Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs . on 3 December, 2013

[Cites 41, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs . on 3 December, 2013

IN   THE   COURT   OF   SH.R.P.PANDEY,   SPECIAL 
JUDGE01 (PC ACT) CBI : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI


CBI CASE NO.01/08

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION  (CBI)

            VS.

      1.Parshuram Gupta (A.1)
      s/o Sh.Motiram
      r/o JD6A, Pitampura, Delhi88

      2.Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2)
      s/o Sh.Prithvi Chand Khanna
      r/o 1637, Ground Floor,
      Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh,
      Delhi110034

      3.Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3)
      s/o Sh.Hukam Chand Bansal
      r/o B112, Rajiv Nagar, Begam Pur,
      Delhi86

      4.Anand Mohan (A.4)
      s/o Sh.Om Prakash Gupta,
      r/o D311, Anand Vihar, Delhi110092



CBI Case No.01/08
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta                     Page No.1 of 313
       5.A.K.Shankaran(A.5)
      s/o Late Sh.Kesavan Namboodiri
      r/o 1596, Type III, Delhi Admn.Flat,
      Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.



      FIR NO.RC 1/E/2007/EOUVII/CBI/N.DELHI

      U/S 120B/420/468/471IPC & PC ACT, 1988

      Date of filing charge sheet         :     03.06.2008

      Arguments concluded on              :     23.10.2013

      Date of Judgment                    :     27.11.2013

      CASE ID NO.    02404R0017642008



JUDGMENT:

1.0 Brief facts of the case are that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 13.02.2006 passed in CWP No.10066/2004 directed CBI to investigate the whole matters relating to Cooperative Group Housing Societies (for short CGHS) which were revived and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.2 of 313 allotted land due to the unholy alliance between the builders, powerful persons in various departments of Government and societies which had become defunct or lost interest in allotment for the one reason or the other. 1.1 The FIR in the instant case bearing RC 1(E)/2007CBI/EOUVII/New Delhi was registered on 08.03.07 pursuant to a preliminary enquiry, PE DA12006A0003ACB/New Delhi which was registered on 14.03.2006 in ACB, CBI New Delhi against five societies including Satyam Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (for short the society) and enquiry was taken up.

1.2 Satyam CGHS was formed by Sh.

I.C.BansalPresident and Sh.R.P.GuptaSecretary with 69 promoter members and was registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) office, Delhi in the year CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.3 of 313 1983 vide Registration No.1023. Thereafter, 51 members also joined this society and the freeze strength of the society was fixed at 120 in 1984 by the RCS office. The registered office of the society was C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi, which was rented residence of Shri R.P.Gupta. The initial office bearers of the society continued their efforts to get the list of members forwarded from RCS office to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of land. However, no progress could be made for many years. In the meantime most of the original members lost interest in the activities of the society. 1.3 It is further the case of the prosecution that the RCS office pointed out certain defects in the list of 120 members vide its letter dated 18.09.1984. Except an attempt by the Secretary and the President on 04.09.1990 and 13.07.1990 there was no response from the society to 14 letters till 01.10.1991 sent from RCS office to the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.4 of 313 society's registered address at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. From 01.10.1991 to 21.06.1996 there was no correspondence from either side. For the statutory purpose i.e. Annual General Meeting and Election, etc. a notice was sent through UPC on 12.07.1990 by the office bearers of the society namely Sh.R.P.Gupta and Sh.I.C.Bansal. As such the Satyam CGHS became totally inactive and no activities were made thereafter. 1.4 In the year 1997, DDA was contemplating to allot land to the societies having registration numbers upto 1436. As such registration number of Satyam CGHS was also falling under the consideration zone for allotment of land at concessional rate.

1.5 On coming to know the planning of DDA to allot land to the CGHS having registration No.0997 to 1436 at concessional rates in the year 19971998 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.5 of 313 Sh.Parshuram Gupta (A.1), Sh.Madan Mohan Khanna (A.

2), Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3), Sh.Anand Mohan (A.4) entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.5), the then Dealing Assistant in the RCS office and others with the object to get the name of Satyam CGHS forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land. 1.6 In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy the file of Satyam CGHS was made alive. Accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan projected themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Satyam CGHS. Accused Parshuram Gupta started looking after the activities of this society in the capacity of Office Secretary of the society. On 20.08.1997 a written request was got filed in the RCS office for approval of list of members of the society and onward forwarding of the same to the DDA for allotment of land, to show that CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.6 of 313 society was being regularly run as per the requirements of DCS Act.

2.0 As per the prosecution, the role of each accused person is as follows: 2.1 ROLE OF ACCUSED NO.1 PARSHURAM GUPTA He was the Office Secretary of the society since 1997 and was actively managing the affairs of the society upto 2001. He has in his own handwriting mentioned on the 25 application forms and resignation letters of 198990 that the same were approved by the MC Meeting in 1989 whereas the investigation revealed that all these acts were carried out in 199798. 5 of these resignation are forged. One of the members had paid Rs.60,000/ as premium to A2 for new membership. Many resigned members have claimed having handed over resignations to A2. He also forged the signature of Sh.Vijay Kumar on CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.7 of 313 the reverse side of cheque No.735304 of Delhi State Co operative Ltd. dated 07.08.03 for Rs.30,100/. This cheque was issued for the refund of share money of Sh.Vijay Kumar.

2.2 ROLE OF MADAN MOHAN KHANNA (A.2) He was the President of the society since 02.03.1997. He signed a list of 28 (25 antedated) resignations including 5 forged resignations that were sent to RCS. He also forwarded a letter dated 16.07.98 containing list of 20 resigned members including name of Sh.Ashok Kumar membership No.110 at Sr.No.7 to the RCS office. During his tenure, 2 forged resignations were approved by the MC of the society on 09.06.98 & 03.06.03. He alongwith Nemi Chand Bansal (A.4) had produced the missing proceeding register to Sh.P.N.Bajaj, auditor in June, 1997 He was actively pursing the approval of revised list of members in the office of RCS.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.8 of 313 2.3 ROLE OF NEMI CHAND BANSAL (A.3) He was the Secretary of the society since 199798. He forwarded a list of 25 ante dated resignations including 5 forged resignations to RCS in 1997 vide letter dated 24.09.97. During his tenure, 2 forged resignations were approved by the MC of the society on 09.06.98 and 03.06.03. He alongwith A.4 had produced the list of 25 resigned members and 25 new enrolled members and missing proceeding register to Sh.P.N.Bajaj, auditor at the time of audit of the society in June, 1997. He was actively pursuing the approval of revised list of members in the office of RCS.

2.4 ROLE OF ANAND MOHAN (A.4) He was the Treasurer of the society since 02.03.97 and is managing the affairs of the society at present. Two forged resignations were accepted in the MC on 09.06.98 and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.9 of 313 03.06.03 during his tenure as Treasurer of the society. He has signed on the share certificates in 1998 to the members, which were purportedly enrolled in 198990. He had submitted the forged resignation of Vijay Kumar membership No.135 to the office of RCS on 16.07.03. He has enrolled the new members of the society. 2.5 ROLE OF A.K.SHANKARAN (A.5) He was the then Dealing Assistant, of the office of RCS. He had conducted inspection of the society on 10.10.97. In his inspection report he had falsely mentioned that the society was operating from its registered address at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. He recommended approval of 25 resignations and enrollments of 198990 without mentioning that the MC Resolutions had not been submitted. He ever mentioned "the society had followed Rule 30 as they have passed Resolutions of enrollment in time " in his noting on page 19/N. Whereas in the same CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.10 of 313 noting he mentioned that the copies of said resolutions have not been submitted. He also failed to notice the apparent manipulation of dates in the affidavits of the newly enrolled members.

2.6 Sanction for prosecution of accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) u/s 19 of the PC Act was obtained and filed alongwith charge sheet. The cognizance was taken and accused persons summoned to face trial. 2.7 After compliance of Sec.207 Cr.PC and hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, the ld. predecessor of the court, vide order dated 23.07.2010 directed framing of charge against all accused persons u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, besides, the substantive charge against accused Parshuram Gupta (A.

1) u/s 420/467/468 and 471 IPC, against accused Madan CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.11 of 313 Mohan Khanna (A.2), Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Anand Mohan (A.4) u/s 420/468/471 IPC and against accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)

(d) of PC Act, 1988. While framing formal charge the ld. Predecessor of the court framed the charge on 25.08.2010 as per the order except that section 467 IPC was left out from the charge framed against all accused persons to be r/w section 120 B IPC.

3.0 Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence the prosecution examined 53 witnesses to prove the offences charged against accused persons and closed PE. Even at the cost of brevity it would be fruitful to first summarize the evidence adduced by the prosecution so that one is not required to look into the voluminous testimony of the witnesses for understanding the facts proved by them. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.12 of 313 3.1 PW.1 Banwari Lal has deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS and paid Rs.500/ towards membership fee. He proved his affidavit dated 27.08.83 as Ex.PW.1/A mentioning therein his membership number as 33. He admitted signatures on his resignation letter dated 07.07.89 which is Ex.PW.1/B and he stated that he was informed that society has not been allotted land and as such Rs.2,000/ or Rs.3,000/ were returned to him by one Rajender who had made him member of the society. During his cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he stated that he did not remember as to whether he had named Mr.Kapoora as the person who had gave him Rs.2,000/ or Rs.3,000/ and taken his signature and volunteered that Kapoora was brother of Rajender. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he stated that at the time of registration Mr.Kapoora had taken deposit of Rs.500/ from him and Rs.2,000/ or Rs.3,000/ were returned to CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.13 of 313 him by his brother Rajender. He stated that when Rajinder had informed him that the land was not allotted to the society and he wanted to return money in sum of Rs. 2,000/ or Rs.3,000/ , he simply accepted the same and signed the resignation letter.

3.2 PW.2 Laxmi Narain Gupta has stated that he became member of Satyam CGHS on advice of Sh.Rajender who was resident of Shivaji Park,New Delhi and deposited Rs.100/ or Rs.200/ as membership fee. He identified his signatures on his affidavit dated 24.05.84 (D.3 page 76/77) which is Ex.PW.2/A. He stated that office of Satyam CGHS was also in Shivaji Park, New Delhi and after he had constructed a house he had submitted resignation from membership of said society and received back his membership fee. He stated that he had been VicePresident of Satyam CGHS for 24 months and he identified his signatures on the minutes of meeting CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.14 of 313 of the society regarding transfer of account of the society which is Ex.PW.2/B. He also identified his signatures on the copy of minutes of meeting of society and it was first meeting after registration and the same is Ex.PW.2/C. 3.2.1 He stated that Sh.Rajender Gupta was also member of Managing Committee. He was shown the copy of Byelaws of the society on which signature of Sh.R.P.Gupta was appearing but he failed to identify his signatures stating that due to old age he is unable to identify the same. The Byelaws are marked as mark PW.2/X. The registration certificate of society is Ex.PW. 2/D which show its registration no.1023 dated 07.12.83. He stated that society was registered on the basis of application Ex.PW.2/X1 (D.52) and the list of promoter members is marked PW.2/X.2. He identified signatures on resignation letter dated 16.07.89 which is Ex.PW.2/E. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.15 of 313 3.2.2 During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 PW.2 was confronted with his statement made to IO of the case Ex.PW.2/DA wherein it is recorded that he alongwith Rajender Gupta had raised the society. He denied having made such statement to the IO of the case. He denied having stated to IO that initially 69 persons had joined the society as members and that the first meeting of the society was held on 19.08.83 at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. He denied having stated to IO that name of the society was decided as Satyam CGHS Ltd. and the address of the society was proposed to be C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi which was rented house of Sh.R.P.Gupta. In this respect he was confronted with his statement made to IO and he denied that when he was VicePresident of the society the resignation of the members were also brought to his notice.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.16 of 313 3.2.3 He admitted in his cross examination that he had stated to IO that Krishan Chand @ Dammo is his younger brother and volunteered that he was residing with him in Paschim Vihar and further stated that Krishan Chand @ Dammo never became member of the society but he admitted that some members were introduced in the society at the instance of his brother Krishan Chand @ Dammo. He admitted that some members had resigned in 1989 but he does not remember how many members resigned in 1989. He deposed that he did not state to IO that in 1990 none of the members had resigned from society. He stated that Smt.Bimla Devi is his sister but could not recollect as to when she had resigned from the membership of the society. He stated that he had received letter from Satyam CGHS for depositing amount of Rs.1.5 lacs as the land is likely to be allotted but since he did not deposit the same, he resigned from the membership of the society. He stated that he CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.17 of 313 could not remember that when he had received such letter from society but it was before 1998. He stated that he did not know if Krishan Chand @ Dammo had brought the resignation letters of those 57 members which were introduced by him in the society. He specifically denied that he is depositing falsely or his brother Krishan Chand had brought the resignation letters of Vinod, Ashok, Ved Prakash, Anil Saluja, Ravinder Saluja and Bimla Devi in his presence.

3.3 PW.3 Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta stated that he became member of Satyam CGHS and he brought his original share certificate No.111 dated 25.09.84, the copy of which is Ex.PW.3/A. He also identified his signatures at point A.11, A.12 & A.13 on his affidavit (D.3 page 34) dated 30.03.84. He deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the said society and his resignation has been forged on Ex.PW.3/B and he did not CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.18 of 313 sign at point Q.9. He deposed that he never received back his membership fee. During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he stated that he was inducted as member of Satyam CGHS by Sh.Krishan Chand Gupta @ Dammo but refused that Krishan Chand Gupta @ Dammo had refunded him the amount deposited by him with the society or that he had informed him that he is no more member of the society. He stated that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that Dammo and Laxmi Narain had signed on his behalf to show that he has resigned from membership of the society. 3.4 PW.4 Sh.Ved Parkash Gupta had brought his original share certificate and the copy of the same is Ex.PW.4/A. He stated that he never received a notice for expulsion from membership of Satyam CGHS. During his cross examination, he stated that he has no knowledge whether any notice was issued to him which CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.19 of 313 was got published in the newspaper regarding his expulsion from membership of the society. He stated that he had shifted from his earlier address and did not inform his new address .

