Delhi District Court
(1) Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs Cbi on 10 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No. 2/2011
Unique Case ID No.02402R
(1) Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga
(2) Kailash Chander Appellants
Versus
CBI Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.01.2011
Date of judgment reserved : 30.01.2012
Date of judgment : 10.02.2012
Crl. Revision No.04/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0152422011
Central Bureau of Investigation
Special CrimeI,
2nd Floor,CBI Headquarters,
New Building, CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110011
Through Sh. R.K.Sethy
Dy.Supdt. of Police,
CBI, S.C.I, New Delhi. Petitioner
CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 1 of 21
Versus
(1) Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga
S/o Late Sh. Mai Lal Ranga
R/o Kila Colony,
Jhajjar, Haryana.
(2) Kailash Chander
S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o Village Ukhalchana ( Kot)
District Jhajjar, Haryana Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.05.2011
Date of order reserved : 30.01.2012
Date of order : 10.02.2012
O R D E R
By this common order, I shall decide the criminal appeal No. 02/2011 as well as Criminal Revision No. 04/2011 as the same arise out of judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2010 and order on sentence dated 23.12.2010 passed by Ld. ACMM(East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2 Appellants/accused persons filed the appeal against impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2010 and order on sentence dated 23.12.2010 passed by Ld. ACMM ( East), CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 2 of 21 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Vide impugned judgment dated 21.12.2010, both the appellants/ accused persons have been convicted for offences under section 120B IPC read with 170/420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Appellant Sudhir Kumar Ranga has been sentenced to RI for one year under section 170 IPC with fine of Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of two months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 420 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of six months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 468 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of six months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 471 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of twenty six months.
3 Appellant Kailash Chander has been sentenced to RI for one year under section 170 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of two months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 420 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 3 of 21 further undergo SI of six months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 468 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of two months. He has further been sentenced to RI for three years under section 471 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo SI of two months.
4 CBI has preferred the revision against above judgment of conviction and order of sentence inasmuch as Ld. ACMM did not pass any sentence for the offences under section 120B IPC and 419 IPC.
5 Trial Court Record has been called. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. S.K.Jain Ld. Special PP for CBI and have carefully gone through record of the case. 6 The CBI filed chargesheet against both the appellants under section offences under section 120B IPC read with 170/419/420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof. The allegations levelled against the appellants are that during the period 1995 to 2002, they entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Appellant Sudhir Kumar Ranga CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 4 of 21 created a Peoples Society showing himself to be the President of the Society which was registered on 14.03.1996. Thereafter, Institute of Social Development was created on 15.04.1996. Most of the members of Peoples Society, during investigation, stated that Peoples Society and Institute of Social Development are same organizations. Accused Sudhir Kumar Ranga inserted false and fabricated resolutions in the register of Peoples Society to give him class I as well as Gazetted Status being Director of Institute of Social Development and showed the Pay Scales equivalent to Government Pay Scales. The said register was sent to CFSL and as per opinion insertions therein were done by Sudhir Kumar Ranga. It is further alleged that appellants dishonestly obtained the appointment on the post of Registrar/Secretary in Debt Recovery Tribunal by impersonation and by submitting false and fabricated documents in favour of appellant Sudhir Kumar Ranga. An advertisement was published in Employment News dated 8th to 14th April, 2000 for appointment on the post Registrar/Secretary, DRT on deputation basis. Eligibility criteria for the post was "person holding analogous post or having 5 years regular service as Under Secretary and preference would be given to those having experience of legal or CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 5 of 21 judicial work". Appellant/accused Sudhir Kumar Ranga applied for the said post claiming himself to be Director, Institute of Social Development. His certificate of ACRs and Vigilance Clearance were fabricated by both the appellants and submitted to Ministry of Finance. As per CFSL report, forwarding letter is in the handwriting of Sudhir Kumar Ranga signed by Kailash Chander. Selection Committee recommended the name of Sudhir Kumar Ranga for DRT, Nagpur but he did not join. Similar advertisement was also published in the said newspaper dated 28.10.2000 to 3.11.2000 for DRT, Ernakulum. Appellant Sudhir Kumar Ranga applied for the said post impersonating himself to be a public servant, claiming himself to be the Director of Institute of Social Development. It was alleged that accused Sudhir Kumar Ranga was aware of the fact that he was not holding any office as a public servant. The Selection Committee did not select him for the said post. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vide application dated 3.2.2008 made a request for change of station in response to appointment in Nagpur. He was given offer of appointment for DRTII, Delhi as Registrar/Secretary, he accepted the offer and joined on 27.04.2001. He drew pay, allowances and other monetary benefits to the tune of Rs.2,99,044/. Investigation CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 6 of 21 revealed that Institute of Social Development had no staff employed, there was no system of issuing Last Payment Certificate, Service Book and Relieving Order as Institute was nongovernment Institute. Membership of Indian Association of Social Science Institutions was obtained by Sudhir Kumar Ranga being Director of Institute of Social Development in June/July 2001. Said membership was obtained by the appellant to give his institute some sanctity and respectability. While applying for membership, Sudhir Kumar Ranga was already holding the post of Registrar/Secretary in DRTII, Delhi. On verification, Treasury Officer, Jhajjar disclosed that Institute of Social Development is not a Haryana Government's Institute/ Office and no pay/GPF deduction has been made in respect of any person serving there.
