Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sh. S. Venkat Raman on 9 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
Case No: CBI/313/19
FIR No. RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi.
Branch: ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi
Under Section: Sections 217 & 218 of the Indian Penal Code,
1872 (In short "IPC").
CNR No. DLCT12-000933-2019
Date of institution : 31.01.2013
Date of reserving : 31.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2024
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF PROSECUTION...4 to 5
COURT PROCEEDINGS......................................6
CHARGE........................................................6 to 7
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.............................. 7 to 20
i) Prosecution witnesses.................................7 to 11
ii) Documents on record.................................11 to 20
ADMISSION/ DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS.............20 to 21
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 CrPC..........22 to 23
DEFENCE EVIDENCE..........................................23 to 24
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 1 of 101
FINAL ARGUMENTS.....................................24 to 25
LEGAL PROVISIONS.....................................25 to 26
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI
WITNESSES...........................................................26 to 59
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE
WITNESS...............................................................59 to 60
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.............................60 to 100
a) Reports of the Ahlmads and Letters from the concerned Judges:
..................................................................67 to 70
b) Copies of orders passed by Concerned Courts and replies by
the accused S.V. Raman:...................................70 to 73
c) Prosecution witness PW1 Prabhat Kumar examined to prove its
case:...........................................................73 to 76
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED
BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN
CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED
AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS
SUPERIORS WERE FALSE ?.............................77 to 86
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?..............86 to 90
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE PROSECUTION
CASE:........................................................90 to 99
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 2 of 101
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER:
............................................. ......................90 to 92
b) SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS
PERTAINING TO RC-1/98: ............ ..................92 to 95
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS,
THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING
INFORMATION:................................................95 to 96
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO
ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:............................96 to 98
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND
CARELESSNESS:..........................................98 to 99
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. PP FOR CBI:
......................................................................99 to 100
CONCLUSION:.............................................100 to 101
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the : CBI/313/2019 case
b) Date of commission of : From the period 1998 to March offence 2011.
c) Name of the : Sh. S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI,
complainant ACU-VI, New Delhi
d) Name, parentage and : S. Venkat Raman (in short "S.V.
address of the accused
Raman.")
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 3 of 101
S/o Sh. V. Subrahmanian
R/o. Plot No. 89, Phase-IV, CBI
Colony,Vanasthlipuram,
Hyderabad-70
e) Offence complained of : Section 217 and 218 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted for the offences
punishable under Section 217 and
Section 218 IPC.
h) Date of Decision : 09.07.2024
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the accused namely Sh. S.V. Raman while being Investigating Officer in RC 1/98/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi (in short " RC Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 4 of 101 1/98") did not file its chargesheet and its accompanying documents. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused made incorrect noting in the office files and gave false information to his supervisory officers that the charge-
sheet has been filed in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun and subsequently reported to his superiors that the said case was transferred, after bifurcation of the state of UP and it was pending trial before the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad. It is alleged that investigation revealed that Chargesheet of RC 1/98 was never filed and after repeated false reports, when the matter came out in the open, the accused S.V. Raman filed a new charge-sheet on 08.03.2011 in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad. It is alleged that the accused being a public servant disobeyed directions of his superiors and prepared false reports with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he would save accused from legal punishment. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the accused S.V. Raman, committed the offences punishable U/s. 217 and 218 of IPC.
3. The Investigation of the case was done by the IO/Inspr. Sh. Bharat Singh, CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi who filed the final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of CrPC in respect of the offence punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC against the accused.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 5 of 101 COURT PROCEEDINGS:
4. The Ld. Predecessor Judge of this court took cognizance upon the said final report/chargesheet on 26.02.2013 and issued summons upon the accused who was stated to be chargesheeted without arrest. On 18.04.2013, accused appeared, admitted to court bail and he was supplied with the copies of chargesheet/final report alongwith its documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Ld. Special Judge-IV, (PC Act), CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, in a Revision Petition filed by the accused, the order of framing of charge dated 27.01.2015 was set aside on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court framed the charge in the absence of his counsel and one opportunity was granted for addressing arguments on framing of charge against the accused. Thereafter, vide Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 6 of 101 order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, a fresh Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed to also which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(I) Prosecution Witnesses:
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined, 14 witnesses, namely:
Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, at the In the year 1998, he time of recording of his was posted in SIU-X deposition, he was posted as, as a Public Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Prosecutor and Zone, CBI, Lucknow, UP. accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch.
2 PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar. He was working with
CBI in SIU (X),
Delhi from
18.11.1998 to
13.06.2005. He was
posted as LDC and
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 7 of 101 was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh.
L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. As a Crime Clerk, he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases.
3 PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad. He was posted in
BS&FC branch of
CBI from 2000 to
2012 as Head
Clerk/Crime
Assistant and looking
after the work of
establishment,
accounts and
administrative
matters. As Crime
Assistant, his duty
was specifically to
maintain the crime
files, investigation
files etc. relating to
investigation and trial
as well as to carry out
correspondence with
various agencies.
4 PW4 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Giri, In the year 2010, he
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 8 of 101 at the time of recording evidence was working as Clerk he was working as Record in Copying Agency, Keeper(Criminal) in the Office Civil Courts, District of Ld.ADJ, District courts, Courts, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad, UP UP.
5 PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav, In the year 2010, he at the time of recording was working as evidence, he was working as Ahlmad in the court Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Amit of Sh. Dr. A.K.Singh, Veer Singh, ld. Special Judge, ld. Special Judge, Distt. Courts, Ghaziabad, UP. District Courts, Ghaziabad.
6 PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar In the year 2010, he Pandey, at the time of recording was posted in Anti- of evidence, he was working as Corruption Branch of Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti- CBI, Ghaziabad, UP. Corruption Branch, Lucknow, UP.
7 PW7 Sh. Pramod Kumar He was the accused Agrawal. in the case RC 1/98 in which accused S.V.Raman did not file the chargesheet.
8 PW8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey. In the year 2009, he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. His duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch.
9 PW 9 Sh. Sham Lal (S.L.) Complainant who
Garg. also conducted the
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 9 of 101 Preliminary Enquiry of the accused. In the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-
VI, New Delhi.
10 PW 10 Sh. Ram Avadh, at the In the year 2012, he time of recording evidence, he was posted as was posted as Civil Court Amin Ahlmad in the court at District Court, Dehradun. of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
11 PW-11 Sh. Kailash Nath Tiwari He was posted in SIU-X Branch of CBI, New Delhi from 1997 to July 2002 as Supdt. of Police (now the said branch merged with BS&FC).
12 PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan During the period Singhal, at the time of recording August 2011 to April of evidence, he was posted as 2013, he was DIG, Special Duty & Research working as Zone, CBI, New Delhi on Superintendent of training to IIPA, New Delhi. Police in Bank Securities and Fraud Cell (BS&FC), CBI, New Delhi.
13 PW 13 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao. During the year 2012 to 2014, he was posted as Under Secretary, in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP & T, Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 10 of 101 Government of India.
He signed the sanction of prosecution against the accused S.V.Raman and communicated it to CBI.
14 PW 14 Sh. Bharat Singh Investigating Officer of the present case.
From the year 1998 to December 2013, he was posted as Inspector in AC-II Zone of CBI. From the year 1998 to December 2013, he was posted as Inspector in AC-II Zone of CBI Documents on record :
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A (Colly)(7 FIR No. RC1/98/SIU-X sheets) registered on 21.05.1998.
2. Ex.PW1/B Vide noting no. 235/N dated 20.12.1999, the then Special Director (E) approved filing of charge-sheet in the present case.
3. Ex.PW1/C Vide noting no. 245/N dated Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 11 of 101 30.12.1999, necessary sanction for the prosecution of bank official in the present case was accorded and marked to the IO/ S.V. Raman.
4. Ex.PW1/D Vide noting no. 249/N dated 28.04.2000, expert opinion dated 18.04.2000 received from Director, CFSL in the branch and again marked to accused/S.V. Raman for necessary action.
5. Ex.PW2/A Note No. 254 dated 24.08.2000 vide which the then Branch SP asked the IO "What is position of trial", thereafter on the same day, the IO/accused had written as "discussed".
6. Ex. PW 2/B Notesheet bearing No. M-
672/11 (D-5). Vide noting no. 1 dated 30.03.2009, the accused stated:
"The trial file is not traceable.
In this case, FIR has been sent to Special Judge, Dehradun and charge Sheet has been filed in court of Special Judge, Dehradun on 31.12.1999. Later on after bifurcation of the state of U.P.The case file, FIR could not be located in the court of Special Judge, Ghaziabad. After verification of record, the files has been traced and has since been sent to Special Judge Ghaziabad. As such the judge is Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 12 of 101 presently preoccupied with the trial of important cases and directed to come to the court along with another set of copies of documents in the last week of April or first week of May 2009 for further necessary action in the matter. This will be attended to on priority".
7. Ex. PW 2/D1 Complete file of M-700/11 which enclosed the copy of chargesheet of RC 1/98 (D-6).
8. Ex.PW3/A Production Memo dated 01.07.2011. Vide this memo PW 3 Mahavir Prasad handed over the correspondence file and note sheet portion etc. mentioned in annexure A to the IO/Inspector S.L. Garg in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU-V/Delhi against accused.
9. Ex.PW3/B Annexure A of production memo containing correspondence file and notesheet portion etc. of RC1E/98-SIU(X)/DLI, RC2E/99-SIU(X)/DLI, RC5E/99-SIU(X)DLI and RC1E/2005/BS&FC/DLI alongwith other files.
10. Ex.PW3/C Investigation files mentioned in Annexure B.
11. Ex.PW3/D Seizure memo dated 26.03.12 (D-13). Vide this seizure memo PW 3 Mahavir Prasad handed over the documents mentioned Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 13 of 101 in the memo to Sh. Bharat Singh, Inspector, ACU-VI, CBI.
12. Ex.PW3/E & 3/F File M-671/11 (D-20);
miscellaneous letters and reports of CBI and M-672/11 (D-5);
notings in the file RC1(E)/98- SIU-X/DLI.
13. Ex.PW3/G & 3/H File No. M-510/212; notings in File No. RC 1/E/1998-SIU-X and M-513/2012.
14. Ex.PW3/J (although it Noting starting at Para 16/N to should have been Ex. 23/N dated 12.10.2009 given by PW 3/I but wrongly the then HOB, CBI, BS&FC, given the identity of Ex. Mahipal Yadav therein PW 3/J ) elaborating that the chargesheet of the present case was never filed by the accused. This noting was given after receiving letter from HOB, ACB, CBI, Ghaziabad.
15. Ex. PW4/A (D-14) Certified copy of Order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Dr. A.K.Singh, Ld. Spl. Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP at page 7 & 8 wherein it was observed that chargesheet was not filed in the present case.
16. Ex. PW4/B Certified copy of reply dated 11.03.2010 of accused S.V.Raman to the application filed by Sh.P.K. Aggarwal in RC No.1/98 on pages 4 to 6 seeking permission to travel abroad i.e., Malaysia and Singapore. It the reply, the accused stated that chargesheet Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 14 of 101 is likely to be filed before the Court.
17. Ex. PW 5/A Reply dated 19.11.2010 given by PW5 Santosh Kumar to the application dated 19.11.2010, replying in negative that till 19.11.2010 no chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad, in case, RC SIA/1998/E/0001/ CBI/SIU-
XBS & FC. (Page 3 of D14).
18. Ex. PW 6/D1 Letter dated 19.11.2010 of Head of Branch CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad (page 2 of D-14), through which all documents collected by PW6 Sandeep Kumar were forwarded to the Head of the Branch, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi.