3.5 PW.5 Sh.Anil Kumar Saluja stated that he had become member of the Satyam CGHS on recommendation of Krishan Chand Gupta and Laxmi Narain . He identified his signatures at point A.6 on his affidavit (D.3 page 48) dated 30.03.84 which is Ex.PW. 5/A. He stated that he never resigned from the membership of Satyam CGHS and signature appearing on resignation letter Ex.PW.5/B (D.8 page 16) at point Q.5 is not his signature. He stated that he never received back his money. During his cross examination he stated that he has business dealing with Sh.Krishan Chand Gupta and till 2009 he kept on saying that no land had been allotted to Satyam CGHS. He stated that he cannot CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.20 of 313 say if Sh.Krishan Chand had signed the resignation letter in his name.

3.6 PW.6 Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta has stated that he had become member of Satyam CGHS on recommendation of Krishan Chand Gupta @ Dammo by depositing Rs.110/ in cash. He has proved his affidavit Ex.PW.6/C. He stated that he kept on asking from Krishan Chand Gupta and Laxmi Narain Gupta as to whether the land was allotted to society by DDA and on this they kept saying that nothing had happened in this respect. He has stated that he never resigned from the membership of Satyam CGHG and signature appearing at point Q.3 on Ex.PW.6/D (D.8 page 34) is not his signature. He stated that he never received back amount deposited with the society. During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he stated that he has not informed his new address of Faridabad to the society after CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.21 of 313 shifting to Faridabad. He stated that Laxmi Chand Gupta is brother of Sh.Krishan Chand Gupta who is his Fufaji by relationship. He denied a suggestion that Krishan Chand Gupta and Laxmi Chand Gupta had given resignation to the society on his behalf by signing the resignation in his name.

3.7.0 PW.7 Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht, working as Deputy Manager in Delhi Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (DCUTCSL) deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS on advise of Parshuram Gupta (A.1). He proved his membership application as Ex.PW. 7/A, his affidavit dated 22.09.97 as Ex.PW.7/B and stated that he resigned from the membership of society vide resignation letter dated 09.08.03 which is Ex.PW.7/C. 3.7.1 He proved that the resignation letters of S/Sh.Rajender Kumar Jain, Ratan Lal Jain, Sajjan Kumar, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.22 of 313 Laxmi Narain, Daya Ram, Sanjay Ram, Ashok Kumar, Hanuman Dass, Ramphal, Pawan Kumar, Sat Parkash, Tarsem Chand, Sudhir Sood, Praveen Jindal, Manohar Lal, A.N.Singla, Som Nath, Darshan Kumar Garg, Satya Devi, Arun Jindal & Sh.P.K.Mittal respectively Ex.PW.7/D, 7/E, 7/F, 2/E, 7/G, 7/H , 6/D, 7/J, 7/K, 7/L, 7/M, 7/N, 7/P, 7/Q, 7/R, 7/S, 7/T, 7/U,7/V, 7/W & 7/X are in the handwritings of Sh.K.C.Gupta who was working with him. The initials of Sh.K.C.Gupta at point Q.192, Q.181, Q.195, Q.180, Q.178, Q.179, Q.177, Q.191, Q.176, Q.190, Q.175, Q. 189, Q.185, Q.186, Q.187, Q.188 & Q.184 respectively on Ex.PW.7/G to 7/X have been proved to be that of Sh.K.C.Gupta.

3.7.2 He further deposed that proceedings/minutes book of Satyam CGHS w.e.f. 02.03.97 to 14.11.98 contained in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) at points Q.107 to Q. 110 are in the handwriting of Sh.K.C.Gupta. He also CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.23 of 313 proved that on the proceedings/minutes recorded on 20.01.98, 12.02.98, 22.2.98, 09.06.98, 02.07.98, 02.08.98, 27.08.98, 23.09.98 in register Ex.PW.7/Y are in the handwriting of Sh.K.C.Gupta who was working with him in DCUTCSL.

3.7.3 He was also shown proceeding register for the period 29.04.01 to 08.04.04 (D.10) put as Ex.PW.7/Z in which he identified his own signatures at point A on page No.21.

3.7.4 He deposed that letter dated 20.8.97 (page 97 of D.3) which was a letter addressed to Assistant Registrar , RCS office, on behalf of the society was written by him for forwarding the list of frozen members of the society at the earliest, is in his handwriting at Q.104 and signature at point Q.105 is his signature, which was marked Ex.PW.7/Z.1.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.24 of 313 3.7.5 During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he stated that he became member of the society on his own and resigned due to his own will without any pressure. He also deposed that he never visited the office of the society and therefore, cannot say who were the President and Secretary of the society. He stated that he had given the resignation letter to his colleague Mr. Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and did not personally visit the office of the society. 3.8 PW.8 Sh.Amar Nath Pandey working as Supervisor in DCUTCSL deposed that he became member of the society through Parshuram Gupta (A.1) who was working with DCUTCSL. He stated that he had submitted membership application marked as mark PW. 8/A which was not signed inadvertently. He also proved his affidavit dated 22.09.97 as Ex.PW.8/1. He deposed CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.25 of 313 that the said affidavit was enclosed with his membership form mark PW.8/A. He proved his resignation letter dated 07.08.03 as Ex.PW.8/2 (D.8 page 111). During cross examination, he has stated that he did not personally visit the society office for deposit of form and affidavit and volunteered that he had given the same to his colleague for depositing the same with the society and resignation letter was also given by him to his colleague for submitting the same to the society and he did not personally visit the office of the society.

3.9 PW.9 Ms. Kaushal Jindal proved her membership with Satyam CGHS at Sr.No.87 with signatures at membership register Ex.PW.9/A (D.16) , the counter foil of her share certificate Ex.PW.9/B (D.58) , her affidavit Ex.PW.9/D (D.3 page 58) and her resignation letter Ex.PW.9/F (D.8 page 20).

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.26 of 313 3.10 PW.10 Sh.Amar Nath Singhla has proved his membership with the society but he was to expel from the society and during his cross examination he admitted that he could not get any information regarding his expulsion as he had changed his address.

3.11 PW.11 Sh.Suraj Bhan has also proved his membership with the society and subsequent resignation letter Ex.PW.11/D (page 23 of D.8). During his cross examination he stated that he could not remember the name of the person who had got his signatures on affidavit. During his cross examination he has stated that he had become the member of the society through Laxmi Narain who is his relative being brotherinlaw. He deposed that he did not ask Sh.Laxmi Narain about status of society but Laxmi Narain told him that society was not getting plot of land from DDA so he should submit his resignation. He stated that he purchased a plot of land CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.27 of 313 at Budh Vihar in 1984 and constructed house there in 1986.

3.12 PW.12 Roshan Lal has deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS about 2325 years back and had given the affidavit on 02.04.84 which is Ex.PW.12/A. He deposed that he had not submitted any resignation from membership of society and the alleged resignation letter in his name, which is Ex.PW.12/B, is forged one and signatures appearing thereon at point Q.13 is not his signatures. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he stated that he had become member of the society at the instance of his brother Sh.Ved Parkash, who has since expired. He also stated that he does not know Laxmi Narain & Kishan Chand @ Dammo. He has stated that he do not remember the exact date of death of his brother but it was nearly 2324 years back. He denied the suggestion that CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.28 of 313 he had already resigned from the membership of the society before purchasing the property bearing No.B2/29, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He also denied the suggestion that his brother had signed the resignation letter on his behalf and he is deposing falsely to save his brother. 3.13 PW.13 Sh.Om Parkash has stated that his father Sh.Dal Chand Aggarwal had resigned from the membership of the society vide letter dated 08.07.89 Ex.PW.13/A and he has since expired on 30.06.98. He stated that his father used to write Aggarwal in his signatures but same is not appearing in Ex.PW.13/A. During cross examination he admitted that Laxmi Narain & Kishan Chand @ Dammo are brothers of Smt. Bimla Devi & Darshna Goel who were their sisters.

3.14 PW.14 Smt.Bimla Devi has deposed that she is residing in Flat No.2, Bannu Enclave, Road No.42, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.29 of 313 Pitam Pura, Delhi since 1996 and prior to that she was residing at Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh in House No.WZ736. She stated that she had become member of Satyam CGHS at the instance of her father in law and she proved her affidavit Ex.PW.14/A. She stated that she had resigned from the membership of society at the instance of her fatherinlaw Sh.Prem Parkash Mittal who has since expired and her resignation letter dated 05.07.89 bears her signatures at point A which is Ex.PW.14/B (D.8 page

19). She stated that in the said resignation her address is shown as 32, Bannu Enclave, Road No.42, Pitam Pura, Delhi but in the year 1989 she had not shifted to the said house. She stated that the premises at Pitam Pura was purchased by her motherinlaw in 1996 and the same was not of her relative. She also stated that her signatures are appearing on resignation letter Ex.PW.14/B but her name and address at point B thereof have been added later on and she cannot say who has added the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.30 of 313 same at portion B. During her cross examination, she deposed that Dal Chand, Laxmi Narain & Kishan Chand @ Dammo are her brothers. She stated that her fatherin law expired in 1992 and she had resigned at his instance but she could not recollect the year in which she had resigned from membership of the society. She denied the suggestion that address at point B on Ex.PW.14/B was written by her brother.

3.15.0 PW.15 Sh.Vijay Kumar has stated that he never applied for membership of Satyam CGHS. His application form for becoming member of Satyam CGHS was shown to him but he denied the signatures thereon which application is Ex.PW.15/A (D.3 page 191). He stated that his father's name and residential address are correctly mentioned in the said application. He also denied his signatures on affidavit Ex.PW.15/B dated 08.09.90 (page 190 of D.3). He stated that the signatures CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.31 of 313 appearing at point Q.15 & Q.16 have not been made by him.

3.15.1 He also denied signatures on membership register Ex.PW.9/A (D.16) and deposed that as he never become a member of the society there was no question of his resigning from the membership of the society. He was shown resignation letter in his name Ex.PW.15/C (page 102 of D.8) and he denied his signatures on the said resignation letter at point Q.11 and stated that he is not aware as to who has written at point Q.12, Q.262 & Q.263 on the said letter Ex.PW.15/C. He also proved his specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW.15/D.1 to Ex.PW.15/D.8 (D.80).

3.15.2 During his cross examination he has stated that he does not know if his elder brother Ashok Kumar also became a member of the society or resigned CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.32 of 313 from its membership. He stated that Parshuram Gupta (A.1) had asked him if he was interested in becoming member of Satyam CGHS and he gave him consent for the same. He also admitted that he has family relation with Parshuram Gupta for last 30 years. He stated that Parshuram Gupta had asked him to pay some money for construction of flats but he had shown his inability to make payment and thereupon he had given oral consent that he did not want to remain member of the said society. He stated that he never signed the papers in respect of his membership or resignation. He stated that he cannot say if his brother Ashok had signed the same in his name on his behalf while becoming member and resigning from membership of the said society.

3.16 PW.16 Smt.Darshna Goyal has deposed that she became member of Satyam CGHS vide membership No.101 at the instance of her brother Late Dal Chand CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.33 of 313 Aggarwal. She identified her signatures on affidavit Ex.PW.16/B (D.44 of D.3). However, she denied signatures on resignation letter in her name dated 05.07.89 which is Ex.PW.16/C. She also stated that her address on the resignation letter is mentioned as 1380/95, Tri Nagar, Delhi but in fact her address is 1380/93. She stated that her brother Dal Chand has expired 1213 years back and she did not receive any correspondence from the society. During cross examination, she admitted that she has never received share certificate or receipt and stated that Laxmi Narain and Dal Chand are her real brothers. She deposed that her brother Dal Chand had asked her whether she wanted to quit from the society, therefore, she had quit the said society but did not sign any document for resigning from the society. She stated that she cannot say if her brother must have signed the resignation letter on her behalf.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.34 of 313 3.17.0 PW.17 Smt.Abha Bhardwaj has deposed that she became member of Satyam CGHS and her name with correct particulars are mentioned against Sr.No.160 at page 15 of membership register which is Ex.PW.9/A. She has stated that she became member of Satyam CGHS through one property dealer Rajiv and Neeraj of M/s Vaish Properties, Dwarka, New Delhi and Mr.Neeraj had taken her to Mr.Parshuram Gupta (A.1) who was office bearer of the society. She stated that she had visited him with her husband at Pitam Pura address. 3.17.1 She proved her application for membership as Ex.PW.17/D and affidavit attested on 20.11.98 as Ex.PW.17/E. She proved her resignation letter dated 05.10.2000 as Ex.PW.17/F and stated that she had resigned under compelling circumstances as she was told by office bearers of the society that either she should pay the entire amount of the flat or her name will be put into CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.35 of 313 the list of defaulter members and in that case the money contributed by her to the society will be forfeited. She stated that under that fear her resignation was obtained by Neeraj through whom she had become member of the society.