7 I have perused the record. It is not in dispute that accused persons were the office bearers of Peoples Society. Accused S.K. Ranga was the President of the Society whereas accused Kailash Chander was its Chairman. It is also admitted case of the appellants that accused S.K. Ranga worked as Registrar/Secretary in Debts Recovery TribunalII, Delhi. It is also not in dispute that DRT is a Government body which falls under the Department of Economic CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 7 of 21 Affairs, Ministry of Finance. It is also not in dispute that accused S.K.Ranga had gained pecuniary benefits from the Government. 8 Now the question for consideration is whether accused S.K. Ranga sought employment in a Government body i.e. DRT on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thus cheated the Government by impersonation.
9 Witness PW1 Sh. P.M. Sirajuddin has proved his complaint made to the CBI as Ex.PW1/E1 and Ex.PW1/E2. He proved the notification dated 27.04.2001 Ex.PW1/A vide which accused S.K. Ranga was appointed as Registrar/Secretary, DRTII, Delhi. He proved the letters Ex.PW1/B1 and B2 written by the Presiding Officer, DRTII, Delhi vide which it was recommended that accused S.K. Ranga be repatriated to his department as he was not found fit to do the job. It was also written by the Presiding Officer that accused S.K. Ranga had committed fraud in securing job and that there was no Government Institute in the name of Institute of Social Development in Jhajjar. An inquiry was conducted by Dy. Commissioner, Jhajjar and his report has been proved as Ex.PW1/D1.
10 In report Ex.PW1/D1, it has been reported that there CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 8 of 21 was no Institute in the name and style of Institute of Social Development at the given address. Dr. S.K. Ranga was reported to be the President of said Institute having records thereof kept in a room. After perusal of documents, it reveals that Society was registered in the name of Peoples Society of which accused S.K. Ranga was the President. It was also reported that office of said society was not in existence.
11 Witness(PW4) Ram Kumar Bhuria has also deposed that scrutiny of service book of accused S.K. Ranga by the Presiding Officer of DRTII, Delhi revealed that it bore identical initials of accused S.K. Ranga below the stamp of Institute of Social Development which created doubt. Therefore, a letter was issued to Addl. D.C., Jhajjar for verification of the Institute and in the report it was informed that it was not a Government Office and no such institute was in existence. PW4 also deposed that in the service book of S.K. Ranga, it was mentioned that he worked as Senior Project Director in MD University, Rohtak. On inquiry, it was intimated by University that accused S.K. Ranga had not worked as such. He proved the service book of accused S.K. Ranga Ex.PW4/B, letter written to Addl. D.C. As Ex. PW4/C and articles recovered from the CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 9 of 21 table drawer of accused as Ex.PW4/F1 and F2.
12 Cousin of accused S.K.Ranga has been examined as Ex.PW7 Mast Ram who deposed that Peoples Society was founded by him along with both the appellants and others. S.K. Ranga was its President whereas Kailash Chander was Chairman of the Peoples Society. PW7 further deposed that he was also a member of the Society and the same never received any donation or financial help from the Government. He further deposed that Peoples Society as well as Institute of Social Development are nongovernment social organizations.
13 Deposition on similar lines was made by friend of accused Sudhir Kumar Ranga, namely, Rajender (PW9) who deposed that Institute of Social Development was not a Government Institute and no financial assistance or donation was received from the Government. Similar deposition has been made by PW12 Ashok Kumar and PW 14 Roop Basant. PW11 Sh. A.K.Sharma, Accountant of Indian Association of Social Science Institution has deposed that it is a nongovernment organization. He proved receipt memo Ex.PW11/A vide which Institute of Social Development applied for membership of Indian Association of Social Science Institution. CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 10 of 21 14 Sh. Satyabir Bhatoia ( Treasury Officer) of Haryana Treasury after going through last pay certificate of accused S.K.Ranga Ex.PW4/H deposed that Institute of Social Development was not a government institution and Treasury never issued any subscription of GPF amount as mentioned in last pay certificate. He also deposed that rates of HRA and CCA mentioned in last pay certificate were wrongly mentioned as the said rates were not applicable to the employees of Haryana Government. 15 PW15 Ajay Kumar Rajan deposed that appellant S.K.Ranga never worked as Research Officer or Senior Project Director in M. D. University, Rohtak, Haryana.