19. Ex. PW7/A Seizure memo dated 13.07.2012 in case RC No. 2172012A0001/ ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi vide which PW7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal handed over the documents mentioned therein to the IO/Inspr. Bharat Singh.
20. Ex. PW 7/B Certified Copy of Application of PW 7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal for release of Passport dated 31.07.2002 filed in case titled as CBI vs. A.V. Hanumanthapa & Ors. in RC SIA 1998 E0001 filed in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 15 of 101
21. Ex. PW 7/C Reply dated 13.11.2002 filed by accused to the application dated 31.07.2002 of PW7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal wherein the accused opposed the said application and also stated that "...investigation of the case is still under investigation and at crucial stage."
22. Ex. PW7/D Certified copy of order dated 16.12.2002 regarding disposal of the application for release of passport of PW 7.
23. Mark PW7/1 An application of PW7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal seeking permission to go to abroad.
24. Ex. PW 5/1 (Colly) D-4, Para 455; vide which (Para 455 to 459) accused S.V. Raman put the (although it should have draft charge-sheet in the said been PW 8/1, but it is case which was vetted by Sh. written PW 5) (in CC Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for No. 312/19) CBI. D-4, Para 459/N; vide which draft sheet was approved by DIG A.M. Prasad dated 23.07.2007.
25. Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) D-9, at page no. 59; charge-
(pages 41 to 60) sheet of case RC (although it should have BD1/2005/E/0001. been PW 8/2, but it is written PW 5) (in CC No. 312/19)
26. Ex. PW9/A(colly Original complaint of running into 3 pages) complainant/PW9 Sh.Sham Lal Garg, dated 23.01.2012.
27. Ex. PW 10/1 Report submitted by PW10 Sh.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 16 of 101 Ram Avadh on 10.05.2012 to Ld. Spl. Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun that chargesheet of CBI case RC No.1/98 was not filed in the said court.
(Document D-17-page No.2)
28. Ex. PW 10/2 Forwarding letter dated 11.05.2012 sent by Sh. Pradeep Pant, Ld. Special Judge, Anti-
corruption (CBI), Dehradun to SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi.
This was a reply to an earlier letter dated 03.04.2012 sent by SP, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi.
29. Mark PW11/X Photocopy of chargesheet annexed with the file D-6 already Ex. PW 2/D1, which was put up by accused S.V. Raman on 31.12.1999 and forwarded by PW11.
30. Ex.PW12/1 Office copy of letter dated 18.11.2011 addressed to the accused vide which PW 12 Sh.
Madhu Sudan Singhal had forwarded the original court order dated 04.11.2011, passed by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad.
(Document D-7, page 520)
31. Ex. PW 12/2 Letter dated 05.09.2011 addressed to Director CBI by Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad vide which, order dated 05.09.2011 of said court was annexed.
(Document D-7, page No. 518) Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 17 of 101
32. Ex. PW 12/3 Letter bearing CBI ID No. 1726/4/17/ 2012-BS&FC/DLI dated 24.04.2012 sent by PW12 Sh.
Madhu Sudan Singhal to Head of Branch, CBI, AC-11 Branch in which details of trial files of two cases i.e., RC 1/98 and RC 5/99 were forwarded to the said branch. (Document D-11)
33. Ex. PW 12/4 Letter bearing CBI ID No. 6070/4/17/2012-BS&FC/DLI dated 01.08.2012 sent by PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal to Head of Branch, CBI, AC-11, branch in which details of trial files of one case was forwarded to the said branch. (Document D-12)
34. Ex. PW 12/5 Letter bearing CBI ID No. 5941/Misc./DIG/BS&FC/DLI dated 21.12.2011 addressed by PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal to Sh. Pradeep Kumar SP, ACU-V, New Delhi vide which photocopies of two crime files including that of RC 1/98 as mentioned in the said letter were forwarded to the said branch.( Document D-18)
35. Ex. PW13/A(Colly) (4 Forwarding letter dated pages) 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC-II, CBI and sanction of prosecution dated 22.01.2013 against the accused.
36. Ex. PW14/A The Original FIR No. RC Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 18 of 101 01/2012/CBI/ACU(VI)/New Delhi registered against the accused
37. Ex.PW14/B (Colly) (3 Search Memo dated 12.02.2012 pages) alongwith its annexures in respect of search conducted at the premises of the accused in Hyderabad.
38. Ex.PW14/C Handing over/Taking over Memo dated 28.02.2012 i.e., Document D-10 vide which PW14-IO/Inspr. Bharat Singh took the documents mentioned in the memo from Sh. S.L.Garg, the then Inspr. ACU-VI, CBI.
39. Mark PW 14/X Copy of charge-sheet of RC 1/1998 SIU X which is available in the file at page no. 752 to 763.
40. Ex.PW14/D Letter dated 16.03.2012 (D-14) of Sh. A.S.Dhillon, the then HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi addressed to SP, CBI, ACU-VI regarding forwarding of original documents, was marked to PW14 by Sh. S.K.Bhagat, SP.
Vide this letter PW 14 received the documents mentioned in the letter.
41. Ex.PW14/E (colly) (6 Letter dated 16.04.2012 (D-15) pages) regarding forwarding of original documents, alongwith the documents mentioned in the letter, addressed to SP, CBI/ACU-VI by A.S.Dillon was marked to PW 14 by Sh. S.K. Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 19 of 101 Bhagat, SP.
42. Ex.PW14/F Reply/Report dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi wherein he reported that the chargesheet of RC 1/98 had been received from Dehradun court to Special Judge, Ghaziabad and since, one page of the chargesheet was partly torn and a fresh copy of chargesheet was given, as directed by Ld. Special Judge and the fact that the case was fixed for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to accused on 22.06.2009
43. Ex.PW14/G Letter dated 03.04.2012 of Sh.
S.K.Bhagat, the then SP, ACU-
VI, New Delhi addressed to the Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun regarding investigation of CBI case RC 2172012A0001/CBI/ACU-VI/N ew Delhi, wherein certain information in respect of this case was requested to be provided.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS:
9. Vide statement of accused dated 04.03.2020, in compliance with the provisions of Section 294 of the Code Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 20 of 101 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of certain documents i.e. (D-3) Copy of FIR RC 1(E)/2005, BS&FC alongwith documents (page 12 to 118), (D-4) Notesheet part of crime file of case RC 1(E)/2005, BS&FC (page 119 to 183), (D-5) Copy of Fax Message dated 25.07.2007 with other documents (page 184 to 268) and (D-
6) File No. M-678/11 with notesheet and correspondence (page 269 to 276). The said documents were admitted by the accused and were accordingly exhibited as Ex. A1 to Ex.A3 and D-6 already Ex.PW3/C. Further, the accused S.Venkat Raman vide his statement U/s. 294 CrPC recorded on 01.12.2022 also admitted the Certified copy of order dated 05.09.2011 passed by Ld. Special Judge, Anti- Corruption,CBI, Ghaziabad, in case No. 1/2011, CBI vs. A.V.Hanumanthappa which is Ex.X1.
10. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.11.2022. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e., at the time of appreciation of evidence.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 21 of 101 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C/DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
11. The statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 01.12.2022. He stated that he had mentioned correct details to the department at the appropriate time and had never shielded any information from his superiors at any point of time. He also stated that the chargesheet had been filed before concerned court on the date mentioned by him to his superiors. He stated that he filed the chargesheet of the RC in question on 31.12.1999 at Dehradun Court. Further, he stated that the complete files which include /part files of the RC in question have not been produced before the Court. He also stated that the statement of witnesses examined during Preliminary Enquiry were not produced before the court. He also stated that the prosecution did not seize or produce the relevant documents regarding filing of the chargesheet and also letter which is Ex.PW5/A was unverified.
12. Further, in his statement, the accused stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including investigation, supervision of investigation of cases including searches conducted by his subordinates in various cases, administration, preparing notes for conferences, conducting enquiries, preparation of Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 22 of 101 comments on judgments and whether the case was fit for appeal against the acquittal of accused persons. He also stated that he was also asked to supervise and train the newly inducted 6-7 CISF personnel inducted in the CBI. Further, he stated that during the said period he had carried out his duties with utmost sincerity and was never communicated any adverse ACR or remarks. He further stated that he received President's Police Medal for distinguished services in 2008. Lastly, he stated that he had been made a scapegoat to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI at the relevant point of time.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
13. The accused led evidence in his defence.
Defence Evidence
14. (I) In order to prove and substantiate its case, the defence has examined, 01 witness, namely:
Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 DW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, at the He brought the time of recording of his record included the deposition, he was posted as SI, Service Register of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. accused S.V.Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 23 of 101 Documents on record :
(II) The Defence witness relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. DW 1/A (Colly, Copies of page nos.
OSR, running into 14 18 to 30 of Service pages) Register containing some loose pages which are tagged with the Service register of accused from Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi.
2. Mark DW1/DX Copy of order no.
CBI ID No. 47/Med./PPM-PM/I D-08/PD-1617 dated 20.08.2008.
15. Thereafter, Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.01.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas Khatri, Ld. PP for the State as well as that of Sh. Shivam Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 24 of 101 through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
17. The legal provisions which are involved are Sections 217 and 218 of IPC. The said sections are reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 217 IPC:
217. Public servant disobeying directions of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture:
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or ith both.
Section 218 IPC:
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 25 of 101 intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI WITNESSES:
18. PW 1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Legal Advisor, Lucknow Zone, CBI deposed that from 20.11.1992 to 06.01.1997, he worked as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in CBI, ACB, Delhi and on 07.01.1997 he reported to SIC-I as APP, thereafter on his promotion to Public Prosecutor, he joined in EOW-II from where he again got transferred in SIU-X in 1998. He further deposed that during his posting in SIU-X as Public Prosecutor, Sh. K.N. Tiwari was the Head of the Branch as Superintendent of Police and also that accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP was also posted in the same branch. He further deposed that apart from him there was one another Sr. PP, namely, Sh. Thakur Dass and that later, one APP, namely, Ms. Kiran Bala also joined in the said branch. He further deposed that SIU-X was having jurisdiction of Economic Offences and Bank Fraud related cases and that prosecutors were also attending Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 26 of 101 various trial cases spread all over India. He further deposed that after the finalization of investigation, final report U/s 173 (2) Cr.PC was prepared by the IO after the receipt of approval orders from the competent authority/HO and then charge-sheet marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting. He further deposed that after vetting, the charge-
sheet was prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in the court of law of competent jurisdiction and charge-sheet also bear the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the court.
19. PW 1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that FIR dated 21.05.1998 was registered in the present case under the signatures of Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP, CBI, SIU-X (witness correctly identified signature of Sh. K.N. Tiwari at point A) and that the investigation of the said case was entrusted to accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP, CBI, SIU-X. The FIR was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A (7 pages). He further deposed that after completion of investigation, report was sent to the HO for approval and vide para-No. 235/N, the then Special Director (E) approved the filing of chargesheet vide noting Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that vide note No. 245/N, necessary Sanction for the prosecution of bank official in the said case was also accorded and was marked to IO Sh. S.V.Raman for further investigation, the Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 27 of 101 said note was proved as Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that expert opinion of handwriting expert dated 18.04.2000 was also received in the branch and again marked to accused for necessary action vide note 249/N which is Ex.PW1/D. Further, he deposed that after seeing the file D-4 at page No.73, para 35/N that the Special Director (E) approved the prosecution of persons in this case on 20.12.1999 and thereafter, marked the file of DIG, BS&FC, DLI for compliance of the order and the noting portion is already Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that from the perusal of the said file, it is apparent that as a follow up action draft sanction for prosecution order was prepared but till 07.08.2000, final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC was not presented in the court of Competent Jurisdiction. He deposed that the said case falls within the jurisdiction of Ld. Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad court and initially it was of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun and due to bifurcation of UP and Uttarakhand, it was later assigned to the court of Ld. Special Court at Ghaziabad Court.
