5 to DDA in past regarding the subject flat and also on the forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-6 and Ex.PW11/X-7 (D-20), two possession letters Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B (D-22 and D-26), NOC for electricity and water connection Ex.PW12/B (D-23), Challans no. 209524 dated 13.08.1995 being of Rs.180/- at Q-260 on Ex.PW25/3 and also on the two challans no. 23406 Ex.PW8/A1 and 23408 EX.PW8/A2 both dated 29.08.1995 (both D-14) and also on challan no. 8790 dated 03.11.1995 for Rs.150/- (D-48) which according to the ld. PP would show the active involvement of A3 in the transaction throughout.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 32/66
77. On the other hand it is submitted by the defence counsel that A3 has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that CBI has not collected any evidence to show that who has given this advertisement Ex.PW24/4 in newspaper on 15.10.1995. It is submitted that in his letter Ex.PW24/3 C.V. Ganesh, Advertisement Manager has regretted that they are not keeping the record to give the details of the person who has given this advertisement.
78. It is submitted that similarly no reliance can also be placed on receipt Ex.PW11/X-9 claimed to be of the payment of advance amount of Rs.5 Lac by PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh to A3. It is submitted it is a forged receipt. It is submitted that it has been produced first time in the court in the course of evidence of PW11. There is no mention of this receipt during investigation or at any point of time earlier to that. It is submitted that the attributed signature of A3 on this receipt have not been got verified by the CBI.
79. It is submitted that Harminder Singh Sachar has also filed civil suit Ex.PW13/DX-1 against DDA and S.K. Behl. It is submitted that in this plaint there is no mention of any role/involvement of A3 in the transaction nor there is any mention RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 33/66 about the fact that A3 has been given any amount of Rs.5 Lac and he has executed any receipt against the same.
80. It is submitted that A3 is son of a barber. He was not a property dealer as alleged against him. He was only working as a field boy with PW11 and in the present case he has been falsely implicated by IO at the instance of PW11 and PW13.
81. It is submitted that the two reports Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2 of GEQD are manipulated and are only supplementary reports and no reliance can be placed on these reports.
82. This court has carefully gone through the entire records and also perused the rival contentions.
83. No doubt that advertisement in newspaper Ex.PW24/4 gives the mobile telephone number of A3 but in view of the letter Ex.PW24/3 of C.V. Ganesh, Advertisement Manager showing his inability to give the details of the persons giving advertisement it would be difficult to connect the advertisement Ex.PW24/4 as an incriminating evidence against A3. Similarly for the reasons as apprehended by the defence for the receipt Ex.PW11/X-9 allegedly RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 34/66 executed by A3 for receiving advance payment of Rs.5 Lac, it would be unsafe to place any reliance on it. This receipt, according to the CBI, bears the signatures of A3 which fact has been disputed and denied by him. The receipt has not been submitted to handwriting expert to obtain his opinion about the confirmation of signature of A3 on it. This receipt has been produced first time in the course of evidence of PW6 after 11 years. There is no mention about this receipt anywhere before that. For this reason in view of this court it would be unsafe to place much reliance on receipt Ex.PW11/X-9 to support the case of the CBI.
84. But the deficiency as noted above would not in the considered view of this court in any manner dilute the authenticity of statements of PW11 and PW13 made by them before this court. They have testified that on having seen advertisement Ex.PW24/4 they have approached A3. Both of them have also testified that the price of the subject flat was settled as Rs.30 Lacs by A3 and both of them also testified that A3 was present at the time of delivery of possession of subject flat by A5 on 25.11.1995. Both of them have also testified that A3 was also present on 04.12.1995 when the final payment was given by PW13 to A5 and A5 executed various documents while selling out the flat in the name of Harminder Singh Sachar.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 35/66
85. It is submitted that statement of PW11 and PW13 cannot be relied upon as they suffer from major contradictions on the point of payment of taking advance amount of Rs.5 Lac and also on the point of nature of cheque of Rs.4.5 Lac (Mark PX). It is submitted that initially PW11 deposed that a sum of Rs.3 Lac was given as advance which was later on improved by him being of Rs. 5 Lac. It is submitted that similarly PW11 has deposed that this cheque Mark PX given to A5 by PW13 on 04.12.1995 towards price consideration was a self cheque whereas according to PW13 it was cheque issued in the name of S.K. Behl. It is submitted that these contradictions thus make it unsafe to place any reliance on statements of these two witnesses.