3.17.2 During her cross examination she has stated that her husband was member of Naval Technical CGHS which was taken in the year 1998 around the period when she had taken membership in Satyam CGHS. She admitted that in her affidavit Ex.PW.17/E it is stipulated that if her husband was member of a society, she could not become member of the present society. She denied suggestion that she had declined to make payment of money for construction of flats and volunteered that she had demanded the documents so that she could raise loan from the bank for making payment to the society but office bearers of the society did CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.36 of 313 not provide her the documents.

3.17.3 She denied to the suggestion that she resigned from membership of Satyam CGHS for the reason that she was unable to make payment for construction or because of her husband was also a member of another society. She deposed that she had paid 2% commission to M/s Vaish properties in this deal and denied suggestion that since Parshuram Gupta did not make payment of premium demanded by her, therefore, she has deposed falsely against him. She denied suggestion that Parshuram had never demanded Rs.10 lacs from her.

3.17.4 She has deposed that she had gone to CBI office only once and volunteered that before CBI had called her, she had received a phone call from Anand Mohan threatening her of dire consequences if she said CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.37 of 313 anything against office bearers of the society. On court question she clarified that she cannot identify Anand Mohan as she has heard his voice only on phone and never met him. She denied the suggestion that no person in the name of Anand Mohan had ever threatened her over phone.

3.18 PW.18 Sh.S.S.Dhall has deposed that he become member of Satyam CGHS in the year 2000 and proved his application form Ex.PW.18/A, he is existing member and his name is mentioned against Sr.No.248 in the list of members Ex.PW.17/J (D.48) . He stated that he is still member of the society and has been allotted flat in the said society.

3.19 PW.19 Sh.Subhash Chand Verma, PW.

20 Sh.Suresh Pal Tomar, PW.23 Sh.Sanjeev Sharma , PW.24 Sh.Mahavir Singhal & PW.25 Sh.Kuldeep Singh CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.38 of 313 are also on the same lines who all are existing members of the society and have been allotted flats in the society. 3.20 PW.21 Sh.Tarsem Chand has deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS in 198283; his name is mentioned at Sr.No.26 of the membership register Ex.PW.9/A; he had signed Intensive Enquiry Performa submitted at the time of registration of the society which is Ex.PW.21/B (D.2 page 9394); his affidavit is Ex.PW.21/C and resignation letter Ex.PW.7/N (page 49 of D.8). He said that he had resigned as he was not having sufficient money to pay for the flat on demand by the office bearers. He proved the counter foil of share certificate issued to him (D.57) as Ex.PW.21/E. 3.21 PW.22 Sh.Amiresh Kumar Bansal has deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS at the instance of Sh.Kishan Chand @ Dammo who is brother of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.39 of 313 Sh.Laxmi Narain. His name is mentioned at Sr.No.99 on register Ex.PW. 9/A. Counter foil of his share certificate with membership No.99 is proved as Ex.PW.22/B. He deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society and resignation letter in his name Ex.PW.22/C has not been signed by him. He stated that in 2005 one Sanjay who was son of Dammo alongwith son of Laxmi Narain had come to him and asked him that Satyam CGHS is not functioning and they would pay Rs.7,000/ or Rs.8,000/ in cash if he agrees to resign from the membership of the society but he had refused to accept the same. He stated that when he came to know about his forged resignation from the membership of the society he had filed a complaint with RCS and lodged FIR bearing No.540/05 PS Dwarka. He also filed a civil suit against the society. During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he deposed that he did not give intimation to the society that he had purchased a house in CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.40 of 313 the year 1985. He admitted that his membership from the society would have been cancelled had he informed them that he had purchased a house in 1985. He stated that Naresh who was son of Laxmi Narain and Sanjay who was son of Dammo had visited him but he had not registered any complaint against them about their visiting and for asking him to resign from the society. He clarified that he had told to IO of CBI that they had come to him in the year 199899 but in fact they had come to him seeking his resignation in the year 199899 and not in the year 2005 or thereabout. He denied the suggestion that he intentionally not identifying the signatures of Sh.R.P.Gupta at point C on Ex.PW.22/C (resignation letter). He deposed that when he came to know that his forged resignation was submitted with the office of RCS he asked from Dammo as to how this had happened, then he told him that he was not well during these days and that his sons were looking after the affairs of the society. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.41 of 313 3.22 PW.26 Ms.Aarti Goel has deposed that she became member of Satyam CGHS vide application form Ex.PW.26/A (D.59) vide membership No.183 and she has obtained possession of the flat in society. She also identified signatures of Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) who is Secretary at point Q.18 on letter dated 24.09.97 Ex.PW. 26/C (D.3 page 238) and at point Q.99 on letter dated 14.11.97 Ex.PW.26/D (D.3 page 189). She also identified signatures of Sh.Anand Mohan (A.4) at points Q.237 to 261 which are share certificates for membership No.121 to 145 Ex.PW.26/E to PW.26/Z & Ex.PW.26/Z.1 to Z.5.

3.23 PW.27 Sh. Tarsem Kumar Jain, retired Assistant Registrar from RCS office in Delhi has deposed that procedure for resigning from the membership of a registered cooperative group housing society was that the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.42 of 313 willing member used to give his resignation letter to the Executive of the society and after his resignation letter was accepted by the society, the same was intimated to the applicant and the money was refunded to the applicant by cheque and thereafter the RCS office used to be intimated by the society in due course. He deposed that account of the society used to be audited every year and audit of account of the society were conducted by Auditor appointed by the RCS office.

3.24 PW.28 Smt.Amarjeet Kaur has deposed that she had become member of the society in 2003 after seeing the advertisement in the newspaper. She identified signatures of Anand Mohan at point Q.237 to Q.261 at Sr.No.121 to 145 Ex.PW.26/E to Ex.PW.26/Z.5. 3.25.0 PW.29 Sh.Ishwar Chand Bansal has deposed that Satyam CGHS was formed by residents of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.43 of 313 Shivaji Park in which there were 60 members in the society out of which he was one of the promoter member and thereafter the number was raised to 120. He deposed that he was founder President of the society and his signature is appearing at the membership register (D.16) Ex.PW.9/A at Sr.No.1. He deposed that Mr.R.P.Gupta was Secretary of the Satyam CGHS when he was its President ; within 34 months of the formation of Satyam CGHS the strength of the total members was increased to 120 and the records of the society were maintained by the Secretary of the society.

3.25.1 He deposed that he remained President of the society ; by the year 1989 he has lost interest in the affairs of the society as no land was allotted and he identified his signatures on the counter foils of share certificates issued at that time (D.57, D.58 & D.67) Ex.PW. 29/B.1 to B.114, PW.21/E, PW.10/A, PW.9/B, PW.22/B, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.44 of 313 PW.16/PX.1 & Ex.PW.6/B. He stated that he remained President of the society till 198990 and Sh.R.P.Gupta, Honorary Secretary of the society used to prepare the documents of the society with regard to registration and other correspondence.

3.25.2 He specifically stated that he was elected President unopposed and when he ceased to be the President of the society no election of the society was held. He deposed that in 1990 election was to take place but no one took interest or participated in the election and therefore, no further election of the managing committee of society could be held. He also deposed that when he was President of society, GBM was held and thereafter no GBM was held. He could not recollect whether he had attended any GBM after 1990. He stated that last audit of the account of Satyam CGHS was held till 1989 and to his recollection no member of Satyam CGHS had resigned CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.45 of 313 during his period when he was President of the society. He confirmed that he never accepted the resignation of any member of Satyam CGHS as President.

3.25.3 He further deposed that he had resigned from the membership of the society near about 200203 and he knew Parshuram Gupta who had met him around 1997 in connection with the affairs of the society and asked him whether he wanted to continue with the membership of Satyam CGHS and if so to deposit the cost of land with the society. He proved letter dated 13.07.90 written to RCS office on letter head of Satyam CGHS bearing his signatures thereon which is Ex.PW. 29/C (D.3 page 87). He confirmed that he remained associated with the society since its registration till 1990 and that the records of the society were kept in society office at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi and whenever any meeting of the management committee is held, previous CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.46 of 313 minutes of management committee as well as GBM are usually read out.

3.25.4 He was shown the minutes of MC meeting held on 02.03.97 (D.9). He stated that in the meeting the minutes of previous meeting of management committee dated 28.01.97 and minutes of GBM dated 09.02.97 were read out before the committee, meaning thereby that proceeding register containing these two minutes should have been there when the meeting was held on 02.03.97. 3.25.5 He deposed that he knew Anand Mohan as he was also office bearer of the society during his tenure as President as well as during subsequent period. He stated that Nemi Chand Bansal was also office bearer of the society. He could not say with certainity that signatures appearing on page No.3 of minutes of meeting on register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) are that of Nemi Chand CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.47 of 313 Bansal, but he volunteered that he can verify the same with the correspondence which he had received from him. He deposed that due to lapse of time he could not identify the signatures of Nemi Chand Bansal at point A on Ex.PW.26/C. 3.25.6 He was declared hostile at the request of Ld. Public Prosecutor and was cross examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor. During cross examination by Ld.Public Prosecutor he deposed that he does not remember that since which date to which date Nemi Chand Bansal was Secretary of Satyam CGHS and Anand Mohan was office bearer of the society. He also stated that to his recollection he did not sign any documents of the society in the capacity of President after signing the letter dated 13.07.90 (Ex.PW.29/C). He could not tell till what period Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan remained office bearers of the society. He stated that signatures at point CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.48 of 313 Q.99 on letter dated 14.11.97 Ex.PW.26/D and at point A on letter dated 24.09.97 Ex.PW.26/C appears to be the signatures of Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3).

3.25.7 He identified the signatures of Sh.Anand Mohan Treasurer on Ex.PW.26/E to Z, Ex.PW.26/Z.1 to Z.

5. He identified his own signatures on resignation dated 26.06.03 Ex.PW.29/F. As regards signatures of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal on Ex.PW.26/C & 26/D when it was put to him by Ld. Public Prosecutor he had identified signatures of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal on these documents. He stated that he was shown those documents by CBI and had identified the signatures of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal Secretary of society as at that time he must be having the correspondence with him which were having the signatures of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal. He stated that same was his answer in respect of Ex.PW.26/E to Z.5 on which he had identified the signatures of Anand Mohan CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.49 of 313 Treasurer on being shown by IO of CBI during investigation. He admitted that he had told to IO of the case that counter foils of share certificate from Sr.Nos. 1 to 120 were bearing his signatures as well as signatures of Sh.R.P.Gupta as President and Secretary of Satyam CGHS.

3.25.8 When it was put to him by Ld. Public Prosecutor that Parshuram Gupta had come to him and stated that he and his friends are running Satyam CGHS, he said that he could not say so and either he (Parshuram Gupta) must have been running the society or his associates must have been running the society and hence he had come to him as per his understanding. 3.25.9 During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he confirmed that became President of Satyam CGHS in the year 1983 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.50 of 313 unanimously. He stated that Sh.R.P.Gupta was Secretary of the society during his entire period of Presidentship of society. He confirmed that during his tenure as President no new members had entered the society nor any member had resigned from the membership of the society. He stated that he do not remember as to when Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan had become members of Satyam CGHS but they did not become members of society during his tenure as President. He stated that had the Secretary of the society made Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan members of the society during his tenure as President, it would have come to his knowledge and hence it was not possible that they could have been made members by the Secretary without his knowledge.

3.25.10 He deposed that he did not resign from Presidentship of the society and no one became CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.51 of 313 President of Satyam CGHS in 1990 after him. To a specific question he replied that he is not aware if anyone had become President of Satyam CGHS after expiry of his tenure in the year 1990 as he had lost interest alongwith others and not keeping track with the affairs of the society. He stated that he had not taken interest in the affairs of the society subsequently and came to know from the correspondence received by him that other persons are functioning as office bearers of the society. 3.25.11 He deposed that records of the society were lying in the office of the society ; he did not hand over the records of the society to anyone and that he could not say whether records were handed over to someone by Secretary of the society in 1990. He volunteered that normally the records of the society should be handed over by the previous Management committee to new management committee and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.52 of 313 volunteered that since no one took interest or come forward as member of management committee after 1990, therefore, there was no question of handing over the records of the society to new managing committee. He stated that during his tenure none of the records of the society were stolen but he could not say whether any theft of record took place after his tenure. He stated that he did not lodge any complaint to the police as no record was stolen during his tenure.

3.25.12 He admitted that he had purchased a house in 1985 but stated that he is not aware if as per the Byelaws, the member who has acquired the property in Delhi had to resign from the membership of the society. His attention was drawn to resignation letter of one Sh.Chattur Bhuj Ex.PW.29/DA (D.8 page 30) wherein he stated that signatures at point A on the same appear to be like his signatures but he could not confirm the same. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.53 of 313 Same was his answer about signatures appearing at point 'A' on Ex.PW.7/H, 7/N, 7/Q, 7/U, 7/W. 3.25.13 He denied a suggestion that some members had resigned from Satyam CGHS in 1998 and in their place new members were inducted in the society. He denied a suggestion that he was having full control of affairs of Sayam CGHS even after 1990. He admitted that Parshuram Gupta had never been a member of society till 1990 when he was President. 3.26.0 PW.30 Sh.Krishan Gopal Kashyap was posed as Assistant Director in Group Housing Section of DDA since may, 1998 to July, 2001 which section used to allot land to the group housing societies as per approved list of members sent by office of RCS. He stated that prior to 1991 land was allotted to the societies on first come first serve basis and subsequently CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.54 of 313 after Judgment in Kaveri CGHS case by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the land is being allotted by DDA on seniority basis. The area of land allotted to the society is on the basis of strength of members as per the criteria of DDA. 3.26.1 He described the procedure for allotment of land to the societies and said that when request used to be received for increasing or decreasing the strength of the society, the same used to be done by DDA by taking the concurrence from RCS before processing the request. He stated that if such a request is received from society before the offer of allotment is made by DDA, the size of the plot would vary according to increase or decrease the strength of the society.

