Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Uttam Chand Surena Etc. (Dhruv Sangam ... on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16,ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS)
U/S 120-B r/w 420,468,471,511 of IPC &
Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec.15 of PC Act 1988
RC No. SIB 2006 E0001 EOU-V/CBI/Delhi
CBI No. 89/2019
CNR No. DLCT11-000372-2019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus.
1. Uttam Chand Surana (A-1)
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 19.07.2018)
2. Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-2)
S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o A-603 & 703,
Ashoka Apartments, Plot No. 35/2, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
(presently in Judicial custody in another case)
3. Satyaveer Singh Malik (A-3)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh, R/o 83/22, Gandhi Nagar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
4. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A-4)
S/o Late Moti Ram Thirwani, R/o 348E, Pocket-
II, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-92.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 1 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
5. Vipin Kumar Jain (A-5)
S/o Late R.K. Jain,
R/o C-5, Gali No. 11, Shashi Garden, Mayur
Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-91.
6. Satya Prakash Saxena ( A-6)
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 26.04.2023)
7. Ashwani Sharma (A-7)
S/o Late R.K. Sharma,
R/o 291/A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi-91.
8. Ashutosh Pant (A-8)
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Pant,
R/o B-160, Sadatpur Colony, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-94.
9. Naveen Kaushik (A-9)
S/o Late Mahendra Sharma,
R/o I-2/38, 2nd Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
10. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-10)
S/o Late Ganpat Sahai Srivastava,
R/o G-12, HUDCO Place, Andrewsganj, New
Delhi.
11. Shakuntala Joshi (A-11)
W/o Late B.K. Joshi, R/o R-51, Suraj Nagar,
Azadpur, Delhi-53.
Date of Institution : 19.12.2006
Date of Arguments: 16.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.04.2025
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 2 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Writ Petition No. 10066/2004, a Preliminary Enquiry bearing No. SIB 2005E0001 was registered against unknown office bearers of Cooperative Group Housing Societies including Dhruv Sangam CGHS (hereinafter referred to as "The said Society") as well as unknown officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) Delhi and others.
2. As a result of the aforesaid Preliminary Enquiry, present RC SI82006 E0001 was registered on 3.1.2006 in CBI/EOU.V Branch against Uttam Chand Surana and Gokul Chand Aggarwal. During the course of investigation, complicity of Satyaveer Singh Mallik (A-3), P.K Thirwani (A-4), Vipin Kumar Jain, (A-5), S.P.Saxena (A-6), Ashwani Sharma (A-7), Ashotosh Pant (A-8), Naveen Kaushik (A-9), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 3 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-10) and Shakuntala Joshi (A-11) was also surfaced.
3. The investigation has revealed that the said society came in existence as a result of efforts made by some of the employees of DCM Tent Factoy, Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi. The first general body meeting of the said society was held on 25.10.1983. The following office bearers and members of managing committee were elected unanimously:-
1. Tej Pal Sharma President
2. Bishan Swarup Gupta Vice President
3. Ramesh Chand Sharma Secretary
4. Atam Prakash Treasurer
5. Vishnu Raj Singh Member
6. Harish Chandra Member
7. Maan Singh Member
8. Hausla Prasad Singh Member
9. Shiv Sharan Singh Member
10.Badri Prasad Member
11.Chet Ram Member
4. The minutes of the meeting were drawn and it CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 4 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019was resolved that RCS, Delhi be requested to register the society.
5. Accordingly, an application dated 18.11.1983 was moved to RCS, Delhi for registration of the said society having registered office at DCM Tent Factory, Ganesh Line, Kishanganj, New Delhi-6. Necessary papers, required for registration of the society, were submitted in the office of RCS. The matter was processed in the office of RCS, Delhi and the said society was registered vide No. 1205(GH) on 30.12.1983.
6. The investigation has revealed that the founder members of said society resolved to open an account of the said society in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd Daryaganj, Delhi. An SB A/c No.6056 was opened in Delhi state Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj Branch, New Delhi. It was resolved that two society officials amongst Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, Bishan Swarup Gupta, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Atam Prakash would operate the account.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 5 of 223 CBI No. 89/20197. During the course of investigation it was revealed that after the closure of the DCM Tent Factory Building, the workers of the factory dispersed here and there in search of job and vacated the quarters provided by the DCM Factory. As such the said society could not run. The members did not take interest in the upcoming/revival of the society. All the documents of the society were being kept by Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Secretary.
8. As per the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Act 1972 and Cooperative Society Rules 1973, all the registered Cooperative Societies are required to fulfill certain statutory requirements, viz; MC meetings, GBM, Election, Audit etc and submit the same to the RCS on regular basis as a proof of the functioning of the society.
9. The investigation revealed that the said society could not fulfill these requirements prompting the RCS office to issue letters for holding the election of the society. However, this failed to CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 6 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019evoke any response from the said society, thereupon a notice u/s 63(2) of DCS Act.1972 dated 25.2.1992 was issued by RCS office. The said notice returned back with the remarks of the postman as "left". Sh.Azad Singh, SI, RCS, was then directed to conduct spot verification of the society who after doing the needful reported that no such society was found at the given address at Kishanganj, Delhi. This amongst other reasons prompted the issuance of winding order dated 22.09.1992 by the RCS office.
10. The investigation revealed that during this period a large number of societies, who could not fulfill statutory requirements, were ordered to be wound-up by the RCS, Delhi. It also came to light that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had passed order dated 10.5.1991 in CWP No. 2885/90 Kaveri CGHS Vs. Union of India to the effect that the original date of registration of the society with the RCS office was to be considered for establishing the seniority of the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 7 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019society for allotment of land by DDA. In order to obtain advantage of this ruling the building mafia of Delhi started looking after such societies who were registered during 1980 but were subsequently declared defunct. As there was a provisions under DCS Act for revival of such societies.
11. The investigation has further revealed that in the last quarters of 2000, accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-2) got documents relating to this society from Ramesh Chand Sharma, the founder Secretary of the society. A receipt in this regard was given by Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-2) to Ramesh Chand Sharma in his own handwriting at a much later date. These documents were handed over to S.P.Saxena (A-6) by Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-2). Sh. S.P.Saxena (A-6) thereafter asked accused Ashwani Sharma (A-7) for completing the documentation work. Accused Ashwani Sharma was already doing the documentation work relating to various societies controlled by CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 8 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019S.P.Saxena (A-6) viz, RPF CGHS Ltd & Anjuman CGHS Ltd. As such accused Ashwani Sharma had an expertise in the documentation work of the society. During this period, accused S.P.Saxena (A-6) also met Uttam Chand Surana (A-1) through one Sh. A.S.Rana, a builder at the residence of one Sh. B.D.Arora, a prominent architect in his office at Patel Nagar. Accused Uttam Chand Surana showed keen interest in purchasing the said society and finally it was agreed that the society's affairs would be managed by Uttam Chand Surana (A-1).
12. It is alleged that after getting record of the said society Ashwani Sharma (A-7) along witn Ashutosh Pant (A-8) and Naveen Kaushik (A-9) recorded false proceedings in the proceeding register, falsely showing that these entries were made prior to issue of wining up order by the RCS. The GEQD has confirmed that the minutes of the Managing Committee meeting were forged by Naveen Kaushik (A-9) CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 9 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019while the signatures in respect of various founder members, newly enrolled members were forged by Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik.
13. It is alleged that while recording the Managing Committee Meeting proceedings dated 13.11.1990, 22.12.1990 and 19.02.1992 etc. accused Ashwani Sharma falsely mentioned enrollment of 41 new members. In order to insert new members, false resignation letters of old members were also prepared or got prepared by accused Ashwani Sharma and placed on record. In order to regularize the resignations of old members, false proceedings were recorded in the Proceeding Register on 15.4.1989, 26.6.1989, 28.8.1989, 30.10.1989, 21.6.1990 and 13.7.1990 etc. The investigation conducted on this aspect revealed that almost none of the founder members had resigned from the membership of the society. The investigation also revealed that the signatures of the members thus shown as resigned were in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 10 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019fact forged/got forged by the accused Ashiwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik. The GEQD vide its opinion No.CX-304/2006 dated 7.8.2006 has confirmed that the signatures of the promoter members were, in fact, forged.
14. The investigation has further revealed that in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy Uttam Chand Surana got himself and his relatives/acquaintance enrolled as member in the said society by mentioning their date of enrollment as prior to the winding of the society. In the list of members Uttam Chand Surana included the name of his daughter-in- law Mrs. Sudha Surana who has been shown as the member of this society since 1990. Whereas, she married his ( Uttam Chand Surana) son Abhishek only after 1996 and in 1990 she was a minor hence not eligible for membership in the said society.
15. The investigation has also revealed that the GBM of the society was allegedly shown to CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 11 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019have been held on 18.6.2000 in which one Sh. Tejpal Sharma was appointed as Election officer. It has falsely been shown in the minutes of meeting by accused persons that out of 150 members, 83 members attended this meeting. And following office bearers were purportedly elected:-. Uttam Chand Surana as President, Sh Vinay Sethia as Vice President, Sh Ajay Suri as Secretary and Ms. Tannu Arora, Sh. P.T.Paul, Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Mrs. Raj Jain, as members.
16. It is alleged that Sh Tej Pal Sharma, during his examination has denied to have participated in the said GBM or signed the minutes of the meetings. Most of the old and newly enrolled members denied having attended such meeting. The GEQD opinion also confirmed the fact that the signatures of these members were forged. The GEQD has confirmed that the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Sethia, Manas Panda, U.C Surana, Ashish, Ashok Kumar Jain, Alok Lodha, Bajrang Nahata, Abhishek Bansal, Ram Sunder CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 12 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Singh and Sulochana Surana have been forged by Ashwani Sharma.
17. The investigation has also revealed that an application dated 30.11.2000 signed by accused Uttam Chand Surana, the alleged President of the society, was moved for revival of the said society in the RCS office. In the said application Uttam Chand Surana dishonestly and deliberately mentioned that the General Body Meeting of the said society was held in the month of June, 2000 and the members of society were willing to make the society functional.
18. It is alleged that the application for revival of the said society was received in the office RCS, Delhi on 30.11.2000. The same was processed by accused Satyaveer Singh Malik, Dealing Assistant who recorded his note dated 10.01.2001. Accused Satyaveer Singh Malik while recording his note in the file mentioned that the society was brought under liquidation vide order dated 22.09.1992. But dishonestly CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 13 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019and deliberately did not mention the reasons for passing the liquidation/winding up order. He also did not recommend to appoint any inspector to verify the records and address of the society, which should have been done in the normal course. Accused Satyaver Singh Malik also recommended in the note to consider the request of the society for revival and submitted the file to Smt. Shakuntala Joshi, Assistant Registrar, R.C.S Delhi.
19. It is further alleged that Smt. Shakuntala Joshi Assistant Registrar, RCS, forwarded the file to RCS for orders. As per normal procedure, Satyaveer Singh Malik was supposed to go through the submission of the society, scrutinies the files and record his notings for verification of address of the society and genuineness of papers submitted by the society.
20. It is alleged that Smt. Shakuntala Joshi was also supposed to exercise proper care before forwarding the file to the RCS. Accused R.K.Srivastava, the then RCS thereafter CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 14 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019recorded his note dated 10.1.2001 in the file and asked for issuing notice to the society to appear with original records on 19.01.2001. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the President/Secretary of the society at its registered address i.e DCM Tent factory building, Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi which was a non-existent address. This letter however, reached the hands of accused persons then holding dominion over the society.
21. During the course of investigation it was revealed that Sh. B.S.Arora, Advocate appeared for the society on 19.01.2006 on behalf of the society at the instance of accused S.P.Saxena. Uttam Chand Surana and Sh.B.S.Arora, Advocate appeared before the RCS on 24.01.2001. In his notings dated 24.01.2001, R.K.Srivastava, the then RCS mentioned about the submissions made on behalf of the said society. On that day he also passed the order for revival of the society. It is CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 15 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019pertinent to mention that no direction for inspection of the records of the society u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 was found necessary to be given by the Registrar. Sh. R.K.Srivastava, RCS also mentioned in the order that:-
1. That the society will obtain and submit fresh affidavits from all the members of the society.
2. That the society will obtain and furnish necessary proof of the present residence of the members.
3. That the President and Secretary of the society will also file an affidavit stating that the documents furnished by them are in order and the enrolments made by the society were in order and in accordance with the provisions of DCS Act and Rules.
4. That all the documents will be submitted by the society within next 30 days before A.R(W) for verification and no extension of time will be allowed.
5. The pending Audit shall be got conducted within two months time.
6. That the elections to the Managing Committee will be conducted by appointing a departmental Election officer in due course of time.
22. The investigation has also revealed that most of the affidavits purportedly given by the new CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 16 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
members have been forged by accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik. In addition to that false audit reports were prepared with the help of accused P.K.Thirwani, Sr. Auditor. These documents along with other related papers were submitted through affidavit to the RCS. On receipt of documents from the society, Satyaveer Singh Malik was supposed to obtain the verification report through some Inspector of RCS office. He deliberately and dishonestly did not choose to follow the same and on the other hand, he himself recorded a detailed note in the file without actual verification of the records. The Bye laws of the society and other original documents containing the details of the promoter members including their signatures were already available in the file of the said society maintained by Satyaveer Singh Malik. He did not scrutinize the records put before him, on the other hand he dishonestly and deliberately accepted the same as true without CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 17 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019factually verifying the documents. He was having the knowledge that no inspection of records u/s 54 of DCS Act, 1972 had been ordered.
23. The investigation has also revealed that Smt. Shakuntala Joshi dishonestly and deliberately forwarded the list of 140 members of the this revived society recommending allotment of land to said society ( Dhruv Sangam CGHS) by the DDA. She deliberately and dishonestly ignored the fulfillment of the pre condition by the society in the orders for revival.
24. It is further alleged that during investigation it was also revealed that S.P.Saxena had developed proximity with R.K.Srivastava, the then RCS and accommodated him as well as his sister-in-law, Smt. Vijaya Srivastava in a society named Shiv Shankar CGHS. This society was controlled by Sh. S.P.Saxena. Accused R.K.Srivastava dishonestly and deliberately passed the revival order in respect of M/s Dhruv Sangam CGHS as a quid pro quo CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 18 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019(advantage granted in return for something) in favour of S.P.Saxena.
25. It is alleged that in view of documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence gathered during the course of investigation which are enumerated above, there is sufficient material on record for prosecution u/s 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against the accused persons namely, Uttam Chand Surana, Gokul Chand Aggarwal Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K.Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain, S.P.Saxena, Ashwani Sharma, Ashotosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, R.K. Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntala Joshi and for substantive offences against accused Uttam Chand Surana, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC. And against accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik u/s 468 of IPC. Against accused Uttam Chand Surana U/s 471 of IPC. Against accused Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K.Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 19 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019R.K.Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntla Joshi u/s 15 r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
26. It is stated that sanction for prosecution of the competent authority u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 in respect of Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K.Thirwani has been received. The sanction for prosecution in respect of Vipin Kumar Jain, R.K.Srivastava and Smt. Shakuntla Joshi was filed afterward. The charge sheet has been filed accordingly.
FRAMING OF CHARGES
27. After considering the material on record, vide detailed order dated 23.03.2012, Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided the charges against the accused persons. On 02.04.2012, accused persons were charged as under:
1 Uttam Chand Surana Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 420/511/471 IPC.
(Proceedings already stands abated vide order dated 19.07.2018. ) 2 Gokul Chand Aggarwal Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 20 of 223 CBI No. 89/20193 Satyaveer Singh Malik Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 4 Prahlad Kumar Thirwani Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 5 Vipin Kumar Jain Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 6 Satya Prakash Saxena Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 (proceedings already stands abated vide order dated 26.04.2023. ) 7 Ashwani Sharma Under section 120-B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 420/511/468 IPC.
8 Ashutosh Pant Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 21 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
420/511/468 IPC.
9 Naveen Kaushik Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
420/511/468 IPC.
10 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w
13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC
Act,1988
11 Shakuntla Joshi Under section 120-B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2)
r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC
Act,1988
28. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed and claimed trial.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED UTTAM CHAND SURANA (A-1) AND SATYA PRAKASH SAXENA (A-6)
29. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present case, accused Uttam Chand Surana (A-1) and Satya Prakash Saxena (A-6) have expired and Proceedings against them CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 22 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019were abated vide order dated 19.07.2021 and 26.04.2023.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
30. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 34 ( Thirty Four ) witnesses. For the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been categorized in different groups. Although, the detailed testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent para's, wherever necessary. However, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of these witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has come on the record.
The witnesses who are promoter members and were falsely shown to have resigned or not participated in the proceedings of the said society.
31. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Uttam Chand Surana, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satya Prakash Saxena, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, all private persons conspired CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 23 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019with Satyaveer Singh, Assistant Registrar,P.K Thirwani (Auditor) Vipin Kumar, Election Officer, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Registrar, RCS, Delhi and Smt Shakuntla Joshi, Assistant Registrar who dishonestly and fraudulently got revived the society on the basis of the forged and false documents. Some of the members of the said society have been examined by the prosecution who have stated that they never resigned from the society; had not given any affidavit and denied their signatures on the minutes of the Managing Committee. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution, in this regard, are as under:
32. PW1 Sh Tejpal Sharma, has deposed that he was the founder member of the said Society. He became founder President of the society in the year 1983. He has deposed that the registered office address of the society was DCM Tent Factory Building, Kishan Ganj, Ganesh Line, Delhi-06. He has deposed that said society was formed by the employees of DCM factory. He has CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 24 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019deposed that the said society was became inactive after the closure of DCM factory in the year 1989, though, it remained functional till 1993. He has deposed that Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma was the Secretary of the said society. The record of the society used to remain with Ramesh Chand Sharma who was residing in Mandawali, Delhi.
33. This witness has identified his signatures on the membership register of the said society Ex PW1/PX (D-11); proceeding register Ex PW1/PA (D-16); on the application for registration, Ex PW1/A of a Cooperative Society in the Union Territory of Delhi signed by Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma at point A. He has also identified his signatures on the bye-laws of the said society Ex PW1/A-1, intensive inquiry proforma of the said society Ex PW1/A-2. He has identified his signatures as well as signatures of Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma, President of the said Society on the affidavit dated 11.06.1985, Ex PW1/A-3; on the list of members of the said society Ex PW1/A-4.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 25 of 223 CBI No. 89/201934. He has deposed that report dt. 18.06.2000 regarding election of the managing committee of the said society, marked Ex PW1/A-5. The signatures appearing at point A do not belong to him and he never acted as election officer of the said society on 18.06.2000. He has further deposed that he never issued any election schedule marked as ExPW1/A-6 and signatures appearing at points A are not of him.
35. He has further deposed that affidavit dated 25.01.2001 already marked as Ex.PW22/C-92, the signatures at points A & B on the said affidavit are not of him. He has deposed that bye laws of the society alongwith list of membership, already Ex.PW22/C-112 (colly.), bears his signatures at point A against serial no.2.
36. He has further deposed that in the proceeding register (D-12), marked Ex.PW1/B, he has seen his signatures at points Q5, Q9, Q1.7, Q21, Q81 and deposed that the signatures are not of him. He has deposed that the signatures appearing at points Q14, Q39, Q46, Q53, Q55, Q57, Q71, Q83 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 26 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019at point X on the various pages i.e. Page 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the register are of his signatures.
37. He has further deposed that IO of the case, had obtained his specimen signature/ handwriting during investigation. He has seen his specimen signatures /handwriting sheets S-149 to S-151, Ex.PW1/C (colly.), on which he had given his specimen signatures during investigation to the IO.
38. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
39. PW2 is Sh Badri Prasad, he has deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1983 when the said society was formed. He has identified his signature on the application for registration of a cooperative society Ex PW1/A; bye laws of the society Ex PW1/A1; intensive enquiry performa Ex PW1/A2; affidavit dated 09.01.2001 and 20.04.2005 Ex PW2/A Ex PW2/B1; on Form 60, Ex PW2/B2 and on the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 27 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019membership register Ex.PW1/PX.
40. He has further deposed that he did not attended any meeting of the society after 1989. He has deposed that in the proceeding register and the proceeding dated 08.07.2001 (already Ex.PW14/L). The signature appearing at point C against serial no.48 is not of him. He has deposed that the proceedings dated 05.09.1990 (already Ex.PW22/C4), proceedings dated 13.11.1990 (already Ex.PW22/C5), proceedings dated 13.07.1991 (already Ex. PW22/C8), proceedings dated 21.06.1996 (already Ex.PW22/C11), proceedings dated 26.07.1998 (already Ex.PW22/C12), proceedings dated 21.12.1998 Ex PW2/C and proceedings dated 18.06.2000 (already Ex.PW20/G) do not bear his signatures at points Z. He has deposed that he had given Form 60 (Ex.PW2/B2) to the CBI around 17-18 years prior from today.
41. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 28 of 223 CBI No. 89/201942. PW 3 is Sh Alok Lodha, he has deposed that Uttam Chand Surana ( since expired ) was their family friend and earlier their neighbour also. He has further deposed that on his asking, he ( this witness) had signed certain forms pertaining to membership of housing society.
43. He has further deposed that photocopy of application form, Mark PW3/A for becoming member of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd bears his signature at point A. He has deposed that his particulars mentioned at serial no. 1 to 6 of the said application are in his handwriting and are correct. However the date mentioned i.e. 01/02/1991 in the said application at point B is incorrect as there was no date when he filled-in the said application and the said date may have been mentioned by accused Uttam Chand Surana. As he had handed over the said filled-in application, without date. The said application form was filled-in by him ( this witness) and was handed over to Uttam Chand Surana, in the year 2000. He has deposed that he had shifted on the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 29 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019address mentioned in the application form, in the year 2000 only. His marriage took place on 21/01/1995 and the application form mentions name of his wife Rachna Lodha at serial no. 6. And thus from the same also it is clear that the application could not have been bearing the date 01/02/1991. Her has deposed that on the top of the application, merely the word "the secretary" was mentioned till the time he handed over the application form duly filled in to accused Uttam Chand Surana. The words "Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. Delhi" at point C may have been subsequently added by accused Uttam Chand Surana.
44. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated 15/04/2005, Ex. PW3/B bears his signature at points A & B and his photograph is pasted at point C. He has deposed that verification certificate, Ex. PW3/C issued by J.K. Gulati, Section officer, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in his favour qua his membership no. 186 of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. The said verification CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 30 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019certificate bears his signature at point A and his photograph at point B. He has deposed that the said verification certificate was not issued in his presence. He has deposed that affidavit Ex. PW3/B and the verification certificate Ex. PW3/C were got prepared by accused Uttam Chand Surana and he had signed the said documents on his asking.
45. He has further deposed that he had not received any document qua his membership of the said society and had not attended any meeting of the said society. Whatever was being done qua the same was done by accused Uttam Chand Surana.
46. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
47. PW4 is Sh Bhisham Thakkar, he has deposed that he did his schooling from St. Xavier School, Civil Lines, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi and passed class 12th in the year 1991. He has deposed that Abhishek Surana was his classmate in the said CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 31 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019school. He has further deposed that earlier they used to reside in ancestral joint family property bearing no. K-2/6, Model Town-I, Delhi till the year 1996. Thereafter they shifted to E-3/14, Model Town-I, Delhi at the end of 1996/start of 1997.
48. He has further deposed that as Abhishek Surana was his classmate, therefore they used to visit each others house and gradually they developed family relations and knew each others family members. He has deposed that accused Uttam Chand Surana, father of Abhishek Surana, had informed that he ( Uttam Chand Surana ) was forming a group housing society and would like that all his known persons to become members of the said society.
49. He has further deposed that application form, Mark PW4/A for membership for becoming member of the said society bears his signature at point A and the particulars mentioned at serial no. 1 to 6 of the said application are in his handwriting and are correct. He has further deposed that CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 32 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019however the column meant for date and place were blank at the time he handed over the said form to accused Uttam Chand Surana. Somebody else may have filled-up the said columns subsequently with the date "08/02/1991" and place "Delhi". He has further deposed that on top of the application, merely the word "the secretary" was mentioned till the time he handed over the application form duly filled in to accused Uttam Chand Surana. He has deposed that the words "Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. Delhi" may have been subsequently added by someone else.
50. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated 09/01/2001 bears his signature at points A & B and the particulars mentioned in the said affidavit are correct. He has deposed that the affidavit dated 15/04/2005 Mark PW4/A bears his signature at points A, B & C and his photograph is pasted at point D.
51. He has further deposed that verification certificate,Ex. PW4/D issued by J.K. Gulati, section officer, Ministry of Social Justice and CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 33 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Empowerment in his favour qua his membership no. 197 of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd which bears his signatures at points A & B and his photograph. He has further deposed that he do not know Mr. J.K. Gulati who had issued the said certificate. The said verification certificate was not issued in his presence.
52. He has deposed that membership register already Ex. PW1/PX, his purported signature is appearing at point A on page 20, besides other details related to him against serial no. 197, Ex. PW4/E. He has deposed that had not appended signature at point A as shown in the said register on page 20 against serial no. 197. He has deposed that during investigation he has given his specimen signatures/handwriting sheets consisting of six pages (S-204 to S-209) Ex. PW4/F (colly).
53. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
54. PW 5 is Sh Asish Goel, who has deposed that he CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 34 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019and Abhishek Surana used to study in the same class but in a different section in St. Xavier school Delhi. He has further deposed that they had family relations. Abhishek's father Uttam Chand Surana and his father knew each other well.
55. He has further deposed that around the year, 2000 on the asking of accused Uttam Chand Surana, he had filled-up and signed one form relating to Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. Photocopy of his membership form of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd is is marked as Mark PW5/A. He has further deposed that the original of the same was filled-in and signed by him on the asking of Uttam Chand Surana and his particulars mentioned at serial no. 1 to 6 of the said application are in his handwriting and are correct.
56. He has deposed that he do not remember whether he had paid any fee towards membership fee of the society and about the receipt marked as Mark PW5/B. He has deposed that his affidavit dated 05/01/2001,Ex. PW5/C, bears his signature at points A & B and the particulars mentioned in the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 35 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019said affidavit are correct.
57. He has further deposed that on the membership register already Ex. PW1/PX, his purported signature appearing at point A besides other details were related to him against serial No.160 exhibited as Ex. PW5/D. He has further deposed that he had not appended his signature at point A
58. He has deposed that on application dated 11/04/2005, Ex. PW5/E, addressed to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi; his affidavit dated 15/04/2005, Ex. PW5/F and his verification certificate, Ex PW5/G bears his signatures and photographs. He has deposed that he had given all the said three documents.
59. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Vipin Kumar Jain and Ashwani Sharma but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
60. PW 6 is Sh Surya Nath Chaurasiya, he has deposed that he was having a Paan shop at 6/92, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. One Ramesh Chand Sharma, used to work in DCM, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 36 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019and used to frequently come to his shop. He has deposed that Ramesh Chand Sharma got him introduced to one Sh Tejpal Sharma who was also working in DCM. He has deposed that Ramesh Chand Sharma took him to Tejpal Sharma in the office of DCM. There Tejpal Sharma told him that they are forming a society with the name Dhruv Sangam CGHS, which will be allotted land in Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, for construction of flats.
61. He has deposed that he became member of the said society and used to attend the meetings of the society as and when called till closure of DCM.
62. He has identified his signatures in the membership register already Ex. PW1/PX serial no. 137, Ex. PW6/A; on his affidavit dated 04/06/1985, Ex. PW6/B; on his another affidavit dated 30/04/2005, Ex. PW6/C containing his photograph and on his verification certificate dated 30/04/2005 Ex. PW6/D containing my photograph.
63. He has further deposed that proceeding dated 18/06/2000 of General Body Meeting of the said CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 37 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019society Ex. PW6/E bears his signature at point A. He has deposed that purported proceeding dated 08/07/2001 of Special General Body Meeting of of the said society and his purported signature appearing at point A was forged by someone as he had not attended the said meeting.
64. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
65. PW 7 is Abhay Jain, he has deposed that about 17-18 years ago, he had submitted the form of membership of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd, given to him by his relative accused Uttam Chand Surana through somebody whose name he do not remember now.
66. He has deposed that photocopy of his membership form of the said society, Mark PW7/A in the judicial file. And deposed that the original of the same were filled-in in his handwriting and he had put his signature on the same at point A. However the date of 13/12/1990 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 38 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019and place Delhi were not filled-up by him. He has deposed that his age was wrongly mentioned in the same as 19 years, whereas he was 16 years old on 13/12/1990. He has deposed that the photocopy, Mark PW7/B of purported receipt of Rs. 110/- dated 16/11/1990 issued in his name by the said society qua membership fee. He has deposed that due to lapse of time he is unable to remember as to whether the membership fee was paid and the said receipt was issued.
67. He has deposed that affidavit dated 09/01/200,Ex.
PW7/C bears his signatures at point A and B and particulars mentioned in the said affidavit except age and being in Delhi by birth, are correct. But his age was wrongly mentioned in the affidavit as 29 years, whereas he was 26 years of age at that time and he was not born in Delhi, as he started residing in Delhi continuously from the age of 25 years.
68. He has further deposed that the membership register Ex. PW1/PX where his purported signature is appearing at point A besides other CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 39 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019details related to him against serial no. 178, Ex. PW7/D. He has deposed that his father's name has been wrongly mentioned as Vimal S. Singhi. He has deposed that he had not appended his signature at point A at serial no. 178 of said register.
69. He has deposed that his application dated 09/04/2005, Ex. PW7/E addressed to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The said application was not filled-up by him, however the particulars mentioned in the same are correct. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated 15/04/2005 containing his photograph but his father's name has been wrongly mentioned as Vimal S. Singhi.
70. He has further deposed that his verification certificate dated 15/04/2005, Ex PW7/G, containing his photograph. In the said certificate, his father's name has also been wrongly mentioned as Vimal S. Singhi. He has deposed that he had given all the said three documents. The application dated 09/04/2005 bears his CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 40 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019signature at point A. His affidavit dated 15/04/2005, Ex. PW7/F bears his signatures at two places at points A & B and his photograph at point C. His verification certificate bears his signatures at point A and his photograph at point B.
71. He has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the said society and purported proceeding dated 08/07/2001 of Special General Body Meeting of the said society, in the said proceedings, his purported signature is appearing at point A against his membership number and name at serial no. 69 Ex. PW7/H.
72. He has further deposed that purported proceeding dated 29/08/2002 of General Body Meeting of the said society and his purported signature is appearing at point A against his name at serial no. 6, Ex. PW7/L.
73. He has deposed that his specimen signatures sheets consisting of three pages S-188 to S-190,Ex. PW7/M (Colly) were taken by the IO during investigation.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 41 of 223 CBI No. 89/201974. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
75. PW 8 is Smt Dev Keshar Devi, who has deposed that she took membership of the said society in the year 1983 through Ramesh Sharma and Jagpal Sharma. She paid Rs.100/-towards membership fee.
76. She has identified her signatures on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX at serial no. 80,Ex.PW8/A; On the application for registration of the said society Ex.PW1/A against serial no.80 and serial no.79 Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C respectively; on the bye laws of the society alongwith list of membership, Ex.PW1/A1 against serial no.80, Ex.PW8/D; on the intensive enquiry performa Ex.PW1/A2 AT serial no.80 Ex.PW8/E.
77. She has further deposed that she had never resigned from the membership of the society. The resignation letter dated 09.06.1990 Mark PW8/F does not bears her signature. She has deposed that CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 42 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019refund voucher dated 24.07.1990, Mark PW8/G does not bear her signature. The signature appearing at point A is not of her. She has deposed that she had not received Rs.100/- towards refund of her share money from the said society.
78. She has deposed that I.O, CBI had obtained her specimen signature vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-191 to 192, Ex.PW8/H (consisting of two pages). She has deposed that she had never attended any meeting of the said society.
79. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashutosh Pant. But has not been cross examined by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
80. PW 9 is Sudesh Kumar, he has deposed that he took membership of the said society through Ramesh Chand Sharma, who was office bearer of the said Society. He has deposed Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, was his Saadu (co-brother). He paid membership fee of Rs.100/- to become member of said society. I do not recollect my membership number.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 43 of 223 CBI No. 89/201981. He has identified his signatures on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX at serial no. 150 marked as Ex.PW9/A; affidavit dated 04.06.1985 Ex.PW9/B.
82. He has further deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the said society. The photocopy of resignation letter dated 01.07.1990 Marked PW9/C does not bear his signatures. He has further deposed that the receipt of Rs.100/- available at the bottom of Mark PW9/C does not bear his signature. The signature and name appearing at points B are not of him as he had not received Rs.100/- towards refund of his share money from the said society. The receipt is Mark PW9/D.
83. He has deposed that IO CBI had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-172 to 173. Ex.PW9/E (consisting of two pages). He has deposed that he may have attended 1-2 meetings of the said society.
84. This witness has been cross examined on behalf CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 44 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019of accused Ashutosh Pant. But has not been cross examined by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
85. PW 10 is Sh Girwar Sharma, he has deposed that he had taken membership of the said society through Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma, who was his brother-in-law ( Jijaji). He was Secretary of the said society. He was allotted membership no. 151. and had paid Rs.100/- as membership fee. He has deposed that he never attended any meeting of the said society. He never resigned from the membership of the said society and has had never received back any membership fee. He has identified his signature on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX at serial no.151, Ex.PW10/B. He has deposed that on the photocopy of his purported application dated 02.04.1989, Mark PW10/C and signature appearing at point A is not of him. The same is forged one.
86. He has deposed that photocopy of purported resignation letter dated 02.07.1990,Mark PW10/D and signature appearing at point A on the said CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 45 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019resignation letter is not him as somebody has forged his signature. He has deposed that photocopy of purported receipt of Rs.100/-dated 17.08.1990,Mark PW10/E, signature appearing at point B is not of him as somebody has forged his signature. He has deposed that he had not received any such amount as shown in the purported receipt.
87. He has further deposed that his specimen signatures were taken by the CBI vide specimen signature sheets (S-180 to S-181Ex.PW10/F (colly.).
88. This witness has been cross examined by on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant,Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Vipin Kumar Jain, but was not cross examined by any other accused, despite the opportunity being given to them.
89. PW 11 is Sh Azad Singh, he has deposed that during May, 1990 to September, 1994, he worked as Inspector in the Office of RCS and Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar was AR (NGH) and Sh. S.P. Singh CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 46 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019was Deputy Registrar (NGH) during that period. He has deposed that his work was to make inquiries and visit places to verify about society.
90. He has further deposed that vide noting dated 20.04.1992,Ex.PW11/A by Dealing Assistant in which he was deputed to inspect the existence of Dhruv Sangam CGHS. He has deposed that this note was prepared on the instructions of the AR (NGH) Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar. He identify the signature of Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar at point A on the noting at Page 14/N.
91. He has deposed that he visited the DCM Tent Factory at Ganesh Line, Kishan Ganj, Delhi on 23.07.1992 and found that no such society was functioning at the given address. He gave report in this regard dated 24.07.1992,Ex.PW11/B which bears his signature at point A. He has deposed that he submitted this report to AR (NGH) Sh. Pokhar Mal Tanwar, who marked the same to Dealing Assistant namely Sh. S.K. Jain.
92. He has deposed that Winding up Order dated 22.09.1992, Ex PW11/C bears the signature of Sh.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 47 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019S.P.Singh, Deputy Registrar at points A and B, which he has identified.
93. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Rajeshwar Kumar, but was not cross examined by any other accused, despite the opportunity being given to them.
94. PW 12 is Sh Prem Singh, he has deposed that in the year 1989, he was working as Khalasi in NDMC, Delhi. He became member of the said society in year 1989 through Ramesh Chand Sharma, who was Secretary of the said society. He paid Rs.110/- towards membership fee.
95. He has deposed that on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX, signature appearing at point A against his name and particulars at serial no.152, marked as Ex.PW12/A is not of him. He has deposed that on the photocopy of his purported application form dated 03.04.1989,Mark PW12/B. and the signature appearing on the point A on the said application is not of him However, other particulars in the said application are mine.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 48 of 223 CBI No. 89/201996. He has further deposed that receipt of Rs.110/-
Mark PW12/C was issued to him at the time of becoming member of the said society towards payment of Rs.110/-.
97. He has deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the said society and his signatures on the photocopy of resignation letter dated 03.07.1990 Marked PW12/D at point A is not of him. He has further deposed that the receipt of Rs.100/- towards refund of share money, signature appearing at point B on the receipt is not of him.
98. He has further deposed that IO of the case had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-174 & 175,Ex.PW12/F (colly.).
99. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma and S.P Saxena but was not cross examined by remaining accused persons, despite the opportunity being given to them.
100. PW13 is Sh Om Prakash Jain, he has deposed that CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 49 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019in the year 1989, he was working with DCM, Delhi and had became member of the said society in year 1989 through Ramesh Chand Sharma and Tej Pal, clerks in the said society. He had paid Rs.550/- towards membership fee vide membership number was 149.
101. He has identified his signatures on membership register Ex.PW1/PX vide relevant entry Ex.PW13/A and on his affidavit dated 04.06.1985,Ex.PW13/B.
102. He has deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the said society and denied his signatures at point on photocopy of resignation letter dated 05.07.1990, Mark PW13/C. He has further deposed that the receipt of Rs.100/- dated 17.08.1990,Mark PW13/D towards refund of share money and signature appearing at point B on the said receipt is not of him.
103. He has further deposed that IO of the case had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vode specimen/handwriting sheets S-186 & 187, Ex.PW13/E (colly.).
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 50 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019104. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma,Satyaveer Singh Malik and P.K. Thirwani but was not cross examined by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
105. PW 14 is Sh Ajay Suri, he has deposed that in the year 1992, he had filled up form for enrollment of member of the said society. He has further deposed that form was provided to him by his father-in-law Late Sh. Satish Sarup Gupta and who has paid Membership fee for becoming member of said society .
106. He has deposed that in the membership register Ex.PW1/PX signature appearing at point B against his name and particulars at serial no.165, Ex.PW14/A is not of him. He has further deposed that the purported affidavit dated 06.02.2001, Ex.PW14/B and affidavit dated 19.01.2001 were not sworn and signed by him and signatures appearing at points A & B on the these affidavit are not of him. He has deposed that he had not submitted these affidavit as in the said affidavits, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 51 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019he has been shown as Secretary of the said society, which is incorrect.
107. He has further deposed that another purported affidavit dated 19.01.2001 marked Ex.PW14/D alongwith list of members shown to be resigned from the membership of the society and newly enrolled members was not sworn and signed by him. He has deposed that he was never elected as Secretary of the said society nor he had submitted the said affidavit. The signatures appearing at points A & B on the said affidavit are not of him.
108. He has further deposed that application for becoming member of the society dated 01.11.1990,Mark PW14/E signature appearing at point A on the said application is his signatures. However, the date mentioned in the said affidavit was not written by him. He has deposed that the particulars mentioned in the said application are in his handwriting which are correct. He has identified his signatures on affidavit, Ex.PW14/F dated 05.01.2001 and on the application dated 07.04.2005, Ex PW14/G addressed to the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 52 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Registrar of Co-operative Societies, NCT, Delhi. He has deposed that the said application was submitted by him to the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, NCT, Delhi alongwith his affidavit and verification certificate. He has further deposed that alongwith the said application, he had enclosed the affidavit dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW14/H which bears his signature at points A & B and his photograph at point C.
109. He has further deposed that verification certificate, Ex.PW14/J bears his signature at point A and his photograph at point B.
110. He has further deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the society dated 22.06.2000, 14.07.2000, 06.08.2000, 24.09.2000, 19.10.2000, 17.11.2000 and 16.12.2000, Ex.PW14/K (colly.) and his signature at point A on these proceedings is not of him. He has further deposed that he had not attended the proceedings dated 08.07.2001, 29.08.2002, 10.08.2003, and 29.08.2004, Ex.PW14/L (colly.) and signature at point A on these proceedings are not of him.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 53 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019111. He has further deposed that he had not attended such proceedings dated 08.08.2002, 11.09.2002, 27.10.2002, 11.11.2002, 18.12.2002, 07.01.2003, 19.02.2003, 11.04.2003, 23.05.2003, 11.06.2003, 10.07.2003, 20.08.2003, 28.09.2003, 09.10.2003, 22.10.2003, 19.12.2003, 23.01.2004, 15.02.2004, 10.03.2004, 04.04.2004, 15.05.2004, 09.06.2004, 11.07.2004. 03.08.2004, 25.09.2004, 15.10.2004, 11.11.2004, 04.12.2004, 08.02.2005, 05.04.2005, 20.05.2005, 13.06.2005 and 01.08.2005 Ex.PW14/M (colly.) and the signature at point A on these proceedings are not of him.
112. He has further deposed that IO of the case had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-152 & 158, Ex.PW14/N (colly.).
113. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik. But not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
114. PW 15 is Smt Smita H. Kokane, she has deposed CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 54 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019that in the year 1990, she was working as Teacher in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya, Mandawali, Delhi. She became member of the said society in year 1990 through Smt. Pushpa Sharma who was also a teacher in the same school and her husband Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma was looking after affiars of the said society.
115. She has identified her signatures on the photocopy of application for membership dated 11.01.1990, Ex.PW15/A. She has further deposed that the photocopy of receipt for Rs.110/- at serial no.005 was paid by her while becoming member of the said society. She has also identified her signatures on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX against her name and particulars at serial no.155,Ex.PW15/C.