86. The contradictions as pointed out by the defence are not major in nature considering to the fact that transaction in this case is of the year 1995 whereas PW11 and PW13 were deposing in this court in the year 2006 and 2008. There is a consistency throughout in the statement of these two witnesses. They inspire confidence. The contradictions as pointed out are only to be ignored and does not make the statement of PW11 and PW13 unreliable for these reasons.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 36/66
87. Similarly the contention that there is no mention of the name of A3 in the civil suit Ex.PW13/DX-1 is only to be rejected being irrelevant. This plaint has been filed by some other counsel and must have been prepared on whatever facts have been supplied to him. This nowhere would dilute the role of A3 which has been given in the statement of PW11 and PW13 in the court.
88. The plea of defence that A3 was working as a field boy with PW11 H.R. Thakkar who was running his business from a shop premises no. 328, Lado sarai is a false defence. The same is devoid of any merit and is without any support from any material on record.
89. In their deposition PW11 and PW13 both have deposed that A3 was having his own independent business of property dealing. It has been deposed by PW11 that he (PW11) was also running his property business as a side business to the business of dry cleaning. In the opening of cross examination by the counsel for A3 it has been stated by PW11 that this business of property dealer was being run from his shop of dry cleaning. No suggestion has been given to him either by A3 or A4 which left him unexamined in cross examination that PW11 was running his property business from a shop in property no. 328 Lado Sarai.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 37/66 Rather the receipt Ex.PW11/X-9 shows that it has a printed address of PW11 as Thakkar Company, Main Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
90. Then at the same time it may be noted that in his reply to Q1 of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. A3 has stated that he was working as a field boy for PW11 H.R. Thakkar who was running his business from the shop at 328 Lado Sarai. PW11 in cross examination has denied the suggestion that A3 was ever working for him. There is no other material to support this plea of defence sought to be raised to support to this plea. On the contrary the answers of A3 in his statement u/s 313 as aforesaid indicates that he and not PW11 was present who was having connection with shop in premises no. 328 Lado Sarai otherwise there was no reason for him to have reference to shop in premises no. 328, Lado Sarai.
91. A3 claims himself to be a poor boy not capable of running any independent property dealing business. However this claim is false. He is maintaining his own mobile as admitted by him and also by PW7 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Tele Venture Company, and that too in the year 1995 when the same was not so easily affordable even for the middle class persons. The defence RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 38/66 that A3 was not running his independent property business but as a field boy for PW11 H.R. Thakkar is only a false defence and fails to inspire confidence and is liable to be rejected.
92. The objection as raised by A3 that the two reports of GEQD Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2 are manipulative and they are only supplementary reports and not original is only to be rejected being merit less.
93. As may be seen from FIR Ex.PW24/1 (D-1) the same was concerning to four different transactions. It has been deposed by PW24 Nirbhay Kumar IO and also confirmed by PW28 Nato Singh that the documents were sent to GEQD in this FIR Ex.PW24/1 (D-1) on more than one occasion.
94. As may be noted documents were sent to GEQD first time vide forwarding letter dated 4.1.2002 which is Ex.PW24/DX-1. The GEQD opinion on this letter was received on 8.3.2002 which is Ex.PW24/DX-3. It is pointed out by the Ld. PP that this report is not concerned with the present case. As may be seen that second forwarding letter dated 15.3.2002 is Ex.PW24/DX-4. It is also marked as PW28/A. The GEQD opinion on this letter was received on 28.4.2002 which is Ex.PW24/17-1. This report is RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 39/66 relevant in this case. The report shows that few of the specimen signatures were matching to some of the questioned signatures and in the last of this report Ex.PW24/17-1 it has been stated that it is not possible to express any definite opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of the material. Accordingly further material as per the claim of the CBI was supplied by way of more specimen signatures of all the accused and admitted handwriting of A1 vide third forwarding letter dated 16.8.2002 which is Ex.PW24/DX-5 which is concerning with this case. The opinion on this letter is date 9.10.2002 which is Ex.PW24/17-2. This report Ex.PW24/17-2 has been obtained in the light of the fresh material supplied to GEQD by standard writing of all the accused and admitted writing A20 to A47.