3.26.2 He stated that to check the genuineness of the members society was not the job of DDA but it used to act on the basis of list on recommendations of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.55 of 313 RCS. He also proved the list of members of Satyam CGHS received by DDA from RCS office with letter dated 12.05.98 having registration No.1023 with strength of 120 members as Ex.PW.30/N. The list has been duly attested by Assistant Registrar of RCS office with stamp of RCS on each page and is duly verified by Inspector of RCS on each page which is Ex.PW.30/B. 3.26.3 He also proved the letter written by President of Satyam CGHS to AR (W) dated 22.05.98, a copy of which was received in DDA pertaining to change of registered office of the society which is Ex.PW.30/C (D.

14). He proved the offer cum preference letter of DDA dated 03.06.98 as Ex.PW.30/D.1, letter of DDA dated 10.06.98 alongwith performa application form which is Ex.PW.30/D.2, true copy of resolution dated 09.06.98 passed by MC of Satyam CGHS under the chairmanship of Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) under signatures of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.56 of 313 Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) as Ex.PW.30/D.2, forwarding letter dated 16.07.98 alongwith annexures sent by Nemi Chand Bansal as Secretary of society (A.3) as Ex.PW.30/D.3 to D.11 (D.13 page 8 to 29), intimation to the society vide letter dated 31.01.2000 for draw of lots as Ex.PW.30/D.12, computerized list of DDA pertaining to specific plot allotment to the society is marked Ex.PW. 30/D.13 in which name of Satyam CGHS appears against registration No.1023.

3.26.4 He deposed that Satyam CGHS was allotted plot admeasuring 7000 sq.meters bearing plot No. 5, PhaseII, Sector 18, Dwarka, Delhi. A demand cum allotment letter dated 05.04.2000 sent by DDA to Satyam CGHS has been proved as Ex.PW.30/D.14. Forwarding letter of society under the signatures of P.R.Gupta alongwith challan of SBI showing deposit of Rs. 1,01,32,850/ being 50% of land premium as Ex.PW.30/D. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.57 of 313 15 and D.16 respectively. The balance payment of land premium made by society to DDA vide forwarding letter dated 12.06.2000 under the signatures of Sh.P.R.Gupta (A.1) alongwith original bank challan of SBI are marked Ex.PW.30/D.17 to D.19 respectively (D.13 page 42 to 45). 3.26.5 He proved letter dated 27.06.2000 received under signatures of Sh.P.R.Gupta (A.1) office Secretary of the society requesting the DDA to hand over the possession of plot to the society as Ex.PW.30/D.20. Office copy of letter of DDA dated 16.08.2000 intimating the society the proposed date of handing over of the plot to the society is proved as Ex.PW.30/D.21. He deposed that possession of plot No.5, Sector 18 A area admeasuring 7000.16 sq.meters was given to Anand Mohanrepresentative of the society on 31.08.2000 and the possession letter has been proved as Ex.PW.30/D.22. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.58 of 313 3.26.6 He deposed that vide letter dated 06.11.2000 P.R.Gupta (A.1) office Secretary of Satyam CGHS had requested for issuing NOC for sanction of building plan of the society with which he had sent the certified copy of list of management committee members with original bank challans, copy of possession letter and the request letter with annexures as Ex.PW.30/D.24 to D.

27. No objection was given by DDA vide letter dated 07.12.2000 which is Ex.PW.30/D.28. He has then deposed that one letter dated 21.12.01 under the signatures of Anand MohanSecretary of society (A.4) the society has sought permission from DDA to mortgage the land allotted to the society which is Ex.PW.30/D.29. The permission to mortgage conveyed to the DDA by the society vide letter of DDA seeking submission of some documents by the society with respect to sanction of loan as Ex.PW.30/D.30. A letter was sent by DDA to the society for execution of Perpetual Lease Deed in favour of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.59 of 313 the society which is dated 16.01.03 and Ex.PW.30/D.31. The lease Deed was executed on 25.02.03 and Anand Mohan (A.4) had executed lease deed on behalf of the society and copy of his voter ID card has been proved as Ex.PW.30/D.34. The Perpetual Lease Deed has been proved as Ex.PW.30/D.32, with lease plan as Ex.PW. 30/D.33.

3.26.7 He then deposed that society had sent letter dated 25.08.03 addressed to DDA sent by Anand Mohan Secretary (A.4) requesting for cancellation of mortgage and the copy of certificate of DCUTCSL and ReConveyance Deed (DCUTCSL) were also sent with this letter which have been proved as Ex.PW.30/D.37. A request for reduction of members was received from society at DDA which is Ex.PW.30/D.38 and the permission was granted by DDA to Satyam vide letter dated 29.06.05 for decreasing the strength from 120 to 117 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.60 of 313 members. A performa for public hearing dated 01.05.05 is Ex.PW.30/D.39 and permission of DDA dated 29.06.05 is Ex.PW.30/D.40. He stated that no correspondence is appearing with RCS office before allotment of membership. However, a copy of permission granted to DDA was forwarded to RCS. The correspondence file of DDA has been proved as Ex.PW.30/E (D.13) and he stated that the file reflects that there were complaints regarding reduction of strength and affairs of the society and accordingly, the reduction order was withdrawn vide letter dated 24.08.05 Ex.PW.30/F. 3.26.8 During his cross examination he has stated that DDA offered land to Satyam CGHS on 03.06.98 and that the DDA has no concern with the resignation and enrollment of new members of the society which may keep on changing from time to time unless it is specifically requested by RCS office.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.61 of 313 3.27.0 PW.31 Sh.Jasbir Singh Jolly who is retired Assistant Registrar of RCS office, Delhi has stated that he remained posted as Assistant Registrar in RCS office New Delhi from 1996 to 1999. He was shown the file of RCS office pertaining to Satyam CGHS. By seeing the same he stated that the said society was registered on 06.12.83 vide registration No.1023(GH) and the order in this respect has been proved as Ex.PW.31/A (D.6 page

3) .

3.27.1 He deposed that note sheet from 5/N to 13/N in the file reflect that the society was not functioning as per the DCS Act and Rules as the society was not holding elections of management committee regularly and audit of the society was not also upto date. The pages of the noting file from 5/N to 13/N have been proved as Ex.PW.31/B (colly.) After seeing page 13/N of the file he CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.62 of 313 deposed that file pertaining to Satyam CGHS was dormant for about 4 years from 1992 to 1996 and file was put up before him vide note dated 21.06.96 that election of the society are due from 11.03.91 and no correspondence has been received from society in response to the office letters of RCS. He proved the same as Ex.PW.31/C. He had although stated during his examination in chief that this note was put up by Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.5) but subsequently during his cross examination he clarified that this note was not put up by A.K.Shankaran. 3.27.2 He has testified that on 26.09.97 a note was put up A.K.Shankaran (A.5) stating that the society has submitted the list of members pertaining to year 1984 which was not approved by RCS office and proposed for calling fresh list as well as record of the society for verification. The said note is Ex.PW.31/D. He stated that on this note of Sh.A.K.Shankaran, the AR had CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.63 of 313 directed that inspection of society be carried on and in pursuance to the directions of AR(West) for inspection , Sh. A.K.Shankaran, as per his note dated 05.11.97 had visited the society on 10.10.97 and written a note in this respect. This note of A.K.Shankaran (A.5) has been proved as Ex.PW.31/E. On this note, AR Sh.D.K.Gaur had inter alia raised objection vide his note dated 05.11.97, as to why the society had not produced its record in past. The said note is Ex.PW.31/F. A.K.Shankaran (A.

5) has then vide his note dated 17.11.97 reported that society has furnished the reason for non production of record in past and approval of list submitted by the society. The note of A.K.Shankaran (A.5) has been proved as Ex.PW.31/G. 3.27.3 He deposed that on this note Sh.D.K.Gaur AR had directed for checking the record and proceed further vide his note dated 19.11.97. The same has been CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.64 of 313 marked as Ex.PW.31/H. He has stated that thereafter Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.5) had put up a detail note dated 16.01.98 which was in pursuance to the aforesaid directions of AR. The detailed note dated 16.01.98 which are available on page No.17/N to 20/N submitted by A.K.Shankaran (A.5) have been proved as Ex.PW.31/J. He has deposed that vide said note Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.

5) had requested for writing to the society to furnish copy of resignation letter , copy of resolution of enrollment and resignation on which Sh.B.M.Sethi, then AR had approved the recommendation of Sh.A.K.Shankaran. He deposed that Sh.A.K.Shankaran , who was then Dealing Assistant had put up that the copies of resignation letters have been submitted by the society and those resignations were accepted by society in MC meeting held on 17.07.89 and 07.04.97. He also stated in the note that the society has submitted original affidavits of members and the copies of their application forms, he recommended for CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.65 of 313 considering the list submitted by the society after taking on the record the resignations and enrollments submitted by the society for approval. The same has been proved as Ex.PW.31/K. 3.27.4 He specifically deposed that Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.5) had not put up in the note Ex.PW. 31/K about the production of copy of resolution with regard to 28 members who have been enrolled despite the fact that in earlier note Ex.PW.31/J, Sh.A.K.Shankaran (A.5) specifically pointed out that the society had not submitted the copy of resolution giving approval to the resignation and enrollments.

3.27.5 He deposed that subsequently vide note dated 25.03.98 it was directed for detail verification of proposed membership list by the concerned zone itself. This note was marked to AR (W) Sh.B.M.Sethi who CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.66 of 313 directed for detail note and compliance of directions. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW.31/L. He stated that thereafter in pursuance to the aforesaid directions Sh.A.K.Shankaran had submitted detail note dated 27.03.98 wherein he had reported that he has examined the resignations and enrollments of 28 members in detail and the records pertaining to resignations and enrollments have been verified and found to be in order. The said note from page 23/N to 25/N (D.6) has been proved as Ex.PW. 31/M. He stated that vide aforesaid note Sh.A.K.Shankaran had recommended for approval of list of 120 members, the details of which are mentioned in the note itself and sending to DDA for allotment of land to the society. The said note was put up to AR(W) Sh.B.M.Sethi to DR Sh.J.P.Aggarwal who approved the same and the note in this respect is Ex.PW.31/N. 3.27.6 He was not cross examined by Ld. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.67 of 313 Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4. However, during cross examination by accused No.5 he clarified that the note dated 21.06.96 was not put up by accused A.K.Shankaran. He has deposed that once the document is received by RCS office it goes to the dealing hand and it is for him to consider whether the same has to be put up to the concerned authority for taking the same on record and once the document is put up by the dealing Assistant , the AR and higher authorities will have to go through and apply their mind. He deposed that whenever a matter is put up to RCS regarding enrollment of a new member of society or resignation of an old member, he has to apply his mind after going through the noting file. When it was asked from him as to whether any tool was available with Dealing Assistant to check the genuineness of the document, he stated that he had to tally the same with the facts stated in the Byelaws of the society and as per the provisions of DCS Act and Rules.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.68 of 313 3.27.7 He stated that Dealing Assistant is not equipped with a tool to detect whether a particular document submitted by the society is forged one, if there is nothing contrary in the said document to the byelaws of the society. He has deposed that once the Dealing Assistant mentions that the resignations and enrollments have been verified and found to be in order, it means he is satisfied that these resignations and enrollments are within rules and regulations. He admitted that the Dealing Assistant cannot be supposed to have any equipment to certify that a particular resignation is genuine or forged one and he volunteered that he has to put up only as per the face of the document.

3.28 PW.32 Sh.Rakesh Yadav has deposed earlier his father was residing in House No.C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi , a portion of which was rented to CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.69 of 313 Sh.R.P.Gupta who remained there as tenant from 1980 to 198889. He stated that his father had sold out the said house in 199192 and to his knowledge no society office has ever worked from his address but some correspondence used to be received there in the name of M/s Satyam CGHS. He stated that he knew Sh.Ishwar Chand Bansal who is also residing in the area of Shivaji Park but he does not know any person by name of Parshuram Gupta, Anand Mohan or Nemi Chand Bansal. He has not been cross examined by accused persons. 3.29 PW.33 Sh. Hitesh Sharma is son of Sh.Khushal Chand Sharma who was Advocate and Notary Public. He deposed that his father used to sit in old Court Complex, Parliament Street, New Delhi , who expired on 11.11.06. He deposed that his father had stopped work since around year 2000 and that he could identify his father's handwriting and signatures , if shown CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.70 of 313 to him as he had seen him writing and signing. He was shown affidavits of Sh.Rajender Kumar, Anil Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Krishan Lal Narang, Hemesh Kumar, Sunita Kumari, Ashok Kumar, Jaywati Aggarwal, Amar Nath Pandey, Mohan Singh Bisht, Prem Parkash Pathak, Satish Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Jagdish Chand, Anil Kumar Gupta, Naresh Kumar, Surender Kumar, Kamlesh Gupta, Neeraj Singhal, Ishwar Chand Bansal, Gyan Chand and Vijay Kumar but he stated that signatures on these affidavits for attesting the same are not of his father Late K.C.Sharma. The affidavits have been put as Ex.PW.33/A.1 to A.23. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused No.5 but cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4. During his cross examination he stated that he used to visit his father's office at Parliament Street, New Delhi very often because his father had got amputated his right lower limb, therefore, he often used to go to pick him up from his CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.71 of 313 office. He denied a suggestion that on all the affidavits there are initials of his father on each of them or that all these affidavits bear the signatures of his father and further that he is deliberately deposing falsely at the instance of CBI.