20. PW 1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that while he was conducting the proceedings in another case i.e., RC 12/79, one IO from SIU-X branch, namely Inspr. Komal Singh met him in the court room regarding the filing of the charge- sheet in RC 1/98 and since he was not carrying the documents with him, the Ld. Special Judge, Smt. Rama Jain Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 28 of 101 directed him to re-visit the court alongwith the original documents. He deposed that during his tenure from year 2000 to 2003, charge-sheet in RC1/98 was not filed within his knowledge. He deposed that in the year 2002, he visited alongwith IO of the case, the accused S.V.Raman in RC 1/98 SIU(X) in the court of Ld. Special Judge Ghaziabad, in connection of an application of suspect regarding permission to go abroad and the Ld. Special Judge permitted the suspect to go abroad and also directed IO to submit final report in the case RC 1/98 SIU(X). Further, he deposed that the said case was never marked to him for conducting prosecution in the court by the senior officers and he never issued court diary as per CBI manual regarding proceeding of the case also.
21. Further, PW1 Prabhat Kumar deposed that as per D-6 Ex.PW2/D1 (colly), did not contain the court diaries regarding proceedings of the case for perusal of senior officers. He further deposed that during his tenure the chargesheet was not filed in this case as no file was marked to him regarding filing of chargesheet and as per their internal directions same would have been marked to him, if the same was filed in the court.
22. PW1 Prabhat Kumar was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, wherein he deposed that after filing the charge-sheet in the court, charge-sheet was never Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 29 of 101 returned without pronouncing a speaking order and that if the documents are deficient or incomplete, the court directs the IO to file the deficient documents, before proceeding further. He further deposed that at the time of filing of charge-sheet, Ahlmad of the court checks the documents as per the list relied by the prosecution and submit his report, thereafter Charge-sheet is registered by the Court. He further stated that if original documents are not filed alongwith the charge-sheet, Ahlmad apprises the same to the Ld. Judge for appropriate directions. He further deposed that apart from the IO, charge-sheet can be filed by IO, deputed by Head of the Branch and that Branch Head can depute any other IO to file charge-sheet, in case charge- sheet is returned from the court.
23. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that he had no knowledge if the original documents were received from CFSL in the year 2004 in RC 1/98 SIU (X). Further, he deposed that he did not know, if the original report of CFSL was received in the office in the year 2004. Moreover, he deposed that he never attended the court of Ld Special Judge as a prosecutor in RC 1/98 SIU (X) at Dehradun.
24. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Inspector, CBI Academy, Ghaziabad deposed that he was working with CBI in SIU (X), Delhi from 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 and that on 12.09.2003, SIU(X), Delhi got merged with BS & FC, Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 30 of 101 Delhi Branch of CBI and also that at the said time the Branch SP was K.N. Tiwari. He further deposed that during the relevant period he was posted as LDC and was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh. L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. He deposed that as a Crime Clerk he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases. He further deposed that whenever any FIR is registered, copy of the same is entrusted to the IO for investigation and to the concerned court. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, the final report Part-I is submitted by the IO of the case to Branch SP, thereafter, Branch SP marks the same to Law Officer of the Branch for opinion as Final report Part-II and then Law Officer prepares the Final Report Part-II and submits the same to the Branch SP/Competent Officer. Further, he deposed that competent authority gives his final order in the matter and that if matter is related to the prosecution of the Public Servant, sanction of prosecution is required before filing of the charge-sheet. He further deposed that Branch SP prepares a report and sends it to the concerned department requesting to send sanction for prosecution against the concerned Public Servant. He further deposed that after receipt of sanction for prosecution, draft charge-sheet is Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 31 of 101 prepared by IO of the case, the same is forwarded by the Branch SP and then filed in the concerned Court. Further, he deposed that IO of the case submits a status report of filing of charge-sheet and the status of the case on the date fixed before the court.
25. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that the RC No. SIA 1998E 0001 was registered on 21.05.1998 under the signature of the then Branch SP Sh.K.N.Tiwari on Ex.PW1/A which was sent to Ld. Special Judge for CBI cases, Dehradun and copy of same was also given to the IO. He further deposed that the final order in RCNo. SIA 1998E 0001 was given by Sh.P.C.Sharma, the then Special Director, CBI vide noting para-No. 235 and 236 on 20.12.1999 and Sanction of the prosecution against the accused was put up by him on 30.12.1999 vide already Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. He further deposed that Sh. R.N.Murthy, the then OS marked the same to accused/IO.
26. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that vide noting 254 dated 24.08.2000 which is Ex.PW2/A, the then Branch SP asked to the IO "What is position of trial". He deposed that thereafter, on the same day, the IO has written as "discussed". The said notesheet is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and he identified his signature at point A and the signature of Branch SP at point B and the signature of the accused at Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 32 of 101 point C. He further deposed that vide noting No.1 dated 30.03.2009 which is Ex.PW2/B, accused submitted that the chargesheet in the RC No. SIA 1998E 0001 has been filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun. He further deposed that in the RC No. SIA 1998E 0001, there was no Court Diaries and reports available in the Crime file, which means that the same were not submitted by the concerned Prosecutor and the IO/PO respectively.
27. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for accused, wherein he deposed that when documents in any matter were sent to FSL, an entry to that effect was made in the GEQD register, if the office copy of the forwarding letter is provided to the office by the IO of the case. He further deposed that the GEQD register is maintained by dealing hand of crime section of the branch and the dealing hand of Crime Section used to report to Head Clerk, Office Superintendent and then to SP of the branch. He further deposed that he would have made entry in the said GEQD register, if office copy of forwarding letter was provided to him. He further deposed that the CFSL report dated 18.04.2000 in the present matter was received in the office and entry to that effect was made by him on 28.04.2000 on Ex.PW1/D.
28. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that as per note sheet D-4 it was not clear when the final order to file the Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 33 of 101 chargesheet was given in this case. He volunteered those final orders of competent authority had been received which was mentioned a para 232 to 234/N and thereafter SP's report for obtaining Sanction Order had also been sent which was mentioned at para 242 to 244/N. He also deposed that thereafter, sanction order dated 28.12.1999 had been received which was put up in note-sheet on 30.12.1999, at para-No. 245/N vide in which it was mentioned that as a remark on PUC by SP/SIU (X) Sh. S.V.Raman IO may please be directed for further necessary action.
29. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that note-sheet (D-
4) does not reflect date on which final sanction/order was given to file the chargesheet. He further deposed that he could not say that the original documents of the case were received from FSL by CBI in the year 2004, however, he voluntarily deposed that there was no record as the notesheet were only till the date 24.08.2000. He also deposed that he did not know the name of the officer who was authorised to file the chargesheet in the present case.
30. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that there was a dispatch register wherein office maintained the dispatch number of every charge-sheet and it could not be ascertained from the said register to whom the charge-sheet was entrusted to file in the competent court. He further Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 34 of 101 deposed after going through the records that said dispatch register was not found on court record and he does remember other cases which were entrusted with the accused for investigation during relevant time.
31. PW2- Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed in his cross examination that he did not maintain any separate record to show as to how many part files are opened in a particular case. Further, he deposed that the trial file is known as the court diary file which was maintained by the branch in each case and D-6 was the court diary file which was made in the present case and prepared by one official namely Sh. Anil Vinod Toppo, LDC and identified his handwriting on the file cover D-6 Ex.PW2/D1 (colly) at point A. He admitted that the Crime Sections makes the monthly report of the cases which are pending, disposed from investigation.
32. PW 3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed that he joined CBI on 30.07.1980 and was posted in BS & FC Branch of CBI from 2000 to 2012 as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant. Further, he deposed that his duty was to look after the work of crime files, investigation files etc. as well as correspondence with various agencies. Further, he deposed that vide production memo dt. 01.07.2011 (D-10), he handed over the correspondence file and notesheet portion etc. of RC1E/98- SIU-X/DLI, RC2E/99-SIU-x/DLI, RC5E/99-SIU-X/DLI and RC1E/2005/BS&FC/DLI alongwith other case files to Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 35 of 101 IO Inspr. S.L.Garg in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU-V/Delhi against the accused which were mentioned in Annexure A of the production memo. The production memo dated 01.07.2011 and Annexure A were proved as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He further deposed that he had supplied the investigation files mentioned in Annexure B Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point B on each page. He further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-13), he handed over the documents mentioned in the memo Ex.PW3/D to Sh. Bharat Singh, Inspector, ACU-VI CBI in present RC.
33. PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed that vide production memo Ex.PW3/A he had handed over the files M-671/11 (D-20) and M-672/11 (D-5) i.e., Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F respectively, in the present case, which are already Ex.PW2/D1 (D-6) to the IO. He further relied upon the file M-510/2012 and M-513/2012 which were proved as Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively and which were handed over by him to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D in the present case. He further proved the noting starting at Para 16/N to 23/N dated 12.10.2009 as Ex.PW3/J, wherein Sh. Mahipal Yadav, the then HOB, CBI, BS&FC elaborated the position of the case RC 1/98 SIU-X, CBI after receiving letter from HoB, ACB, CBI, Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 36 of 101 Ghaziabad and identified the signature of Sh. Mahipal Yadav at point A on the said Ex.PW3/J.
34. PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused wherein he deposed that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief was based on the documents shown to him from record and he had no personal knowledge of the facts of present case. Further, he deposed that all the files pertaining to RC-1/98 SIU-X CBI are not available on the record of the court. He further deposed that the trial file was separately maintained by Crime Clerks, who used to work under him.
35. PW-4 is Sh. Chandra Bhushan Giri deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as Clerk in Copying Center, Civil Courts, Ghaziabad, UP. He further deposed that on 19.11.2010, he had prepared the certified copy of the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Dr. A.K.Singh, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP which he proved as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he had also prepared the certified copy of the reply dated 11.03.2010 of Sh. S.V.Raman from page No.4 to 6 of (D-14) which he proved as Ex.PW4/B to the application filed by P.K.Aggarwal both in RC SIA/1998/E/0001/CBI/SIU-X/ BS&FC, CBI.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 37 of 101
36. PW-5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Dr.A.K.Singh, Special Judge, District Courts, Ghaziabad. He further identified his handwriting and signature on page No.3 (i.e., application filed by Sandeep Kumar Pandey) Document (D-14) (colly 8 pages) at point A and B respectively. He further deposed that on 19.11.2010, an application was filed by Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Inspr. CBI, Ghaziabad in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad asking a question in the court whether charge- sheet in RC No. SIA/1998/E/0001/CBI/SIU-X/BS&FC, CBI had been filed in the said court or not to which he had replied in negative vide document (Page 2 of D-14) which he proved as Ex.PW5/A.
37. PW-5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav in his cross examination, deposed that the application Ex.PW5/A was addressed to the Court of ld. Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad, UP. He deposed that the said application was not placed before the Ld. Special Judge, nor the reply was forwarded through the Ld. Special Judge. He volunteered that such applications are moved before the Ahlmads and replied by the Ahlmads without reference to the Judicial officer concerned.
38. PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Inspr. CBI, ACB, Lucknow, UP deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 38 of 101 in ACB, CBI, Ghaziabad, UP and on 19.11.2010 on the directions of SP, CBI, Ghaziabad, UP he collected the details of case RC No. SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/New Delhi titled as CBI vs. S.V.Ramanthapa and others, through his query vide an application "Whether chargesheet in this case had been filed or not ? He deposed that in this regard, he received the reply that chargesheet had not been filed. He further deposed that he had also collected the certified copy of reply filed by Sh. S.V.Raman, SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi dated 11.03.2010 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption), CBI, Ghaziabad and also collected the certified copy of ordersheet dated 18.03.2010 and submitted all the above said documents to his office. He further identified his handwriting and his signature on document (D-14) (colly 8 pages) already Ex.PW5/A at point C. He further deposed that the certified copy of reply filed by Sh.S.V.Raman, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi in pursuance to application dated 10.03.2010 filed by Sh. P.K.Agarwal, one of the accused of above mentioned in case in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad is already Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that the certified copy of order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad on the application dated 10.03.2010 of Sh. P.K.Aggarwal is Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 39 of 101 already Ex.PW4/A and he had submitted the copy of the said order in his office.
39. PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and in his cross examination, he proved the letter dated 19.11.2020 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad (page 2 of document D-14) bearing the signature of Sh. Nirbhay Kumar, the then Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, Ex.PW6/D1, all the documents collected by him were forwarded to the HoB, CBI, BS& FC, CBI.
40. PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey deposed that no document was furnished by the dealing assistant, who replied to Ex. PW5/A in the form of any copy of register or record pertaining to filing of charge sheets. He also deposed that he would not know if the charge sheet was filed in Dehradun and was transferred to Ghaziabad. He voluntarily deposed that on the date he went to check, the chargesheet was not there in Ghaziabad. He also deposed that originally the jurisdiction over the case was of Dehradun Court and after bifurcation of State of UP, Ghaziabad Court got jurisdiction and therefore, he went to Ghaziabad to find out the status of the case.
41. PW7 is Sh. Pramod Kumar Agrawal deposed that he was a Chartered Accountant by profession and in the year 1991, he had started a business in the name of M/s.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 40 of 101 Competent Metalizers Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that in 1993, the company was converted into Public Limited Company in the name of M/s. Comet Glass Limited and he was Managing Director in the said company, Sh. A.V.Nair was the Vice Chairman and Sh. A.K.Agarwal was the Joint MD in the said company. He further deposed that the company went in heavy losses and was closed down in the year 1997. He further deposed that the company took a loan from Canara Bank, Firozabad, UP and due to the default in repayment of the loan, a case was registered by CBI on the complaint of Canara Bank. He further deposed that the Canara Bank took over the said company and company went into liquidation and winding up order was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Feburary 2002.
42. PW7 Sh. Pramod Kumar Agrawal deposed that he joined the investigation of CBI till the year 1999. He deposed that he had attended the investigation of the case about 15-20 times in the CBI office before Sh. S.V.Raman, IO of the said case. He further deposed that the seizure memo dated 13.07.2012 in case RC No. 2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi, Ex.PW7/A vide which he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to Sh Bharat Singh, Inspr. CBI and he identified his signature on said seizure memo at point A. He further deposed that in the year 2002, he moved an application for Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 41 of 101 release of his passport before the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad, and that on page No. 3 & 4 there was certified copy of his application for release of passport dated 31.07.2002 in case titled as CBI vs. A.V.Hanumanthapa & Ors. n RC SIA 1998 E0001 filed in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad, bearing his signature at point A on page 4, which he identified and proved the certified copy of the said application as Ex.PW7/B. He further deposed that the certified copy of reply dated 13.11.2002 of the said application given by the accused S.V.Raman is Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that in the said reply, the accused Sh. S.V.Raman had stated that investigation of above said case was still under investigation and was at crucial stage. He further deposed that Sh. S.V.Raman had also mentioned in reply that the request of is application for release of passport may be deferred till the finalization of the investigation. He deposed that his application for release of passport was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2002 and its certified copy is Ex.PW7/D. He deposed that he obtained his passport from CBI office on 17.03.2003 from Sh. S.V. Raman, IO of the case and he had not gone abroad till the year 2009.
43. PW7 Sh. Pramod Kumar Agrawal deposed that on 29.04.2009 despite permission from the ld. Special Judge, Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 42 of 101 CBI, Ghaziabad to visit abroad, he could not visit abroad due to some personal reasons. He further deposed that the document (D20) (running into 51 pages) consisting of his application for permission to go abroad at pages No. 38 to 39 bears his signature at point A on Ex.PW7/I. He further deposed that on 10.03.2010, he again moved an application for permission to go abroad before the court of ld. Special Judge, CBI Ghaziabad and Sh S.V.Raman filed the reply to his application mentioning therein that the investigation was at the conclusive stage. He further deposed that the Hon'ble Court in its order dated mentioned since no chargesheet was pending in that court and because the court had already allowed his application to leave the country in the past also, hence the court left the matte at the wisdom of the IO. He on seeing the document (D-14) on page 7 & 8 (already Ex.PW4/A) deposed that there was court order dated 18.03.2010. He further deposed that he had been shown the reply of the IO filed in the court on 11.03.2010 at page No. 4 to 6 (already Ex.PW4/B) of document (D-14). He further deposed in pursuance of said order, he visited the CBI office and met Sh.S.V.Raman in his office, who obtained his signatures on a bond and permitted to go abroad and after returning to India, he informed the IO regarding his return to India and might have informed the court also.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 43 of 101
44. PW7 Sh. Pramod Kumar Agrawal, during his cross examination, deposed that he was an accused in RC SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/New Delhi and trial was going on in the court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad.
45. PW 8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that he was working in CBI Headquarter, Admin. Section as Crime Assistant and in 2009 he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. Further, he deposed that his duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in branch. Further, he deposed that the present case was registered in BS & FC Branch, CBI on 31.01.2005 and identified the signature of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC on FIR (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A in CC No.312/19) dated 31.01.2005, of the case i.e., RC BD1/2005/E/001. Further, he deposed that vide para 455, the accused S.V.Raman put the draft charge-sheet which was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI and vide para 459/N, the draft chargesheet was approved by the then DIG A.M.Prasad dated 23.07.2007. He relied upon the said notings para 455 and 459/N which are Ex.PW5/1 (Colly) in CC No. 312/19. Further, he relied upon the copy of the charge-sheet which is Ex.PW5/2 (colly) (pages 41 to 60) in CC No. 312/19. He further Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 44 of 101 deposed that vide para-516/N, accused S.V. Raman made a note on 24.07.2007 that he was filing the charge-sheet in the court of Special Judge, Nasik by 26.07.2007 and the last note on the file (Ex. A2) was of 22.11.2007 and that the para was already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/C in CC No. 312/19.
46. PW 8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey further deposed that on the page-41 to 60 of the file (already exhibited as Ex. PW 3/D in CC No. 312/19), copy of charge-sheet of case BD1/2005/E/0001 was available and at page 41 of the charge-sheet, he identified the signature of Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP who vetted the charge-sheet on 27.07.2007. Charge-sheet was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) (Pages 41 to 60) in C.C No. 312/19.
47. PW 8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that the first noting at para-1 from point B to B on Ex. PW 3/C in CC No. 312/19, was made by accused S.V. Raman which was already proved as Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19, and he identified signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that noting at para 7, from point C to C was made by accused S.V. Raman on 20.05.2009, which was already proved as Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19 and witness identified the signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that FAX message at page 57, 58, in the file numbered as M-718/11 (already exhibited as Ex. A3 in CC Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 45 of 101 No. 312/19) was sent by accused S.V. Raman to SP, CBI BS & FS Branch on 25.07.2007 (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/D) and he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A.
48. PW 8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he admitted the fact that when compared to the seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC No. BD1/2005/E/001, all the material was not filed in the court. Copy of charge-sheet dated 21.03.2011 filed in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001 was in the court record and was exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A (D-16) in C.C. No. 312/19. He also stated that copy of charge-sheet in RC No. BD1/2002/E/0001 prepared and approved to be filed in the court in the year 2007 was not part of the charge-sheet in the present case. Further, he admitted the fact that whenever a charge-sheet was taken from the office to be filed in the court, an entry was made in the dispatch register and the dispatch register was not a part of court record. Further, he stated that during the relevant period, accused S.V. Raman was also investigating other cases including old and fresh investigation. He stated that record maintained by Crime Section was inspected by Senior Officer including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. Further, he stated that he had not dealt with the trial file in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 46 of 101
49. PW 9 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi. He deposed that a complaint was received by office of CBI, AC-II from BS & FC, CBI, New Delhi regarding accused S.V. Raman for not filing the said charge-sheet and the complaint was marked to him for Preliminary Enquiry. He deposed that he conducted the Preliminary Enquiry and found some evidence against accused S.V.Raman and accordingly, he filed his complaint (D-2) dated 23.01.2012, bearing his signature at point A, to his SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi mentioning all the facts which he recovered during Preliminary Enquiry. Further, he deposed that original complaint dated 23.01.2012 was tagged with the case no 313/2019 and the complaint dated 23.01.2012 was exhibited as Ex. PW 9/A (Colly) (OSR) (running into 3 pages).
50. PW 9 Sh. Sham Lal Garg was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel in which he deposed that when any complaint was received from the superiors for PE, the same was registered by giving a specific number and in the present case the PE number was mentioned in the subject of his complaint dated 23.01.2012 (D-2). Further, he deposed that he does not remember if he handed over the written complaint received from Sh. Santosh Macherla, HoZ (BS & FC), CBI, New Delhi to the IO of the present case. He Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 47 of 101 handed over all the documents prepared, and statement recorded by him during PE to the IO of the present case. Further, he deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge-sheet by the accused as claimed by him. Further, he deposed that statements recording during Preliminary Enquiry were not made part of the present charge-sheet. Further, he deposed that after submission of PE, the Branch takes further course of action as per law and that he could not remember the name of Senior Officer on whose instructions the FIR was registered.
51. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh, deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Ahlmad in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. He deposed that he sought some information regarding CBI case RC SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi by ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Dehradun. He further deposed that pursuant to that, he submitted his report on 10.05.2012 to the Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun and identified his signature at point A and court seal of Ld. Presiding officer at point B, and proved the said document D-17, page No.2 as Ex. PW10/1. He further deposed that, Ex.PW10/1 was also forwarded to SP, CBI, Anti- Corruption Unit-VI, New Delhi by Ld. Special Judge vide letter dated 11.05.2012 and he being the Ahlmad identified Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 48 of 101 the handwriting and signature of ld. Special Judge on D-17 and proved it as Ex.PW10/2. He further deposed that as per his report, no charge-sheet in RC No. SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. He deposed that as per order dated 17.06.2005 of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, the FIR alongwith copy of search list in RC No. SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi was transferred to the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad, in the month of September 2005.
52. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh, was cross examined by ld.
counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he deposed that he never met CBI official in the present case. He deposed that he never came to Delhi in the present case to visit CBI office and CBI had never recorded his statement in the present case in his office at Dehradun. He further deposed that no document was seized from him in the present case. He further deposed that when chargesheet was filed an entry to that effect was made in a separate register maintained by the staff of that particular court and CBI did not take copy of said register from him in the present case regarding RC No. SIA/1998/E0001/SIU-X/ CBI/New Delhi. He further deposed that he cannot say that in case accompanying documents of a particular Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 49 of 101 chargesheet had been sent to FSL, chargesheet was filed with photocopies of such documents before the court.
53. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed in cross examination that the original documents of a particular case filed alongwith the charge-sheet were kept in a separate trunk/box provided by the CBI. He deposed that the CBI officials remained in his office for about 30-40 minutes when they came to record his statement and they did not check any document in his office. He further deposed that he was posted as Ahlmad in the court of ld. Special Judge, ACB, CBI, Dehradun from 2004 to 2012.