95. This position has been explained by PW-28 Nato Singh and plea of the Ld. PP that for this reason Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2 has been referred to as supplementary reports is thus to be accepted holding that the two reports does not suffer from any defect as they have been named as supplementary reports. These two reports are original reports in themselves and their nomenclature as supplementary reports will not be of any benefit to the defence of A3.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 40/66
96. The handwriting of A3 Anil Kumar has been confirmed by PW-28 as Q142, Q143, Q145 in D-26 possession letter Ex.PW4/A, Q185 to Q187 in possession letter (D-22) Ex.PW4/B. Q190 in (D-23) NOC, Q175 copy of the forwarding letter Ex.PW11/X6 (D-20) and Q178, Q179 copy of the forwarding letter Ex.PW11/X7 (D-20), Q147 in challan no. 5078 Ex.PW13/A1 (D-19), Q151 in challan no. 2150 Ex.PW13/A2 (D-19), Q153 in challan no. 72162 Ex.PW13/A3 (D-19), Q154 in challan no. 98031 Ex.PW13/A4 (D-19), Q155 in challan no. 203003 Ex.PW13/A5 (D-19), Q156, Q158 to Q160 in challan no. 23407 Ex.PW13/A6 (D-19), Q252 and Q253 in challan no. 6790 (D-48), Q257, Q259 and Q260 (D-40).
97. The statement of PW11 and PW13 coupled with the two GEQD reports Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2 proves beyond doubt about the involvement of A3 in the transaction since beginning till end when this flat has been disposed of by A5 S.K. Behl to PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh.
98. It is submitted by the ld. PP that both PW11 H.R. Thakkar and PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh have testified that along with the other documents PW13 was also given by A5 the copies of seven challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-7 (D-19) along with RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 41/66 forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 (D-20) of the payment claimed to be made by A5 to DDA concerning the subject flat in the past. It is submitted that these challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-7 and forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 are false and fabricated.
99. According to the ld. PP no payment has been made as claimed through these challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-6 to DDA. It is submitted that similarly no forwarding letter has been received in the office of DDA. It is submitted that these challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-7 bears the signatures of A3 at Q-147 in Ex.PW13/A-1, at Q-151 in Ex.PW13/A-2, at Q-153 in Ex.PW13/A-3, at Q-154 in Ex.PW13/A-4, at Q-158 and 159 in Ex.PW13/A-5, at Q-160 in Ex.PW13/A-6 and similarly his handwriting also appears in forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-6 at Q-175 and Ex.PW11/X-7 at Q-178 and 179 which has also been confirmed by PW28 Nato Singh. It is submitted that this would prove the forgery committed by A3 concerning these documents.
100. It may be noted that Ex.PW5/B (D-51) is a letter dated 06.03.2002 issued to the CBI in connection with the investigation of this case certifying the payments made to DDA concerning this case. This letter Ex.PW5/B nowhere supports the payment claims RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 42/66 to be made through challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-6. It only confirms along with other payments also to the payments made through challan Ex.PW13/A-7 of Rs.150/- dated 03.11.1995.
101. The statement of PW10 Prehlad Singh is that no forwarding letter Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 (D-20) has been received in DDA. This fact has also been confirmed by PW9 Nanak Chand, Asstt. Director, DDA. As per the statement of PW9 the diary number on the forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 by which they were shown to be received in the office of DDA is not confirmed in the DDA records and rubber stamp impression of the same on these forwarding letters is also not of the concerned Section of DDA.
102. The letter Ex.PW5/B coupled with the statement of PW9 and PW10 thus proves that challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-6 and also forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 are false and fabricated.
103. A3 has also forged challan D-40, challan D-41 and challan D-48 upon which his handwriting has been confirmed by PW8 Nato Singh. He has also forged possession letters D-22 and D-26 and also NOC certificate D-23 for the purpose of cheating.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 43/66 Therefore charge u/s 468 IPC is proved against A3.
104. It may be seen that one of the charge against A3, A4 and A5 is that they have prepared false challan showing the deposit of Rs.98,100/- Ex.PW11/X-5 to DDA concerning challan no. 0203003 dated 04.12.1995.