116. She has further deposed that she never resigned from the membership of the said society nor received refund of share money of Rs.110/-.She has deposed that photocopy of resignation letter dated 02.07.1990, mark PW15/D and signature appearing at point A is not of him. She has further CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 55 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019deposed that the receipt dated 17.08.1990,Mark PW15/E of Rs.100/- towards refund of share money which is at the bottom of Mark PW15/D.
117. She has deposed that I.O of the case had obtained her specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-170 & 171, Ex.PW15/F (colly.) She had never attended any meeting of said society.
118. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kumar. But not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
119. PW 16 is Sh Gaurav Goel, he has deposed that he know Abhishek Surana as they both were together in the same school. He became member of one group housing society namely Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd. through accused U.C.Surana, father of Abhishek Surana in the year 1990 or 1991.
120. He has further deposed that photocopy of application form dated 29.10.1990,Mark PW16/A, for becoming member of the said Society does CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 56 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019not bear his signature at point A. He has deposed after seeing the photocopy of receipt for Rs.110/- at serial no.009. He has deposed that he do not remember if he had paid Rs.110/- as membership fee to the society. He has deposed that the affidavit dated 05.01.2001,Ex.PW16/C does not bear his signature at points A & B. However, he has deposed that the application addressed to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Office of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated 14.04.2005, PW16/D T bears his signature at point A. He had only signed the said application. He do not remember if he had sent the documents mentioned in the application to the Office of RCS or not.
121. He has identified his signatures and photographs on the affidavit dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW16/E and on the verification certificate Ex PW16/F. He has deposed that in the membership register Ex.PW1/PX and signature appearing at point B against his name and particulars at serial no.159 against entry Ex.PW16/G is not mine. He has deposed that he do not remember if he had CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 57 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019attended any meeting of the said society.
122. He has further deposed that the proceeding dated 08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L (colly.) and signature appearing at serial no.71 at point A is not of him.
123. He has further deposed that IO of the CBI had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-209 to 213, Ex PW16/H Colly)
124. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik. But not by any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
125. PW 17 is Keshri Chand Bhansali, he has deposed that he know accused Uttam Chand Surana. He became member of the said society and had paid Rs.100/- towards membership fee. He has deposed that he had filled up the application form Mark PW17/A, in his own handwriting. But he had not filled up the date and place column.
126. He has further deposed that his affidavit dated 09.01.2001, Ex.PW17/B bears his signatures point CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 58 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019A & B. He has further deposed that the letter dated 11.04.2005,Ex.PW17/C addressed to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, NCT of Delhi also bears his signature at point A.
127. He has deposed that affidavit dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW17/D and the signatures appearing at point A & B on the said affidavit are not him. However the said affidavit contains his photograph at point C. He has further deposed that verification certificate, Marked Ex.PW17/E and the signature appearing at point A is not of him. However he has deposed that on the said verification certificate contains his photograph at point B.
128. He has denied his signatures on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX at point B against his name and particulars at serial no.174, marked Ex.PW17/F.
129. He has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the said society. He has deposed that the proceeding dated 08.07.2001, Ex.PW14/L (colly.), and the signature appearing at point B CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 59 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019against his name at serial no.30 against the relevant entry marked Ex.PW17/G is not of him.
130. He has deposed that IO of the case had obtained his specimen signature and handwriting during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-197 to 200, Ex.PW17/H (colly.).
131. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik, but not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
132. PW-20 is Sh Vinay Kumar Sethia, he has deposed that he alongwith his brother Sh. Sanjeev Sethia became member of the society in the 1990 or 1991 at the instance of Sh. Uttam Chand Surana. He has identified his signatures on the photocopy of application form dated 02.11.199,Mark PW20/A and on the application qua his brother Sanjeev Sethia at point A on Mark PW20/B.
133. He has further deposed that both the application forms were given to them by accused Uttam Chand Surana. He has deposed that they had CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 60 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019deposited Rs.100/- each towards taking the membership of the said society but they had not received any receipt thereof.
134. He has identified signatures of his brother Sanjeev Sethia at points A & B, on the affidavit Ex.PW20/C. He has deposed that in the membership register Ex.PW1/PX his name and particulars and that of his brother's names and particulars are appearing against serial no.168 & 169, marked as Ex.PW20/D1 & D2 which are correct. However, the signature against these serial numbers at points X & Y are not of him or of his brother.
135. He has also identified his signatures and of his brother's signatures on the application addressed to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Office of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated 08.04.2005 as well as on the affidavit and the verification certificate annexed with the said letter. He has further deposed that the said letter dated 08.04.2005 alongwith the annexures was given to him by accused Uttam Chand Surana and after CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 61 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019signing and affixing the photographs thereon, he had handed over back to accused Uttam Chand Surana. The letter dated 08.04.2005 alongwith the affidavits are collectively Ex.PW20/E (colly.) and Ex.PW20/F (colly.).
136. He has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the said society and proceedings dated 18.06.2000 Ex.PW20/G (colly.) where his name is written at serial no.2 and his designation is shown as 'Vice President but he had not attended this meeting and he had never been elected as Vice President or any other post in the Managing Committee of the said society at any point of time. He has deposed that this proceeding does not bear his signature or initial at any point.
137. He has further deposed that proceeding dated 08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L (colly.), signature appearing against his name at serial no.14 at point B is not of him and the signature appearing against name of his brother at serial no.7 at point C is not of his brother.
138. He has deposed that the list of members CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 62 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW20/1-2 (colly.) annexed with the letter dated 16.04.2001, Mark PW20/H addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Policy), he has deposed that he had never been the Vice President of the said society and the signatures appearing at Points A (Q-436, 439, 442, 445, 448, 451, 454, 457, 460, 463 & 466) in the list are not his signatures. He do not know anything about this document.
139. He has further deposed that another list of members Ex PW20/1-2 ( Colly) alongwith the letter dated 16.04.2001, which bears the signatures appearing at points A on the list are also not of his signatures.
140. He has further deposed that another list of members,Ex.PW20/J (colly.) annexed in the RCS file where he had never been as the Vice President of the said society and the signatures appearing at Points A (Q-469, 473, 475, 478, 481, 484, 487, 490, 493, 496 & 499) in the list are not of his signatures. He do not know anything about this document.
141. He has further deposed that the proceedings in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 63 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019register dated 08.08.2002, 27.10.2002, 09.10.2003, 15.02.2004, 09.06.2004, 11.07.2004, 03.08.2004, 15.10.2004 and 01.08.2005, Ex PW14/M ( colly) bears his signatures at points B. He has deposed that he had not attended the abovesaid meetings and he had signed on the proceedings on the asking of accused Uttam Chand Surana later on when he (accused Uttam Chand Surana) had sent the said register at his office. He has further deposed that after signing the said proceedings, he sent back the register to Sh. Surana. He has depose that he signed these proceedings as Sh. Surana told him that his signatures were necessary for revival of the said society.
142. He has further deposed that the proceedings in register dated 22.06.2000, 14.07.2000, 24.09.2000 and 17.11.2000, Ex.PW14/K (colly.) and the signatures appearing at points B are not of his signatures. He has deposed that he had not attended the abovesaid meetings.
143. He has further deposed that IO of the case had CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 64 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets S-257 to 262, Ex.PW20/K (colly.).
144. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant Naveen Kaushik and Vipin Kumar Jain. But not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
145. PW 23 is Sh Ramesh Chand Sharma , he has deposed that he was founder member of the said society which was formed around year 1983. He has deposed that there were 150 members and he was General Secretary of the society and Sh. Tejpal Sharma was the President.
146. He has identified his signatures on the application for registration of the society Ex.PW1/A; on the bye laws of the society alongwith list of membership, Ex.PW1/A1; on another copy of bye laws of the society Ex.PW22/C); on intensive enquiry performa Ex.PW1/A2; on affidavit,Ex.PW23/A. alongwith list of members dated 31.01.1986 as Secretary and on the affidavit CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 65 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019dated 12.06.1985 Ex.PW1/A3. However he has deposed that on purported affidavit dated 25.01.2001 Ex.PW22/C93. The signatures appearing at points A & B are not of him. He had not sworn and submitted the said affidavit. He has identified his signatures on the membership register Ex.PW1/PX.
147. He has further deposed that in the proceeding register the proceedings dated 28.08.1989, 25.09.1989, 30.10.1989 (already Ex.PW22/C), 28.02.1990, 02.01.1990, 15.12.1989, 05.01.1991,Ex.PW23/B1 to B6, bears his signatures at points A.
148. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 15.04.1989, Ex.PW14/K, Proceedings dated 21.06.1990 Ex.PW22/C2, Proceedings dated 13.07.1990 Ex.PW22/C3, Proceedings dated 05.09.1990 Ex.PW22/C4, Proceedings dated 13.11.1990 Ex.PW22/C5), Proceedings dated 22.12.1990 Ex. PW22/C6), Proceedings dated 19.02.1991 Ex.PW22/C7), Proceedings dated 13.07.1991 Ex. PW22/C8), Proceedings dated CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 66 of 223 CBI No. 89/201929.11.1991 Ex.PW22/C9), Proceedings dated 07.11.1992 Ex.PW22/C10), Proceedings dated 21.06.1996 Ex.PW22/C11, Proceedings dated 26.07.1998 PW22/C12, Proceedings dated 27.09.1999 Ex.PW22/C13, Proceedings dated 09.04.2000 Ex.PW22/C14 and Proceedings dated 18.06.2000 Ex.PW20/G). He has deposed that the signatures appearing at point X on these proceedings are not of him.
149. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 13.08.1989, 02.01.1992, 24.04.1992, 23.07.1992, 11.02.1992,17.01.1998, 05.04.1999 and 11.01.2000, Ex.PW23/C1 to C8, in the proceeding register, the signatures appearing at points Y are not of him.
150. He has further deposed that in the proceeding register (D-13), the proceeding dated 08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L. The signature appearing at point D against serial no.10 is not of him.
151. He has further deposed that the letter dated 11.07.1990 alongwith list of members, Ex.PW23/D (colly.), addressed to Assistant CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 67 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Registrar regarding submission of list of members bears his signature at point A. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had produced various documents of the said society to IO Sh. Satish Chander Jha, vide production-cum- seizure memo dated 02.05.2006,Ex.PW23/E. which bears his signature at points A.
152. He has further deposed that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal met him in the year 2005 or 2006. He ( Gokul Chand Aggarwal ) offered to get the society revived. After discussing with the President, they met him again and he (Gokul Chand Aggarwal) claimed that he had various sources in the Office of Registrar of Co-operative Society as well as DDA and could get the society revived and land allotted. He has further deposed that after becoming assure that Gokul Chand Aggarwal could help them in getting the society revived. He handed over to him some documents such as personal ledger, proceeding register/minute books and membership register. He has deposed that a receipt was also prepared CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 68 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019dated 02.05.2006 Ex.PW22/C111), which bears his signatures at point A and that of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal at point B.
153. He has further deposed that IO of the case had obtained his specimen signature during investigation vide specimen/handwriting sheets sheets S-138 to 144, Ex.PW23/F (colly.).
154. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant Naveen Kaushik and Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
155. PW24 is Sh Raj Kumar Rathi, he has deposed that he was doing business of hosiery in the name and style of M/S B.G. Hosiery, 1051, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He knew accused U.C. Surana as he was his old neighbour.
156. He has further deposed that accused Surana got signed one membership form of a society from him but he had not filled the same. He also do not remember the name of the society.
157. He has deposed that the signatures on the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 69 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019application form dated 02.02.1991 of the said society at point A does not belongs to him. He has paid Rs.110/- to accused Surana on his demand when he had signed the application form vide receipt Mark PW24/B.
158. He has further deposed that the affidavit dated 09.01.2001 Ex.PW22/C-63 does not bears his signature at points A & B.
159. He has further deposed that the application addressed to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Office of RCS, NCT of Delhi dated 09.04.2005, Ex.PW24/C bears his signature at point A. He has deposed that he had paid Rs.110/- to accused Surana when he signed Ex.PW24/C.
160. He has further deposed that the affidavit dated 15.04.2005, Ex.PW24/D bears his signatures at points A & B and his photograph at point C.
161. He has further deposed that the verification certificate dated 15.04.2005,Ex.PW18/A-16 issued by Sh. Azizdudin, Section Officer, Department of Women & Child in his favour qua his membership no. 189 of Dhruv Sangam CGHS Ltd CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 70 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019bears his signature at point A and his photograph at point B. However he has deposed that he do not know Mr. Azizdudin who had issued the said certificate. The said verification certificate was not issued in his presence. He has deposed that he do not remember how the same was got prepared and by whom.
162. He has further deposed that the membership register Ex.PW1/PX, against entry marked Ex.PW24/E and the signature appearing at point A against his name and particulars at serial no.189 is not of him.
163. He has deposed that on the proceeding register (D-13), the proceeding dated 08.07.2001 Ex.PW14/L (colly.), signature appearing at serial at point E is not of him. He never attended any meeting of the said society.
164. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik, but not by rest of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 71 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Witnesses from the office of Registrar Cooperative Society.
165. The office of RCS is the controlling and supervising Government authority over the Co- operative Group Housing Societies. It is a matter of fact that a file pertaining to each of such societies is maintained in the office of RCS from the stage of its formation and registration and all communications made with the society are placed in such a file by the office of RCS.
166. In the present case also, the allegations against the private accused persons are that they submitted a false list of members which was based upon forged and fake resignations and enrollments. The file was processed in the office of RCS. Certain officials/officers during the relevant time who had actually processed the file pertaining to the present society, were either posted as dealing assistants, or Assistant Registrar, and finally all proposals were approved by the Registrar, RCS.
167. The prosecution has examined the relevant officials/officers posted in the office of RCS, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 72 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019during the relevant time who had dealt with the file pertaining to the present Society. These witnesses were examined to prove the proceedings, notings and certain communications between the office of the RCS and the said society, as maintained in the office of RCS. In this regard, prosecution has examined following witnesses from the office of RCS.
168. PW 25 Sh Mahendra Singh Sharma, is Assistant Registrar ( North ) in the office of RCS New Delhi. He has deposed that on 09.08.2005, he had handed over various documents/files to the IO of this case at CBI Office. He has deposed that a production-cum-receipt memo,Ex.PW25/A was also prepared which bears his signature at point A on both the pages.
169. He has deposed that letter dated 27.02.2006 bears his signature at point A. This letter is in handwriting of Sh. J.R. Rasia (Head Clerk). He has depsoed that vide this letter, Ex PW25/B ( Colly) list of approved members of the said society was sent to IO of the case.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 73 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019170. He has further deposed that the list of approved members is the same list which was sent to AR (Policy) by Smt. Shakuntala Joshi, Assistant Registrar earlier on 16.04.2001. The forwarding letter of Smt. Shakuntala Joshi alongwith list of approved members/final list of 140 members was forwarded vide his letter dated 27.02.2006 to IO of CBI. His letter alongwith these annexures is Ex.PW25/B (colly.).
171. This witness has been cross examined by accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava but not by any of the accused persons, despite the opportunity being given to them.
Sanctioning Authority
172. In the present case, accused Satyaveer Singh Malik, Vipin Kumar Jain, R.K.Srivastava Smt. Shakuntla Joshi and Prahlad Kumar Thirwani, are the public servant. At the conclusion of the investigation they have also been charge- sheeted. Since they were the public servants, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 74 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019hence during the investigation requisite sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained by the IO. The authorities which had accorded the sanction to prosecute the above named accused persons, have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
173. PW 27 is Sh Vijay Kumar, who has deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training. He was working in the Administrative Vigilance Department which is dealing with disciplinary matters of IAS officers including sanction for prosecution.
174. He has further deposed that he has received a number of proposals from the CBI regarding accord of sanction for prosecution in respect of Sh. R.K. Srivastava, IAS including the present case. He has ensured the copies of all the documents, statements of witnesses cited in the SP's report. After ensuring this, he has opened a file and prepared a note summarizing the CBI case. He has further deposed that he had also CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 75 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019placed the relevant documents in the folder below the file for consideration of his senior officers. He has submitted the file suggesting consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission.
175. He has further deposed that the note was seen by his officers i.e. Director Vigilance, Additional Secretary and the Secretary. Thereafter, the file as such, was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission. The Central Vigilance Commission advised for accord of sanction for prosecution. He has further deposed that the case was again put up by him along with opinion of CVC for seeking orders of the Hon'ble Prime Minister as Minister was in-charge of the Ministry of Personnel, who was the competent authority to accord the sanction for prosecution. He has further depoed that the file was referred to the Hon'ble Prime Minister through the hierarchy including the Minister of State of his Department. After about 15 days, the file was received back with the decision of the Hon'ble Prime Minister conveyed by an officer of PMO for accord of sanction in this case.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 76 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019176. He has further deposed that thereafter, he prepared a draft sanction order which was approved by his officer. Thereafter , he had signed the same since he was competent to sign the order on behalf of the President that is the Hon'ble Prime Minister in this case for conveying the decision of the competent authority. Thereafter, the sanction order was sent to the CBI with forwarding letter. He has deposed after seeing the Sanction order Ex. PW27/A with forwarding letter dated 21.02.2007, Ex. PW27/B that this sanction order was issued by him.
177. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused R.K. Srivastava, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
178. PW28 is Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami,who has deposed that in December 2006, he was posted as Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi. He has further deposed that as Chief Secretary, Delhi, he was competent to give sanction of prosecution to DASS Grade-II, Head Clerk. He has deposed CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 77 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019that he would have received a request for sanction from the CBI at the level of at least Superintendent of Police. He has deposed that he cannot recall precisely what documents he received along with the request for according sanction. He has further deposed that after going through the report of the CBI and received, he accorded his satisfaction for sanction of prosecution. He has been shown sanction order dated 07.12.2006 in respect of accused S.S. Malik. After going through the same, he has correctly identifies his signature on each page at point A and also official seal on each page at point B on the sanction order Ex. PW28/A.
179. He has further deposed that he has received a request for sanction from the CBI but could not recalled what documents he received along with the request for according sanction. He has deposed that after going through the report of the CBI and such documents he accorded his satisfaction for sanction of prosecution. He has deposed that he was competent to accord sanction of prosecution CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 78 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019for level of Superintendent Grade-I, DASS at the relevant time when he accorded sanction.
180. He has been shown the sanction order dated 07.12.2006 in respect of accused P.K. Thirwani. He has correctly identifies his signature on each page at point A and also official seal on each page at point B, on the sanction order Ex. PW28/B.
181. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused P.K. Thirwani and accused Satyaveer Singh Malik, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
182. PW29 is Dr S.S. Shah, who has deposed that during the year 2007, he was posted as Director, Health Services, Government of Delhi. He has further deposed that he being as an appointing authority, was competent to remove accused Vipin Kumar Jain working as S.I. in the Directorate Service during the relevant time. Therefore, he was competent to accord the sanction to prosecute accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
183. He has further deposed that he had received a CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 79 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019request from the CBI for giving the sanction. Along with the request, he had received various documents/material. He has deposed that after going through the material placed before him he came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to accord the sanction to prosecute accused Vipin Kumar Jain. Accordingly, he granted the sanction vide sanction order dated 03.01.2007 Ex. PW29/A which bears his signature at point A.
184. He has further deposed that the aforesaid sanction was sent by his Joint Director vide a communication dated 03.01.2007 Ex. PW29/B which bears the signature of his Joint Director, Sh. Omkar Singh,at point A.
185. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
186. PW30, is Sh Bhairab Dutt, Superintendent in the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCT of Delhi. He has identified the signatures of Late Sh. D.K. Mishra Additional Secretary, Vigilance in the Directorate CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 80 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019of Vigilance, GNCT of Delhi on the sanction order Ex. PW30/A (colly.) and the forwarding letter dated 29.12.2006 Ex. PW30/B.
187. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
Witness from DDA
188. The role of DDA with regard to the co-
operative group housing society comes into picture when a request is made by the society through the office of RCS for allotment of land. Once the land is allotted the last action on the part of the DDA is generally to get executed Draw of Lots in the presence of their officers. For this purpose, at the first instance, the society would send a list of freezed members to the office of RCS with the request to onward transmission of the same to the DDA for allotment of land. And subsequently, another list is sent for Draw of Lots. But in the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that land was ever allotted to the society by the DDA.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 81 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019189. As stated earlier, a file is maintained by the office of RCS pertaining to the society, in a similar way a file is maintained pertaining to each of such societies separately by DDA also. And all proceedings and communications pertaining to the society are placed in that file. The officer who dealt with the file of present society during relevant time in the office of DDA, has been examined as prosecution witness as follows:
190. PW8 is Sh. Paras Nath, who has deposed that he joined Co-operative Group Housing Society Branch of DDA in June, 2004 as Assistant in the office of Dy. Director, Cooperative Group Housing Society Branch. Sh. B.N Singh was the Director of the said Branch. He has deposed that the letter dated 04.09.2003 (ExPW8/A) was written to the Registrar, Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi under the signatures of Director (RL), DDA. He has deposed that Sh. B.S Bhardwaj, the then Assistant Director, CGHS Branch (DDA) had certified the letter ExPW8/A alongwith a list of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 82 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019societies awaiting allotment below registration no.1430 and he (Paras Nath) had identified the signatures of Sh. B.S Bhardwaj on ExPW8/A.