3.30 PW.34 Sh.Minhazuddin has deposed that he is posted as Postman in East Punjabi Bagh post office since 1979 and after seeing the list of UPC from Sr.No.1 to 107 he identified the postal stamp of his post office on each page (the list is running into 7 pages) dated 28.07.90 which is Ex.PW.34/A (colly.) (D.30). He deposed that letters were sent to the persons, the details of whom are mentioned in the list Ex.PW.34/A, through UPC by East Punjabi Bagh Post office. During his cross examination by accused Nos. 1 to 4 he has deposed that the seal of the post office on Ex.PW.34/A had not been affixed by him and he has no knowledge about the order CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.72 of 313 of Ministry of Communication dated 31.01.11. 3.31 PW.35 Sh.Sant Ram is also postman of East Punjabi Bagh who was entrusted with the job of distribution of dak in the area of Shivaji Park. He has also proved the same UPC list Ex.PW.34/A. 3.32 PW.36 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Saluja has deposed that he became member of Satyam CGHS through Kishan Chand Gupta @ Dammo who had told him that his brother Sh.Laxmi Narain Gupta is making/approving a society. He deposed that he never participated in the meetings or election of the society. He denied his signatures on resignation letter dated 09.07.89 Ex.PW.36/B (D.8 page 11). He proved his specimen signature sheets from S.7 to S.13 which are Ex.PW.36/C (D.77). He stated that his name appears on the membership register of society against Sr.No.109 (Ex.PW. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.73 of 313 16/A) and under the column of address, the address of Kishan Chand Gupta @ Dammo is mentioned against his name. During cross examination he has deposed that receipt of membership fee was given to him after 35 days and Dammo had told him that all the formalities regarding membership with Satyam CGHS will be done by Laxmi Narain who was brother of Dammo. He deposed that he did not sign any application form for membership and the affidavit for becoming member of the society. He stated that he cannot say if the resignation in his name has been signed by Dammo or Laxmi Narain.

3.33 PW.37 Sh.Desh Bandu has proved the specimen signatures of Sh.Roshan Lal from S.40 to S.44 (D.82) as Ex.PW.37/A. During his cross examination he has deposed that he had seen Roshan Lal signing the sheet.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.74 of 313 3.34 PW.38 Sh.Satvir Singh has proved specimen signatures sheets from S.14 to 19 and S.20 to S.25 as Ex.PW.38/A & 38/B respectively signed by Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta and Vinod Kumar Gupta. During cross examination he denied suggestion that specimen signatures of Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta and Vinod Kumar Gupta were not obtained in his presence. 3.35 PW.39 Sh.Kishan Lal has proved specimen signatures sheets from S.362 to S375 bear his signatures at point A in token of having witnessed the proceedings of taking specimen signatures and handwritings which are Ex.PW.39/A (D.84) which are in respect of Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht.

3.36 PW.40 Sh.Gyanesh Kumar Jain has proved specimen signatures sheets from s26 to S.33 (D.

80) as already Ex.PW.15/D.8 and sheets from S34 to CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.75 of 313 S39 (D.81) as Ex.PW.40/A and S376 to S385 (D.83) as Ex.PW.40/B which are in respect of S/Sh. Vijay Kumar, Mahender Mohan and Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) respectively.

3.37.0 PW.41 Sh.Prem Nath Bajaj was Auditor posted in audit branch of RCS office. He has deposed that Auditor was required to visit office of society and sometimes the members of the managing committee of the society used to bring records of the society to the office of RCS itself for the purpose of audit. He stated that main object of audit is to look into whether society was free from corruption and keep watch that the society is functioning in accordance with rules. 3.37.1 He deposed that Audit report used to be signed only by the auditor and papers/documents which were the basis of audit were got signed from office CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.76 of 313 bearers of the managing committee of the society. He has proved the audit report of Satyam CGHS for the period 198990 to 199293 as Ex.PW.41/A (D.3 page 130) which was submitted by him on 17.09.97 ( due to typographical error the same is typed as 17.09.02 in his statement whereas the date as per record is 17.09.97). On the face of the audit report Ex.PW.41/A name of President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society are shown as I.C.Bansal, R.P.Gupta and Madan Mohan Khanna respectively. He has deposed that the documents annexed with the balance sheets are signed by President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society and the enclosures are Ex.PW.41/B to E which show the signatures of Sh.Madan Mohan as President, Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal as Secretary and signatures appearing as that of Treasurer are illegible.

3.37.2 He also deposed that in the audit report , CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.77 of 313 the list of members joined during the year 198990 and list of members resigned during the year 1990, list of records as on 31.03.90 and list of members with their deposits as on 31.03.90 were submitted by the society alongwith audit report Ex.PW.41/A which bear the stamp of Satyam CGHS and signatures of its Secretary Sh.Nemi Chand at points A on each page and the same are Ex.PW.41/F (colly.) (8 sheets).

3.37.3 He stated that after audit he had submitted the audit report in triplicate in audit branch of RCS office. He also proved audit report for the period 199394 to 199697 of Satyam CGHS which was conducted by his colleague Sh.M.P.Bajaj who was then auditor working in audit branch of RCS office as Ex.PW. 41/G (page 161 of D.3) and the documents annexed with the same are Ex.PW.41/H which show the date of submission with AR (Audit) on 16.09.97 and AR (W) as CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.78 of 313 17.09.97. . During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 he confirmed that audit report was submitted on 17.09.97 and that 25 members resigned and 25 members enrolled in the year 198990. 3.38 PW42/Laxmi Kant Sharma had worked with Sh.B M Sethi (since expired), who was posted as then AR in RCS office during 1996 to 1999. He has proved the relevant note sheets (D6) which have been proved in part by PW31/Jasbir Singh Jolly. He was not crossexamined by accused persons.

3.39 PW43/Prithvi Raj Singh has proved the specimen signature sheets of Sh.Anil Saluja from S1 to S6 (D76) as Ex.PW43/A. 3.40 PW44/S C Bhalla, who is inspector of CBI, had conducted preliminary enquiry and after enquiry CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.79 of 313 he had made a complaint Ex.PW44/A regarding registration of case in this matter. He also handed over certain documents to IO of the case vide memo Ex.PW44/B & Ex.PW44/C respectively. During his crossexamination by ld.counsel for accused nos.1 to 4, he stated that he does not remember whether resignation letter dated 24.04.03 submitted by Sh.K K Gupta from membership of society Ex.PW44/DC, was shown to him by the society during enquiry. He also could not recollect whether the minutes of the meeting of the society available at page no.153/C and 151/C of D4, Ex.PW44/DD1 and Ex.PW44/DD2 were shown to him during the enquiry (which are notices to the members published in newspaper on 06.08.2000 and 08.08.2000). 3.41 PW45/Rambir Singh has deposed that he is Asstt.Manager/Accounts Officer in Delhi State Co operative Bank Limited, Shahdara, Branch, Delhi during CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.80 of 313 the year 2007 and CBI had seized certain documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW45/A (D19) and the specimen signature card of President, Secretary and Treasurer of M/s Satyam CGHS having A/C No.C142 proved as Ex.PW45/B & C, the account opening form of M/s Satyam CGHS proved as Ex.PW45/D along with copies of certificate and byelaws of the society as Ex.PW45/E, resolution of the society signed by its Secretary/Nemi Chand Bansal as Ex.PW45/F and certified copies of the ledger of the account has been proved as Ex.PW45/G. 3.42.0 PW46/Baley Ram Tyagi was stamp vendor selling stamp papers at Tis Hazari Court during 1983 to 1990. He deposed that he was selling stamp papers at Registrar Office, Parliament Street from 1988 to 1990 and his licence expired in March, 1990 and thereafter he did not get renewed his licence. He deposed that he did not work as stamp vendor after CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.81 of 313 March, 1990 and at the time of deposing his licence with the Government office, no blank stamp papers remained with him. He stated that he never authorized any person to sell the stamp papers or employee anyone for that purpose.

3.42.1 After seeing the back side of the stamp papers of S/Sh.Rajender Kumar, Anil Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Krishan Lal Narang, Ramesh Chand, Sunita Kumari, Ashok Kumar, Jaiwati Aggarwal, Satish Kumar, Ashok son of Sh.D L Sharma, Jagdish Chand, Anil Kumar Gupta, Naresh Kumar, Surender Kumar Gupta, Kamlesh Gupta, Neeraj Singhal, Ishwar Chand Bansal, Vijay and Gyan Chand, Ex.PW33/A12 to A9 and PW33/A13 to A23, he stated that though these stamp reflect his name at the back of the stamp papers but the stamp, writing and signature appearing on the back side of the stamp papers are not his stamp/writing CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.82 of 313 and signature. The back side of the stamp papers have been marked as Ex.PW46/A1 to A20. He stated that those stamp papers were not sold by him.

3.42.2 During his crossexamination, he admitted that the stamp papers exhibited as above bear his licence number. He denied the suggestion that even after March, 1990, he had been selling the stamp papers at Registrar Office Compound, Parliament Street.

3.42 PW47/Dalip Bhattacharya is another official of RCS office. He also proved noting sheets recorded in the RCS office along with correspondence of his time. He deposed that Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal, Secretary of the society had appeared in the department on 13.08.98 and signed the note sheet about his presence on Ex.PW47/A3 (Page 26/N of D6). He also proved that on 09.12.98 Sh.Anand Mohan (A4) being Treasurer of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.83 of 313 society had appeared in RCS office along with record whose signatures are appearing on the margin of note sheet Ex.PW47/A15 at point J3. Similarly, he has stated that on 22.12.98 and 04.01.99, Sh.Madan Mohan Khanna, President (A2) of the society had appeared whose signature was also obtained on the margin of the note sheet at points A and the said note sheet is Ex.PW47/A16. He was not crossexamined by ld.counsel for A1 to A4. However, during his cross examination by ld.counsel for A5/A K Shankran, he deposed that the dealing assistant has to see the documents submitted by the society to verify the genuineness of the resigned and enrolled members and that there was no mechanism available to the dealing assistant to find out whether the signatures of the office bearers or the resigned or enrolled members on the documents submitted by the society are genuine or forged.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.84 of 313 3.43 PW48/Yogi Raj, who was Assistant Registrar in RCS office has also been examined, who proved the proceedings/documents from RCS files. 3.44.0 PW49/Smt.Neeraj Singhal is another member of Satyam CGHS. She proved her application for becoming member of said society as Ex.PW49/A, affidavit as Ex.PW33/A and her signatures on membership register against sl.no.126 (D.16) as Ex.PW49/B. She has deposed that she became Vice President of Satyam CGHS in the year 1999 and made President of the said society in the year 2004. 3.44.1 She also proved the proceedings recorded in proceeding register in Ex.PW7/Y (D9). The minutes of M.C. meeting dated 02.03.97 have been proved by her as Ex.PW29/E with her signatures at point CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.85 of 313 B, Minutes of meeting dated 11.05.97 have been proved by her as Ex.PW49/C with her signature at point A. Likewise, she has also proved the minutes of the M.C. meetings which have been subsequently attended by her. She deposed that she had become member of Satyam CGHS through Sh.Anand Mohan (A4). She proved the M.C. proceedings recorded in proceeding register (D87) on 05.01.99 and thereafter. She also proved the signatures of Sh.Madan Mohan Khanna (A2), Nemi Chand Bansal (A3) and Sh.Anand Mohan (A4) on the minutes of proceedings.

3.44.2 When a resignation letter, Ex.PW15/C purported to be that of Sh.Vijay Kumar was shown to her, she stated that signature appearing at Q263 thereon is that of Sh.Anand Mohan (A4). She correctly identified accused/Parshuram Gupta and stated that she do not recollect that if he ever remained on any post of Satyam CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.86 of 313 CGHS.

3.44.3 She identified that minutes of proceeding dated 09.06.98 recorded in the register, Ex.PW7/Y (D9) at page no.26, Ex.PW49/L3 are in the handwriting of late Sh.K C Gupta, her father. She stated that she does not know whereabouts of minutes of general body meeting dated 09.02.97 but the same were read out in the meeting dated 02.03.97 as is mentioned in the M C meeting, already Ex.PW29/E. 3.44.4 She was declared hostile and cross examined by ld.public prosecutor. During cross examination, she admitted that she had told to the IO of the case that Sh.Anand Mohan (A4) was her cousin, who was Secretary of Satyam CGHS. She denied suggestion that she had told to IO that 'resignation approved by management committee dated 17.07.89 were written by CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.87 of 313 Sh.Parshuram Gupta (A1)' and handwriting at Q262 was that of Sh.Anand Mohan. She was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW49/PX where it was so recorded.

3.44.5 She denied suggestion that after seeing the resignation letters of S/Sh.Roshan Lal, Anil Saluja, Ravinder Kumar Saluja, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ashok Kumar and Ms.Savitri Devi, she had identified the endorsement thereon as resignation approved by M C dated 17.07.89 and endorsement on resignation letter of Sh.Ashok Kumar as 'approved by management committee on 09.06.98', were written by Sh.Parshuram Gupta. She also denied after seeing the resignation letter of Sh.Vijay Kumar, she had identified the endorsement thereon as approved in management committee on 03.06.03, in the handwriting of Sh.Anand Mohan (A4). She denied suggestion that she has deposed falsely to save accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.88 of 313 persons as accused Parshuram Gupta and Anand Mohan are her cousin. She denied suggestion that she had told to IO of the case that proceeding on register dated 02.03.97 and 09.06.98 were written by her father on the asking of accused/Parshuram Gupta and in this respect she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW49/PX. She stated that she is unable to recollect that she had identified signatures of S/Sh.Anand Mohan and Nemi Chand Bansal during investigation after seeing the proceedings register. She was not crossexamined by accused persons.