105. The first copy of this challan no. 0203003 dated 04.12.1995 contains the amount of Rs.100/- shown to be deposited also has handwriting of A3 Anil Kumar at Q-259 which is Ex.PW25/2 (D-40). This payment of Rs.100/- has been proved in records of DDA vide letter Ex.PW5/B (D-51).
106. At the time of sale of the flat to PW13 on 04.12.1995, A5 gave fourth copy of this challan no. 0203003 dated 04.12.1995 containing amount of Rs.98,100/- to him falsely showing that the amount of Rs.98,100/- has been deposited in DDA. The fourth copy is Ex.PW13/A-5 (D-19) and the same is also in handwriting of A3 Anil Kumar at point Q-155 to Q-159 as confirmed by PW28.
107. As may be seen A3 has added the figure of 98 before 100/- and made it as Rs.98,100/- in figure and words deposited in the name of A5 with DDA when the fact is that only Rs.100/- has RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 44/66 been deposited through first copy of the challan and this way A3 was involved in committing the offence of forgery u/s 467 IPC of fourth copy of challan no. 0203003 making it Rs.98,100/-.
108. The challan is a valuable document which has been forged by A3 by inflating amount of Rs.98,100/- in place of Rs.100/- in the first copy Ex.PW25/2 (D-40).
109. Similarly he has also made use of abovesaid documents knowing that they are forged and false and thus charge u/s 471 IPC is also proved against him.
110. A3 has also cheated the DDA. The price of the subject flat in the year 1995 was Rs.5,99,866/- as confirmed by PW5 S.S. Gehlot, Sr. Accounts Officer in letter Ex.PW5/A (D-3). This was an unallotted flat and thus no payment has been made to DDA concerning this flat. A3 has caused this flat to be allotted to A5 fraudulently and has thus put DDA to a wrongful loss. Similarly he has also cheated PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh as 7129 being an unallotted flat could not have been disposed of to him.
111. A3 has committed all the above said acts in conspiracy with other accused and he is also liable for the offence u/s 120-B RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 45/66 IPC r/w 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988.
Role of A4 Nasim Khan :
112. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that A4 Nasim Khan was close to A3. A3 was a tenant in one shop in premises no. 328, Lado Sarai which was of father of A4. A3 was running his property dealing business from there. He was having information about the allotment and cancellation of earlier flat applied by A5 in B-1 Block which was also regretted vide letter dated 29.03.1995 Ex.PW10/A.
113. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that A4 is the financer of the transaction. He was in conspiracy with other accused. Conspiracy in this case according to the ld. PP had began at his instance on 22.8.95 when a sum of Rs. 2,92,225/- was withdrawn by A4 vide four bankers cheques issued in the name of DDA from out of the account no. 1339 of his father M.A. Khan from Central Bank of India, Lado Sarai. These cheques are Ex.PW21/2 to Ex.PW21/5 (D-15) all dated 22.7.95. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that bank statement of the account D-15 supports that this money was withdrawn from the account.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 46/66
114. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that from out of this account four challans no. 23405 to 23408 D-12 and D-41 were prepared giving particulars of file D-18 which particulars were either known to A1, A2 and A5 and none else. It is submitted that these challans has been deposited at random in DDA Account in the name of S.K. Behl without any demand letter from DDA and this fact has been proved by PW-24 Nirbhay Kumar and also by the letter Ex.PW5/B (D-51) which is a letter of PW-5 S.S. Gehlot Sr. Accounts Officer, DDA.
115. It is submitted that landline telephone number 696834 was given as one of the contact number in advertisement Ex.PW24/4 and this telephone is installed in premises no. 328, Lado Sarai. It is proved by PW-3 Hari Singh Asst. Vigilance Officer, MTNL who has produced the record of this landline confirming this fact.
116. It is submitted that A4 alongwith A3 also participated in procuring possession letters Ex.PW4/B (D-22) and Ex.PW4/A (D-26) and his handwriting appears in D-22 at Q-183 and Q-184 and in D-26 at Q-140 and Q-141. It is submitted that handwriting of A4 also appears in NOC certificate Ex.PW12/B (D-23) issued for electricity and water connection in Flat No. 7129, B-10, Vasant RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 47/66 Kunj, New Delhi allotted to A5 S.K. Behl and his handwriting also has been proved on challan no. 8790 dated 3.11.95 at point Q-162/A (D-19). His handwriting according to Ld. PP has been proved by PW-28 Nato Singh handwriting expert in his report Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2.