54. PW 11 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that he was posted in SIU X Branch of the CBI, New Delhi from 1997 to July 2002 as Superintendent of Police (SP) and that branch had been merged with BS & FC (called as BS & FB). Further, he identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW 1/A which is the FIR of RC 1/98. Further, he deposed that the said FIR was marked to accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of the said branch and copy of the same was sent to Ld. Special Judge CBI, Dehradun which was mentioned at serial no. 1 on page 9 of the FIR. Further, he deposed that Sh. P.C.Sharma, the then Special Director, CBI, had given the approval of for prosecution in the RC No 1(E)/1998 SIUX, CBI, New Delhi. He further deposed that the chargesheet was put up by accused S.V.Raman on Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 50 of 101 31.12.1999 and forwarded by him, the photocopy of said chargesheet was annexed with the filed D-6 already Ex.PW2/D1 and now marked as Mark PW11/X.
55. PW 11 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that vide last note at para 254/N dated 24.08.2000 already Ex.PW2/A he had asked the IO to comment about the position of the trial of the case under his signature already Mark B. He further deposed that accused S.V.Raman written on the note-sheet 'discussed' and signed the same at point already marked C. He further deposed that he could not say when he discussed as the file was never put to him after that. He deposed that he was superannuated in month of November 2003 from Lucknow branch.
56. PW 11 Sh. K.N. Tiwari was cross examined and during his cross examination he deposed that the note sheets made regarding a particular case remained in the custody of Head Clerk/Crime Clerk of the branch. He further deposed that it was the responsibility of the Head Clerk/Crime Clerk to put up the file to the relevant officer for whom directions were issued. He further deposed that after the noting Ex.PW2/A, the said file would have been put up by the Head Clerk to him and he cannot recall as to if the said file was put to him after the said noting. He admitted that there is no noting made after Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that the FSL report dated 18.04.2000 in RC No. 1/98 was put up Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 51 of 101 before him on 28.04.2000 and the same was noted at para- No. 349 of Ex.PW3/G. He further deposed that he could say if the original documents from the FSL of aforesaid RC were received back in the year 2004.
57. He further deposed in his cross examination that after filing of the Charge-sheet, the IO submits a report to that effect which was put up to the senior officer. He further deposed that after that a separate trial file is opened which contained further development in the case. He further deposed that he was transferred from the branch in July 2001, and he could not say, if any trial file was opened and put up before him. He further deposed that he does not remember how many other cases the accused was handling during his tenure in SIU-X, CBI, New Delhi. He further deposed that during his tenure in SIU-X, CBI, New Delhi the accused S.V.Raman was assigned duties of DSP Head Quarter for certain period which he could not recall at this time. He further deposed that the jurisdiction of the SIU-X, branch of CBI was throughout the country. He further deposed that it was correct that the IO of a particular case in relation to investigation had to visit different places involved in the case throughout the country. He further deposed that any development in respect of the case is recorded in the note-sheet and put up to the concerned officers.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 52 of 101
58. PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal, deposed that during the period August 2011 to April 2013, he was working as Superintendent of Police in Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, CBI, New Delhi. He identified his signature at point A on the document D-7, page-520, i.e., office copy of letter dated 18.11.2011 addressed to the accused on the letter Ex.PW12/1 at point Mark A. He further deposed that vide the said letter, he had forwarded the original court order dated 04.11.2011 of the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti- Corruption, Ghaziabad. Further, he was shown the letter dated 05.09.2011 addressed to Director, CBI, by Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad vide which order dated 05.09.2011 of said court had been annexed alongwith. He deposed that the said letter was received in BS&FB, Delhi in his office on marking by the senior officers and he identified his initials dated 14.09.2011 on the same point at mark A. He also identified the initials of Sh. Amitabh Singh Dhillon dated 14.09.2011 the then HoB, BS&FC, Delhi at point B, as he got acquainted with signatures of Sh. Amitabh Singh Dhillon during the course of his official functioning. He proved the document page 518 dated 05.09.2011 as Ex.PW12/2.
59. PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal identified his initials at point Mark A on the document D-11 i.e., letter bearing CBI ID No. 1726/4/17/2012-BS&FC/DLI dated Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 53 of 101 24.04.2012 Ex.PW12/3. He further deposed that he had seen document D-12 i.e., letter bearing CBI ID No. 6070/4/17/2012-BS&FC/DLI dated 01.08.2012 Ex.PW12/4 and identified his initials at point Mark A on the same. He deposed that vide the said letter addressed by him to HoB, CBI, AC-II, branch, trial file of one case detailed in the said letter was forwarded to the said branch. He further deposed that vide document D-18 i.e., letter bearing CBI ID No. 5941/Misc/DIG/BS&FC/DLI dated 21.12.2011 addressed by him to Sh. Pradeep Kumar, SP, ACU-V, New Delhi which is Ex.PW12/5, photocopies of two crime files as mentioned in said letter were forwarded to the said branch.
60. PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused wherein he deposed that he could not recall the contents of Annexure to Ex.PW12/2 and Ex.PW12/1 without going through the same.
61. PW13 is Sh. M.P.Rama Rao deposed that he was posted as Under Secretary in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP&T, Government of India from the year 2012 to 2014. He further deposed that, on receipt of the present case from CBI in respect of Sh S.V.Raman, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case and also the documents and statements of witnesses pertaining to the case exercising due diligence and application of mind and with approval of Sanctioning Authority, the present Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 54 of 101 prosecution sanction was signed by him and communicated to the agency (CBI). He identified his signature at point A on the forwarding letter dated 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC-II, CBI and Sanction of the Prosecution dated 22.01.2013 at point A on each page. He proved the forwarding letter alongwith Sanction of prosecution as Ex.PW13/A (colly 4 pages in total).
62. PW13 Sh. M.P.Rama Rao was cross examined by ld.
Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he stated that the Sanction was sought in relation to the omissions and commissions in submission of a case by the accused in the court of law. He further volunteered that in total there were four cases. During his cross examination he further denied the suggestion that he had not scrutinized the documents or that he had passed the Sanction order in a mechanical manner. He further denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind to the facts and the documents provided by the CBI to him or for this reason there was no mention of details of the documents or the list of witnesses in his sanction order.
63. PW14 is Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that he was posted as Inspector in the AC-II Zone of CBI from the year 1998 till December 2013. He further deposed that in the year 2012, an FIR vide RC No. 1/2012 was registered in the ACU-VI branch of CBI on 08.02.2012 against accused Sh.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 55 of 101 S.V.Raman, retired SP CBI on the allegations that he had been the investigating officer of four cases viz. RC No. 1/1998/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 2/1999/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 5/1999/SIU-X CBI and RC No. 1/2005/BS&FC CBI Delhi and that he had not filed the chargesheet in respect of these cases after conclusion of the investigation and that subsequently he also submitted false reports to his supervisory officers that chargesheet in these cases had been filed and that these cases are under trial in the concerned court.
64. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that this case was registered on the basis of the complaint of Sh. S.L.Garg already Ex.PW9/A. He proved the original FIR RC 01/2012/CBI/ACU (VI)/New Delhi as Ex.PW14/A bearing the signature of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP CBI, ACU-VI New Delhi at point A. He identified his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official work and FIR was marked to him for investigation.
65. He further deposed that during investigation he obtained search warrants from the court and pursuant to same he carried out searches at the residence of accused at Hyderabad on 12.02.2012 in presence of local witnesses which is Ex.PW14/B (colly) (3 pages). He deposed that vide search list, incriminating documents were seized from the residence of accused.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 56 of 101
66. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that during the course of investigation, he seized relevant documents vide handing /taking memo dated 28.02.2012 (D-10) Ex.PW14/C bearing the signature of Sh. S.L.Garg at point B. He further deposed that vide letter dated 24.04.2012 of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB AC-II received the documents mentioned in Ex.PW12/3 and subsequently letter alongwith the documents were marked to him for necessary action by endorsement of then then SP, Sh. S.B.Bhagat at point B alongwith signature. He had also signed on the letter at point C. He further deposed that vide letter dated 01.08.2012 (D-12) of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB, AC-II Ex.PW12/4 (D-12)received the documents mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents were marked to him.
67. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-13), he had seized the documents mentioned in the memo from Mahavir Prasad, Crime Assistant, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi, bearing his signature a point B and that of Sh. Mahavir Prasad at point A, which he identified as said Mahavir Prasad had signed in his presence. He further deposed that the document (D-14) i.e., forwarding letter dated 16.04.2012 Ex.PW14/D alongwith the documents of Sh. A.S.Dhillon addressed to SP CBI ACU-VI and was marked to him by Sh.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 57 of 101 S.K.Bhagat, the then SP ACU-VI under his signature marked at point A which was proved as Ex.PW14/D colly (6 pages in total).
68. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide Ex.PW14/E, a forwarding letter dated 16.04.2012 alongwith documents mentioned by Sh. A.S.Dhillon to SP CBI ACU- VI, which was marked to him, he also received the reply dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi and proved the copy of said reply separately as Ex.PW14/F. He identified the signature of accused at point A on Ex.PW14/F as accused had signed various documents bearing the signature of accused.
69. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide letter dated 03.04.2012 which is Ex.PW14/G of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP CBI ACU-VI, New Delhi which was addressed to Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun, certain information in respect of the said case were requested in respect of filing of the chargesheet.
70. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that after conclusion of investigation he had filed the four separate charge-sheets in the present matter of RC 01/1998/SIU-X CBI, RC 02/1999/SIU X CBI, RC 05/1999/SIU X CBI and RC 01/2005/BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi as the said offences were found to be separate and distinct from each other.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 58 of 101
71. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh was cross examined and in his cross examination, he deposed that he obtained the report regarding the filing of the chargesheet in the present matter and he had not deputed any other person to check the record of the court in respect of filing of the chargesheet. He deposed that he did not personally check the said record. He deposed that he did not seize the records mentioned in Ex.PW10/1 and Ex.PW10/2, being the court record. He further deposed that he did not obtain the certified copies of said records. He admitted that he had carried out searches of the residence of accused at Hyderabad but does not found any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. He further admitted that Inspr. S.L.Garg recorded the statements of witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry. He admitted that the said statements were not part of the chargesheet. He volunteered that the same were not required.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE WITNESS:
72. DW-1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, SI, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e., Service Register containing some loose pages, tagged with the service register of accused S.Venkat Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. The copies of the page No. 18 to 30 of the said register were proved as Ex.DW1/A (colly, Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 59 of 101 OSR, running into 14 pages) and copy of the order No. CBI ID No. 47/Med./PPM-PM/ID-08/PD-1617 dated 20.08.2008 marked as Mark DW1/DX. During his cross examination he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the entry made in the register and as to who had made the entries and when they were made. He also deposed that the entries were not made in his presence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
73. Coming to the specific allegations against the accused, it is the case of the prosecution that the case RC- 1/98 was registered in the SIU-X branch of the CBI on
21.05.1998 and same was sent to the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun. The said FIR/RC is proved as Ex.PW1/A (colly). It is alleged that RC 1/98 was marked to the accused Sh. S.V. Raman, the then Dy. SP, CBI, posted in SIU-X branch of CBI, New Delhi who remained the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case till the conclusion of the investigation.
74. It is alleged that after conclusion of investigation, on 20.12.1999, the then Special Director, CBI gave his approval for sending the case to the court for prosecution of the accused persons which is evident from the noting No. 235/N which is Ex.PW1/B. Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 60 of 101
75. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the final approval, the charge-sheet in this case was supposed to be filed against one Sh. A.V. Hanumanthapa, the then Manager, Canara Bank and nine private persons, who were the Directors and employees of M/s Comet Glass Ltd., on the allegations that the accused persons had cheated the Canara Bank, Firozabad, to the tune of Rs. 1.88 Crores.
76. Further, CBI has alleged that Sanction for the Prosecution in this case was also received on 20.12.1999 and the file was marked to accused Sh. S.V. Raman for further necessary action, as per noting no. 245/N dated 30.12.1999 which is Ex.PW1/C.