16 The documents submitted by the appellants with regard to Peoples Society and Institute of Social Development were examined in CFSL which opined that forgery was committed thereon by the appellants.
17 The above testimony of witnesses clearly established the case of the prosecution that accused S.K.Ranga was not a Government Servant, rather he was running a NonGovernmental Organizations in the name of Peoples Society and Institute of Social Development. It has also come on record that no financial aid or CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 11 of 21 grant was given by Haryana Government to the Society as well as Institute run by the appellants.
18 It is settled law that conspiracies are hatched in the pitch dark secrecy and security planned and direct evidence of those are hardly available. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of K.R.Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 35 that to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by an illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every details of the conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under Indian Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two of more persons which may be express or implied or CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 12 of 21 partly express and partly implied.
19 In another case titled Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra (reported in 1980 SCC (Cri.)493), the Hon'ble Supreme has further observed that it is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
20 As discussed above, evidence in the form of oral testimony of witnesses as well as documentary evidence duly prove the case of the prosecution that there was a criminal conspiracy between both the appellants and accomplish the object of the said conspiracy, appellants forged documents to secure government employment in favour of appellant S.K.Ranga. It has also been established that appellant S.K.Ranga impersonated as a public servant and obtained the government job as Registrar/Secretary, DRTII, Delhi. It has also been established as well as admitted that accused cheated the government by taking monetary benefits being Registrar/Secretary for which he was not eligible and qualified. CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 13 of 21 21 Advertisement Ex.PW2/D for the post of Registrar/Secretary, DRT was that the person must be holding analogous post in Central/State, Judicial and Revenue Services or having five years regular service as Under Secretary or an equivalent post in Central, State, Judicial and Revenue Services in the scale of Rs. 10,00015,200/. As per this advertisement, person applying for the post of Secretary/Registrar must be a Government Servant holding analogous post or equivalent post in the pay scale of 10,00015,200/.
22 As per details of application received for DRT, Ernakulum Ex.PW6/B, the qualification of accused S.K.Ranga was M.A., Ph. D., L.L.B., Diploma in Journalism and Personal Management/IR. Perusal of documents submitted by accused S.K.Ranga i.e. his service book Ex.PW4/B, Last pay Certificate Ex.PW4/H etc. shows that accused impersonated himself to be a Government Servant of an autonomous body. The Treasury Officer(PW10) of Government of Haryana, has specifically deposed that Last Pay CertificateEx.PW4/H was incorrect and wrongly drawn and that there was no Institute in the name and style of Institute of Social Development existing in Jhajjar, Haryana. The testimony of CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 14 of 21 witnesses and documents produced clearly show that accused persons/appellants were running a fake Institute showing it to be an Institute of Government of Haryana being an autonomous body. 23 The acts done by the appellants clearly show that they were running a fake private institute showing it to be an autonomous body of Government of Haryana either for cheating the public or the Government. Both the appellants prepared forged documents in favour of accused S.K.Ranga so as to secure government job. The accused S.K.Ranga is also guilty of concealment of material fact that his institute was a nongovernment body at the time of applying for job.
24 Evidence led by the prosecution established that appellants/accused persons had been acting in fraudulent manner to get the job knowingly that institute was not a government body. Not only the accused persons but Institute of Social Development itself under the name and style is working in such a deceptive name and style to play the fraud not only with the Central Government but in the system to deceive the people at large.