191. This witness was not cross examined by any of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them.
192. PW61 is Sh Devi Prasad Dwivedi, who has deposed that in the year 2003 he was posted as Director ( Vigilance) and for some time as Director ( Residential Lands). He has deposed that vide letter dated 04.09.2003 Ex PW8/A, alongwith enclosures, he has written to the Registrar (CS), Government of NCT of Delhi with regard to conformation of recommendation made by RCS for allotment of land to various CGHS listed in the enclosure.
193. This witness was not cross examined by any of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them.
Expert witness.
194. During the course of investigation certain specimen and admitted writings/signatures were CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 83 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019sent to GEQD for examination by the CBI to establish the case of forgery and role of accused persons who committed the forgery. Prosecution has examined PW66 as expert to prove the report Ex PW66/H.
195. PW 22 is Dr. S Ahmed, GEQD, he has deposed that in the instant case, questioned and standard documents were received in his office i.e. GEQD, Shimla vide letter No.4169 /3/SIB/ 2006/E0001/ EOU-V dated 15.06.2006,Ex.PW22/A (D-37). from Addl. SP/CBI/EOU-V/New Delhi. . He has deposed that in the said case, further questioned and standard documents were received in his office vide letter No.8808/ 3/ SIB/ 2006/ E0001/EOU-V dated 26.12.2006,Ex.PW22/B (D-39) from SP/CBI/EOU-V/New Delhi.
196. He has further depsoed that he had examined Questioned writings Mark Q-1 to Q-13 contained in documents already exhibited as Ex.PW14/K (Colly.); questioned writings Q-14 and Q-15 contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C1; questioned writings Q-16 to Q-19 contained in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 84 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019documents marked as Ex.PW22/C2; questioned writings Q-20, Q-21, Q-26 and Q-27 contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C3; questioned writings Q-28 to Q-31 contained in documents marked Ex.PW22/C4 ; questioned writings Q-32 to Q-37 contained in documents marked Ex.PW22/C5 ; questioned writings Q-38 to Q-42 contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C6 ; questioned writings Q-43 to Q-47 contained in documents marked as Ex.PW22/C7; questioned writings Q-48 to Q-53 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C8; questioned writings Q-54 to Q-58 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C9; questioned writings Q-59 to Q-63 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C10; questioned writings Q-64 to Q-69 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C11; questioned writings Q-70 to Q-75 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C12; questioned writings Q-76 to Q-81 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C13 ; questioned writings Q-82 to Q-84 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C14; questioned writings Q-85, Q-88, Q-89, Q-91 to CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 85 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Q-126, Q-94A, Q-109A, Q-117A contained in documents Ex.PW20/G (Colly.); questioned writings Q-86, Q-87, Q-127 to Q-129 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C15; questioned writings Q-130 to Q-135 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C16; questioned writings Q-136 to Q-140 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C17; questioned writings Q-141 to Q-144 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C18; questioned writings Q-145 to Q-149 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C19; questioned writings Q-150 to Q-153 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C20; questioned writings Q-154 to Q-157 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C21; questioned writings Q-158 to Q-162 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C22; questioned writings Q-268 & Q-548 contained in documents Ex.PW14/B; questioned writings Q-269 & Q-270 contained in documents Ex.PW14/C; questioned writings Q-271 & Q-272 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C23; questioned writings Q-273 & Q-274 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C24;
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 86 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019questioned writings Q-275 contained in document Ex.PW22/C25; questioned writings Q-276 to Q-281 contained in documents Ex.PW14/D; questioned writings Q-282 to Q-289 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C26; questioned writings Q-290 contained in document Ex.PW22/C27; questioned writings Q-291 contained in document Ex.PW22/C28; questioned writings Q-292 contained in document Ex.PW22/C29; questioned writings Q-293 contained in document Ex.PW22/C30; questioned writings Q-294 & Q-295 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C31; questioned writings Q-296 & Q-297 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C32; questioned writings Q-298 & Q-299 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C33; questioned writings Q-300 & Q-301 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C34; questioned writings Q-302, Q-303 & Q-303A contained in documents as Ex.PW10//C; questioned writings Q-304 & Q-305 contained in documents Ex.PW15/A; questioned writings Q-306 to Q-308 contained in documents Mark CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 87 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019PW5/A; questioned writings Q-309 to Q-312 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C35; questioned writings Q-313 to Q-316 contained in documents Mark PW14/E; questioned writings Q-317 to Q-320 contained in documents Mark PW17/A; questioned writings Q-321 to Q-324 contained in documents Mark PW7/A; questioned writings Q-325 & Q-326 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C36; questioned writings Q-327 to Q-329 contained in documents Mark PW3/A; questioned writings Q-330 to Q-333 contained in documents Mark PW4/A; questioned writings Q-334, Q-335 and Q-334A contained in documents Ex.PW22/C37; questioned writings Q-336 & Q-337 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C38;questioned writings Q-338 & Q-339 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C39; questioned writings Q-340 contained in document Ex.PW22/C40; questioned writings Q-341 & Q-342 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C41; questioned writings Q-343 & Q-344 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C42; questioned writings CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 88 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Q-345 to Q-347 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C43; questioned writings Q-348 to Q-350 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C44; questioned writings Q-351 contained in document Ex.PW22/C45; questioned writings Q-352 & Q-353 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C46; questioned writings Q-354 & Q-355 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C47; questioned writings Q-356 contained in document Ex.PW22/C48; questioned writings Q-357 to Q-359 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C49; questioned writings Q-360 & Q-361 contained in documents Mark PW8/F; questioned writings Q-362 & Q-363 contained in documents already Mark PW8/G; questioned writings Q-410 to Q-412 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C50; questioned writings Q-407 to Q-409 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C51; questioned writings Q-364 & Q-365 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C52; questioned writings Q-365A, Q-366 & Q-367 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C53; questioned writings Q-363A, Q-364 & Q-365 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 89 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019contained in documents Ex.PW22/C54;questioned writings Q-345 to Q-347 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C55; questioned writings Q-368 contained in document Mark PW9/C; questioned writings Q-369 & Q-370 contained in documents Mark PW9/D); questioned writings Q-371 to Q-373 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C56; questioned writings Q-374 contained in document Mark PW15/D; questioned writings Q-375 & Q-376 contained in documents Ex.PW15/E; questioned writings Q-377 contained in document Mark PW10/D; questioned writings Q-378 & Q-379 contained in documents Mark PW10/E ; questioned writings Q-380 contained in document Mark PW13/C; questioned writings Q-381 & Q-382 contained in documents Mark PW13/D; questioned writings Q-383 contained in documents Mark PW12/D; questioned writings Q-384 contained in document Mark PW12/E; questioned writings Q-385 to Q-387 contained in documents Ex.PW22/C57 and questioned writings Q-389 & Q-549 contained in document CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 90 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW22/C58.
197. He has further deposed that he had examined questioned writings Q-388 & Q-550 contained in document Ex.PW22/C59; questioned writings Q-390 contained in document Ex.PW22/C60; questioned writings Q-391 contained in document s Ex.PW22/C61; questioned writings Q-392 contained in document Ex.PW22/C62 ; questioned writings Q-393 contained in document Ex.PW22/C63; questioned writings Q-394 contained in document Ex.PW22/C64; questioned writings Q-395 contained in document Ex.PW22/C65; questioned writings Q-396 contained in document Ex.PW7/C; questioned writings Q-401P contained in document Ex.PW22/C66; questioned writings Q-401S contained in document Ex.PW22/C67; questioned writings Q-397 contained in document Ex.PW14/F; questioned writings Q-401T contained in document Ex.PW22/C68 ; questioned writings Q-401U contained in document Ex.PW22/C69; questioned writings Q-401Z CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 91 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019contained in document Ex.PW16/C; questioned writings Q-401V contained in document Ex.PW22/C70; questioned writings Q-401E contained in document Ex.PW22/C71 ; questioned writings Q-398 contained in document Ex.PW22/C72; questioned writings Q-4010 contained in document Ex.PW22/C73; questioned writings Q-401Q contained in document Ex.PW22/C74; questioned writings Q-401H contained in document Ex.PW22/C75 ; questioned writings Q-401N contained in document Ex.PW22/C76; questioned writings Q-401L contained in document Ex.PW22/C77; questioned writings Q-401W contained in document Ex.PW22/C78; questioned writings Q-401A contained in document Ex.PW22/C79; questioned writings Q-401B contained in document Ex.PW22/C80; questioned writings Q-401F contained in document Ex.PW22/C81; questioned writings Q-401J contained in document Ex.PW22/C82; questioned writings Q-401G contained in document Ex.PW22/C83 ; questioned CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 92 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019writings Q-401K contained in document Ex.PW22/C84; questioned writings Q-401X contained in document Ex.PW22/C85; questioned writings Q-401Y contained in document Ex.PW22/C86; questioned writings Q-4011 contained in document Ex.PW22/C87; questioned writings Q-399 contained in document Ex.PW22/C88; questioned writings Q-401M contained in document Ex.PW22/C89; questioned writings Q-401C contained in document Ex.PW22/C90; questioned writings Q-401D contained in document Ex.PW22/C91; questioned writings Q-400 contained in document Ex.PW22/C92; questioned writings Q-401 contained in document Ex.PW22/C93; questioned writings Q-162A, Q-427 to Q-429, Q-163 to Q-196, Q-173A, Q-179A, Q-155A, Q-197A, Q-198, Q-199, Q-199A, Q-200 to Q-212, Q-213, Q-214 contained in documents Ex.PW14/L (Colly.)
198. He has further deposed that he had also examined questioned writings Q-215 contained in document CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 93 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW22/C94; questioned writings Q-216 contained in document Ex.PW22/C95 ; questioned writings Q-217 contained in document Ex.PW22/C96; questioned writings Q-218 contained in document Ex.PW22/C97; questioned writings Q-219 contained in document Ex.PW22/C98; questioned writings Q-220 contained in document Ex.PW22/C99; questioned writings Q-221 contained in document Ex.PW22/C100; questioned writings Q-222 contained in document Ex.PW22/C101; questioned writings Q-223 contained in document Ex.PW22/C102; questioned writings Q-224 contained in document Ex.PW22/C103; questioned writings Q-225 contained in document Ex.PW22/C104; questioned writings Q-226 contained in document Ex.PW22/C105; questioned writings Q-227 contained in document Ex.PW22/C106; questioned writings Q-228 to Q-238 contained in document Ex.PW22/C107 (colly.); questioned writings Q-239 to Q-249 & Q-243 A contained in document Ex.PW22/C108 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 94 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019(colly.); questioned writings Q-250 to Q-265 contained in document Ex.PW22/C109; questioned writings Q-266, Q-267 & Q-267A contained in document Ex.PW22/C110 (colly.); questioned writings Q-414 contained in document Ex.PW22/C111; questioned writings Q-415 to Q-424 contained in document Ex.PW22/C112 (colly.); questioned writings Q-425 contained in document Ex.PW22/C113; questioned writings Q-426 contained in document Ex.PW22/C114; questioned writings Q-435 to Q-467 Ex.PW20/1 (colly.); questioned writings Q-468 to Q-500 Ex.PW20/J (colly.); questioned writings Q-508 to Q-510 contained in document Ex.PW22/C115; questioned writings Q-511 to Q-513 contained in documentEx.PW22/C116; questioned writings Q-514 contained in document Ex.PW22/C117 (D-6); questioned writings Q-515 to Q-519 contained in document Ex.PW22/C118; questioned writings Q-520 contained in document Ex.PW22/C119; questioned writings Q-521 contained in document Ex.PW22/C120;
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 95 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019questioned writings Q-522 contained in document Ex.PW22/C121; questioned writings Q-523 & Q-524 contained in document Ex.PW22/C122 (colly.); questioned writings Q-525 to Q-527 contained in document Ex.PW22/C123; questioned writings Q-528 to Q-530 contained in document Ex.PW22/C124; questioned writings Q-531 contained in document Ex.PW22/C125; questioned writings Q-532 contained in document Ex.PW22/C126; questioned writings Q-533 to Q-535 contained in document Ex.PW22/C127; questioned writings Q-536 to Q-538 contained in documentmEx.PW22/C128; questioned writings Q-539 contained in document Ex.PW22/C129; questioned writings Q-540 contained in document Ex.PW22/C130; questioned writings Q-503 on Ex.PW19/A; questioned writings Q-504 & Q-505 contained in document Ex.PW22/C131; questioned writings Q-506 to Q-507 contained in document Ex.PW22/C132; questioned writings Q-502 contained in document Ex.PW22/C133; questioned writings Q-541 contained in document CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 96 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW22/C134; questioned writings Q-542 to Q-544 contained in document Ex.PW22/C135; questioned writings Q-545 contained in document Ex.PW22/C136; questioned writings Q-546 & Q-547 contained in document Ex.PW22/C137.
199. He has further deposed that he has also examined Q-501, Ex. PW22/C138; S-1 to S-262 Ex. PW22/C139; Q-402 , Q-404 , Q-403 ,Q-405 and Q-406 Ex. PW22/C140, Ex. PW22/C141, Ex. PW22/C142 and Ex. PW22/C143 respectively.
200. He has further deposed that he has also examined A-14 to A-23Ex. PW1/A1.He has also examined Q-548 , Q-549 and Q-550 Ex PW22/C144, Ex. PW22/C145 and Ex. PW22/C146 respectively.
201. He has deposed that after examination of the documents, he gave his report no. CX304/2006 dated 07.08.2006,Ex. PW22/D (colly.) which bears his signature at point 'A'. He also identified signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then Deputy GEQD at point 'B'.
202. He has further deposed that his reasons in support of his said report dated 07.08.2006, Ex. PW22/E CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 97 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019(colly.) bears his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages running into 28 pages. He has further deposed that the said report was forwarded to Additional SP, EOU-V, CBI, New Delhi vide communication dated 01.09.2006,Ex. PW22/F under the signature of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then GEQD.
203. He has further deposed that he had also given a supplementary report dated 30.03.2007,Ex. PW22/G (colly.) which bears his signature at point 'A' and the signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then Deputy GEQD at point 'B'. He has deposed that he has also given reasons in support of his supplementary report are dated 30.03.2007, Ex. PW22/H (colly.). He has further deposed that the said supplementary report was forwarded to Additional SP, CBI, EOU-V, New Delhi vide communication dated 19.04.2007, Ex. PW22/I. under the signature of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then GEQD.
204. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 98 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Kaushik, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and Vipin Kumar Jain and not by remaining accused persons despite opportunity being given to them.
Other Witnesses
205. One of the allegations against the accused persons is that some of the accused persons have forged the signatures and documents. To establish the same, during the investigation, IO has taken the specimen handwritings/ signatures of certain persons including accused persons. While taking the said specimen handwriting/signatures, some officials/officers from different departments were called to witness such proceedings by the CBI. Apart from these witness, the IO has also examined Bank officers, an Advocate who has appeared on behalf of accused in RCS office, Delhi. Those persons, so summoned, by the CBI have been examined as prosecution witnesses which are as under:-
206. PW 18 is Sh Ashok Maheshwari, he has deposed that he was working as Account Manager in the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 99 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019firm in the name and style of Associated Engineers at Flat No.6, 3rd floor, Mahalaxmi Market, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006. Accused Uttam Chand Surana was one of the partners of the said firm.
207. He has further deposed that in the year 2004-2005, accused Uttam Chand Surana gave him some forms for attestation from Gazetted Officer. He (witness ) was knowing one Mr. Kishan Kumar Garg who was Gazetted Officer in some department. He took those forms for attestation to Mr. Garg but he had retired. However, he assured him to get the same attested from some other persons. He has further deposed that Mr. Garg handed over to him those forms after attestation after 4-5 days. Mr. Garg also asked him to fill details of the attesting officers.
208. He has deposed that on the verification certificates (Page 187, 184, 181, 175, 172, 169, 166, 163, 160, 157, 154, 151, 148, 145, 142, 139, 136, 133, 130, 127, 124, 121, 116, 113, 110, 107, 103, 99, 96, 93,89,85,82 & 79 of D-3) he had written the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 100 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019particulars of the attesting officers Sh. Azizuddin and Sh. J.K. Gulati at the bottom except their phone numbers and I-Card numbers on the verification certificates Ex.PW18/A1 to A 29. He has deposed that he handed over the attested verification certificates to accused Uttam Chand Surana. Who had told him ( Witness) that these certificates were required in connection with the said society.
209. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
210. PW 19 is Sh B.S Arora, he has deposed that he was practicing in Patiala House Courts as Advocate since 1977. He knew accused S.P. Saxena for the last many years and also knew accused Uttam Chand Surana. He has deposed that Vakalatnama, dated 24.01.2001, Ex.PW19/A bears his signature at point A and signature of accused U.C. Surana at point B.
211. He has deposed that in the year 2001, he received telephonic call from accused S.P. Saxena to attend CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 101 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the RCS office relating to revival of the said society. He has deposed that he was also told by Saxena that some society members would be available in the RCS Office. He has further deposed that when he visited the RCS Office, Delhi, societies members were already there in the office. The said members gave him one application for revival of said society dated 24.01.2001 Ex PW19/B which bears his signature at point A . He has deposed that he had submitted the said application before the RCS, Delhi. He has further deposed that in the noting file (D-6) on the margin of note sheet 18/N, bears his signature at point A. He has deposed when he put his signature on the margin of the note sheet file, marked Ex.PW19/C nothing was written on the note sheet at Page 18/N. He has deposed that on the date when he made application before the RCS, he had not submitted any original record before the RCS. He has deposed that accused Uttam Chand Surana had also put his signature on the margin of note sheet at point B. CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 102 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019212. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused S.P Saxena, but not by any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
213. PW21 is Sh S.K. Abrol, he has deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Asstt. Manager in Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Dariyaganj Branch, Delhi. He has deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A he has handed over documents annexed thereto, Ex PW21/B to Inspector of CBI. The memo bears his signature at point A.
214. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
215. PW26 is Sh Hemraj, who has deposed that he was working in Punjab National Bank as Deputy Manager and remained posted in Punjab National Bank Chirag Delhi from November 2005 to 2009. He has deposed that he had handed over documents to CBI during his posting at Chirag Delhi from Chief Manager, PNB, Chirag Delhi. This witness has been shown certified copy of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 103 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019letter from Chief Manager, PNB, Chirag Delhi with statement of account of accused R.K Shrivastava and Madhu Srivastava to which he has deposed that the said letter was in his hand and signed by the Chief Manager Sh Grover. He has identified his signatures at point on the letter Ex. PW26/A.
216. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant Naveen Kaushik and R.K. Srivastava but not by any other accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
217. PW 31 is Sh Pradeep Kumar, he has deposed that during the year 2006, he was working as a UDC in the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. He has further deposed that he had been called number of times by the CBI through his office to become a witness to certain proceedings.
218. He has further deposed that his signatures were taken by the IO on certain proceedings which were recorded in his presence. He has further deposed CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 104 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019that at that time besides he, the IO, one or two more persons from CBI were also present there and the persons whose signatures were taken, were also present there.
219. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 26.04.2006, from S-1 to S-4, belonging to accused Uttam Chand Surana, Ex. PW31/A (colly.) bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of said Uttam Chand Surana at points 'B' on each of the pages.
220. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 25.05.2006, from S-152 to S-158, belonging to witness Ajay Suri, Ex. PW14/N (colly) bear his signatures at points 'B' on each of the pages except the page no. S-153, S-154 and S-158 and also the signatures of said Ajay Suri at points 'A' on each of the pages.
221. He has further deposed that the proceedings from S-214 to S-221, belonging to accused Vipin Kumar Jain Ex. PW31/B (colly.),bears his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of accused Vipin Kumar Jain CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 105 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019at points 'B' on each of the pages. He has identified accused Vipin Kumar Jain sitting in the court.
222. He has further deposed that the proceedings from S-222 to S-223, belonging to accused S.P. Saxena Ex PW31/C ( Colly.) bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of said accused S.P. Saxena at points 'B' on each of the pages.
223. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 30.05.2006, from S-224 to S-226, belonging to Chander Bhan Arya, (Ex. PW31/D (colly),) bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of said Chander Bhan Arya at points 'B' on each of the pages.