77. Further, Prosecuting Agency has alleged that vide noting no. 249/N dated 28.04.2000, expert opinion dated 18.04.2000 was received from Director, CFSL in the branch and again marked to accused/S.V. Raman for necessary action which is Ex.PW1/D. The CBI also alleged that on 24.08.2000, the then SP/CBI/BS & FC, had marked the file to accused Sh. S.V. Raman with the query " what is the position of the trial". It is alleged that on the same day, accused Sh. S.V. Raman merely noted on the file "discussed", but he did not mention the status of the case.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 61 of 101 The said direction of the then SP/CBI/BS & FC to the accused and noting of the accused as "discussed" is reflected in Note No. 254 dated 24.08.2000 which is Ex.PW2/A.
78. Further, it is alleged that from 24.08.2002 to 30.03.2009, there is no record of the file being put up or processed by accused Sh. S.V. Raman.
79. Further, it is the case of Prosecution that on 30.03.2009, accused Sh. S.V. Raman opened a new file with a note which is Ex.PW2/B and reproduced below:
"The trial file is not traceable. In this case, FIR has been sent to Special Judge, Dehradun and charge Sheet has been filed in court of Special Judge, Dehradun on
31.12.1999. Later on after bifurcation of the state of U.P.The case file, FIR could not be located in the court of Special Judge, Ghaziabad. After verification of record, the files has been traced and has since been sent to Special Judge Ghaziabad. As such the judge is presently preoccupied with the trial of important cases and directed to come to the court along with another set of copies of documents in the last week of April or first week of May 2009 for further necessary action in the matter. This will be attended to on priority".
80. Further, it is alleged that on 15.05.2009, accused Sh.
S.V. Raman again noted on the file (which is part of Ex.PW3/F) that he attended the court on 27.04.2009 in connection with the petition filed by Sh. P.K. Agarwal, one of the accused, for going abroad which was dismissed by Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 62 of 101 the Court. Further, in the said noting, he stated that the court has desired for a fresh copy of the charge-sheet, as the chargesheet received from Dehradun has been torn in some places and immediately a fresh copy of the charge-sheet was provided, and the court directed that the original documents be submitted to the court by 22.06.2009.
81. Further, CBI has alleged that on 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW14/F, accused Sh. S.V. Raman submitted another false report to the then HOB regarding the status of this case mentioning that "RC 1/98-SIU-X, the charge-sheet has been received from Dehradun Court to Special Judge, Ghaziabad, and as one page of the charge-sheet was partly torn and a fresh copy of the charge-sheet was also given as directed by Special Judge. Case has been fixed for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to accused to 22-6- 2009".
82. Further, it is the case of the Prosecution that accused Sh. S.V. Raman never filed the charge-sheet of this case in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun and this was confirmed by various prosecution witnesses, their reports, letters, and other material brought on record. Further, Prosecuting Agency has alleged that after the matter came into the scrutiny, it was found that the accused S.V. Raman had filed false reports and thereafter, a Charge-sheet was Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 63 of 101 filed by accused Sh. S.V. Raman in this case on 08.03.2011 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad.
83. In view of the aforesaid specific allegations, CBI has alleged that the accused Sh. S.V. Raman being the Investigating Officer of the case RC 1/98 by not filing the chargesheet of the case in the court has knowingly found to have disobeyed the direction of the law with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save some persons from legal punishment. It is also alleged that the accused S.V.Raman is found to have given false reports about filling of the charge-sheet of the case to his superiors and hence, he prepared record/writing in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with an intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will cause, loss or injury to the public or to CBI, with intention to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save certain persons from legal punishment. Thus, the prosecution has alleged that the accused is guilty of commission of offences punishable u/s 217/218 IPC.
84. Now in the light of the aforesaid legal provisions, let us appreciate the evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that RC 1/98 was registered on 21.05.1998 which is Ex.PW1/A (colly) and duly proved by the prosecution. It is also an admitted fact that RC 1/98 was Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 64 of 101 marked to the accused for investigation by his supervisory officer, the then SP, CBI, SIU-X.It is also admitted by the accused that the then Branch SP asked him: " What is position of trial" and thereafter on the same day, he had written as "discussed", as evident from Note No. 254 dated 24.08.2000 which is Ex.PW2/A. It is also admitted by the accused that he opened a file with a Noting no.1 dated 30.03.2009 which is Ex.PW2/B and reproduced below:
"The trial file is not traceable. In this case, FIR has been sent to Special Judge, Dehradun and charge Sheet has been filed in court of Special Judge, Dehradun on
31.12.1999. Later on after bifurcation of the state of U.P.The case file, FIR could not be located in the court of Special Judge, Ghaziabad. After verification of record, the files has been traced and has since been sent to Special Judge Ghaziabad. As such the judge is presently preoccupied with the trial of important cases and directed to come to the court along with another set of copies of documents in the last week of April or first week of May 2009 for further necessary action in the matter. This will be attended to on priority".
85. The accused has also admitted the aforesaid report sent to HOB/BS&FC dt. 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW14/F, in which he has reported that in RC 1/98, the chargesheet has been received from Dehradun court and sent to Ld. Special Court, Ghaziabad, and a fresh copy of the chargesheet was given as directed by Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad and also stated that the case has been fixed for Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 65 of 101 taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused for 22.06.2009.
86. As per the CBI, the accused never filed the chargesheet in the said case and in fact, the accused gave false reports to his seniors and other officers of CBI that he had filed the chargesheet. It is the case of CBI that this act was done by the accused in order to save the persons qua whom chargesheet was to be filed.
87. CBI has alleged that the reports of the accused which includes the noting given on 24.08.2000 which is Ex.PW2/A, noting given on 30.03.2009 which is Ex.PW2/B and report sent to HOB dated 15.05.2009 which is Ex.PW14/F are false notings and reports.
88. The prosecution has relied upon various documents and testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, which are discussed in detail to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet and consequently, all his reports and notings were false. The documents which have been relied upon by the prosecution are: letters received from by Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP and from Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun respectively, reports of the Ahlmads of the said courts, copies of certain Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 66 of 101 orders passed by Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP and certain replies given by the accused S.V. Raman in applications filed by the accused in RC no. 1/98 wherein he admitted that chargesheet was not filed.
a) Reports of the Ahlmads and Letters from the concerned Judges:
89. The prosecution has relied upon the Reply/Report which is Ex.PW5/A, which was given by PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav, who was working as Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Dr. A.K.Singh, ld. Special Judge, District Courts, Ghaziabad in the year 2010. As per the said reply, it is stated that no chargesheet had been filed in RC 1/98 till 19.11.2010 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad. The said reply was given to an application moved by Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey(PW6), Inspector, CBI, Ghaziabad, in RC 1/98 titled as CBI vs. A.V.Ramanthapa and others with a specific query: "whether chargesheet in this case has been filed or not ?."
90. To prove that the aforesaid application was moved in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad, CBI relied upon the testimony of PW6 Sandeep Kumar Pandey. He deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted in Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI, Ghaziabad, and was directed to collect the Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 67 of 101 details of RC 1/98. PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey deposed that as per directions given to him, he visited the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI and filed an application in RC 1/98 titled as CBI vs. A.V.Ramanthapa and others with a specific query:
"whether chargesheet in this case has been filed or not ?" . He deposed that in this regard he received the reply that the chargesheet had not been filed. Further, in this regard CBI examined PW5 Santosh Kumar Yadav, who deposed that in the year 2010 he was working as Ahlmad in the court of Dr. A.K.Singh, Ld. Special Judge, District Courts, Ghaziabad. He deposed that he had replied to the application made by PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey regarding his query as to whether the charge-sheet in RC 1/98 had been filed or not and he deposed that in his reply he stated that no charge- sheet was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad in RC 1/98 and his reply was proved by him as Ex.PW5/A.
91. Further, the CBI has relied upon a letter dated 11.05.2012 addressed to the then SP concerned, CBI from Sh. Pradeep Pant, Ld. Special Judge, Anticorruption (CBI), Uttarakhand, Dehradun received along with the report of the Ahlmad posted in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand dated 10.05.2012 Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 68 of 101 which are Ex.PW10/2 and Ex.PW10/1 respectively. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:
" Kindly refer to your letter No. 1995/2172012A0001CBI/ACU-VI N.D. dated 3.4.2012, on the above subject.
The matter was examined through Ahalmad/Clerk of this court and after going through the records Sri Ram Avadh, Ahalmad/Clerk of this court has submitted his report dated 10.5.2012. As per the report no charge sheet in reference to RC SIA/1998/E0001/CBI/SIU-X/N. Delhi had been filed in this court."
92. The prosecution sought to prove the said letter and report which are Ex.PW10/2 and Ex.PW10/1 respectively by examining PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Ahlmad in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. He deposed that the Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand directed him to provide some information regarding RC 1/98. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed that he submitted his report on 10.05.2012 to the Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun and proved his report as Ex.PW10/1. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed that his report Ex.PW10/1 was forwarded to SP, CBI, Anti-Corruption Unit-VI, New Delhi by the Ld. Special Judge vide letter dated 11.05.2012 which is Ex.PW10/2. PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh identified his signature and that of the Ld. Special Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 69 of 101 Judge on Ex.PW10/1 and Ex.PW10/2 respectively. Further, PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed that as per his report, no chargesheet in RC 1/98 was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
b) Copies of orders passed by Concerned Courts and replies by the accused S.V. Raman:
93. CBI relied upon the following orders, applications and orders as given below:
a) Certified copy of order dated 16.12.2002 regarding disposal of the application for release of passport of PW 7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal, who was one of the accused in RC 1/98 which is Ex.PW7/D and Reply dated 13.11.2002 filed by accused S.V. Raman to the application dated 31.07.2002 of PW7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal (Ex.PW7/B) wherein the accused S.V. Raman opposed the said application and also stated that "...investigation of the case is still under investigation and at crucial stage." which is Ex.PW7/C.
b) Certified copy of Order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Dr. A.K.Singh, Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP at page 7 & 8 wherein it was observed that chargesheet was not filed in the present case which is Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 70 of 101 Ex.PW4/A and Certified copy of reply dated 11.03.2010 of accused S.V. Raman to the application filed by Sh.P.K. Aggarwal in RC No.1/98 on pages 4 to 6 seeking permission to travel abroad i.e., Malaysian and Singapore.
In the reply, the accused stated that chargesheet is likely to be filed before the Court which is Ex. PW4/B.
c) The original court order dated 04.11.2011, passed by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad which is stated to be accompanied with a letter which is Ex.PW12/1 but the said order is not part of the judicial record. Further, the original court order dated 05.09.2011, passed by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad which is annexed with letter which is Ex.PW12/2, wherein it was observed that chargesheet was not filed in the present case.
94. CBI alleged that the concerned Courts in their aforesaid respective orders observed that chargesheet was not filed and further, the accused in his reply to the aforesaid applications has admitted that chargesheet was not filed.
95. Further, CBI examined PW 7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal, who was one of the accused in RC 1/98 to prove Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 71 of 101 the aforesaid reply and order which are Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D . PW7 Sh. Pramod Kumar Agrawal deposed that in the year 2002, he moved an application for release of his passport before the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad and relied upon the certified copy of reply dated 13.11.2002 of the said application given by the accused S.V.Raman which is Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that in the said reply, the accused Sh. S.V.Raman had stated that investigation of above said case was still under investigation and was at crucial stage. Further, he deposed that his application for release of passport was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2002 and its certified copy is Ex.PW7/D.