117. On the other hand it is submitted that there is no evidence to connect A4 in this case. It is submitted that CBI has not collected any evidence by way of requisition form of withdrawal of the amount through four bankers cheque Ex.PW21/1 to Ex.PW21/5. It is submitted that even father of A4 was the best evidence but has not been examined to show that money was withdrawn by A4 as attributed to him.
118. It is submitted that similarly in view of the regret being shown in his letter Ex.PW24/3 by the Advertising Manager about the particulars of the person who has given the advertisement in Hindustan Times it cannot be connected to A4.
119. It is submitted that the two reports of handwriting expert is manipulative. Even otherwise there is no corroborative evidence besides handwriting report and the same cannot be considered as sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 48/66
120. Admittedly in the present case no requisition form has been collected during the evidence to prove that A4 is the person withdrawing the amount of Rs. 2,92,225/- through four bankers cheque Ex.PW21/2 to 5. There is no other material to connect A4 with the withdrawal of the amount. The amount admittedly has been withdrawn through these bankers cheques D-15 from the bank account no.1339 of Sh. M.A. Khan father of A4. The father of A4 was the best person to speak about this fact. He is not a witness. There is no other evidence to show who withdrew this amount of Rs. 2,92,225/- vide four bankers cheques prepared in the name of DDA proved as Ex.PW21/2 to Ex.PW21/5 all dated 22.8.95.
121. Similarly in view of the regret as expressed vide letter Ex.PW24/3 by C.V. Ganesh, Advertising Manager it would be unsafe to connect A4 with giving of advertisement Ex.PW24/4. The advertisement Ex.PW24/4 no doubt has one of the number 696834 but again this number is of the residence of 328, Lado Sarai as prove by A3 Hari Singh Asst. Vigilance Officer. There is no evidence to prove the user of this telephone number. Therefore, the evidence of IO PW-24 Nirbhay Kumar proving advertisement in Newspaper Hindustan Times Ex.PW24/4 and of PW-3 Hari Singh are not sufficient to connect A4.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 49/66
122. As may be seen in their respective statements both PW-11 and PW-13 have not said anything against A4. Their statements are completely silent to say anything about the role of A4 in the transaction.
123. It is submitted by the Ld. PP Mark A and B are the two complaints made to the police on 21.5.99 and 23.5.99 in which beside role of other person the name of A4 has also been mentioned as one of the culprit by PW-11 who made these complaints to the police against cheating. It is submitted that at that point of time no case was registered and no investigation was pending and these complaints would thus be taken as made correctly and without any pressure which shows that A4 was also involved alongwith other culprits as named in those two complaints.
124. This submission is only to be rejected for the reason that Mark A and B two complaints are not relied upon documents by CBI in this case. No credence may be given to either of these two complaints to form any opinion against involvement of A4 in this case on the base of these complaints.
125. This only leaves this Court with the last piece of evidence which are two reports of handwriting expert proved as RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 50/66 Ex.PW24/17-1 and Ex.PW24/17-2. No doubt that these two reports implicates A4 as the person responsible for the questioned writings in two possession letters, NOC and also in challan Ex.PW13/A7 but that piece of evidence cannot be considered as conclusive/sufficient to hold A4 guilty on their strength without support of any other corroborative evidence. A4 has denied his handwriting and signatures on these documents. It would thus be unsafe to hold him guilty on the strength of these two reports only. He is given the benefit of doubt.
Role of A5 S.K. Behl :
126. As far as role of A5 is concerned the record shows that possession of the subject flat was delivered to him on 25.11.95. The stand of A5 is that this was allotted to him lawfully. However, the statement of PW-10 Prahlad Singh, Asst. Director would show that no possession letter dated 14.11.95 has been issued by the office of DDA either to Executive Engineer at site office of DDA or to S.K. Behl against File No.126(9)/88/VK/III. This fact has also been corroborated by PW-9 Nanak Chand vide his letter Ex.PW9/A (D-16). Along with this letter Ex.PW9/A he has also enclosed 23 challans to show that they were the only documents issued during the relevant period through dispatch register and possession letter as claimed was not issued to A5 or to Ex. Engineer at site office.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 51/66
127. Accordingly the evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 would prove that claim of A5 that he received a possession letter lawfully is a false claim.