3.45 PW50/SISunil Kumar of Delhi Police has deposed that FIR No.540/05 was registered with PS:Dwarka on the complaint of Sh.A K Bansal at the directions of ld.ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi which was against S/Sh.Madan Mohan and Nemi Chand Gupta and others, who were office bearers of Satyam CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.89 of 313 CGHS. He marked the copy of FIR as Ex.PW50/A (D51) which was provided by him to IO of CBI in this case.

3.46 PW51/Dr.G Narender Kumar was Jt.Secretary, Department of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi when he had passed sanction order u/s 19 of PC Act in respect of A5/A K Shankran, public servant which is Ex.PW51/A. During crossexamination, he denied suggestion that he did not apply his mind while granting sanction for prosecution of A5/A K Shankran.

3.47 PW52/Sh.A Balasami, Dy.GEQD from the office of CFSL, Hyderabad, who had given opinion on handwriting, has proved the forwarding letter of handwriting opinion as Ex.PW51/A, which was written to SP, CBI. He proved the opinion, reasons for opinion and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.90 of 313 supplementary opinion as Ex.PW52/B to Ex.PW52/J, besides the documents and specimen which he examined for giving opinion in respect of questioned documents.

3.48 PW53/Yashpal Singh is IO of the case. He proved the FIR as Ex.PW53/A (D1) and the complaint which is basis of FIR, Ex.PW44/A. He proved the entire process of investigation adopted by him for recording statement of witnesses and collecting the documents. He proved the letter of Dy.Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs) as Ex.PW53/F.6 (D21) dated 09.0.198, vide which it was informed to CBI that no one by the name of K C Sharma was appointed as Notary public or Oath Commissioner during the period 1990 to 1997 and that one Kaushal Chand Sharma was appointed as Notary Public from 20.01.77 to 19.01.95 and his name was deleted on 17.04.03. The UPC list which was handed CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.91 of 313 over to him by Sh.R P Gupta, then secretary of the said society has been proved as Ex.PW34/A (D30). He stated that in this list, names of those members are included, who are shown as resigned from the membership of society in the year 1989, although meeting notice was for the year 1990. During his cross examination by ld.counsel for A1 to A4, a special question was put to him that when specimen of Sh.,R P Gupta are appearing on D8 (P.No.34) and several other resignation letters appearing on P.Nos.29, 32 to 36, 42 to 44 of D8 then why he was not chargesheeted in this case. At this, the witness has replied that since the dates on these resignation letters were put subsequently, therefore, name of Sh.R P Gupta was not included in the charge sheet. He admitted that he did not obtain any permission from the court for obtaining signatures of handwriting of accused persons.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.92 of 313

4. The entire incriminating material was put to accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein all of them claimed their innocence.

5. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have examined only one witness i.e.DW.1 Sh.Anil Kumar, an employee of Indian Express Group of Publications who proved the relevant pages of newspapers Indian Express and Jan Satta dated 06.08.2000 and 08.08.2000 as Ex.DW.1/A to Ex.DW.1/D carrying the notice issued to members.

6. I have heard Sh.N.P.Srivastava, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI, Sh.R.K.Jain, Ld. Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 and Sh.R.P.Shukla, Ld. counsel for accused No.5 and perused the records carefully.

7. The substratum of the prosecution case CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.93 of 313 is based on following allegations:

(i) FIR of the case has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Inspector S.C.Bhalla of ACB/CBI/Delhi.

(ii) Satyam CGHS was registered in 1983 with RCS office, Delhi vide registration No.1023 with 69 members and after joining of 51 more members its freeze strength was fixed at 120 in 1984 with office address as C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi.

(iii) After efforts by initial office bearers for getting the list of members forwarded from RCS office to DDA, no correspondence took place between society and RCS office from 01.10.91 to 21.06.96.

(iv) In the year 1997 DDA was contemplating to allot land to societies registered upto registration No.1436 in which registration number of the Satyam CGHS was also falling.

(v) Accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1), an employee of Delhi State Credit and Thrift Society (DCSTS) is cousin brother of Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Anand Mohan (A.4) , having good experience of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.94 of 313 running CGHS and acquainted with RCS office as he was General Secretary in Mahalaxmi CGHS which was already allotted land on which flats are constructed and allotted.

(vi) On coming to know about allotment of land to societies having registration No.0997 to 1436 at concessional rates in 199798, A.1 to A.4 entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5), Dealing Assistant in RCS office for getting name of Satyam CGHS forwarded to DDA for allotment of land.

(vii) Pursuant to conspiracy accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) started looking after activities of the society as office Secretary and A.2, A.3 and A.4 projected themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively.

(viii) On 20.08.97 written request was got filed in RCS office for approval of list of members and sending the same to DDA for allotment of land.

(ix) To show that society was being regularly run as per rules, the books of accounts of the society got audited.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.95 of 313

(x) Initial office bearers and auditor were approached and records taken over.

(xi) The relevant documents were doctored and old records not found suitable discarded to suit the requirements of the selfstyled office bearers of the society. Original membership register, proceeding register, money receipts etc. not found suitable to their version were discarded and new records in conformity of their version were created.

(xii) Accused (A.2 to A.4) did not produce documents to CBI on demand u/s 91 Cr.PC.

(xiii) Accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5), who was deputed to verify existence of society and verification of documents, submitted false report.

(xiv) Accused (A.2 to A.4) created false records to claim that they alongwith 25 persons joined society in 1989 out of which 10 were their close relatives.

(xv) Enrollment of these members was shown against the registration of 25 original members out of which 7 members' resignations found forged, who denied having resigned from membership of society. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.96 of 313 (xvi) Resignations of 5 out of 7 above members allegedly approved in MC Meeting dated 17.07.1989 were intimated to RCS office after 9 years on 14.11.97 vide letter signed by A.3 but A.5 did not raise any query. He did not deliberately take copy of MC meeting vide which above resignations of 25 members were accepted when letters dated 24.09.97 signed by A.3 and dated 14.09.97 signed by A.2 were received at RCS office.

(xvii) The money was required to be refunded to members, whose resignations were accepted, through "a/c payee" cheque and they were required to be informed about acceptance of their resignations by M.C. of the society through prescribed letters, which A.5 did not verify and kept mum about fulfillment of these requirements.

(xviii) A.1 forged the signatures of Mr.Vijay Kumar, a member shown as resigned, on a refund cheque issued in his name, to withdraw the money. (xix) Intimation for a meeting on 12.08.90 sent under postal certificate (UPC) by genuine MC of society includes all five members whose signatures have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.97 of 313 been forged on resignation letters.

(xx) The documents submitted by A.3 as Secretary alongwith application forms for membership, their affidavits and copies of resignations letters , etc. found forged/fake.

(xxi) On 20.04.98 list of members was forwarded by RCS office to DDA for allotment of land to the society.

(xxii) DDA gave offer of allotment to the society and demanded Rs.1,08,88,500/ towards cost of land, the major portion of which was arranged by A.1 from DCUCTS as loan and after allotment of land the flats have been constructed.

(xxiii) Sanction for prosecution of A.5 u/s 19 of P.C.Act ,1988, was obtained.

Submission as to applicable laws and other objections: 8.0 Certain preliminary/general submissions were made by the parties as to the applicable laws while CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.98 of 313 appreciating evidence in the matter.

8.1.1 It has been argued by ld.counsel for accused nos.1 to 4 that the specimen handwriting and signatures obtained from accused nos.1 to 4, without permission of the court, can not be admitted into evidence and hence the opinion of GEQD based on the same in respect of questioned documents can not be relied upon. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in Sapan Haldar Vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 225 (FB), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had laid down that an investigating officer, can not obtain handwriting sample or signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence, which power was not available even to the courts prior to insertion of Section 311 A of Cr.PC and thus, in cases where the IO has obtained such samples without permission from the Magistrate the same CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.99 of 313 was held to be inadmissible in evidence. 8.1.2 On the other hand, ld.Public Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, AIR 2011 SC 1436 and a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 IX AD (SC) 581 (decided on 06.09.13). Ld.Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of the court towards para no.27 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar's case (supra), which is as under:

27. It is settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.100 of 313 case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law (Vide:Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147; Magraj Patodia Vs. R K Birla & Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 888; R M Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157;

Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors, AIR 1974 SC 348 and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC

600).

8.1.3 To a question put by the ld.defence counsel to the IO of the case PW53/Yashpal Singh, he had stated that he had not obtained any order or direction from the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.101 of 313 court for obtaining signatures/handwriting of accused persons and then he volunteered that those were taken in presence of independent witnesses. He was not suggested by ld.counsel for the accused persons that the specimen handwritings and signatures were not of the accused persons. In fact, it is not the case of the accused nos.1 to 4 that they had not given their specimen handwriting/signatures to the IO or that their specimen handwriting or signatures which form the basis of GEQD opinion, were not obtained from them.

8.1.4 In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar's case (supra), it is clear that even if evidence is procured illegally by the investigating authority, same is admissible. In this case it is not the defence of accused A.1 to A.4 that their sample writings/signatures were not genuine or they have been tampered with or obtained by using any means of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.102 of 313 pressure. The accused persons have even otherwise not denied their writings and signatures on the proceedings of the society carried out by them as Office Secretary, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society or correspondence with the RCS office and DDA. Nothing has been demonstrated by the accused persons that admission of their specimen handwriting and signatures would operate unfairly against them. Thus, the admissibility of the specimen writings and signatures of accused persons cannot be disputed on the technical ground that the same were obtained without permission of the Magistrate. Hence, I am of the view that opinion of GEQD based on the comparison of questioned writings/signatures with the sample handwriting/signatures obtained from accused nos.1 to 4 is admissible in evidence.

8.2 It has been then submitted by the Ld. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.103 of 313 Counsel for A.1 to A.4 that the handwriting expert's opinion is a weak kind of evidence on which no reliance can be placed by the court while appreciating the evidence against accused persons. On the other hand, ld.Public Prosecutor has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murarilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531, laid down that "there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into rule of law, that opinion evidence of handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated." It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that an expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinionevidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alamgir Vs. State (NCT, Delhi), (2003) I SCC 21 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred and relied upon same observations of Murari Lal's case (supra). CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.104 of 313 8.3.1 It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused A.K.Shankarn (A.5) that he was not aware of the internal affairs of the society and therefore, if any illegalities or irregularities have been committed by A.1 to A.4 in the documents/proceedings of the society, the liability of the same cannot be fastened against him. 8.3.2 On the other hand the Ld.Public Prosecutor has submitted that an accused is not required to know all the details of the conspiracy yet he is liable for offence of criminal conspiracy. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Som Nath Thapa, 1996, SCC (Cri) 820, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish to bring home the charge of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.105 of 313 conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.

8.3.3 He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others, 1993 SCC (Cri) 961, wherein it was held that the criminal conspiracy u/s 120A and 120B IPC itself is a substantive and continuing offence, different from the offence to commit which the conspiracy was entered into. It was also observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that each conspirator need not know all details of the scheme.

8.4.1 The ld.counsel for accused/A K Shankran (A5) has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C K Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI), CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.106 of 313 2013(1) Crimes 43 (SC), wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence u/s 13(1)(d).

8.4.2 He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as R K P Nishad Vs. CBI, 2011(3) JCC 1836, wherein relying upon judgment of Subhash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(2) JCC 881, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that for establishing an offence under section 13(1)(d), it is required to be proved that the accused, as a public servant, obtained for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or that he misused his position in obtaining for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

8.4.3 I have kept in mind these observations of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.107 of 313 Hon'ble Apex Court in deciding the culpability of accused/A K Shankran (A5), who is the only public servant in this case.

8.5.1 Ld. Counsel for A.5 has also relied upon judgment cited as Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) I SCC 613, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from its own observations in Damodar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 12 SCC 336 and Ram Narayan Popli Vs. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, wherein it was laid down that the most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between the two or more persons to do an illegal act and in case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. Whereas the former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.108 of 313 8.5.2 It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli (supra) that the elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where by the statute required an over act. It was further observed that for an offence punishable u/s 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.109 of 313 8.5.3 Ld.counsel for accused/A K Shankran (A5) has also relied upon observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms.Mayawati Vs. Union of India, {WP (Crl.) No.135 of 2008}, wherein it was held that in absence of any direction by this court to lodge an FIR into the matter of alleged disproportionate assets against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer could not take resort to Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the Officerincharge of a Police Station is empowered under section 165 of the Code to investigate on information received or otherwise. It has been submitted by ld.counsel for accused/A K Shankran (A5) that Section 6 of the DSPE Act prohibits the CBI from exercising its powers and jurisdiction without the consent of the Government of the State as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above case. This was not the case of an employee of a State Government and the facts under the present case are not similar to the case of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.110 of 313 Ms.Mayawati (supra). This was a case which was registered on the complaint made by an Inspector of CBI after a preliminary enquiry conducted on the directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Hence, there is no illegality in registration or investigation of this case by CBI. 8.5.4 Ld.counsel for accused nos.1 to 4 have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in State (through CBI) Vs. Sikandar Lal Jain & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.334 of 1980, DOD14.08.08), wherein it was observed that one of the key elements of Section 420 IPC as well as Sections 468 and 471 IPC is dishonest intention. He also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in T T G Industries Ltd. Vs. State (Crl.R C No.337 of 2010, DOD11.03.11), wherein it was laid down by Hon'ble Madras High Court that making a false document should be with dishonest or fraudulent intention of causing any damage or injury to the public or CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.111 of 313 to any other person or to support any claim or title or to make any person to enter into a contract, which he otherwise would not chose to do so.