224. He has further deposed that the proceedings from S-227 to S-238, belonging to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, (Ex. PW31/E (colly ), bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal at points 'B' on each of the pages.
225. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 106 of 223 CBI No. 89/201909.10.2006, from S-253 to S-256, belonging to P.T. Paul, ( Ex. PW31/F (colly), bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and also the signatures of said P.T. Paul at points 'B' on each of the pages.
226. He has further deposed that the proceedings dated 09.10.2006, from S-257 to S-262, belonging to Vinay Kumar Setia, (Ex. PW20/K,(colly.) bears his signatures at points 'B' on each of the pages and also the signatures of said Vinay Kumar Setia at points 'A'.
227. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntala Joshi and Gokul Chand Aggarwal, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
228. PW33 is Sh A.K.Yadav, he has deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as a Tehsildar in Defence Colony, South District, Delhi. He was attached with the CBI pertaining to the investigation of cooperative group housing societies cases.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 107 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019229. He has further deposed that in the present case, the officer of CBI Sh S.C. Jha has taken the specimen signatures/writings of one Ashwani Sharma in his chamber in his presence on 26.05.2006 from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96, (Ex. PW33/A (colly.). The aforesaid proceedings bear his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages and the signatures of said Ashwani Sharma at points 'B' on each of the pages. He has further deposed that the specimen signatures/writings encircled in blue color of said Ashwani Sharma were taken in his presence. He has identified accused Ashwani Sharma.
230. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
Witnesses from CBI
231. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 03.10.2005. Initially, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CBI officer and at CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 108 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered. During the investigation certain documents were received and seized from the office of RCS and also from the office of DDA as well as from some accused persons. From the stage of carrying out preliminary enquiry till filing of chargesheet, the officers from CBI, who one way or another, were part of the investigation have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
232. PW 32 is the then Inspector Pramod Kumar, he has deposed that during the year 2005, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, EOU-VI. He has deposed that he was entrusted with the preliminary enquiry of Dhruv Sangam CGHS along with six other group housing societies as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.After conducting the preliminary enquiry, he had submitted his enquiry report dated 30.12.2005 (Ex. PW32/A (colly.) to the then SP, CBI, EOU- VI. He has further deposed that vide handing- taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, (Ex. PW32/B CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 109 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019(colly.) he had handed over the documents pertaining to the present society to the IO,Sh. S.C. Jha. He has further deposed that vide production cum receipt memo dated 29.08.2005/02.09.2005, (Ex PW32/C (colly.), documents as mentioned in the said memo were taken from the possession of accused Uttam Chand Surana during the preliminary enquiry.
233. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntala Joshi, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and accused Ashwani Sharma, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
234. PW34, Satish Chandra Jha, DSP,CBI is the IO of the case, he has deposed that a preliminary enquiry was instituted in the matter relating to bungling in the revival of present society on the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer in the said preliminary enquiry, the instant case was registered against the office bearers of RCS and CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 110 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019other private persons.
235. He has further deposed that after registration of the regular case, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, the witnesses were examined with regards to the allegations made in the FIR, documents were collected with a purpose to ascertain the facts relating to the allegations and with a purpose to ascertain the involvement of the persons named in the FIR as well as other unknown persons.
236. He has further deposed that during the course of investigation, the documents found to be suspicious with regards to their genuineness, in terms of the signatures of the individual shown in those documents as well as the contents of the writings found in those documents, the same were sent to GEQD along with the questioned writings and signatures of the suspect/accused persons.
237. He has further deposed that on receipt of the opinion of the GEQD as well as on the basis of the oral testimony of the witnesses, documents on CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 111 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019records, a prosecution case was found to be made out and after obtaining the mandatory sanction for prosecution against the public servants, a charge- sheet was filed in the court.
238. He has further deposed that FIR Ex. PW32/A was registered on the basis of the outcome of the preliminary enquiry and the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by Sh. S.K. Jha, the then SP, CBI, EOU-V.
239. He has further deposed that vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B, the documents collected during the preliminary enquiry by the then enquiry officer Sh. P.K. Tiwari, were handed over to him. He has further deposed that vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 29.08.2005/2.9.2005,Ex. PW32/C (colly.), documents were collected by Sh. P.K. Tiwari from Sh. U.C. Surena. He has deposed that vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 09.08.2005, Ex. PW25/A, documents were collected by Sh. P.K. Tiwari from Sh. M.S. Sharma, Assistant Registrar, RCS, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 112 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019240. He has further deposed that a file pertaining to Dhruv Sangam CGHS, Ex. PW34/A (colly.) was seized by him from RCS office containing correspondence and affidavit of members of the present society vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
241. He has further deposed that a file no.
F47/1205/NGH/Coop./Vol. II of RCS, Ex. PW34/B (colly.), containing bye-laws, application for registration, affidavits, intensive enquiry proforma pertaining to the said society was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
242. He has further deposed that a file no.
F47/1205/NGH/1008/Vol.III,containing affidavits, resignations, enrollment applications pertaining to to the said society,Ex. PW34/C (colly.)was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
243. He has deposed that the file no.
F47/1205/NGH/Coop./Vol.IV, containing note- sheets, correspondence portion, comprising of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 113 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019audit order, order for revival and original membership etc. pertaining to said society,Ex. PW34/D (colly.) was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
244. He has further deposed that document i.e. an election file pertaining to said society Ex. PW34/E (colly.) was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B. He has deposed that the document i.e. file no. 001 comprising of bye laws, registration, revival order of present society duly signed by U.C. Surena, pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/F (colly.) was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
245. He has further deposed that the file comprising of bank statements, pertaining to the said society,Ex. PW34/G (colly.) was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
246. He has further deposed that the file no. 6, Ex.
PW34/H (colly.) duly signed by U.C. Surena, comprising of correspondence with DDA by the office bearers of the society pertaining to the said CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 114 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019society was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
247. He has further deposed that the document i.e. membership register, Ex. PW34/I (colly.) pertaining to the said society was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
248. He has deposed that document i.e. proceeding register, pertaining to the said society Ex PW34/J ( Colly) was collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
249. He has deposed that the proceeding registers, pertaining to the said society,Ex. PW34/K (colly.) and Ex. PW34/L (colly.) were collected vide handing and taking over memo dated 10.01.2006, Ex. PW32/B.
250. He has further deposed that vide production-cum-
seizure memo dated 02.05.2006 Ex. PW23/E, he had seized certain documents during the investigation from Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma in the presence of independent witness namely Sh. Neeraj Rawat, pertaining to the present society CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 115 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019and the same bears his signatures at point 'B'. The signatures of said Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma is at point 'A' and that of Sh. Neeraj Rawat are at point 'C'.
251. He has further deposed that proceeding register, pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/M (colly.) was seized vide production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
252. He has deposed that sheet of paper containing the text in handwritings Ex. PW22/C-111of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal with his signatures, dated 30.04.2001, with his address as 72, Dudhiyal Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi was seized vide production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E. He has deposed that one cash book register for the period of 01.07.1988 to 30.06.1989, Ex. PW34/N (colly.) pertaining to the said society was seized vide production-cum- seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
253. He has deposed that the the audit report for the period from 1986 to 1989, Ex. PW34/O (colly.) pertaining to the said society was seized vide CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 116 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E . He has further deposed that the share certificate book,Ex. PW34/P (colly.), pertaining to the said society was seized vide production-cum- seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
254. He has further deposed that bye- laws,Ex.
PW34/Q (colly.) pertaining to the said society were seized vide production-cum-seizure memo 02.05.2006, Ex. PW23/E.
255. He has deposed that vide a search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.), he had seized certain documents during the searches in the official premises of the present society bears his signatures at all the three pages at points 'A'. It also bears the signatures of independent witness namely Sh. Vijay Kumar as well as the occupant of the office namely Sh. Rony Paul at points 'B' and at points 'C' respectively.
256. He has further deposed that the balance and ledger account, for the period 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000, Ex. PW34/S (colly.) pertaining to the said society were seized vide search-cum-seizure CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 117 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
257. He has further deposed that a register, Ex.
PW34/T (colly.), pertaining to the said society was seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.) He has deposed that electricity bills and other documents, pertaining to the said society,Ex. PW34/U (colly.) were seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.)
258. He has further deposed that share allotment register, pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/V (colly.) was seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
259. He has deposed that election file, pertaining to the said society, Ex. PW34/W (colly.) was seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R.
260. He has deposed that balance sheet for the period 1989/90 to 2001/2002 and audit papers, pertaining to the said society Ex. PW34/X (colly.) were also seized vide search-cum-seizure memo dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/R (colly.).
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 118 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019261. He has further deposed that search list dated 21.04.2006,Ex. PW34/Y (colly.) in respect of search conducted at residence of accused U.C. Surena, H. No. C-4/62, Rajasthali Apartment, Pitampura Chowk, New Delhi certain documents were seized in the presence of independent witness namely Sh. Vijay Kumar. And which bears his signatures at point 'A' and the signature of said Sh. Vijay Kumar at point 'B'. It also bears the signature of Sh. U.C. Surena at point 'C'.
262. He has further deposed that one wedding invitation card,Ex. PW34/Z in respect of wedding of Abhishek Surena S/o Uttam Chand Surena with Sudha Surena dated 16.02.1997 was seized vide search list dated 21.04.2006, Ex. PW34/Y (colly.) He has further deposed that the aforesaid invitation card was seized because the said Sudha was sought to be a member of the society as per the fake membership done by the accused persons which is relating to the period prior to the winding up of the society showing her address in a post dated manner.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 119 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019263. He has further deposed that letter no. 1241 dated Feb, 2006, Ex. PW34/A1 was sent by him to Registrar, Cooperative Group Housing society. He has deposed that vide this letter, he had inquired whether the matter relating to the allotment of land to the said society was ever taken up by RCS office.
264. He has deposed that vide letter no. 118 dated 27.02.2006 of M.S. Sharma, Assistant Registrar Ex. PW25/B (colly.), it was informed therein that list of 140 members of the said society were sent to DDA for allotment of land on 16.04.2001. He has deposed that a list of 140 members was also provided to him in response to his letter. It was also informed that the said society was unique and that no other society by such name was existing though some societies were existing with the same registration number i.e. 1205.
265. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 20.07.2006, Ex. PW21/A, the statement of account of the said society for the period 2000 to 2005 was seized from Sh. S.K. Abrol, Accountant, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 120 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited along with the specimen signature card of the authorized signatories duly authenticated by the AR (GH) on 02.02.1984. It was informed the exact address of the society as appearing in the bank account no. 6056, maintained with Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited. The aforesaid seizure memo Ex. PW21/A bears his signatures at point 'B' and the signature of Sh. S.K. Abrol at point 'A'.
266. He has deposed that vide seizure memo dated 13.06.2006, Ex. PW34/A2 (colly.), the audit report file pertaining to the present society for the period 1989-1990 to 1999-2000 and for the period 2000- 2001 to 2001-2002 were seized from Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma on production. The said seizure memo dated 13.06.2006 bears his signatures at point 'A' and that of Satya Prakash Sharma at point 'B'.
267. He has deposed that a letter no. 4169 dated 15.06.2006, Ex. PW22/A was sent to the GEQD by the then SP, CBI Sh. M.C. Sahani and it bears the signature of Sh. M.C. Sahani at point 'A'. He CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 121 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019has further deposed that a letter no. 8808 dated 26.12.2006, addressed to GEQD, Shimla, Ex. PW22/B was also sent to GEQD by the then SP, CBI Sh. M.C. Joshi and it bears the signature of Sh. M.C. Joshi at points 'A'.
268. He has further deposed that a letter,Ex. PW26/A was sent by Chief Manager, PNB forwarding therewith the statement of accounts in respect of the accused Sh. R.K. Srivastava and his wife Smt. Madhu Srivastava for the period 1998 to 2006.
269. He has further deposed that document i.e. file no.
6,Ex. PW34/A3 (colly.) relating to the present society is part of Ex. PW32/B (Colly.), which is containing the file relating to correspondence of society with DDA. He has deposed that file Ex. PW34/H (colly.). has been seized during search vide search-cum-seizure memo, Ex. PW34/R.
270. He has further deposed that vide production-cum-
seizure memo dated 24.08.2006, Ex. PW34/A4 (colly.) certified copies of relevant documents pertaining to Shiv Shankar CGHS were seized by him from Sh. S.C. Bhalla, IO of the case CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 122 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019pertaining to Shiv Shankar CGHS. After investigation, these documents were cited as well as filed in the Hon'ble Court along with the charge-sheet.
271. He has further deposed that the documents seized vide aforesaid seizure memo were sent to GEQD for examination. On receipt of the GEQD examination report, the same along with the documents were relied upon and submitted along with the charge-sheet.
272. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 24.08.2006, Ex. PW34/A5 (colly) the correspondence of society office bearers with the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited, abstract of resolution passed at the meeting of the MC of the society bearing the signatures of the MC members, original specimen signatures cards were seized from Smt. Sikha Verma, Manger, Delhi State Cooperative Bank.
273. He has further deposed that vide a seizure memo dated 10.10.2006, Ex. PW34/A6 (colly.), the dispatch register maintained in the personal branch CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 123 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019of office of RCS for the period 20.10.2000 to 27.12.2001 pertaining to the court cases were seized from Sh. Raman Prasad in the presence of one independent witness namely Shamsheer Ali Ahmed.
274. He has further deposed that the present case was registered subsequent to the preliminary enquiry and hence the matter of surprise was lost. He has deposed that this had given ample time to the accused persons to replace the original with the photocopies.
275. He has further deposed that the proceedings of the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused Uttam Chand Surena, from S-1 to S-4, already exhibited Ex. PW31/A (colly) were recorded by him in the presence of witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh in the office of CBI.
276. He has further deposed that proceedings Ex.
PW34/A7 (colly.) of the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused Naveen Kaushik, from S-5 to S-23, S-100 to S-137 were recorded by him in the presence of independent CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 124 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019witnesses but inadvertently they were not made the witness to such proceedings and that is why there is no signatures of such witnesses on the said proceedings.
277. He has further deposed that proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A8 (colly.) of the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused Ashutosh Pant, from S-24 to S-29 and S-37 to S-69 then S-97 to S-99 were recorded by him in the presence of independent witnesses but inadvertently they were not made the witness to such proceedings and that is why there is no signatures of such witnesses on the said proceedings.
278. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW33/A (colly.)the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused Ashwani Sharma, from S-30 to S-36, S-70 to S-96, were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. A.K. Yadav.
279. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW23/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, from S-138 to S-144, were recorded by him. He has CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 125 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW34/A9 (colly.) of the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. S.N. Chaurasiya, from S-145 to S-148 were recorded by him.
280. He has further deposed that proceedings, Ex.
PW1/C (colly.) the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, from S-149 to S-151,were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW14/N (colly.). The specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ajay Suri, from S-152 to S-158 were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh. It bears his signatures at points 'B' at page S-152, S-155, S-156 and S-157.
281. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A10 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Murari Lal Lodha, from S-159 to S-160. were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW34/A11 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Rajeev CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 126 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Gupta, from S-161 to S-164 were recorded by him.
282. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A12 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ashish Goel, from S-165 to S-169 were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW15/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Smt. Smita H. Kokne, from S-170 to S-171, were recorded by him.
283. He has further deposed that the proceeding Ex PW9/E, specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Sudesh Kumar, from S-172 to S-173, were recorded by him. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW12/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Prem Singh, from S-174 to S-175, were recorded by him.
284. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex.
PW34/A13 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Hari Shankar Sharma, from S-176 to S-177 were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 127 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019proceedings,Ex. PW34/A14 (colly.) the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, from S-178 to S-179 were recorded by him.
285. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex PW10/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Girwar Sharma, from S-180 to S-181,were recorded by him. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW34/A15 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Ram Prakash, from S-182 to S-183 were recorded by him.
286. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A16 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Brahm Singh, from S-184 to S-185 were recorded by him. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW13/E (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Om Prakash Jain, from S-186 to S-187, were recorded by him.
287. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW7/M (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 128 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019pertaining to Sh. Abhay Jain, from S-188 to S-190, were recorded by him. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW8/H pertaining to Smt. Dev Keshar Devi, from S-191 to S-192, were recorded by him.
288. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A17 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Shailesh Kumar, from S-193 to S-194 were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW34/A18 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Har Narayan, from S-195 to S-196 were recorded by him.
289. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW17/H (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Keshari Chand Bhansali, from S-197 to S-200, were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A19 (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Alok Lodha, from S-201 to S-203 were recorded by him.
290. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW4/F CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 129 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019(colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Bhisham Thakkar, from S-204 to S-208, were recorded by him. He has further deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW16/H (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Gaurav Goel, from S-209 to S-213, were recorded by him.
291. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW31/B (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to the accused Vipin Kumar Jain, from S-214 to S-221, were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
292. He has further deposed that that the proceedings,Ex. PW31/C (colly.) the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to accused S.P. Saxena, from S-222 to S-223 were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
293. He has further deposed that the proceedings Ex.
PW31/D (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to Sh. Chander Bhan Arya, from S-224 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 130 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019to S-226, were also recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
294. He has deposed that the proceedings, Ex. PW31/E (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, from S-227 to S-238, were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
295. He has further deposed that the proceedings,Ex.
PW34/A20 (colly.), the specimen
signatures/writings pertaining to the Mohit
Saxena, from S-239 to S-252,were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness namely Sh. Jagdish Kinger.
296. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW31/F (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings pertaining to the Sh. P.T. Paul, from S-253 to S-256,were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
297. He has deposed that the proceedings,Ex. PW20/K (colly.), the specimen signatures/writings CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 131 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019pertaining to the Sh. Vinay Kumar Setia, from S-257 to S-262, were recorded by him in the presence of independent witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh.
298. He has deposed that after recording the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after obtaining requisite sanction orders against the public servants and also after obtaining the opinion from the GEQD, he had filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons
299. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Satyavir Singh Malik, Shakuntla Joshi, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, P.K. Thirwani, Gokul Chand Aggarwal and Vipin Kumar Jain.
300. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.11.2023, prosecution evidence were closed on the submission of Ld Sr PP for CBI.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr PC CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 132 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019301. After completion of prosecution evidence. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded on 08.12.2023, by the Court.
302. During the statement, recorded u/s 313 Cr P.C, to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, has given answers to most of the question. " I do not know "
However he answers differently to few questions. He has given the statement that " PW23 Ramesh Chand Sharma has deposed falsely . On 02.05.2006 he was in judicial custody"
303. When the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that "A wrong chargesheet containing manipulated and false facts was filed. I have been falsely implicated in the present case". Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal opted to lead evidence in his defence, but he has not examined any witness in his defence.
304. Similarly, the answers given by accused Satyavir Singh Malik, during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him, were either "I have no knowledge" or " it is a matter of record." However he has answers to few questions.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 133 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019305. When the accused Satyavir Singh Malik was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that "This is a false case against me."
306. Accused Satyavir Singh Malik opted to lead evidence in his defence but he has not examined any witness in his defence.
307. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
" I remained posted in RCS office during June, 1998 to 2002. I acted bona-fide in the performance of my duties as a public servant in the present matter. I committed no wrong. There is absolutely no incriminating and legally admissible evidence against me. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed anything incriminating against me. There is absolutely no evidence (oral/documentary/circumstantial) indicating my involvement in the criminal conspiracy, if any. The sanction for my prosecution was granted mechanically without application of mind. The sanction for my prosecution is invalid. There is no sanction for my prosecution for IPC offences as required mandatorily u/s 197 Cr.P.C., thus vitiating my trial ab initio. I have been falsely implicated without there being any incriminating evidence against me. I am innocent."
308. The answers given by accused P.K. Thirwani, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 134 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to him, were either " I have no knowledge or "It is a matter of record. I had conducted the Audit of the Society in good faith, as per the documents/ records produced by the society".
309. When the accused accused P.K. Thirwani was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " This is a false case. I have not committed any crime under the IPC or PC Act. In addition to the bald allegation, there is nothing incriminating against me which connects me to the case. I have been wrongly prosecuted without being an iota of evidence against me."
310. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
"I had been working as departmental auditor in the audit branch of the RCS office since 13th May 2000 to 29th September 2004 as auditor and my duty was to conduct the audit of various societies like CGHS. Thrift and Credit society, Transport society and Store (Co- operative) etc. The audit of present society was assigned to me by the then AR (Audit) Sh. J S Sharma after he obtained the approval of RCS for the period from 1989-1990 to 1999- 2000 & 2000-2001 to 2001- 2002. I conducted the audit for the above said period in good faith on the basis of records produced by the society. I as an auditor was responsible for conducting the audit of the society and as per my knowledge and wisdom if any deficiency was found in the audit report. I used to mention the same in my Audit report. It was the duty of the concern zone to take necessary steps for CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 135 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
getting necessary compliance from the society or to get the objections raised in the audit report removed, before sending the list to Policy Branch of the office of Registrar co-operative Society for onward transmission to DDA. In the present case also, I had raised serious objections in my Audit Report pertaining to RPF CGHS. It shows that I was not in collusion with any person of the society and question of any conspiracy didn't arise.