128. In his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C A5 has stated that he earlier had applied and allotted a DDA Flat which was cancelled as he did not receive a demand letter. He also confirmed that a regret letter dated 29.3.95 Ex.PW10/A was sent to him. With this letter he knew that his file D-18 was closed so far as allotment of DDA flat in Vasant Kunj area is concerned. A5 has not adduced any evidence to show that he ever applied for Flat No.7129, B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi or any other flat in DDA.
129. As may be seen PW-5 S.S. Gehlot Sr. Accounts Officer has written a letter PW5/A(D-3) to the IO wherein the cost of this flat No.7129 has been mentioned as 5,99,866/- in 1995. As per this letter no payment was made by A5 pertaining to this flat in the records of DDA. A5 has also not shown that he has received any demand letter concerning this flat or made any payment to DDA concerning the subject flat.
130. The evidence of PW-5, 9 and 10 would thus prove that flat no. 7129 was an unallotted flat and no payment for the same RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 52/66 was ever made by A5. Even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. A5 has shown ignorance of any payment made concerning this flat to DDA. The plea of A5 that this flat was allotted to him vide communication is only to be rejected being false and meritless and contrary to the records. The possession letter D-22 pertaining to this flat was issued to him fraudulently and with dishonest intention and as a result of the conspiracy of the other co-accused. The possession of this flat was delivered to A5 on 25.11.1995 without any demand letter issued by DDA nor any payment as such was made by him to DDA.
131. A5 in the course of the statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C has shown ignorance of disposal of flat by him to PW-13 Captain Mehar Singh. However his signatures on various sale documents Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/O has been confirmed by PW-28 Nato Singh handwriting expert. Even A5 does not dispute his signatures on these documents. He has stated that he was made to sign these documents. This plea is not believable and is only to be rejected. He is an educated person and it is difficult to believe that he would simply sign without any information or gain.
132. In the course of the arguments it is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for him that there is no evidence to show that from RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 53/66 where PW-13 made arrangement of the amount of Rs. 30 lac as price consideration of the flat. According to the Ld. Counsel there is no evidence of any advance payment of Rs. 5 lac as claimed by PW-11 and PW-13 made to A3 and also there is no evidence of the payment of balance amount of Rs. 20.50 lac in cash as claimed to be paid. It is submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that receipt Ex.PW11/G is only of Rs. 4.50 lac and even that receipt is false and fabricated. According to him CBI has not collected any evidence to show that who has collected the amount of Rs. 4.50 lac of cheque Mark PX which is a self cheque. According to him no money has been received by A5 in the transaction and he is only a victim in the transaction. He has been duped and cheated in this transaction and has no involvement with other accused persons.
133. The ignorance as sought to be pleaded as defence by A5 will not be of any benefit to him. He is a retired Lt. Colonel. He is an educated person. He is supposed to know the consequences of his acts. He knows that within nine days of taking delivery of the subject flat on 25.11.1995 he has disposed of the flat to PW-13 when the fact is that this flat was never allotted to him nor he made any payment for the same to DDA. If CBI has failed to prove the payment of Rs.30 Lac as claimed by PW-11 and PW-13 then at least A5 can say in how much amount the same has been disposed RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 54/66 off. He is totally silent about this fact. His silence is not acceptable and is to be read against him. Then moreover no complaint has been filed by A5 either against other co-accused or against PW13 at any point of time. This makes his whole defence unbelievable.
134. It is in the statement of PW-11 and PW-13 that at the time of delivery of possession of the flat A5 has also delivered to them the record of the payment challan Ex.PW13/A1 to A7 (D-19) and also the records of forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X1 to X7 (D-20). The statement Ex.PW5/B (D-51) and Ex.PW24/19 confirm that these payments were not received in the office of DDA except the payment in challan Ex.PW13/A-7 being of Rs.150/- dated 03.11.1995. The statement of PW-10 Prahlad Singh shows that the forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to Ex.PW11/X-7 by which these payment challans Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-7 were claimed to be submitted in DDA office was never received in the office. The statement of PW9supporting him on this fact saying that diary number in forwarding letters Ex.PW11/X-1 to X-7 (D20) by which it is shown to be received in the office of DDA is not of DDA and rubber stamp on these forwarding letters is also not of the concerned section.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 55/66
135. This would prove that A5 has forged the records and has also made use of the same knowing that it is a false and forged record when it was given by him to PW13 only to create impression that A5 made payments in DDA office through these challans EX.PW13/A-1 to A-7 which payments he knew in fact were never made by him. This would prove the charge under Section 468/471 IPC against A5.