8.5.5 He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, wherein it was held that appellant was not guilty of the offence under section 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code although she was certainly guilty of deceit because though her name was Vimla, she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini and made the Insurance Company believe that her name was Nalini, but the said deceit did not either secure to her advantage or cause any economic loss or injury to the Insurance Company. While appreciating the evidence in this case and recording the findings on guilt I have kept in mind these guidelines.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.112 of 313 8.6.1 Ld.counsel for accused nos.1 to 4 has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shobha Tomar Vs. Vijay Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., WP (C) No.1536/13, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that "we must state at the threshold that there are number of such cases which have arisen before us where members who have not contributed a penny towards purchase of the land and construction of flat woke up only when the inquiry by the CBI was going on. The reason for this is obvious. These were not valuable lands when they were allotted to the society but over a period of time the real estate value went sky high. The very concept of a cooperative society is that the members jointly contribute money both for the land and the construction. If they do not contribute they are not entitled to any benefit and can not take advantage of the premium which may have developed qua the land and that flat over a period of time. It is 30 years over CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.113 of 313 when the petitioner has not contributed a single penny for purchase of land and construction of flat and has now come to court as the price of the same very flat has gone up manifold, taking advantage of the inquiry by the CBI of the alleged resignation of the petitioner". 8.6.2 This was the case of claim of a member of the society and not in respect of the criminal prosecution for the offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy etc. as is the case in hand. Hence, the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in that case do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant matter.

8.6.3 He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of A P Narang Vs. CBI (Crl.Rev.P.No.397/10) but that was the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the facts & circumstances CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.114 of 313 peculiar to that very case.

8.6.4 It has been submitted by ld. Counsel for A.1 to A.4 that admittedly the land was allotted to Satyam CGHS on the basis of its seniority in the order of its registration, hence there was no effect of antedating of the resignation letters of its members with effect from 1989 or induction of new members in their place. We will see the issue of antedating of resignation letters in latter part of this judgment. However, the fact remains that Satyam CGHS was considered for allotment of land not only because it had the required seniority in order of its registration but also as accused persons had got list of 120 members of the society approved by showing 28 persons resigned out of which many resignations were found forged and fraudulently inducting 28 other members in their place including A.2 to A.4 themselves, without any actual approval by the real managing committee of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.115 of 313 society, as we will see while discussing the evidence on this issue.

SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION 9.1 Although, there has not been any argument on behalf of A5/A K Shankaran about any illegality or deficiency in the sanction for prosecution of A5 but I have gone through the sanction order and testimony of the witness who has been examined and has proved the sanction order.

9.2 Accused/A K Shankran is the only public servant involved in this case. The sanction for his prosecution was given by Dr.G Narender Kumar, who has been examined as PW51. He proved the sanction order as Ex.PW51/A. During his crossexamination, he denied suggestion that he had not applied his mind while granting CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.116 of 313 sanction for prosecution of A5/A K Shankran or that he had signed the sanction order as per the wishes of CBI. The sanction order, Ex.PW51/A speaks of the mind of the sanctioning authority. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in sanction order and accordingly, I hold that the same is a valid sanction order granted for prosecution of accused A.K.Shankaran under Section 19 of P.C. Act. 10.0 Now, I proceed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charges against accused persons keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court and High Courts as discussed above. The documents and facts not disputed by accused persons: 10.1 Before proceeding further it would be important to note that there are certain documents and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.117 of 313 facts which have not been disputed by accused persons and hence they are impliedly admitted by them as they either did not cross examine the witnesses who proved the same or not suggested them about their incorrectness. These facts and documents are mainly as under: 10.2.1 PW.26 Mrs. Arti Goel with membership No.183, who has since obtained possession of the flat in the society has proved signatures of Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3)Secretary of the society on letter dated 24.09.97 Ex.PW.26/C at point Q.18 which been addressed to Assistant Registrar (West) enclosing with it the list of 28 members joined during the years 198990 and 199798 including his own name and names of his coaccused Madan Mohan Khanna and Anand Mohan and the list of 25 members who resigned during the year 198990. Both the lists enclosed with the letter are also under the signatures of Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) as Secretary of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.118 of 313 the society at point Q.19 and Q.20 respectively (Ex.PW. 52/K.2) . With this letter and the lists as aforesaid , various applications for membership and affidavits of the new members shown inducted in 1989 and 1997 have also been placed.

10.2.2 She has also identified signature of accused Nemi Chand Bansal at point Q.99 which is on letter Ex.PW.26/D (D.3 page 189) . With this letter details of 28 resigned members with their names, a/c no., date of resignation, date of MC meeting and date of share money refunded, has been annexed which is signed by accused Madan Mohan as Secretary/President with the same letter, the photo copies of 25 resignation letters of members whose resignation letters were purportedly approved by M.C. in 1989 are also placed 10.2.3 She also proved signatures of accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.119 of 313 Anand Mohan (A.4) Treasurer of the society on the counter foils of share certificates of the society issued to all 25 members on 02.08.98 who are shown inducted in 1989 vide membership No.121 to 145. The signatures of Anand Mohan on all of them from Q,.237 to Q. 261(Ex.PW.26/E to Z5 in D.67) ,as Treasurer of the society are not denied by him.

10.3 PW.29 Ishwar Chand Bansal who was the founder President of the society has proved that Sh.R.P.Gupta used to be the Secretary of the society ; the records of the society were maintained by the Secretary ; the records of the society were kept in the society office at C21, Shivaji Park; whenever meeting of Managing Committee of the society is held the previous minutes of GBM and MC are usually read out. After seeing minutes of meeting in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) he said that it starts from 2.3.97 and in that meeting the minutes of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.120 of 313 previous M.C. meeting dated 28.01.97 and GBM dtd. 02.03.97 were read out which means those two minutes should have been there when the meeting was held on 02.03.97.

10.4 PW.30 Sh.Krishan Gopal Kashyap from DDA has proved all the correspondence received by DDA from RCS office and the society regarding allotment of land to the society on which there are signatures of either Parshuram Gupta (A.1) as office Secretary of the society or accused Madan Mohan Khanna , Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan (A.2 to 4) as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. He also proved the list of members of the society duly verified by accused A.K.Shankaran. None of the correspondence contained in DDA files D.13(Ex.PW.30/E)and D.14(containing Ex.PW. 30/A, B & C) have been controverted by accused persons either in respect of signatures or the contents thereof. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.121 of 313 10.5 The documents proved by PW.31 Jasbir Singh Jolly, Asstt. Registrar of RCS office, PW.42 Sh.Laxmi Kant Sharma, Joint Registrar of RCS office , PW.41 Prem Nath Bajaj, Auditor of RCS office, PW.47 Dalip Bhattacharya, UDC of RCS office and PW.48 Yogi RajAssistant Registrar have proved the noting file Ex.PW.42/A(D.6) and the correspondence in the files of RCS office pertaining to Satyam CGHS. They are not disputed by accused persons.

10.6 PW.32 Sh.Rakesh Yadav has proved that his father was owner of H.No.C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi, a portion of which was rented out to Sh.R.P.Gupta who remained there since 1980 to 198889, which house was sold out in the year 199192.

10.7 PW.45 Sh.Rambir Singh, an officer of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.122 of 313 Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., who has proved the statement of account of the society , account opening form and specimen signature cards, etc., has not been cross examined. Hence documents proved by him are deemed admitted by accused persons.

10.8 PW.49 Smt. Neeraj Singhal , who is shown as Vice President of the society since the year 1997 and as President since 2004 to 2005 has proved the proceedings of the society conducted since 02.03.97 to 24.10.98 in register Ex.PW.7/Y(D.9), since 05.01.99 to 20.03.01 in register Ex.PW.49/M (D.87), since 29.04.01 to 08.08.04 in register Ex.PW.7/Z (D.10) and since 29.08.04 to 14.02.06 in register Ex.PW.49/P (D.88). She was not cross examined by accused persons meaning thereby that the contents thereof and signatures of A.2 to A.4 appearing thereon as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society are not disputed by them.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.123 of 313 10.9 PW.53 Sh.Yashpal Singh is IO of the case who obtained specimen signatures/writing of accused persons and other witnesses for sending the same to GEQD for examination and opinion but he has not been suggested that those specimen were not of the actual persons or obtained by using force or any trick. He had , however, admitted that he had not obtained any order or direction from the court for obtaining signatures/handwriting of accused persons. None of the documents which have been collected and exhibited by him have been disputed by the accused persons , hence can be relied upon safely.

10.10 Accused persons (A.1 to A.5) have not agitated to any of the witnesses, as to their signatures on the documents in RCS files, DDA files and files/records of the society where they are shown as having signed or CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.124 of 313 written in their individual capacity as Office Secretary or as the President , Secretary and Treasurer of the society or dealing Assistant of RCS office, respectively. Even the handwriting expert's opinion has not been disputed by accused persons in his cross examination except for suggesting that it is not full proof or that it is given at the asking of CBI, which he has denied. The opinion of the GEQD in respect of handwritings/signatures of accused and witnesses has not been challenged in material particulars.

Appreciation of evidence in the light of charge: 11.0 Now, I proceed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge as framed against accused persons.

11.1.1 The FIR of the case has been proved by CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.125 of 313 IO of the case PW.53 Yash Pal as Ex.PW.53/A (D.1). The complaint on the basis of which the said FIR has been registered is Ex.PW.44/A which has been proved by Sh.S.C.Bhalla, Inspector CBI examined as PW.44 which forms part of the FIR.

11.1.2 The registration certificate of Satyam CGHS has been proved as Ex.PW.2/D (D.52) by PW.2 Sh.Laxmi Narayan Gupta who was first Vice President of the society, which shows the registration number of the society as 1023 with address as C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. The Byelaws of the society Ex.PW.2/X have also been proved by PW.2. Ex.PW.2/X also shows that Sh.I.C.Bansal was first President and Sh.R.P.Gupta was first Secretary of the society and their names are mentioned amongst the 69 promoter members of the society alongwith their signatures.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.126 of 313 11.1.3 The application made for registration of the society has been proved as mark PW.2/X.1 and the list of promoter members is proved as Ex.PW.2/X.2 (D.52). Both Ex.PW.2/D & Ex.PW.2/X show the address of the society as C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. The order of registration has been proved as Ex.PW.31/A (page 3/N in D.6).

11.1.4 The noting at page 4/N (D.6) in RCS file Ex.PW.42/A shows that the membership of the society was fixed at 120 in the year 1984 and after that follow up was made by the RCS office with the society for compliance in respect of submitting documents pertaining to election etc. but despite reminders no reply was received by RCS office which is clear from noting at page No.5/N to 13/N in Ex.PW.42/A (D.6).

11.1.5 Ex.PW.31/D (page 14/N) shows that CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.127 of 313 three letters/communications which were received vide Diary No.1748,1946 & 1947 which were put up by accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5), the then Dealing Assistant for the first time on 26.09.97.

11.1.6 Thus it is established that society did not communicate with the RCS office after 12.09.90 when Secretary of the society had last attended the office of RCS for verification of final list of members and he was asked to remove the objections in the list as raised by RCS office. The note dated 12.09.90 at page 7/N (in D6 Ex.PW.42/A) has been signed in the margin by then Secretary of the society but thereafter neither any of the office bearers of the society attended the RCS office nor replied its reminders which is clear from noting file {page 5/N to 13/N of Ex.PW.42/A (D.6)}.

11.2.1 It is alleged that accused nos.1 to 4 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.128 of 313 created false records to claim that accused nos.2 to 4 along with 25 persons joined the society in the year 1989 and the enrollment of these 25 persons was shown against the resignations of 25 original members. It is also alleged that the approval accorded by the management committee (M.C) of the society to 25 resignations and 25 inductions of members in 1989, were intimated to RCS office after 9 years i.e. 14.11.97, vide letter signed by accused no.3, yet accused/A K Shankran (A5), Dealing Assistant, had put up the note to the superior authorities for approval without raising any queries and he deliberately did not take copies of the resolutions of management committee meetings vide which the resignations of 25 members were accepted and approval for induction of 25 new members in their place was accorded.

11.2.2 PW.2 Shri Laxmi Narain Gupta who was CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.129 of 313 one of the promoter members of the society and its first VicePresident, has admitted in his crossexamination that some members had resigned in 1989 but he was not suggested by accused persons that the resignations of those members were accepted/approved by the manging committee of the society and/or that some other persons were inducted into the membership of the society in place of resigned members in the year 1989.

11.2.3 It is the case of A2 to A.4 that they were inducted into the membership of the society in 1989 amongst 25 new members against the vacancy of 25 resigned members. As per membership register Ex.PW. 9/A, accused Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) became member on 23.08.89 vide membership number 123, accused Anand Mohan (A.4) became member on 29.08.89 vide membership number 137 and accused Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) became member on 30.08.89 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.130 of 313 vide membership number 139.

11.2.4 The Ld. Counsel for accused (A.1 to A.4) had suggested to PW.2 that he remained member of the society till 1998, which he admitted. He was not suggested that he had resigned in 1989, although as per Ex.PW.2/D (D.8 page no.10), he has been shown as resigned vide this letter, which is on a xerox performa application on which dt. "16.07.89" has been written at the top by hand in a different ink and at point Q.204 it is written "resignation approved by managing committee on dt.17.7.89".