25 Accused S.K.Ranga is stated to have been running an Institution in the name of Institute of Social Development claiming CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 15 of 21 himself to be well qualified and having Post Graduate degree, Directorate Degree, Graduation in law and Diploma in Journalism and Personal Management and being a legal Expert and was an aspirant of top judicial post in pursuance of an advertisement Ex.PW2/D. It had been categorically mentioned in the advertisement Ex.PW2/D that for the post of Registrar/Secretary, DRT to be filled by way of deputation and the person must be holding analogous post in Central, State Government, Judicial and Revenue Services or having five years regular service as Under Secretary or an equivalent post in Central, State, Judicial and Revenue Services in the scale of Rs. 10,00015,200/. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that accused S.K.Ranga was having any lack of knowledge that Institute being run by them was not the Institute of Central/State Government. Accused S.K.Ranga being the aspirant applied for the prestigious post of Registrar/Secretary in Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT), a top most quasi judicial Institution for imparting justice in the matter of heavy recovery. It would not be out of pretext to say that Institute run by accused persons was given deceptive name as 'Institute of Social Development'. The work supposed to be done by the Officer of DRT was legal or judicial work, therefore, for such post an aspirant must CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 16 of 21 have experience of legal or judicial work as Under Secretary at least for 5 years. It is evident that accused S.K.Ranga in connivance with appellant No.2 Kailash Chander( Chairman of deceptive name agency) claiming to be an autonomous institution not only having deceptive name of the institution wrongly as an autonomous authority but also with knowledge and with intention to cheat the Government to have prestigious job on deputation. Not only this, he further furnished LPC and other documents to establish his claim and worked for a considerable period of about one year as Registrar/Secretary, DRT. More the reason that accused persons never mentioned in any correspondence or in any document that the institution run by them was a nongovernment institution. It was only on inquiry conducted by the DRT, it could be found out that he had been cheating the Government. The evidence led by the prosecution has successfully established the motive, intention and knowledge of accused persons to cheat the Government of India while committing impersonation as Officer of the Central/State Government and induced the Government of India to give him appointment which he successfully achieved and enjoyed the prestigious job with emoluments equivalent to Senior Class I Officers of the Government of India.
CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 17 of 21 26 The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of case reported in K.Krishnamurty Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 333. In that case Government appointed the accused to a post in its Medical Services on being induced by deception that he was fully qualified for the appointment. In consequence of the appointment, Government had to pay him salary which fell due. While observing that the accused deceived the Government dishonestly, it was held that accused committed the offence of cheating and since he had impersonated another person to secure the job, conviction under section 419 IPC was maintained.
27 In the present case, both the accused persons/appellants committed forgery on documents and criminally conspired with each other with the object to secure the government job in favour of appellant S.K.Ranga thereby both of them have committed the offence punishable under section 120B IPC and substantive offence under section 468 IPC. It has been established on record that both the appellants have used the forged documents as genuine to secure the Government job for accused S.K.Ranga. Since it has been established that the Institute run by the appellants was not CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 18 of 21 a Government Institute and accused S.K.Ranga managed to get the job of Registrar/Secretary in DRT, he deceived the Government by drawing salary and impersonated himself as Government Servant. Thus, he has committed the offence punishable under section 419 IPC. Since both the appellants have cheated the Government, therefore, their conviction under section 420 IPC is also justifiable. 28 In view of reasons given above, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2010 is upheld. The conviction of both the appellants under section 120 B IPC read with 170/419/420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof is upheld. 29 In the revision petition, it has been prayed by the CBI that Ld. ACMM has convicted both the accused persons under section 120B IPC but has not passed sentence against them. It is further submitted that accused S.K.Ranga was also convicted under section 419 IPC but no sentence under said section has been passed against him.
30 Perusal of impugned judgment dated 21.12.2010 shows that both the accused persons have been convicted under section 120B IPC but no sentence has been passed under the said section as revealed from order on sentence dated 23.12.2010. Similar CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 19 of 21 is the position with regard to offence under section 419 IPC under which accused S.K.Ranga has been convicted but no sentence under the said section was passed.
31 While deciding the appeal hereinabove, the conviction of both the accused persons/appellants under Section 120B IPC read with Section 170/419/420/468/471 IPC has been upheld. Conviction of accused S.K. Ranga has also been upheld under Section 419 IPC. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order on sentence passed by the Ld. ACMM is hereby modified to the following extent :
(i)Both the accused persons/appellants, namely, Sudhir Kumar Ranga and Kailash Chander are hereby sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/ each for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the accused persons shall further undergo SI for three months.
(ii)Accused/appellant Sudhir Kumar Ranga is also awarded rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for three months.
CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 20 of 21 32 Both the above sentences shall concurrently along with sentences already awarded under different sections by Ld. ACMM vide order on sentence dated 23.12.2010.
33 In view of the aforementioned discussion, appeal and revision are hereby disposed of. Since the judgment of conviction and order on sentence have been upheld, both the appellants shall be taken into custody to serve the sentences awarded to them. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the accused persons.
34 A copy of the order passed in the appeal, be placed in the file of Criminal Revision No.04/2011. Trial court record along with copy of the order be sent back to the court concerned. 35 Both the files of appeal as well as of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 10.02.2012 District Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CA No.02/2011 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs. CBI Page 21 of 21