136. Similarly he has also cheated the DDA by fraudulently taking delivery of the possession of the subject flat which was an unallotted flat and for which no payment was ever made by him to DDA and he has also cheated PW13 Capt. Mehar Singh by disposing of the subject flat to him for Harminder Singh Sachar knowing that being an unallotted flat the same could not have been subjected to sale by him. This proves the charge u/s 420 IPC against A5.
137. A5 did the above said acts and committed the offences in conspiracy with other co-accused A2 and A3 and he also liable for the offence u/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) P.C. Act, 1988.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 56/66
138. On consideration of the overall facts and circumstances it is held that A1 Pritam Singh and A4 Nasim Khan is given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of all the charges as framed against them.
139. The prosecution has proved the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against accused A2 Satyavir Singh, A3 Anil Kumar and A5 S.K. Behl.
140. The prosecution has proved the charge under Section 468 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PC Act 1988 against A2 Satyavir Singh.
141. The prosecution has proved the charge under Section 420/468/471 IPC against accused A3 Anil Kumar and A5 S.K. Behl.
142. The prosecution has proved the charge under Section 467 IPC against accused A3 Anil Kumar.
ORDER IS MADE ACCORDINGLY.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 12.02.2014.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) SPL JUDGE CBI - (PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS : DELHI RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 57/66 IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT DELHI AC NO. 4/11/03 RC No.65 (A)/2000 C.B.I. VERSUS
1. Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Pratap Singh r/o C-64, DDA Flats, Old Rajender Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sh. Satyavir Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh r/o 185, Vill. Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad r/o F-15A, Near Bharat Gas Agency, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Naseem Khan S/o Sh. M.A. Khan r/o 328, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
5. Sh. S.K. Behl S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Behl r/o 900, Vikas Kunj, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard the arguments of the Learned Defence Counsels and of Learned PP on the point of sentence.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 58/66
2. It is submitted by Sh. Gurdial Singh counsel for convict Satyavir Singh (A2) that he has in his family two daughters of marriageable age. The convict is without job. There is no other earning member in the family. His son is residing separately. There is no other case pending in any court of law against this convict. The trial dragged on for fifteen years. The counsel prays for a lenient view.
3. It is submitted by Sh. S.K. Sharma, counsel for convict Anil Kumar (A3) that he is 41 yeas of age. At the time of commission of offence he was 20/21 years of age. He is having two children and both are school going, one is student of 10th class and other is student of 9th class and father of convict has been operated upon for the heart surgery in January, 2014 and he has developed neuro problems. He is also suffering from lower spinal problem because of which he is not able to stand for a long time. He is not involved in any other case neither before nor after this case.
4. It is submitted by Sh. Jitender Sethi, counsel for convict S.K. Behl (A5) that convict is of 83 years of age. He has suffered two heart strokes in 2004 and 2009 and he has disability of 40% and because of this condition he has been admitted in the hospital RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 59/66 since after he has been sent to custody by this court. He is having ailing wife of 78 years. His son is also a patient of paranoid schizophrenia. He is also relying upon V.K. Verma Vs. CBI decided on 14.2.2014 by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 404/2014 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.8628/2013) holding that in a protracted trial the delay is a mitigating factor.
5. It is submitted by Sh. V.N. Ojha, Ld. Special PP that on the one hand there is interest of convicts and on the other hand there is interest of state. Law is equal to all. There was no reason for convict (s) to commit the offence. They should have been aware of the consequences of their actions when they committed the offence. They are the grabber of public property. It is submitted that judgment in V.K. Verma case is not applicable. He requests for maximum punishment. There is no reason for any leniency. Ld. PP is relying upon State of M.P. Vs. Shri Ram Singh 2000 Cr.L.J. 1401 (SC)
6. It has been held in Shimbhu & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana 2013 IX AD (SC) 109 that stage of sentencing is most complex and difficult stage in judicial process. It has been observed that Indian Legal System confers ample discretion on the judges to levy the appropriate sentence. However, this discretion is RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 60/66 not unfettered in nature rather various factors like the nature, gravity, the manner and the circumstances in commission of the offence, character, as well as mitigating circumstances, antecedents etc , cumulatively constitute as the yardsticks for the judges to decide on the sentence to be imposed.