96. Further, to prove the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Dr. A.K.Singh, ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP, PW4 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Giri was examined by CBI. PW4 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Giri deposed that in the year 2010 he was working as Clerk in the Copying Center, Civil Courts, District Courts, Ghaziabad, UP and he had prepared the certified copy of the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Dr. A.K.Singh, ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad, UP which is Ex.PW4/A. Further, PW4 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Giri deposed that the certified copy of the reply dated Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 72 of 101 11.03.2010 of the accused S.V. Raman which is Ex.PW 4/B was also prepared by him. Further, PW7 Pramod Kumar Agrawal on seeing the documents Ex.PW4/A (court order dated 18.03.2010) and Ex.PW4/B (reply of IO) relied upon them.
97. Further, CBI examined PW12 Sh. Madhu Sudan Singhal who deposed that during the period August 2011 to April 2013, he was working as SP in Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi. He deposed that he had sent letter dated 18.11.2011 to the accused and forwarded the original court order dated 04.11.2011, passed by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Ghaziabad which is Ex.PW12/1 (but the said order dated 04.11.2011 is not part of the judicial record). He also relied upon a Letter dated 05.09.2011 addressed to Director CBI by Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad vide which, order dated 05.09.2011 of said court was annexed which is Ex.PW12/2. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the said two orders also it was observed by the concerned court that chargesheet was not filed.
c) Prosecution witness PW1 Prabhat Kumar examined to prove its case:
98. Further, CBI relied upon the testimony of PW1 Sh.
Prabhat Kumar to prove its case. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 73 of 101 deposed that during the proceedings of another case i.e., RC 12/79 titled as "CBI vs. R.C.Rupaana and others", while he was Prosecutor on behalf of SIU-X, CBI, one IO from SIU- X branch namely Inspector Komal Singh, met him in the court room regarding filing of charge-sheet in RC 1/98 and since he was not carrying the documents with him, the Ld. Special Judge, Smt. Rama Jain directed him to re-visit the court alongwith the original documents. Further, PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that during his tenure from 2000 to 2003, charge-sheet in RC 1/98 was not filed within his knowledge. He deposed that in the year 2002, he visited alongwith IO of the case, the accused S.V.Raman in RC 1/98 SIU(X) in the court of Ld. Special Judge Ghaziabad, in connection of an application of suspect regarding permission to go abroad and the Ld. Special Judge permitted the suspect to go abroad and also directed IO to submit final report in the case RC 1/98 SIU(X). He further deposed that during his tenure the chargesheet was not filed in this case as no file was marked to him regarding filing of chargesheet and as per their internal directions same would have been marked to him, if the same was filed in the court.
99. It is settled law that it is the duty of each party to lead best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy. Further, in case, such material Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 74 of 101 evidence is withheld, the court has the discretion to may draw adverse inference U/s. 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). The same was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam [(2009) 14 SCC 541. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"11. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence (vide Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif [AIR 1968 SC 1413] )."
100. The aforesaid position of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 360.
101. Another principle of law is that it is the solemn duty and responsibility of the prosecution to place the best evidence before the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774 also emphasized the role of the Investigating Officer not to only collect evidence to strengthen the prosecution case but to conduct fair investigation which Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 75 of 101 brings out the truth. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth..."
"12. As neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons, including Laldhari and Ramanandan, were injured, Courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done, within limits, to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case."
102. Applying the aforesaid legal position of law to the facts of the case, it is seen that the issues in controversy are:
whether the accused filed the chargesheet or not and whether the notings and report sent by the accused to his superiors in this regard were false. This court is required to see whether the prosecution has brought the best evidence in its possession to show that the accused did not file the chargesheet and sent false reports to his superiors in this regard. Further, this court is to see whether the Investigating Officer conducted fair investigation which brought out the truth or whether he collected evidence only with intention to bolster the case of the prosecution.Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 76 of 101
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS SUPERIORS WERE FALSE ?
103. In the present case, the best evidence to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet would have been the Institution Registers/ Other relevant registers from the concerned court i.e., of the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and/or Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad or the Registers/Records of the Filing Counter of the said Courts., if in existence at that time. Further, CBI alleged that the charge-sheet of RC 1/1998 was never filed and after repeated false reports about filing of the chargesheet by the accused allegedly on 31.12.1999, a fresh chargesheet was filed by him on 08.03.2011 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad. Hence, the best witness to prove the fact that the charge-sheet was not filed would have been the Ahlmad/Record Keeper of the files of the said courts of the period i.e., 31.12.1999 or any official from the Filing Counter of the said courts, if existing at that point of time.
104. As per the prosecution case, in the alleged false notings and reports which are Noting no.1 dated 30.03.2009 Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 77 of 101 which is Ex.PW2/B and Report of the accused S.V. Raman to HOB dated 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW14/F, he wrongly stated that the chargesheet was filed on 31.12.1999 in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun and after bifurcation of the State of UP, the case in question was transferred and pending in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad.
105. Let us now analyze the material being relied upon by the CBI. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav who provided the reply/report dated 19.11.2010 which is Ex.PW5/A, wherein it was stated that no chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad was examined as PW5. PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav in his examination- in- chief deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Dr. A.K.Singh, Ld. Special Judge, District Courts, Ghaziabad. Further, PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh who proved the letter dated 11.05.2012 sent by Sh. Pradeep Pant, Ld. Special Judge, Anti-corruption (CBI), Dehradun and his report Ex.PW10/2 and Ex.PW10/1 respectively in his cross examination deposed that from the year 2004 to 2012 he was posted as Ahlmad in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Hence, considering the testimonies of PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav and PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh ,it is apparent that they Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 78 of 101 were not the Record Keepers or custodians of the files in the year 1999 and hence, they are not a witness to the fact whether the chargesheet was filed or not. The prosecution failed to cite Ahlmads of the Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad or and that of the court of Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun or /and any officials from Filing Counter of the relevant period i.e., 31.12.1999, as prosecution witnesses in the present case. The record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts or /and any officials from Filing Counter of the period 31.12.1999 could give the direct evidence with regard to the receiving /non receiving of the chargesheet which would be the best evidence.
106. Another point to note is that PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, in his cross examination deposed that the dealing assistant who replied to his application which is Ex.PW5/A did not furnish any document in the form of any copy of register or record pertaining to the filing of the chargesheet.
107. It is also pertinent to note that PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh in his cross-examination deposed that no document was seized from him in the present case and admitted that whenever a chargesheet is filed an entry to that effect is made in a separate register maintained by the Staff of that Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 79 of 101 particular court. Further, PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh deposed that CBI did not take copy of the said register from him in the present case regarding RC 1/98. In fact, PW10 in his cross examination deposed that although the CBI officials visited his office and stayed there for 30 to 40 minutes when they came to record his statement, but they did not check any document in his office.
108. CBI failed to explain as to why no such register was seized from PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav and PW 10 Sh. Ram Avadh, despite their availability. Hence, not citing the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts of the relevant period i.e., 31.12.1999 as witnesses and the non-production of the said registers has prejudiced the fair trial of the accused.
109. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 671 held that, the non-examination of a material witness would give rise to an inference that if he is examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the fact that the Ahlmad/ Record keepers/ official from the Filing Section of the relevant period i.e., 31.12.1999 have not been cited as a prosecution witness, which gives rise to Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 80 of 101 an inference that in case they were joined as witnesses, they would not have supported the case of the prosecution.
110. The deposition of another witness, PW-9 Sh. Sham Lal Garg is also important. He had conducted the preliminary inquiry on the basis of complaint received from BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V.Raman for not filing the chargesheet. In his cross examination, PW-09 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge- sheet by the accused as claimed by him. He deposed that the said statements recorded during preliminary inquiry are not made part of present chargesheet. No plausible explanation came forward to state as to why the said statements of the relevant court staff members recorded during preliminary inquiry being important for adjudication of the present case were not filed.
111. Now, coming to an argument of Ld. PP for CBI made in this regard, wherein he argued that the said registers were not summoned as it would have disturbed the daily proceedings of the concerned court. I find no merit in the submission made by Ld. PP for CBI, considering that it is not believable that the said register would be used till date. Moreover, CBI did not bring any evidence to show that the Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 81 of 101 said register was being used till date which would have allegedly caused inconvenience to the said court.
112. Ld. PP for CBI argued that the as per various orders dated 16.12.2002, 18.03.2010, 04.11.2011 and 05.09.2011 which are Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW12/1 and Ex.PW12/2 respectively, wherein concerned court observed that chargesheet was not filed and also the replies filed by the accused to applications moved by the proposed accused which are Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW7/C in which the accused himself stated that investigation is still pending shows that the chargesheet was not filed by the accused. However, I find no merit in his argument, considering that the best evidence to prove that the chargesheet was not filed by the accused were the said registers, as explained above in detail. For the prosecution to prove its case that the accused deliberately filed false reports and in reality, did not file the chargesheet and for the accused to be made criminally liable, those registers should have been produced and the record keepers of that period been cited as witnesses. In the absence of best evidence being suppressed and not being seized despite their availability, prosecution has not discharged its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the aforesaid orders and replies of accused does not assist it in proving its case.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 82 of 101
113. Ld. PP for CBI argued that PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the then Public Prosecutor of CBI is a material witness, and he has proved vide his testimony that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused. However, in this regard, the deposition of PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar during his cross examination is important, wherein he deposed that he never attended as a Prosecutor in the court of Ld. Special Judge in RC 1/98 at Dehradun. Further, in his examination in chief, he admitted that the case was never marked to him for prosecution in the court by the Senior officers. Considering the fact that he was not the prosecutor of RC 1/98, his testimony becomes irrelevant as he was not the eyewitness to the filing or non-filing of the chargesheet.
114. Further, another point to note is that PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh in his examination in chief deposed that as per order dated 17.06.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, the FIR alongwith copy of search list in RC 1/98 was transferred to the court of Ld. Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad, in the month of September 2005. Further, PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed in his examination in chief that the present case RC 1/98 fell in the jurisdiction of Ld. Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 83 of 101 court and initially it was of Ld. Special Judge, CBI at Dehradun but later on because of bifurcation of State of UP and Uttarakhand, the said RC was assigned to Ld. Special Judge at Ghaziabad court. Moreover, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey deposed in his cross-examination that he would not know if the chargesheet was filed in Dehradun and was transferred to Ghaziabad and admitted that originally the jurisdiction over the case was of Dehradun Court and later after bifurcation of State of UP, Ghaziabad Court got jurisdiction. In view of the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar , PW10 Sh. Ram Avadh and PW6 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Pandey there is a possibility that the file/chargesheet got lost in transit and the accused has been made a scapegoat.
115. Further, Ld. PP for CBI argued the aforesaid letters of the Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad and/or Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun and the orders of the Ld. Special Judge, Ghaziabad are enough evidence to conclude that the chargesheet was not filed. He argued that the Ld. Judges were not summoned as witnesses to prove the letters authored by them, as per Section 121 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). Section 121 IEA specifically provides for protection of the Judges/Magistrates from being unnecessarily exposed as Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 84 of 101 witnesses before a court. In this regard, he relied upon various judgments passed by the different courts in the cases of Yuvaraj vs. The State Rep. in Criminal O.P. No. 7668 of 2019 and M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 and Criminal M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 decided on 03.06.2019, C.B.I. Thru S.P., New Delhi vs. The State of U.P. And Anr . decided on 14.12.2020 and Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr 1977 AIR 2445 . He argued that the reason why the Ld. Magistrates or Judges are not summoned as witnesses was succinctly explained in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr (supra), wherein it was held that the Judges or Magistrates will be put to embarrassing and objectionable proceedings wherein they will be asked to testify as to what weighed in their mind in reaching their verdict which is undesirable. He also argued that by summoning Judges, public administration will suffer.
116. This contention of Ld. PP for CBI lacks merit as the witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed was the Record Keeper or Ahlmad and not the concerned Judge who was admittedly not the Judge at the time of filing of the chargesheet. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the CBI did not bring cogent evidence to prove that the accused committing the alleged criminal offences.