This is a false case based on wrong interpretation of laws/ evidences amounting to abuse of process of law by the prosecution. There is no complaint of any aggrieved person nor there is any loss to any individuals or the Government. There is no violation of DCS Act / Rules /Directives by which any favour has been shown to any person or corporate body. Auditor has no role in the revival of the society, nor the list was sent to the DDA for land offer on the basis of Audit Report.
I was not in picture till revival of the society as the Audit of the society was conducted after the Revival of the society and forwarding of the approved freezed list of members to DDA and had not dealt with the file at all during this process and as such there was no question of my being part of criminal conspiracy for revival of the society, in any, on the basis of false/forged documents. It is the admitted case of CBI that I did not have any role till revival of the society and sending of the approved freezed list of members to DDA for allotment of land. As such my audit report had no effect at all on the revival of the society by RCS. In this case no land was allotted to the society and therefore no loss has occurred to the government any person.
There is no evidence against me for having cheated any person or that I had used any forged documents for the purpose or cheating or that I had knowledge of any forgery. There is no evidence for PC Act offences against me as there is no evidence of demand / CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 136 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
obtainment of any pecuniary advantage. Nothing was recovered from me or from my house search by CBI. Nothing was found from my bank A/c. The allegation against me in the charge sheet were wild and unsubstantiated. That there is no Provision in the DCS Act/Rules to make investigation by the Auditor from the bank of the society.
I did my duties in good faith and while performing my official duties audit was conducted by me as per records produced by the society after revival, in this way, no offence committed by me in the present case. I acted bona- fide. I committed no wrong. There is absolutely no incriminating and admissible evidence against me. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed against incriminating against me. I have been falsely implicated in the charge-sheet without there being any incriminating evidence against me. The sanction for my prosecution was granted mechanically without application of mind by an incompetent authority. No sanction for my prosecution has been obtained u/s 197 Cr. P.C. for the IPC offence. I am innocent."
311. Accused P.K. Thirwani has produced DW1 Sh Yatin Thapor in his defence evidence.
312. Accused Vipin Kumar Jain, during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, has answered to most of the questions that "The witness has not stated about any incriminating evidence against me" .
313. When the accused Vipin Kumar Jain was asked as to why this case is against him ,he replied that "
None of the PW has deposed against me nor there is any illegality on my part. I did no illegal act. There is no iota of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 137 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
evidence against me. I have been falsely implicated by the prosecution and I am entitled to be acquitted by the Hon'ble Court.".
314. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied as under:
1) It is submitted that on 23.11.2023, the prosecution evidence was concluded and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to provide soft copy of 559 questions on 30.11.2023 for replying the same on 06.12.2023 to be taken on record as statement of accused (SA) under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
2) In the circumstances of the case, I crave leave of the Hon'ble Court to make my submission that I was appointed as 'Election Officer' vide order No. F-47/1205/NGH/Coop/248 dated 08.05.2001 (Part of D-37), under Clause 21 of Schedule-II of Rule 58(1) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973. It is submitted that the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules are complete code in itself.
3) It is worth to note that I was not appointed as Returning Officer U/Section 31(1) of the DCS Act, 1972, who should not be below the rank of Gazetted Officer as may be appointed by the Lt. Governor in this behalf.
4) Schedule-II of Rule 58 of the DCS Rules 1973 provides mode of Election of members of the Committee. As per Clause-2, I issued CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 138 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019agenda notice dated 01.06.2001 with election programme as under:-
(1) Issue of nominations on 19.06.2001 at 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the office of RCS in Room No. 10, Old Court Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
(ii) Filing of nominations on 20.06.2001 at 10:00 A.M. to 05:00 P.M. at the same venue.
(iii) Scrutiny of nominations on 21.06.2001 at 11:00 Α.Μ. to 2:00 P.M. at same venue.
(iv) Display of list of valid nominations on 21.06.2001 at 4:00 PM at same venue.
(v) Withdrawal of nominations on 22.06.2001 at 10:00 A.M. to 03:00 P.M. at same venue.
(vi) Display of Final list on 22.06.2001 at 4:00 P.M. at same venue.
(vii) Voting if necessary on 08.07.2001 at 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 Ρ.Μ.
6. Since there were equal number of nominations for the post of one President, One Vice-President, Three Executive Members and Two Women Members and as such final list was prepared and displayed on 22.06.2001 at 4:00P.M.
7. However, in view of the aforesaid, Clause
-9 of Schedule-II of Rule 58 of the DCS Rules 1973, only announcement of names of all such candidates whose nominations were CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 139 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019found valid was to be declared to have been duly elected to the Committee, in the General Meeting.
8. As such, no polling was required and only after announcement, the result of election was required to be recorded in the minutes book of the society and the result was to be notified on the notice board of the society, which was duly done by me under Sub-
Cluase-19 of Schedule -II of Rule 58 of the DCS Rules 1973.
9. In the facts and circumstances above, who so ever attended the General Body meeting of the society or not on 08.07.2001, who signed the proceeding Register was not in my domain to identify each and every member of the society on the day when no polling was to take place.
10.The 1.0. of the case who appeared as PW-34 Sh. Satish Chandra Jha in his cross- examination on 23.11.2023 has admitted that I have not forged any document and that I never got nor tried in any manner any pecuniary or monetary benefit in any manner. In the facts and circumstances, none of the provisions of I.P.C. or of the PC Act are attracted against me and I am entitled to be acquitted by the Hon'ble Court.
11. As per revival order dated 29.01.2001, which is part of D-27, it is specially mentioned that the elections to the managing committee will be conducted by appointing a departmental election officer in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 140 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019due course of time and as such it was not a pre-condition for Revival of the society, which was wound-up way back on 22.09.1992. There is no complaint against my report.
12. PW-34 Sh. Satish Chand Jha also admitted that I was not connected or involved in the present matter till the society was revived and as aforesaid election was not a pre-condition for the revival of the society.
13. I am unable to find the copy of order of winding up of the society dated 22.09.1992 in the records. It was falsely stated by PW-34 that election of the society was must for actual revival of the society when order of revival dated 29.01.2001 states that the election of the committee will be held in due course.
14. PW-34 also admitted and it is on record that revival order is dated 29.01.2001, list of members was sent to DDA on 16.04.2001 and I was appointed as Election Officer after that i.e. on 08.05.2001.
15. I submit that the election result has no connectivity with the revival of the society for allotment of land by DDA, which (the revival) had already taken place with observation that the election will be conducted in due course.
16. Moreover, no land was allotted to the society by the DDA nor DDA asked for any fresh list of members after 16.04.2001. The CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 141 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019DDA never asked for report of the Election Officer.
17. It is submitted that the prosecution has filed sanction to prosecute against me under Section 19 of the PC Act from an unauthorized person for alleged offence of the year 2001.
18. The prosecution did not have sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22.11.2023 in the case of 'Rakesh Bhatnagar vs CBI', it is held that in the absence of appropriate sanction U/Section 197 Cr.P.C., the prosecution/proceedings are vitiated and the prosecution is not tenable. As such the present proceedings cannot to be allowed to continue by this Hon'ble Court and I entitled to be acquitted of the charges.
19. In the entire charge-sheet the prosecution has not assigned any role, no election material/documents were collected and filed before the Hon'ble Court by the I.O., which could suffice my statement that all I did was within the ambit and scope of the provisions of Schedule-II of Rule 58 of the DCS Rules 1973.
20. There is no iota of any incriminating evidence against me. I never obtained or attempted to obtain any pecuniary or monetary or any other benefit in any manner and there is no conspiracy or complicity in any manner what so ever.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 142 of 223 CBI No. 89/201921. It is the case of the prosecution itself that there are missing documents, however, the same were never filed and as such it is a fit case for my acquittal.
22. The alleged report of DW22 Dr. S. Ahmad cannot be relied as he did not have requisite experience, knowledge, skill or education and did not adopt the laid scientific procedure for comparison of questioned documents/signatures with specimen signatures nor he compared the same with the admitted signatures for the contemporary period. As per his own admission he started examination of documents independently in the year 2004, as such he had experience of hardly 1½ to 2 years'.
23. There appears clear falsification on the part of the prosecution in respect of D-17 and other documents which were never filed before the Hon'ble Court.
24. It is submitted that I have not done anything wrong or illegal nor there is any complicity or conspiracy, I did not abuse my official position nor obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage. I have not committed any offence either under Section 15 r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act. It is a false case against me and there is no violation of any Act, Rule or Bye-law or under DCS Act 1972 or DCS Rules 1973.
In this case there is no incriminating evidence against me, hence Hon'ble Court may kindly consider my acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 143 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019315. He has opted to lead evidence in his defence and has examined DW 2 Sh Dilip Bhattacharya.
316. The answers given by accused Ashwani Sharma , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were "I do not know" .
317. To the questions, with regard to taking specimen signatures /writing from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96 dated 26.05.2006, Ex PW33/A which allegedly bears his signatures at point A, he replied that " It is incorrect. No alleged specimen handwriting and signatures Ex PW33/A ( Colly) from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96 ever taken from him in this case during investigation."
318. When accused Ashwani Sharma was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " This is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide intention. He has not conducted fair and proper investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that the investigation done by him is a sham exercise."
319. In reply to the question whether he wants to say CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 144 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019anything else , he replied:
"I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
320. Accused Ashwani Sharma has not led any evidence in his defence.
321. The accused Ashutosh Pant , during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, stated to the most of questions put to him that " I do not know " He answers differently to few questions.
322. When the accused Ashutosh Pant was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " This is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide intention. He has not conducted fair and proper investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that the investigation done by him is a sham exercise."
323. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied that :
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 145 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
"I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
324. Accused Ashutosh Pant has not led evidence in his defence.
325. Answers given by accused Naveen Kaushik , during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to him were " I do not know " He has answers differently to few questions.
326. When accused Naveen Kaushik was asked about the GEQD report Ex PW22/D ( Colly) and reasoning Ex PW22/E ( Colly), he replied :
" The reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) purported to be the basis of his opinion Ex.PW22/D(colly) given by PW22 are short of the legal requirements of being called as reasons. The reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) does not mentioned as to what were the general characteristic like type of movement whether it is finger, wrist, whole-arm or fore-arm movement, speed, whether it is fast, slow or medium, pen pressure, whether it is light, medium or graduated, slant, whether it is fore-hand, back-hand or vertical, alignment, whether it is horizontal, ascending or descending, size, whether they are big, medium or small, presence of any line quality defects and their description, presence of any pen pause etc., in the questioned documents and what were CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 146 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
the finding in respect of the same in the standard writings. As far as individual characteristic are concerns there is no mention as to what are the individual characteristic mentioned in the question writing & which specimen signature/ handwriting contain the same characteristic features. It is also not mentioned about as to what extend magnification of documents was done. He has not specifically enumerated the use of scientific instruments in his reasons Ex.PW22/E(colly) or in his opinion Ex.PW22/D(colly) during examination. There is nothing on record to demonstrate / illustrate in support of the reason given by him (PW22). The reason given by the expert PW22 is incomplete / inadequate to enable the Court to form its opinion for proper analyzing the same. While examination of the so called questioned as well as specimen signature/handwriting, he has neither taken enlarge photographs, nor prepared any comparative charts which specifically mentioned as to which specimen signatures was compared with which specific questioned document neither he can tell the same after going through his reasons that which specimen signatures was compared with which specific questioned document. He has also not annexed his rough notes alongwith his report and reason Ex.PW22/D(colly), Ex.PW22/E(colly) respectively and in the absence of the above features the report Ex.PW22/D and the reason Ex.PW22/E(colly) of the expert PW22 does not inspire any confidence to be relied upon as the same does not come within the purview of section 45 and section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act."
327. When he was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied:
" This is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide intention. He has not conducted fair and proper investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 147 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that the investigation done by him is a sham exercise."
328. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
" I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
329. Accused Naveen Kaushik opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
330. Similarly, the answers given by accused R.K. Srivastava , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were " I do not know " except answers given differently to a few questions.
331. When the accused accused R.K. Srivastava was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " It is a false case against me. The present case has been filed against me because of wrong appreciation of the provisions of DCS Act 1972 and Rules 1973 & wrong analysis of facts and circumstances of the case. Accused R.K. Srivastava (A-6) opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
332. In reply to the question whether he wants to say CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 148 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019anything else , he replied: "I have been wrongly and falsely implicated in this case by the CBI. Charge sheet has been filed without proper understanding of the provisions of the DCS Act, 1972 and DCS Rules, 1973. I have passed Order for Revival of the Society by exercising statutory powers vested in the Registrar of Cooperative Societies u/s 63(3) of the aforesaid DCS Act. There is no evidence against me. The matter relating to my membership in Shiv Shankar CGHS has been unnecessarily linked with the decision taken in this case. The membership has been taken after my transfer from the office of the RCS and the flat in question has been financed through Loan from DCHFC, Personal savings and Advance taken from GPF. Moreover, the Sanctioning Authority has not been examined to prove whether sanction had been accorded after the due application of mind and after a proper appreciation of the provisions of DCS Act, 1972 and DCS Rules, 1973. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) of Cr.P.C."
333. Accused R.K. Srivastava opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
334. The answers given by accused Shakuntla Joshi , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, were to most of the questions put to her as either " I have no knowledge " or " it is a matter of record" However CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 149 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019she has answers to few questions.
335. To answer the questions regarding issuance of sanction order Ex 30/A against her. She has replied that " It is a matter of record. It is an invalid sanction order granted mechanically without application of mind."
336. When the accused Shakuntla Joshi was asked as to why this case is against her. She has replied that "
This is a false against me."
337. Accused Shakuntla Joshi opted to lead evidence in her defence and has also examined Sh Yatin Malik as DW1.
338. In reply to the question whether she wants to say anything else , she replied:
339. " I remained posted as Assistant Registrar in office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi during 29.09.2000 to 28.09.2003. I acted bona-fide in the performance of my duties as a public servant in the present matter. I committed no wrong. There is absolutely no incriminating and legally admissible evidence against me. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed anything incriminating against me. There is absolutely (oral/documentary/circumstantial) no evidence indicating my involvement in the criminal conspiracy, if any. The sanction for my prosecution was granted mechanically without application of mind. The sanction for my prosecution is invalid. There is no sanction for my prosecution for IPC offences as required mandatorily u/s 197 Cr.P.C., thus vitiating my CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 150 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019trial ab initio. I have been falsely implicated without there being any incriminating evidence against me. I am innocent."
My prosecution is void-ab-initio for want of mandatory prosecution sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. I am innocent."
Defence on behalf of accused P.K. Thirwani and Shakuntl Joshi.
340. DW 1 Sh Yatin Thapar, Assistant Section Officer, office of Directorate of Vigilance, GNCT Delhi who has produced file/record Ex DW1/A ( Colly) pertaining to the sanctions which were granted to prosecute accused P.K.Thirwani, Satyavir Singh and Shakuntla Joshi.
Defence on behalf of accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
341. DW2 Sh Dilip Bhattacharya, who has deposed that he had worked for about 10 to 12 years in the office of RCS at the post of UDC and dealt with the file pertaining to the CGHSs. He has further deposed that he had also dealt with the process of election pertaining to such group housing societies also number of times. He had been appointed as Election Officer also.
342. He has further deposed that as and when the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 151 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019nomination for the election of a particular group housing society is equivalent to the posts in the Managing Committee of the society then they are elected un-opposed and there is no voting. The results in such a situation is declared in the general body meeting of the society fixed for this purpose. He has further deposed that the list of members attending the general body meeting is provided by the society. He has deposed that there is no provision in the rules which says that identification of the member to ensure the presence is must in the general body meeting of any Group Housing society, where the results is to be announced by the Election Officer.
343. This witness has been cross examined by Ld Senior PP for CBI.
344. I have heard Ld Counsel for the accused persons as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI and have gone through the file also. I also considered the same.
345. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the sanction in the present case has been accorded by the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 152 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019competent authority against the public servants / accused persons qua offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. And so far as sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is concerned. There is no need to obtain the same as the act being done by the public servants/ accused persons was not within the ambit of being done by them in discharge of their official duty.
346. It is argued that the sanction order against the public servant has been accorded by the sanctioning by applying its minds being based upon the material before it. The draft of the sanction order may be sent to the sanctioning authority by the investigating agency and merely sending the draft sanction is not fatal to the prosecution case. It further argued that the evidence of the handwriting expert is a vital evidence which has been proved by the prosecution against the accused persons. It can be safely relied upon by the Court. It is submitted that mens rea is not necessary to be proved for the charges being framed U/S 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act against the accused persons charge with. It is CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 153 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019further argued that if a fact has been deposed by a witness in his /her examination in chief and no question is put to the witness in cross examination on that fact, it amounts to admission of that fact. Learned Senior PP argued that the evidence brought on record against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt against them.
347. Learned Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the following case law:
I) Hema Vs State of Madrass Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2013 State of Appeal.
ii) Murari Lal Vs State of MP AIR 531
iii) K. Satwant Singh Vs The State of Punjab, 1960 AIR 266, 1960 SCR (2)89
iv)Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State Crl. Appeal No.19/2007.
v) L. Narayan Swami Vs State of Karnataka Crl. Appeal No.721 of 2016
vi) Harihar Prasad etc Vs State of Bihar 1972 CRIL J707, (1972) 3 SCC 89
vii) Sahabuddin & Anr Vs State of Assam (Criminal Appeal)
viii) Munna Lal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh criminal Appeal no-490 of 2017
ix)Shambhoo Nath Mishra Vs State of UP AIR 1997 Supreme Court
x) Yash Pal Mittal Vs State of Punjab 1978 SCR
xi)Umesh Kumar Vs State of A.P. decided on 06/09/2013, criminal Appeal No-1305 of 2013.
xii) Darshan Lal Vs State decided on 31/07/2009, criminal Appeal No-73/2001.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 154 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019xiii) State of Maharastra Tr. CBI Vs Mahesh G Jain 28/05/2013, criminal Appeal No-2345/2009
xiv) Prem Chand Vs State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC-168)
xv) Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana decided on 23/05/2024. SC xvi) Iqbal Mussa Patel Vs State of Gujrat 2011 2011 SCC (Cri.) 654 xvii) Kehar Singh Vs Stater of Delhi 1988 3 SCC xviii) State of Tamilnadu through S.P. Vs Nalini decided on 11th May 1999.
xix) Renu Gosh Vs CBI decided on 2111 SCC OnLine Del 5501
348. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused persons have vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove charges being framed against the accused persons.
349. Considered. Perused.
350. This is an admitted fact that the said society was registered on 30.12.1983 vide Regn. No. 1205(GH) having its registered office at DCM Tent Factory, Ganesh Line, Kishanganj, New Delhi-6. The winding order dated 22.09.1992 was passed by the RCS office due non compliance of the statutory requirements by the said society.
351. As per the allegations in the charge sheet the said CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 155 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019society was allegedly got revived on 24.01.2001 on the basis of forged documents. The allegations are that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy for revival of the said society and also forged the document for that purpose. The evidence of PW 14 Ajay Suri, brought on record that proceedings of the said society qua initiating proceeding for revival of the said society does not bear his signatures Ex PW14/K ( Colly) (D-12), proves the fact that there was forgery in that proceedings.
352. The question which has to be answered by the Court is as to whether accused persons charge with have committed forgery in the record of the said society for getting revival of it.
353. Before giving any observation whether the accused persons have committed the offence or not . I would like to discuss, firstly the evidence of GEQD qua disputed handwriting . And whether the prosecution has able to prove the opinion of handwriting expert to the extent that it were the accused persons who have committed the forgery.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 156 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Because the prosecution is vehemently relying upon the evidence of handwriting expert.
354. The admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert report is based upon certain facts because it is corroborated in nature and not a substantial evidence. Before giving any observation upon the admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert. I would like to mention here certain judgments being rendered by the Hon,ble High Courts as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to evidential value of hand writing expert.
355. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709 has held that " Relevancy of Expert's Opinion rest on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached by the expert is also relevant".
356. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of H.P. Vs Jai Lal & Ors (1999) 7 SCC 280 has observed that "credibility of expert witness CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 157 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross examination".
357. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sandeep Dixit Vs State Crl Rev 260/2011 decided on 27th April 2012 has observed " that the opinion of an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is merely an opinion and not a conclusive proof of the validity of the handwriting in question and the learned ASJ exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the framing of charge against the petitioner merely on the report of the GEQD without corroboration."
358. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 has observed that "We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 158 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
359. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Maharashtra Vs Damu S/O Gopinath Shinde & CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 159 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Others (2000) 6 SCC 269 has observed that "
without examining the expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed".
360. I would also like to mention here certain basic principle to be considered before relying upon the report/opinion of hand writing expert. The entire process of examination of documents by an expert can be looked at three stages i.e i) taking over of specimen signatures/handwriting pertaining to the accused persons (ii) sending the same to the GEQD alongwith questioned documents and
(iii) the report of the GEQD given after examination, on the basis of material sent to them.
361. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, prosecution is under obligation to establish beyond all doubt that all the above mentioned processes at different stages were done and executed in accordance with law and there is no doubt in either of the said processes. In case it is found that there is a serious doubt in the story of the prosecution at any stage of the process, then obviously benefit would go to the accused CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 160 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019persons.
362. So in view of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Superior Courts on the admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert. I will consider the same while appreciating the evidence qua accused persons while dealing the evidence against accused persons in particular. And while considering their specific role being alleged against them in committing forgery. Settled proposition of law while considering sanctions for prosecution against the public servants.
363. One another issue in this case is whether the sanction accorded U/S 19 of the P.C Act against the public servants, who are charged in the present case for the offences U/S 15 r/w 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and substantive offences u/s 13(1)(d) punishable u/s13 (2) r/w sec. 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, is accorded by the competent authority after considering the necessary material before them. There are law being interpreted by the Hon'ble CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 161 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Superior Courts on the issues how the sanctioning authority has to considered the material placed before it, before according sanction against the public servant as well as its admissibility if same is not accorded as per law.
364. The sanction for prosecution of a public servant for the offence under P.C. Act is required U/S 19 (1) of P.C Act . Before further proceeding I would like to reproduce Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the PC Act.
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013--
a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 162 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
the Central Government, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is
employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."
365. On bare perusal of language of the section 19 (1) of P.C Act, the court is precluded from taking cognizance of an offence under certain sections mentioned in this provision if prosecution wants to prosecute a public servant. The sanction must be from competent Government, it may be Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. Even otherwise, if the cognizance is taken, this issue can be raised subsequently and prosecution/ proceeding can be dropped if there is no valid sanction on record. The provision deals the intention of the legislature to protect a public CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 163 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019servant against harassment and malicious prosecution.
366. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979 Cai LJ 633) has observed as under:
"The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned."
367. The Privy Council in the case of Gokul-chand Dwarkadas Momrka v. The King (AIR 1948 PC
82) has observed as under:
"The sanction to prosecute is an important matter, it constitutes a condition precedent to the Institution of the prosecution and the Government has an absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction. They are not, as the High Court seem to have thought, concerned merely to see that the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. They can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them, for example, that on political or economic grounds they regard a prosecution as inexpedient."
368. In the case of Bhagwan Mahadeo Sathe Versus State and Another, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2350, it was held that:-
"12. In the present case, the record indicates that the draft sanction letter was forwarded to the sanctioning authority along with the other papers. The actual sanction which is granted is verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction. This also clearly discloses that there was a non-application of mind while granting sanction to CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 164 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
prosecute. Under all these circumstances, in my view, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted for the offences of which he is charged. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of."
369. In the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Crl.
Appeal No. 1838/2013 date of decision 22.11.2013. it was held that:
13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution.
Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.
15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 165 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non- application of mind.
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. 16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 166 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019370. In the case of the State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case under the provisions of the 1988 Act, wherein the prosecuting agency had submitted a very detailed report before the sanctioning authority and on consideration of the same, the competent authority had accorded the sanction. Hon'ble Supreme Court found that though the report was a detailed one, however, such report could not be held to be the complete records required to be considered for sanction on application of mind to the relevant material on record and thereby quashed the sanction.
371. In the backdrop of propounded law as discussed above. I will give my observations on the admissibility of the report of handwriting expert as well as whether sanction has been accorded as per law, while discussing the case of each accused separately.
Finding qua accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
372. The allegation against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal are that in the last quarter of year 2000 CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 167 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019he got hold of the documents relating to the said society from Ramesh Chand Sharma ( Founder Secretary of the said society). Allegedly accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has prepared receipt acknowledging the receiving of those documents and gave the receipt to Ramesh Chand Sharma, at a much later date. The documents which were handed over to Gokul Chand Aggarwal had been passed over by him to S.P. Saxena. Who further passed over the documents to Ashwani Sharma for completion of documentary work.
373. The first fact which has to be proved against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal is whether the documents of the said society were handed over to him by Ramesh Chand Sharma or not. To prove this fact the testimony of PW 23, Ramesh Chand Sharma is important who is stated to be the direct witness of handing over of these documents. The alleged documents were handed over vide Ex PW22/C-111. On perusal, it reveals that the document ( Ex PW22/C-111) was executed on 30.04.2001. The document in itself contradict the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 168 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019conclusion arrived at by the IO qua handing over of documents in the last quarter of year 2000. Moreover the witness PW 23 says that he has met accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal either in the year 2005 or 2006. Once the direct evidence ie PW23 deposed that he made accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2005 or 2006. Then how the documents as mentioned in Ex PW22/C-111 could be handed over to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2005 or 2006. This witness has not been declared either hostile on the fact of his meeting with Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2005 or 2006 nor this fact has been clarified from the witness. The witness PW 23 is the only person who could have clarified this fact of his meeting with Gokul Chand Aggarwal. If he had met with accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2005 or 2006 then it was not possible for him to handover the documents of the said society to Gokul Chand Aggarwal in the year 2001. Moreover, as per the allegations the documents were handed over to Gokul Chand Aggarwal for CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 169 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019completion of proceedings for revival of the said society. Admittedly, the said society was revived on 24.01.2001, then no circumstances could have arise for execution of receipt Ex PW22/C-111 by accused because the society had already been revived.
374. It is also a fact that there is no witness on record who can prove the fact that Gokul Chand Aggarwal has further pass over the documents to S.P.Saxena. No document was ever recovered from the possession of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has denied his signature and execution of document PW22/C-111. The prosecution has also not proved on record the exact date or time or month when the documents were handed over to Gokul Chand Aggarwal by Ramesh Chand Sharma. So the prosecution has unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt the handing over of the documents of the said society to Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
375. Moreover, the prosecution has also relied upon CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 170 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the testimony of PW22 and asserted that handwriting expert has given an opinion against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal qua document Ex PW22/C111. In this regard it is established principle of law that evidence of an handwriting expert is only a corroborative evidence and it is not a substantial evidence. Here in the present case, the prosecution has failed beyond reasonable doubt that the documents of the said society were handed over to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. The evidence of PW23 is full of doubt qua handing over the documents to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. In that circumstances, the evidence of handwriting expert cannot be relied upon. Moreover, it is also relevant here to discuss the manner in which documents were received in the office of GEQD and subsequently preparation of handwriting report by the handwriting expert.
376. The PW 22 has admitted in his examination that he do not remember whether the documents in the present case were received in a sealed condition or not. He has admitted that he has not taken the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 171 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019enlarged photographs of any specimen and questioned document. He has admitted that he has not specifically enumerated the use of scientific instrument in his reasoning or opinion. He has further admitted that neither in his report nor in his reasoning he has mentioned about as to what extent magnification of documents were done. He has further admitted that he had not given the details of general writing, characteristic in his reasons like the type of movement, speed whether is fast, slow or medium. Pen pressure whether it light, medium, graduated, slants whether is forehand, backhand or vertical, alignment whether is horizontal, ascending or descending, the size whether the big, medium or small, presence of any line quality defects and description, presence of any pen pause etc. He has further admitted that he has not specifically mentioned in his reasons as to which specimen signatures were compared with which specific questioned document. He deposed that even today he cannot tell the same as to which specimen signatures was compared with which CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 172 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019specific question document.
377. He (PW22) has admitted when confronted with his reasons for opinion Ex PW22/E ( Colly) and his attention were drawn to para-11 from point 'A' to 'A1' where it is so mentioned. " habit of putting two dots below the underscoring as observed in question signatures is also similarly observed in specimen signatures at one place or other with similar variations."
378. Confronted with para No.10 relevant part from 'A2' to 'A3' wherein so mentioned. " nature of two doors below the underscoring and there locations as observed in the questioned signature is also nowhere observed in the specimen signatures.
379. By putting these contradiction to the witness Ld Counsel for accused during arguments wants to demonstrate that report of handwring expert is not trustworthy. It is submitted that the contradicted portions belongs to the same persons being opined by the expert on the basis of specimen handwriting/signatures S-152 to S-158. And CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 173 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019argued that opinion is contrary which should not be there without any explanation. It is further argued that as per admitted standard operating procedure by (PW22), the like should be compared with like but the expert has not followed that as reveals. On considering the examination of PW 22 and the shortcomings brought to the notice of the Court, his report cannot be considered.
380. The argument of Ld Counsel for accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal that Ramesh Chand Sharma has signed the document on 02.05.2006 and same may considered to be signed on the same date of execution of document. This submission is not acceptable because the IO had clarified that on 02.05.2006 the receipt was seized only.
381. Moreover, one another fact is there when PW23 had handed over the documents to Gokul Chand Aggarwal for revival of the said society. In that circumstances he could have been indulged in conspiracy also. Then question arises why he had not been made an accused in the present case by the investigating agency. This fact has not been CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 174 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019answered.
382. The argument of Ld. Senior PP for CBI that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has earlier pleaded guilty and it amounts to his culpability in the commission of offence alleged against him. This argument of Ld Senior PP for CBI cannot be acceptable because my Ld Predecessor has discarded the plea of accused to plead guilty on the basis of evidence/material on record agaisnt accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. Non giving of detailed reason for not accepting the plead of guilty of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal could not have been made considering its legal consequence. To give final observation at that stage when application of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal was considered, could have prejudice the parties vice versa. It could have also amount to write judgment before pronouncement of final judgment.
383. So in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Gokul Chand CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 175 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Aggarwal.
Finding qua accused Satyavir Singh Malik
384. The allegations against accused Satyavir Singh Malik, are that he in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons, being dealing Assistant in the office of RCS Delhi has abused his official position as a public servant. As per allegations, he on receipt of documents from the said society, he was supposed to obtain the verification report through some Inspector of RCS office. He deliberately and dishonestly did not choose to follow the same and he himself recorded a detailed note in the file without actual verification of the records. He did not scrutinize the records put before him. He dishonestly and deliberately accepted the same as true without factually verifying the documents.
385. Ld Counsel for the accused Satyavir Singh Malik has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 176 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/H(Colly),Ex.PW-34/I(Colly),Ex.PW-3 4/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). It is submitted that two witnesses being examined on behalf of prosecution namely PW11 Azad Singh and PW25 Mahendra Singh from the office of RCS to prove these documents . But both the witnesses have not confirm or deposed that the alleged notings on documents Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I (Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L (Colly) were made by accused Satyaver Singh Malik.
386. In the absence of proving the notings in the handwriting of accused, inference cannot be taken that the official notings on Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 177 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly) are of accused Satyaver Singh Malik.
387. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the notings file Ex.34/D ( Colly) was maintained in the office of RCS and same was seized by the IO. The notings have been put in file Ex.34/D ( Colly) in official capacity by the accused persons and same may be presumed that the same has been attributed to accused Satyavir Singh Malik.
388. I have considered the rival contention of Ld Counsel for the accused as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI. The fact that file was seized during the investigation and was maintained in RCS office is proved. But no evidence is on record vide which it can be inferred that particular official notings was made by accused Satyavir Singh Malik. No witness has been examined by the prosecution who can identify the signature of accused Satyavir Singh Malik on the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 178 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). Even PW 11 and PW25 have not identified the alleged notings and signature are of accused Satyavir Singh Malik on the particular notings allegedly appended by the accused. There is no witness being examined by the prosecution who can depose that on which particular date the alleged notings were made or the accused was posted on that seat on that date on which noting was made. Technically there is flaw in the evidence on this point being adduced on record against the accused.
389. Moreover, on considering the allegations against the accused that he has not mentioned the reasons for winding up of the said society cannot be considered towards the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy to commit either forgery or cheating. This allegations is also negates by the deposition of IO himself, who has deposed in his cross examination that during the investigation he CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 179 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019did not come across any section, rules or circular/guidelines issued thereunder which made it obligatory for accused Satyavir Singh Malik to personally verify the genuineness of the members of CGHS or genuineness of the documents produced by the society. Moreover there is no evidence that accused Satyavir Singh Malik got any pecuniary benefit in any form from any person while writing the alleged notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). ( though technically not proved). It is also clear that there is no evidence at all on record which suggest to this Court that accused has any dealing or was in contact with any other accused persons. For the sake of argument if it is presumed that it was the duty of the accused to verify the documents from the record being maintained in the RCS office and he has not done the same, it CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 180 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019may be negligence only but that negligence cannot be considered as complicity of the accused in commission of alleged offence.
390. Moreover, to prosecute accused Satyavir Singh Malik for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is essential. In order to prove the sanction for prosecution against accused Satyavir Singh Malik. The prosecution has examined PW 28 Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami. PW28 after going through the report of the CBI accorded his satisfaction for sanction of prosecution vide sanction order dated 07.12.2006 Ex. PW28/A in respect of accused Satyavir Singh Malik.
391. However, PW 28 in the cross examination has deposed as to how he has accorded sanction against accused Satyavir Singh Malik. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as follows:
"It is correct that I was never posted in the office of RCS at any point of time. It is correct that at the alleged period of offence, I was not the competent authority to accord sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani and accused S.S. Malik. I am not in a position to tell the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 181 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
date, month or year, when requisition for grant of sanction was received from CBI. Similarly, I am not in a position to tell the name of the CВІ official from whom requisition was received. It is correct that sanction orders that are Ex. PW28/A and Ex. PW28/B, I have not mentioned the name of specific documents or witnesses in the sanction order. It is correct that no requisition or list of documents are attached with aforesaid sanction orders. ....I do not remember at this stage whether any draft sanction order was received from CBI or not. .... I had not issued any directions for initiation of departmental inquiry against accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S. Malik.I had not sought any clarification or representation from accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S. Malik prior to issue of sanction."
392. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose clearly the material which he has perused before granting sanction for prosecution against accused Satyavir Singh Malik. As per DW1/A the brief statement of accused persons. List of name of witnesses. The list of particular of document and draft sanction orders were sent for obtaining sanction for prosecution of accused. The complete set of documents and evidence were not sent to the sanctioning authority. So the testimony of PW 28 is dubious regarding perusing the material /evidence by him before according sanction. On CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 182 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the other hand, IO has admitted in this cross examination that he had not placed on record the copy of letter vide which request was made to the sanctioning authority for according sanction. So in view of the law as discussed in the preceding paragraph coupled with the testimonies of PW28 and DW.1 the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction order against accused Satyavir Singh Malik being accorded by applying its mind by the sanctioning authority.
Finding qua accused P.K. Thirwani
393. The allegations against accused P.K. Thirwani is that in pursuance of revival order dated 24.01.2001 he was appointed as Senior Auditor to conduct audit of the said society. And he has prepared false audit reports for the year 1989- 1990 to 1999-2000, 2000-2001 to 2001-2002 without visiting the office of the said society.
394. In the backdrop of these allegations as accused P.K. Thirwani has admitted the filing of Audit Report Ex 34/X( Colly). But it is argued on behalf of accused P.K.Thirwani that he has filed the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 183 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019correct Audit reports on the basis of documents. There is no discrepancies in the Audit report Ex PW34/X ( Colly).
395. On the other hand, it is vehemently by Ld Sr PP for CBI that the acts of accused P.K. Thirwani in itself proves his involvement to the extent that he was involved in conspiracy with other co-accused. As he has submitted the report without visiting the office of Society which is in violation of Rule 84 (5) of the D.C.S Rules, as audit has to be conducted in the office of the society itself. And PW11 has proved on record that society was not exits on the address at DCM, Tent Factory Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
396. On considering the rival arguments and perusing the record. It is evident that P.K. Thirwani has conducted the Audit ( , Ex PW34/X (Colly). of the said society in pursuance of the order of R.C.S dated 24.01.2001( revival order of the said society)
397. The first questions arises whether the society was being operated from at DCM, Tent Factory CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 184 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi or not, when accused has filed the audit report. To prove this fact the prosecution has solely relied upon the testimony of PW 11 Azad Singh. Who has deposed in his examination in chief that he has visited at the address of the said society on 23.07.1992 and prepared the report Ex PW11/B, dated 24.07.1992. But when he was cross examined before the Court, he has deposed that he do not remember the reason for visiting the office of the society in July, 1992. He do not remember the particular of adjoining property at the address he has visited. He has further deposed that he has made inquiries from some neighbor but he did not recorded their statements. He has further deposed that he did not enquire about the time since when the society was not functioning from its said address. He has deposed that he did not verify whether the society was temporarily not functioning from there or whether it never functioned from there. He has deposed in this cross examination that he has worked in the office CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 185 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019of AR ( Audit ) from January, 1990 for about one and half year. Suggestion has been given to the witness that he has never visited the address of the society and has prepared the report without making any reason. Suggestion has also been given that the society was exists on the given address.
398. On analyzing the examination of PW 11, it reveals that he has not recorded the statement of neighborers from whom he has inquired about the functioning the said society at DCM, Tent Factory Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Even he has deposed in the cross examination that he does remember the purpose of his visit at the address of the said society. He has deposed in his examination in chief that he has worked in the office of RCS from May, 1990 to September, 1994. But in his cross examination he has deposed that he had worked from January,1990 which is contradictory. During the IO has not taken burden to visit the address of the said society to ascertain whether the society was functioning at CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 186 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the given address at the time of investigation was carried out. The cross examination of the witness has create doubt about his visit at the address of the said society ie at DCM, Tent Factory Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It may possible he could not have visited the address of the said society and this probability cannot be ruled out. When there are two probabilities about a fact, the fact favouring the accused must be considered in favour of accused. As it is the settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence. Even otherwise, the report Ex PW34/X ( Colly) was prepared in the year 2001. The fact whether the said society was exist in the year 2001 or not at the address DCM, Tent Factory Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi cannot be proved by the fact which is allegedly otherwise collected in the year 1992. There is no evidence being collected by investigating agency whether the said society was functioning in the year 2001 at the address DCM, Tent Factory Building, Ganeshpuri, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 187 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019399. There is no allegations against accused P.K. Thirwani that he has manipulated in the accounts of the society to hide the irregularities. There is no evidence at all on record that any demand for pecuniary gain was made by accused P.K. Thirwanik. The mens rea is one of the essential ingredient for proving the guilty of a person. Here in the present case mens rea is also missing.
400. So the evidence adduced by the prosecution against accused P.K. Thirwani is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
401. So far as the allegation against accused P.K.Thirwani for the offence U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 is concerned. In this regard Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988 prescribes that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. The issue of cognizance can be raised at any stage. And if the cognizance is against the law then to built up a case against the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 188 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019accused for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act also not triable.
402. Ld Counsel for P.K. Thirwani has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act 1988. It is submitted that even for the sake of argument if it is assume that sanction U/S 19 of the P.C. Act 1988 is presumed to be proved on record but the same was not a valid sanction being accorded without application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
403. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the sanction order against the P.K. Thiwani by leading cogent evidence.
404. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against P.K. Thirwani the prosecution has examined PW 28 Sh Ramesh Narayanaswami. He has deposed that he received a report from CBI and after going through the report of CBI and documents he accorded sanction vide Ex PW28/B for prosecution of P.K. Thirwani.
405. However, the cross examination of PW 28, is to CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 189 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019be considered whether the sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal of material before it. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as follows:
"It is correct that I was never posted in the office of RCS at any point of time. It is correct that at the alleged period of offence, I was not the competent authority to accord sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani and accused S.S. Malik. I am not in a position to tell the date, month or year, when requisition for grant of sanction was received from CBI. Similarly, I am not in a position to tell the name of the CВІ official from whom requisition was received. It is correct that sanction orders that are Ex. PW28/A and Ex. PW28/B, I have not mentioned the name of specific documents or witnesses in the sanction order. It is correct that no requisition or list of documents are attached with aforesaid sanction orders. ....I do not remember at this stage whether any draft sanction order was received from CBI or not. .... I had not issued any directions for initiation of departmental inquiry against accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S. Malik.I had not sought any clarification or representation from accused P.K. Thirwani and S.S. Malik prior to issue of sanction."
406. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose clearly the material which he has perused before granting sanction for prosecution against accused P.K. Thirwani. On perusal of documents Ex CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 190 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019DW1/A ( Colly). ( The file sent to the sanctioning authority for according sanction) It reveals that list of documents alongwith S.P report, calander of evidence (oral), calandar of evidence ( documentary) and draft sanction orders were sent only. The complete statement of witnesses were not sent to the sanctioning authority for its perusal. So the testimony of PW 28 is dubious regarding perusing the material /evidence by him before according sanction. So in view of the law as discussed in the preceding paragraph coupled with the testimonies of PW28 and DW.1 the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction order against accused P.K. Thirwani being accorded by applying its mind by the sanctioning authority. Because complete evidence was not with the sanctioning authority.
Finding qua accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
407. The allegations against accused Vipin Kumar Jain are that in pursuance of revival order dated 24.01.2001, accused Vipin Kumar Jain while working as Election Officer in the office of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 191 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Registrar Cooperative Society, Delhi during the year 2000-2002 submitted a false election report without visiting the office address of the society and ascertaining the genuineness of the members of the society.
408. To adjudicate the complicity of accused in the present case, the perusal of revival order is important. The RCS while passed the revival order has also given directions to the society which are six in number. The condition No.6 of revival order is important to fastened the complicity of accused namely Vipin Kumar Jain. The condition No.6 of revival order is reproduced as follow:
" That the elections to the Managing Committee will be conducted by appointing a departmental Election officer in due course of time".
409. On perusal of this condition the election of the said society was not condition precedent for revival of the society or to recall revival order. There was no time fixed for conducting election.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 192 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Further election of the said society was directed to be conducted in due course. The election does not have any bearing upon the revival of the said society being done on 24.01.2001. Moreover formal election was not conducted as only member as equivalent to the post of Management committee have applied for contesting election. It was that reasons accused Vipin Kumar Jain may have not visited the office of the said society. But non visiting the office of said society by the accused is not sufficient to implicate him as conspirator of offence. I.O has also admitted that accused has not obtained any pecuniary benefit and he himself has not forged any document. It is also admitted by the IO that accused Vipin Kumar Jain was not connected or involved in the present case till the society was revived. There is no evidence that accused was in contact with any accused persons to hatch a conspiracy for revival of the said society. The evidence adduced on record by the prosecution against the accused are not sufficient to hold him guilty.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 193 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019410. Moreover, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is necessary to prosecute the accused for the offences under P.C Act. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against Vipin Kumar Jain the prosecution has examined PW 29 Dr S.S. Saha. He has deposed that after going through the material placed before him he has accorded sanction to prosecute accused Vipin Kumar Jain.
411. However, PW 29 in the cross examination has deposed as to how he has accorded sanction against accused Vipin Kumar Jain. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as follows:
"I do not remember as to after how many from the receipt of the request from CBI, I had accorded the sanction. I even cannot say whether I took a week or fortnight or more than that. I even cannot say if after giving the sanction, the material sent by the CBI was kept in our office or not because my subordinate staff/Joint Director was dealing with it after giving the sanction. The entire file was maintained by my Joint Director and the Administration. I cannot say since Sh. Vipin Kumar was appointed as a Election Officer in the month of May, 2001 and the election took place in July, 2001 much after the date of revival i.e. 29.01.2001, how accused Vipin Kumar Jain was involved in the conspiracy in getting the society revived".
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 194 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019412. On perusal, the witness is unable to disclose clearly the material which he has perused before granting sanction for prosecution against accused Vipin Kumar Jain. On perusal of Sanction file Ex DW1/A ( Colly). It reveals that the file/record which was sent to office of Lt Governor contains only S.P report in brief containing only allegation. The brief statement of accused persons. List of name of witnesses. The list of particular of document and draft sanction orders for obtaining sanction for prosecution of accused Vipin Kumar Jain. The complete set of documents or complete statement of witnesses were not sent to the sanctioning authority. The IO has admitted that he has not placed on record the letter vide which request was made to the sanctioning authority and the description of documents sent. The testimony of PW 29 is dubious regarding perusing the material /evidence by him for according sanction. The witness is unable to apprised the Court what material was perused by him while according sanction. So in view of the law as discussed in the CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 195 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019preceding paragraph coupled with the testimonies of PW29 and Ex DW1/A ( Colly) the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction order against accused Vipin Kumar Jain being accorded by applying the mind by the sanctioning authority. Finding qua accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik.
413. The case of the prosecution against aforesaid accused namely Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik are based on the report of handwriting expert. There is no other direct evidence on record against these accused persons who could have deposed that they seen these accused persons to forged the signatures of any of the persons. The only evidence on record is the testimony of PW22 ie GEQD expert on which the prosecution is relying upon. To consider the testimony of handwriting expert the first most important fact has to be proved by the prosecution that the specimen signatures/handwriting of above said accused persons were obtained and same is without any encumbrances. To prove CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 196 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019this fact the deposition of PW 33 A.K. Yadav is importand as specimen signatures of accused Aswhani Sharma was obtained in his presence. PW 33 has deposed that specimen signature of accused Ashwnai Sharma from S-30 to S-36 and S-70 to S-96, (Ex. PW33/A (colly.) were taken by the IO in his presence. But in his cross examination PW 33 has deposed that he do not remember the exact day or the period for which he was attached with the CBI. He has deposed that he has not brought the letter or directions from his department vide which he was deputed to witness the proceedings being conducted by the IO. He has deposed that he had not made any entry while visiting the office of CBI. He has further stated that he do not remember as to in how many cases he had been a witness to such proceedings on that particular day. The examination of PW33 shows that his presence is doubtful while obtaining specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma. So far as identification of accused CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 197 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ashwani Sharma by PW 33 is concerned. He has deposed in his deposition that he has identified accused Ashwani Sharma as he had seen Ashwani Sharma in number of cases while deposing before the Court and can identify him accordingly. This identification of accused Ashwani Sharma before the Court loose its importance and it cannot be read against accused Ashwani Sharma to the extent that specimen signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma were taken in the presence of PW 33. Because otherwise his deposition is doubtful that he has witnessed the taking of specimen in his presence.
414. So far as obtaining the specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Naveen Kaushik is concerned. The specimen handwriting/signatures are obtained vide proceedings Ex PW34/7A. The specimen signature/handwriting sheets are S-5 to S-23 and S-100 to S-137. The aforesaid sheets neither having any date, any token signatures of accused Naveen Kaushik and any signature of independent CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 198 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019witness. Though S-19 to S-23 bears token signatures of accused Naveen Kaushik but not bears the signatures of any independent witness.
415. So far as the proceedings, Ex. PW34/A8 (colly.) qua specimen signatures/handwritings of accused Ashutosh Pant, from S-24 to S-29 and S-37 to S-69 then S-97 to S-99 are concerned. As per the specimen signatures/handwritings of accused Ashutosh Pant, the same were shown to be taken in Tihar Jail. The question arises how PW34 had visited Tihar Jail, when there is no such permission from the concerned court on the record that he (PW34 ) was permitted to visit Tihar Jail. If any proceedings were conducted in jail premises, then seal and signatures of jail authority should be there to authenticate such proceedings being recorded in jail premises. But the aforesaid specimen signatures/handwritings sheets neither bears any seal, nor any signatures of jail official/authority. The alleged specimen signatures/handwritings sheets are also not bearing any signature of independent witness.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 199 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019416. On the other hand, PW34 has deposed that the proceedings of specimen signatures/handwritings sheets qua Naveen Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant were recorded by him in the presence of independent witnesses but inadvertently they were not made the witness to such proceedings. And that is why there is no signatures of such witnesses on the said proceedings. The deposition of IO, as above, does not inspire any confidence and creates suspicion qua taking the specimen signatures/handwriting of aforesaid accused persons namely Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik. So the prosecution has failed to clear the first condition for considering the handwriting expert opinion. Once first condition of obtaining specimen signatures of above named accused persons is doubtful that fact goes in favour of accused persons. Moreover, since this Court has discarded the evidence of handwriting expert while considering its evidential value qua giving observations against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal. So in view of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 200 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Ashwani Sharma, Naveen Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant.
Finding qua accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava .
417. The allegations against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava are that while he was working as Registrar of Co-operative, without getting inspection of the records of the society under section 54 of the DCS Act 1972 and revived the said society on 24.01.2001, on the basis of the false and forged documents. There are also allegations that he had approved the list which was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land. He had developed close proximity with S.P. Saxena and the said order of revival was passed as quid-pro- quo for which he had obtained the membership for himself as well as for his sister in law Smt. Vijay Srivastav in a society namely Shiv Shankar CGHS controlled by SP Saxena.
418. Ld Counsel for Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has vehemently argued that, firstly there is no sanction CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 201 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019U/S 197 Cr P.C against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (A-5) and consequent upon that the accused (A-5) cannot be prosecuted for the offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
419. It is further argued by Ld Counsel for accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava that sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act for prosecution of the offences charged against him under Prevention of Corruption Act has not been proved by PW 27 Vijay Kumar. It is submitted PW 27 was not the sanctioning authority but was an authenticating officer who had forwarded the grant of sanction only. It is argued that Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has not committed any offence and acted on the basis of record. It is also argued that becoming member of society cannot be considered that he has become member in lieu of reviving the said society.
420. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations against the Rajesh Kumar Srivastava by leading cogent evidence.
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 202 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019421. It is further argued by the Ld Senior PP for CBI that since the act done by accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was not a part of his official duty rather he was indulged in conspiracy with other public servants and private persons who have been charged in the present case. In that way no sanction is required against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava U/S 197 of Cr.P.C.
422. After considering the arguments of Ld Counsel for the Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ld Senior PP for CBI. As accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has been charged for the offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and substantive offences Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. It has to be considered whether sanction U/S 197 Cr. P.C is required or not for prosecuting accused.
423. On perusal, it is admitted position of the prosecution that there is no sanction being obtained U/S 197 of Cr.P.C to prosecute accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and same is also not CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 203 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019there on record.
424. Before adverting to the facts of the case and whether sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is required or not, I would like to reproduce Section 197 Cr. P.C.
425. Section 197 of the CrPC reads as under:
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 204 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein,the expression "State Government" were substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 205 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 206 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019426. On perusal of Section 197 of the Cr PC, it provides that when any person who is or was a public servant, not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or State Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. The law pertaining to the grant of sanction under Section 197 is no longer res integra. The essential requirements of Section 197 Cr. P.C. is that an accused should be alleged of having committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.
427. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Rakesh Bhatnagar Vs CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 207 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Central Bureau of Investigation , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7440 has held that :-
"62. According to the ratio laid down in A. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a 'Public Servant' whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. and not to every public servant. In the present case, undoubtedly, the petitioner is a DANICS officer and his appointing authority is the Central/State Government. There is equally no doubt in the mind of this Court that the allegations against the petitioner are of offences in the discharge of his official duties and as such the rigors of N.K Ganguly (supra) shall apply on all fours and it would be imperative for the prosecution to have obtained the sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. As such, it is apparent that the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences in the absence of the appropriate sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. would be untenable.
63. Mr. Goel did not dispute the fact that there is no sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. obtained from the Competent Authority against the petitioner. Having regard to the said admission, and also considering the ratio laid down by the aforesaid authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court quashes the charges framed against the petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 120B IPC."
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 208 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019428. In the case of A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"41. Sub-section (1) of Section 197CrPC shows that sanction for prosecution is required where any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Article 311 of the Constitution lays down that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or State or holds a civil post under the Union or State, shall be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It, therefore, follows that protection of sub-section (1) of Section 197CrPC is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government and not to every public servant.
59. From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only pre- requisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the public servant is expected to be put on trial include the offences other than those punishable under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e. IPC), the court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and also, if CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 209 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case progresses) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr P.C There is a material difference between the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on one hand, and Section 197 of the Cr P.C, on the other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr P.C depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the "nexus" between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr PC on such reasoning. The "safe and sure test", is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted "in excess of his duty", but if there is a "reasonable connection" between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Cr PC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts."
429. On perusal of above referred judgments of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 210 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Hon'ble Superior Courts, it is clear that to commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr PC on such reasoning. The safe and sure test is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty.
430. Here in the present case, the allegations against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava are that he had revived the said society on the basis of forged documents. The act of revival of the said society is official duty and if he could have not done act to revive the said Society then it could have been considered as dereliction of his official duty. So in the given circumstances, the sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is essential for his prosecution for the offences under IPC charge against him.
431. Admittedly accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was an I.A.S and his appointing authority was either CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 211 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Central Government or State Government, therefore, the protection as available U/S 197 Cr P C is to be granted to him for the prosecution U/S Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
432. So far as the allegations of conspiracy against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava in reviving of the society is concerned. There is no direct evidence being brought on record by the investigating agency. There is also no evidence that he was hand in glove with any of the accused persons. There is no evidence at all that he has got any monetary benefit from any of the co-accused in the process of revival of the said society.
433. Moreover accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has passed the order of revival of the said society on 24.01.2001 and also given directions to the society as under:
1. That the society will obtain and submit fresh affidavits from all the members of the society.
2. That the society will obtain and furnish necessary proof of the present residence of the members.
3. That the President and Secretary of the society will also file an affidavit stating that the documents furnished by them are in order and CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 212 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019
the enrolments made by the society were in order and in accordance with the provisions of DCS Act and Rules.
4. That all the documents will be submitted by the society within next 30 days before A.R(W) for verification and no extension of time will be allowed.
5. The pending Audit shall be got conducted within two months time.
6. That the elections to the Managing Committee will be conducted by appointing a departmental Election officer in due course of time.
434. Accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava has passed the order on the basis of material being produced before him. PW 19 B.S Arora has deposed that society members were present in the office when he has presented the application for revival of the said society. His testimony that he has put signatures on the noting file (D-6) on note sheet 18/N, was blank is not acceptable because he is an Advocate and he could not have signed in a blank sheet. Even otherwise, the accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava precautionary directed the society to complete subsequently curtains act which were six in number, as mentioned in the reviving order. It CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 213 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019shows his bonafide while passing the revival order. So the evidence produced on record by the prosecution is not of such magnitude which can be considered as sufficient to hold Rajesh Kumar Srivastava guilty for the conspiracy. In that circumstances, according of sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastave has no relevance at all.
435. One another argument of Ld Senior PP for CBI is that a membership was allotted to the accused as well as to his sister-in-law in the society named Shiv Shankar CGHS. This fact has not been denied by the accused. The question is whether becoming a member of Shiv Shankar CGHS being managed by its Management committee and any members of the Management committee, was to be considered indulgence of accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava in the commission of offence in the present case.
436. In the present case, the evidence as adduced on record does not prove that any rebate was given to accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava for allotment of CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 214 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019membership in society Shiv Shanker CGHS. It is not there on record that accused had paid less amount towards the membership of the society. Moreover the accused become member of the society much later from his transfer from the post of RCS. So the prosecution has failed to prove charges against accused Rajesh Kumar Srivastava for offences charged with.
Finding qua accused Shakuntla Joshi
437. The allegations against accused Shakuntla Joshi, are that she in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons, being Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS, Delhi, abused her official position as a public servant. She has forwarded the file to RCS for orders. She was also supposed to exercise proper care before forwarding the file to the RCS.
438. Ld Counsel for the accused Shakuntla Joshi has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 215 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). To prove the notings of accused, prosecution has examined two witnesses namely PW11 Azad Singh and PW25 Mahendra Singh from the office of RCS. But both the witnesses have not confirm or deposed that the alleged notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L (Colly) were appended by accused Shakuntla Joshi.
439. It is argued that in the absence of proving the notings in the handwriting of accused Shakuntla Johshi, inference cannot be taken that the official notings on Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 216 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/L(Colly) are of accused or signed by her.
440. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the notings file Ex.34/D ( Colly) was maintained in the office of RCS and same was seized by the IO. The notings have been put in file Ex.34/D ( Colly) in official capacity by the accused and same may be presumed that the same has been attributed to accused Shakuntla Joshi, and being made by her.
441. I have considered the rival contention of Ld Counsel for the accused as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI. The fact that file was seized during the investigation and was maintained in RCS office is proved. But no evidence is on record which can suggest that the official notings belongs to accused Shakuntla Joshi. No witness has been examined by the prosecution who can identify the signature of accused Shakuntla Joshi on the notings Ex.PW-34/A (Colly), Ex.PW-34/B (Colly), Ex.PW-34/C (Colly), Ex.PW-34/D (Colly), Ex.PW-34/F(Colly), Ex.PW-34/G (Colly), CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 217 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Ex.PW-34/H(Colly), Ex.PW-34/I(Colly), Ex.PW-34/J(Colly), Ex.PW-34/K (Colly) and Ex.PW-34/L(Colly). Even PW 11 and PW25 have not identified the official notings and signature of accused Shakuntla Joshi. There is no witness being examined by the prosecution who can depose that on which particular date the alleged notings were made or signed, the accused was posted on that seat. Technically there is flaw in the evidence on this fact against the accused.
442. It is also clear that there is no evidence at all on record which suggest to this Court that accused has any dealing or was in contact with any other accused persons. For the sake of argument if it is presumed that it was the duty of the accused to verify the documents from the record being maintained in the RCS office and she has not done the same,it may be negligence but that negligence cannot considered as complicity of the accused in commission of alleged offence.
443. The prosecution has not proved the minimum required fact which has to be proved on record. In CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 218 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019the absence of any evidence connecting the accused Shakuntla Joshi with alleged notings, she cannot be connected with offence charge against her. The prosecution has unable to brought any evidence on record which shows that accused Shakuntala Joshi has obtained any monetary gain in the revival of the said society. There is no evidence which shows that forged signatures were appended on the documents by any person in her presence. The evidence are short to hold her guilty for the offences charged with.
444. Moreover, to prosecute accused Shakuntla Joshi, for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is essential.
445. Admittedly, the person ( D.K. Mishra) who had accorded sanction for prosecution U/S 19 of P.C Act has not been examined by the prosecution as he has expired. The document Ex PW30/A cannot be considered because mere exhibiting of this document by identifying the signatures of Sh D.K. Misha by PW30 will seriously prejudice the right of the accused. As per law, the sanction has to be CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 219 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019granted by the sanctioning authority after satisfying itself and that satisfaction must be based upon the application of mind on perusing the material evidence being provided to it by the investigating agency. Non availability of D.K. Mishra will prejudice the rights of the accused as opportunity to cross examination is not being accorded to the accused to extract the fact whether the material has been perused by the sanctioning authority for according sanction. And to arrived at a conclusion that the mind has been applied by the sanctioning authority on that material. The accused could not have asked the question to PW30 whether the material being placed before Sh D.K. Mishra was examined by him ( Sh D.K.Misha ) before according sanction. But in the absence of those right being exercised by the accused by putting questions to sanctioning authority, accused's rights are prejudiced. In that circumstances, the sanction being accorded by D.K.Mishra cannot be the basis to presume that sanction was accorded after perusing the entire CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 220 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019material by the sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority has applied its mind. The PW30 is not competent person who can explained the fact which were exclusively in the knowledge of D.K. Mishra and same were considered by him being sanctioning authority.
446. Moreover, on perusal of Sanction file Ex DW1/A ( Colly). It reveals that the file/record which was sent to office of Lt Governor contains only S.P report in brief containing only allegation. The brief statement of accused persons. List of name of witnesses. The list of particular of document and draft sanction orders for obtaining sanction for prosecution of accused Shakuntla Joshi. The complete set of documents or complete statement of witnesses were not sent to the sanctioning authority. It shows that complete evidence were not sent to the sanctioning authority for its perusal. So in view of the law of sanction, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs coupled with the testimonies of PW30 and DW.1, the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction order against CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 221 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019accused Shakuntla Joshi being accorded by applying the mind by the sanctioning authority. CONCLUSION:
447. Since the evidence as brought on record is not sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to hold accused persons namely Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K. Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Shakuntla Joshi as guilty of offences charge with. The prosecution has also failed to prove on record the sanction against accused P.K. Thirwani, Satyaveer Singh Malik, Vipin Kumar Jain, and Shakuntla Joshi. To prosecute these four accused persons the sanction is foundation stone. So in view of the above discussion, accused persons namely Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K. Thirwani, Vipin Kumar Jain, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Shakuntla Joshi are acquitted. Bail bonds of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Satyaveer Singh Malik, P.K. Thirwani, CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 222 of 223 CBI No. 89/2019Vipin Kumar Jain, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Shakuntla Joshi stand cancelled and their sureties also stands discharged.
448. Let digitally signed copy of the judgment be uploaded on the Court's official website, Digitally signed JAGDISH accordingly.
by JAGDISH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.28
15:41:21 +0530
(Jagdish Kumar )
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
Announced in the Open Court
today :28.04.2025
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 223 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019
CBI Vs. Uttam Chand Surena & Ors.
(Dhruv Sangam CGHS) (Page 224 of 223
CBI No. 89/2019