7. Sentencing as held in Shyam Narain Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2013 VI AD (SC) 204 has a special goal. It was held that sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed.
8. In Jameel Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532 it was held that it is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It was held that sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances having bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
9. Thus measure of punishment in a crime is a matter regarding which no hard and fast rule can be laid down and it is to be determined by consideration of a variety of circumstances.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 61/66
10. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Shri Ram Singh (Supra) relied upon by the Learned PP it has been held that corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spread like a fire in jungle. The judgment in V.K. Verma (Supra) as rightly pointed out is not applicable to the facts of this case as it was dealing with Section 161 IPC where the Court have had the power to reduce even a minimum punishment. This provision has since been deleted in IPC.
11. In the present case convict Satyavir Singh at the relevant time was an officer of DDA. He was aware of the working in the department. He was a custodian of public documents. He caused forgery in the documents i.e. Possession letter, NOC and movement register to create an impression that possession letter has been issued after the payment has been confirmed to have been made by the Account Branch of DDA when in fact no payment as such was made concerning the subject flat.
12. Similarly convict Anil Kumar is the brain behind RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 62/66 alongwith convict Satyavir Singh to see that how this unallotted DDA Flat is got allotted to convict S.K. Behl and is disposed of by him to PW-13 Captain Mehar Singh. He is involved at every stage right from beginning till end. He is stage managing everything in the present case. He is acting as a link between other co-accused in this case.
13. The Role of convict S.K. Behl is nowhere lesser than other convicts Satyavir Singh and Anil Kumar. He knew that he has not made any payment or has not applied for any other flat in DDA after conveying regret letter dated 29.3.95 Ex.PW10/A to him by DDA. He has only tried to pass on a buck on other convicts as if he does not know anything and everything has happened in the present case without his knowledge and consent. This projected defence by him is not at all acceptable.
14. In the present case as may be noted the offence has been committed in a calculated manner through a well devised strategy to grab public property. Every convict herein has played his role with perfect precision. They have performed their action not out of sheer impulse but in a well thoughtful manner. This precludes them from claiming any benefit of mitigating factors for them.
RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 63/66
15. Convict Satyavir Singh for being conspirator alongwith the other co-convicts is awarded a sentence of 3 years RI for the offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and also under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PC Act. He is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Similarly he is also sentenced to RI for 3 years for the offence under Section 468 IPC and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence. Similarly he is also sentenced to 2 year RI for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PC Act for misusing his official powers and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine on either of the count he is also liable to undergo SI for another 6 months for the offences for which he has been convicted.
16. In case of convict Anil Kumar he is awarded a punishment of RI for 3 years for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and also under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PC Act. He is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He is also awarded R1 for 3 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC. He is also awarded R1 for 3 years and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 467 IPC. He is also RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 64/66 sentenced for RI of 3 years for the offence under Section 468 IPC and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He is also awarded sentence for R1 for 3 years and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine on either of the count he is also liable to undergo SI for another 6 months for the offences for which he has been convicted.
17. Convict S.K. Behl is awarded a punishment of RI for 3 years for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and also under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PC Act and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He is also awarded R1 for 3 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC. He is also sentenced for RI of 3 years for the offence under Section 468 IPC and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He is also awarded sentence for R1 for 3 years and is also imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine on either of the count he is also liable to undergo SI for another 6 months for the offences for which he has been convicted.
18. All substantive sentences to run concurrently for all the convicts. They have to pay fine separately for each of the offences RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 65/66 for which they have been convicted. The defaulting sentence will run consecutively one after another.
19. Convicts be given benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC if any.
20. Copy of the judgment and also order of sentence be supplied to all the convicts free of cost.
21. ORDER IS MADE ACCORDINGLY. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 18.02.2014.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS: DELHI RC No. 65(A)/00 CBI VS. PRITAM SINGH & ORS. 12.02.2014 Page 66/66