Case No. 313/2019CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 85 of 101
117. The next point to consider is whether the Investigating Officer in the present case conducted fair investigation or collected only that evidence which would bolster the case of the prosecution.
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?
118. In this regard, the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW-14 Sh. Bharat Singh is relevant. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not personally check the record of the concerned court, where the official record of filing of chargesheet is maintained. The deposition of PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh in this regard is reproduced below :
"It is correct that a record of filing of chargesheet is maintained in the concerned court. I did not personally check the above said record".
119. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh in his cross-examination deposed that he did not seize the records mentioned in Ex.PW10/1 and Ex.PW10/2 on the ground that they were court record. He also deposed that he did not depute any person to check the record of the court in respect of the filing of the chargesheet. PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh failed to give any explanation as to why he did not personally check Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 86 of 101 or depute any person to check the record in the concerned court.
120. The fact that the investigating agency did not make any efforts to seize or inspecting the official record weakens the case of the prosecution. It is apparent that efforts were not made to collect the best evidence itself (which were the registers/record of the filing of chargesheet) which would prove the fact that the chargesheet was never filed in the year 1999.
121. Further, PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that during his visit to the concerned Court, it was confirmed that chargesheet was never pending trial in the said Court. Apart from the aforesaid documents and testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, there are no other document or evidence to show as to how the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the chargesheet of "RC-1/1998" was never filed. The investigating officer PW 14 Sh. Bharat Singh should have personally checked the record if he was conducting fair investigation or deputed any person to check the record. Without personally checking the records of the court of that of Ld. Special Court, Dehradun and Ld. Special Court, Ghaziabad and the Filing Counter, if any and without summoning the record keepers/ Ahlmads of Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 87 of 101 those courts, it cannot be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that the chargesheet of RC-1/98 was not filed by the accused S.V. Raman. Hence, it is apparent by the conduct of the Investigating Officer/Sh. Bharat Singh that he failed in collecting the best evidence in this case, by not checking the record.
122. In this regard, Ld. PP for CBI had argued that evidence of Police Witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to Police Force owing to the reason that they are interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. He argued that the credibility of any witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness and there is no rule of law that no conviction can be recorded merely on the testimony of Police Officials. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 617 and Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2021 decided on 30.08.2022. He also argued that the testimony of Police witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are biased as the correct test of biasness would be whether there appears to be a "real danger of bias" and the probability or preponderance of probability of Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 88 of 101 such bias would not be relevant and in this regard, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the test in checking the presence of bias is that there may be "real danger of bias" and the bald plea of the investigation not being fair has to be tested on this.
123. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the present case, investigation was conducted fairly and there was no danger of bias against the accused S.V. Raman who was the investigating officer working in CBI. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra) itself points out that as a role of prudence, the court is to carefully scrutinize and independently appreciate the evidence of police witnesses, as they are interested in the outcome of result of the case. Considering the testimonies of all the police witnesses in the present case, after carefully scrutinizing and appreciating their evidence, it is apparent that they have not come out with the truth. PW14 Bharat Singh being the investigating officer should have personally checked the record of the concerned court and seized the relevant registers but he and the other prosecution witnesses have proved to be only interested in the success of the outcome Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 89 of 101 of the present case and hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Ld. PP for CBI.
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:
124. After careful perusal of the evidence, adduced in proof of the fact that the accused allegedly did not file the chargesheet, there are other glaring missing links. Those missing links are factors which make the prosecution doubtful. Those factors include the fact that the prosecution failed to produce its own dispatch register of the year 1999; all the part files pertaining to RC-1/98 were not part of the record; belated response from CBI despite regular inspection by superiors of the accused and no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were allegedly saved from legal punishment.
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH
REGISTER:
125. Firstly, PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the Public Prosecutor at the time of commission of alleged offence deposed that as per procedure, after the finalization of investigation, after the receipt of approval orders from the Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 90 of 101 Competent Authority/HO, the final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC is prepared by the IO., after the receipt of approval orders from the Competent Authority/HO. He deposed that subsequently thereafter, the chargesheet is marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting and after the vetting, the charge-sheet is finally prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in Court of Competent Jurisdiction. He deposed that the charge-sheet also bears the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the Court.
126. PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar deposed that he who was working with CBI in SIU-X during the period 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 as LDC, Crime Clerk. He stated that he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the said branch. PW2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that the office used to maintain dispatch register, wherein office maintains the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR etc. He deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
127. Further, PW8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, who deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. His duty was to maintain Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 91 of 101 the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch. PW8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination also deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
128. Considering the aforesaid procedure deposed by PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, it was imperative for CBI to have filed the dispatch register of the year 1999 to prove that the accused did not file the charge-sheet in the concerned court. The fact that CBI failed to file register and did not give any reasonable explanation as to why the dispatch register was not filed, raises a doubt on the prosecution case.
b) SUPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/NOTINGS PERTAINING TO RC-1/98:
129. It is pertinent to note that as per testimonies of PW2 Rajiv Kumar, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad and PW8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey who are all officers of CBI, it is apparent that all the notings/part files pertaining to RC-1/98 are admittedly not before this court.
130. In this regard, PW2 Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that: "I do not maintain any separate record to show how many part files are opened in a particular case. I cannot say after seeing a notesheet file Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 92 of 101 that how many part files were opened in that particular case."
131. Further, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed in his cross examination that all the files pertaining to RC-1/98 are not available on record of the court.
132. Moreover, PW8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination deposed that: "It is correct that after seeing the note sheet file, I cannot say how many part files were opened in this case".
133. It is common knowledge that any development in respect of the case is recorded in the notesheet file and put up to the concerned officers. In the absence of the complete note sheets, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
134. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010 decided on 23.05.2014 wherein it was held that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross- examination, he would not get an opportunity to explain a particular issue and hence, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue cannot be raised. Ld. PP for CBI also relied Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 93 of 101 upon the judgment pronounced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors . in Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 decided on 15.05.2024 in regard to the importance of giving suggestions and the consequence of failure to give it. Ld. PP for CBI had argued that Ld. Counsel for accused failed to put questions to the prosecution witnesses in regard to the exact notesheets and part files which were not part of the charge-sheet filed against the accused and the contents of the said notesheets and part files. He argued that since those questions were not asked, the prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to explain as to which notesheets and part of files were not produced and in case they were asked specific questions in regard to the exact notesheets and part of files, it would not have favoured the accused and thus, this court should draw an adverse inference against the accused.
135. This Court is not satisfied with the argument made by Ld. PP for CBI as Ld. Counsel for the accused could have put the questions in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses, in regard to the exact notesheets and part files, which were deliberately suppressed only if the accused had access to it. Without access to the complete part files and the notesheets, Ld. Counsel for accused could not have Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 94 of 101 asked specific questions. In fact, Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out the discrepancies in the case of prosecution by asking the prosecution witnesses as to whether all the notesheets and part files were made part of record and to which they answered in the negative. The CBI is guilty of suppression of notings wherein officers record the developments of a case. The prosecution failed to give any plausible explanation as to why the complete part files and notesheets were not produced. It is well apparent it CBI is being selective in filing of the notings and something is being hidden from the Court. Accordingly, adverse inference is drawn against CBI in this regard for suppression of the notesheets and part files.
c) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS, THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING INFORMATION:
136. It is pertinent to mention that PW-8 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed in his cross examination that the record maintained by the Crime Section was inspected by Senior officers, including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. If the record was being inspected by the said senior officers, as per the prosecution, the accused had made a false noting about the chargesheet being filed on 31.12.1999 which is Ex. PW 2/B dated 30.03.2009. It is Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 95 of 101 also alleged that the accused sent a false status report/reply to HOB, CBI, BS & FC on 15.06.2009 which is Ex. PW14/F in which the accused has reported that the chargesheet of RC 1/98 had been received from Dehradun court to Special Judge, Ghaziabad and since, one page of the chargesheet was partly torn and a fresh copy of chargesheet was given, as directed by Ld. Special Judge and the fact that the case was fixed for taking cognizance and issuance of summons to accused on 22.06.2009. If the record was being regularly inspected by the said senior officers, then it is not clear as to why CBI made inquiries about the chargesheet so belatedly, in the year 2012 from the Ld. Special Judge, Dehradun vide Letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the then SP concerned which is Ex. PW 14/G. This is also a gap which was not explained by the prosecution as per the time fixed,
d) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO THE ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:
137. As per Section 217 and 218 of IPC, one of the ingredients to be fulfilled for the accused to be held liable is that the accused should have committed the offences with intention to save or knowing that he is likely to save any person from legal punishment. The entire chargesheet is silent on this aspect. The prosecution failed to bring any Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 96 of 101 material evidence on record to show as to how the accused had an intention or knowledge to save the persons from legal punishment. Further, no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were saved from legal punishment was carried out. Further, CBI failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the accused had benefited by way of monetary means or otherwise. There is no iota of evidence in this regard.
138. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubansh Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0033/1957 AIR 1957 SC 486 wherein it was held that the intention of the accused that he deliberately made wrong entries has to be gathered from the acts of the accused for him to be liable for the offence punishable U/s 218 IPC. In the light of the said legal position, CBI failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the accused had benefited by way of monetary means or otherwise.
There is no iota of evidence in this regard. In this regard, testimony of the investigating officer, PW14 Sh. Bharat Singh is important who deposed that he had carried out searches of the residence of the accused at Hyderabad but he did not find any incriminating regarding disproportionate asset. If the story of the prosecution is to Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 97 of 101 be believed, some benefit should have been accrued to the accused as a motive for deliberately not filing the chargesheet, but in the absence of any evidence, this ingredient could not be fulfilled.
e) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND CARELESSNESS:
139. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC stated that the motive of CBI to file the present case was to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI, at the relevant point of time and he was made a scapegoat. He stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including that of investigation, supervision of investigation, searches etc. There is a difference between being careless and having criminal intention and criminal knowledge to commit offences punishable under penal laws, such as IPC. Considering that the superiors of the accused, themselves woke up after several years from the date when the false report in regard to the filing of the chargesheet was given shows that there may have been office politics and the accused may have been made a scapegoat. There is a possibility that the file had gone missing, and the liability was fixed on the accused who was Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 98 of 101 the smallest fish amongst his superiors and hence, he was made a scapegoat.
OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.PP FOR CBI:
140. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the statement U/s 313 Cr.PC , the accused should have disclosed the information which was in his special knowledge but he remained evasive in his answers and hence, the case of the prosecution stands proved. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw SC 932 and Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168, wherein it was held that the Statement of the Accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC can be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution case and may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. In the case of Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra (Supra), it was held that if there are facts within the special knowledge of the accused which are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor which could be used against the accused.
In this regard it is pertinent to note that the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC is neither a substantive nor a Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 99 of 101 substitute piece of evidence, as held in the judgment of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) itself and it does not discharge the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. Further, the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that burden cannot be put on the accused. In the present case, the burden has not been discharged by the prosecution which failed to produce the best evidence to prove its case.
CONCLUSION:
141. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused person.
142. In view of the above discussion, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, hence, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands Case No. 313/2019 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 100 of 101 acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC.
143. Bail bonds/Surety bonds U/s. 437 CrPC stand canceled.
144. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced (SONAM SINGH-I) in the open Court on CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 09.07.2024 ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI. Digitally signed by SONAM SONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.09 14:47:27 +0530 Certified that this Judgment contains 101 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SONAM SINGH-I)
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
ROUSE AVENUE DISTT. COURTS
NEW DELHI. Digitally
signed by
SONAM
SONAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.07.09
14:47:41
+0530
Case No. 313/2019
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC NO. 217/2012/A0001, ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 101 of 101