11.2.5 As per GEQD opinion Ex.PW.52/F (colly.) (D.68) the writings at Q.21, 25, 33, Q.37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 106, Q.111 to 121, Q. 124/1, Q.127 to 133, Q.136, 137, Q.139 to Q.149, Q.152, 153, Q.160 to 174, Q.193, 194, Q.196 to 230 and S192 to CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.131 of 313 S212, S306 to S330 were all written by one and the same person. S192 to S212 and S306 to S330 are specimen handwritings of accused Parshuram Gupta. Thus, it has been proved by GEQD that it was accused Parshuram Gupta who had written on the resignation letter of PW.2 Laxmi Narain Gupta "resignation approved by Managing Committee on dt.17.07.89". This fact is even otherwise admitted in the document Ex.PW.17/K (D.49) which is the statement containing the details of the noting and signatures while accepting members' resignations as submitted by Anand Mohan (A.4) in the capacity of Secretary of the society. He has mentioned the name of P.R.Gupta (A.1) as the person who has recorded these notings on each of the resignation letters shown as approved by M.C. Meeting dated 17.07.89. 11.2.6 As per Ex.PW.49/E, which is minutes of the M.C. meeting of Satyam CGHS purportedly held on CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.132 of 313 14.08.97 (D.9) with committee comprising of Madan Mohan Khanna as its President (A.2), Nemi Chand Bansal as its Secretary (A.3) and Anand Mohan as its Treasurer (A.4), it was resolved that "Sh.Parshuram Gupta be requested to kindly help the society in getting the list approved from RCS office". Thus as per these minutes, A.1 was engaged by the society only on 14.08.97 and therefore, there was no question of Parshuram Gupta (A.

1) writing any remarks on any resignation letters of the members of the society prior to 14.08.97. In this way, it is clearly established that Parshuram Gupta, in conspiracy with accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan had shown resignation of Laxmi Narain Gupta as having been accepted by M.C. of the society on 17.07.89 by antedating the same so that A. 2 to A.4, amongst others, may be shown as inducted into the membership of the society in 1989 itself. Similar is the case in respect of all the 25 members shown as CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.133 of 313 resigned in 1989.

11.2.7 Ex.PW.7/G is resignation letter of Sh.Daya Ram, which bears remarks of "approved by M.C. on dated 17.07.89" at point Q.213. As per the opinion of GEQD it is the handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1). The inside content of this resignation letter, which is a photo copy and encircled as Q.192 has been proved as the handwriting of Sh.K.C.Gupta, father of Mrs.Neeraj Singhal shown as M.C. member and office bearer of the society since 02.03.97 and examined as PW.49. She has proved that the proceedings Ex.PW.29/E contained in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) have also been written by her father Sh.K.C.Gupta. Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht, who has been examined as PW.7 has also proved that these proceedings at Q.107, 108 & 109 Ex.PW.29/E (D.9) have been written by Sh.K.C.Gupta who was working with him in Delhi Urban T & C Society Ltd. and that is how he CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.134 of 313 had been able to identify handwriting of Sh.K.C.Gupta as he had seen him writing and signing. He also identified the writings at Q.192 on Ex.PW.7/G as of Sh.K.C.Gupta.

11.2.8 Sh.K.C.Gupta was colleague of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) in Delhi Urban T & C Society Ltd. which had granted Satyam CGHS the permission to use his office address as address of Satyam CGHS vide a resolution dt.26.09.98, a true copy of which is part of Ex.PW.53/F (colly.) (D.23). The letter dated 22.05.98 intimating DDA and RCS office about change of address written under signature of accused Madan Mohan Khanna as President of the society is Ex.PW.30/C (D.14). It is remarkable to note that accused intimated change of address to DDA and RCS office even before approval could be accorded by Delhi Urban T & C Society Ltd. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.135 of 313 11.2.9 PW.49 Smt.Neeraj Singhal is daughter of Sh.K.C.Gupta, who has admitted during her cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused Parshuram Gupta and Anand Mohan are her cousin brothers. Smt.Neeraj Singhal is also shown inducted as member of Satyam CGHS in the same manner as accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan alongwith other executive members active since 1997, have been shown inducted in year 1989. This shows the motive as to why K.C.Gupta has written various proceedings and documents of Satyam CGHS. 11.2.10 This establishes that the conspiracy to make Satyam CGHS active/alive and showing 25 members resigned and 25 other persons inducted as members of the said society was hatched in the year 1997 and in pursuance of that conspiracy accused Madan Mohan Khanna , Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.136 of 313 alongwith Neeraj Singhal and other executive members had falsely shown themselves as inducted into the membership of the society in 1989 and proclaimed themselves as M.C. Members and office bearers of the society, without there being any actual elections or meetings of the society. Had there been any proceedings of the society between 1991 and 1997, the same would have been reflected into the records of the society even if it is presumed that the RCS office could not be intimated of any of proceedings of resignations/inductions/elections which took place during that period.

11.2.11 The reason for showing change of the office address from C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi to the new place is obvious as no society was functional there since the same was vacated by Sh.R.P.Gupta, whose rented accommodation was being used as office address, by the year 1989 or thereabout and the house itself was CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.137 of 313 sold by its owner by 199192 (PW.32).

11.2.12 This is not the case of the accused persons that any of the records of the society were destroyed or lost. It is also worthwhile to mention that when a notice was given to Satyam CGHS by IO of the case for producing the minutes of general body and managing committee meetings of the society from 19.08.83 to 28.01.97, accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal, Anand Mohan and Parshuram Gupta vide their common reply dated 30.07.07, Ex.PW.17/G (D.

46) replied that " all the minutes books of the society have already been handed over to CBI and no such register is now in our custody".

11.2.13 To a notice issued by IO of the case to Sh.I.C.Bansal the first President of the society, he replied vide Ex.PW.53/F.16 (D.40) that he never kept and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.138 of 313 maintained the records of the society. He also stated that when the audit has been done in 1997 then the documents/records of the society were present with the managing committee who got the audit done and signed the audit report.

11.2.14 As is clear from the minutes of M.C.meetings recorded in Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) containing minutes of meetings recorded since 02.03.97, A.2 to A.4 were holding the posts of President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society when the audit of the society for the period 198990 to 199697(reports Ex.PW.41/A to 41/G) were got done. The Audit report Ex.PW.41/G shows that the audit was carried out between 20.06.97 to 22.06.97 wherein it has been reported that the society had held three meetings in 198990 and two meetings each in years 199091, 199192 and 199293. As such only A.2 to A.4 being office bearers of the society would have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.139 of 313 produced the records before the Auditor at the time of audit who recorded these facts in the audit report and hence they are liable/accountable for production of the same. They have not produced the records of the society's meetings prior to 2.3.97, therefore, it may be presumed that had they produced them before the IO or the court the same would have exposed their falsehood and the claim of the prosecution that the old records not found suitable to the scheme of accused persons were discarded and the documents were doctored to suit their design.

11.2.15 Further the audit reports, which are not disputed by accused persons may expose several misdeeds of accused persons e.g.the auditor had shown in Ex.PW.41/A (D.3 page 98 to 130) that only three M.C. meetings were held during 198990 whereas, as per the membership register (Ex.PW. 9/A), the MC meetings were CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.140 of 313 held on 21.08.89, 23.08.89, 24.08.89, 25.08.89, 26.08.89, 28.08.89, 29.08.89, 30.08.89, 31.08.89 and 01.09.89 in which membership of 25 members is shown approved. Besides a meeting was held on 17.7.89 for accepting the resignation of 25 members as per the noting on their resignation letters as already discussed. In this way as per the records M.C.meetings of the society are shown as held at least 11 times during the year 1989 which is contrary to the audit report in which only 3 M.C. Meetings are shown as held in the financial year 198990. 11.2.16 The minutes of purported meeting of M.C. of the society Ex.PW.29/E {recorded in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9)} show that it started on 02.03.97 and in this meeting the minutes of M.C. meeting dated 28.01.97 and General Body Meeting dated 09.02.97 were read out before the committee and confirmed/approved. The minutes of this meeting bear signatures of A2 to A.4 and in the same CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.141 of 313 meeting accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan are shown elected/nominated as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society respectively. This clearly shows that these accused persons are posing to be in possession of the minute books of previous meetings of the society on the date when the proceeding register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) was started, i.e.02.03.97.

11.2.17 They were, therefore, duty bound to produce the previous records/proceeding registers to the IO of the case when a notice was served on them by IO to produce the same or atleast they were to prove the same before the court or at least satisfy the court that these minute books were destroyed or lost. Only they are presumed to have the knowledge about the whereabouts of the previous records of the society and the burden to prove the same had shifted on them by virtue of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.142 of 313 provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act. 11.2.18 Under such circumstances the inference as suggested by the CBI has been drawn that either there were no such proceedings held or that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had deliberately destroyed those records/proceedings registers as the same could have revealed that A2 to A4 alongwith other 25 persons, purportedly inducted as members of the society in 1989 had actually never became its members and consequently their assuming authority as M.C. members/office bearers of the society as per Ex.PW.29/E was sham and fraudulent.

11.3.1 The remaining resignation letters of all 24 members purportedly made and approved in the year 1989 as available at page Nos. 1 to 25 of file Ex.PW.9/E (D.8) have been shown in the same manner as that of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.143 of 313 Sh.Daya Ram Ex.PW.7/G, bearing on all of them the remarks of approval by M.C. on 17.07.89, which has been written in the same handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1).

11.3.2 The GEQD opinion on such remarks had been sought only in respect of resignation letters placed as Ex.PW.12/B { (page no.4 of D.8 (Q.221)}, at page 4 of D.8 (Q.226), at page no.10 { (Ex.PW.2/E) (Q.204)} , at page no.11 {(Ex.PW.36/B (Q.219)}, at page no.12 {(Ex.PW. 7/G) (Q.213)}, at page no.15 {(Ex.PW.3/B) (Q.220)}, at page 16 {(Ex.PW.5/B) (Q.218)} at page no.18 {(Ex.PW. 16/C (Q.224)}, at page 19 {(Ex.PW.14/B) (Q.225)}, at page no.20 {(Ex.PW.9/F) (Q.223)} and at page no.23 (Q.222), which all have been opined by GEQD as having been written by accused Parshuram Gupta. Even on remaining resignation letters also the same kind of remarks in same handwriting have been found written. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.144 of 313 There are no signatures below the remarks by any office bearer of the society as to who had written these remarks or authenticated the same. As already discussed this fact is not disputed and has even otherwise been admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D.49).

11.3.3 Out of these 25 resignation letters (page 1 to 25 of D.8), the signatures of the resignee members Roshan Lal Singhla on Ex.PW.12/B at point Q.13, Ravinder Kumar Saluja on Ex.PW.36/B at point Q.7, Vinod Kumar Gupta on Ex.PW.3/B at point Q.9, Anil Saluja on Ex.PW.5/B at point Q.5, Darshana Goel on Ex.PW.16/C at point A have been found forged. All these members have denied having signed the respective resignation letters. The GEQD opinion in respect of signatures at Q.5, Q.7, Q. 9 and Q.13 also corroborates their testimony regarding not signing of the respective resignation letters by them. {Also see discussion in para 15 (infra) }. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.145 of 313 11.3.4 We have already discussed the testimony of PW Bimla Devi whose resignation letter Ex.PW.14/B shows the date of acceptance of resignation vide M.C. Meeting dated 17.07.89 (written in the handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta at point Q.225), whereas she deposed that the address of the house (No. 32, Bannu Enclave, Road No.32, Pitampura) which is given below her signature by someone subsequently, was not even purchased in 1989. This further elicits the fact that ante dating on some resignation letters was done by accused persons besides forging resignation letters of aforesaid 5 persons. The prosecution has demonstrated with cogent evidence that five of the resignations as discussed above have been forged, obviously at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the ulterior motive, including inducting A2 to A4 as members of the society in place of resignee members whose resignation letters CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.146 of 313 have been forged.

11.4.1 Then there are resignation letters of Bal Mukand (at page 26 of D.8) Ex.PW.52/K.30, Baisakh Chand (at page 27) and Santosh Singla (at page 28) of Ex.PW.9/E, which all bear the date of resignation as 01.04.97. On all these resignation letters it is written in same handwriting and with similar signature, "approved by M.C. On dated 10.04.97 sd ". The signature at point Q.230 on Ex.PW.52/K.30 was sent for GEQD opinion and it has been opined by expert that the same is signed by accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1).

11.4.2 It is remarkable to note that date of resolution of M.C. meeting for acceptance on all these three resignation has been made as '10.04.97' by doing overwriting on '07.04.97' which is clear from face of these resignation letters. Obviously it has been done so that it CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.147 of 313 conforms to resolution of M.C. Meeting shown as held on 10.04.97 (page 3 of register Ex.PW.7/Y). Yet the dealing Assistant accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) shown their resignations as having been accepted on 07.04.97 as per his note Ex.PW.31/J (D.6 page 18/N). It clearly shows that he was involved in manipulations done by A.1 to A.4. It appears that while putting up note Ex.PW.31/J, he was under the impression that the date of acceptance of resignation of these three resignation by M.C. meeting will be mentioned by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the minute book (D.16) as 07.04.97, as originally written thereon, but due to space crunch in register of proceedings Ex.PW.7/Y (D.

9), A.1 to A.4 manipulated the resignation of these three members and induction of three new members namely Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Parkash Pathak in the minutes of the single day i.e. 10.04.97, which has been interpolated at left over space at the bottom of page 3 of the register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) as CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.148 of 313 the purported minutes of meeting dated 11.05.97, 05.07.97 and 14.08.97 were already recorded on page Nos. 4 to 7 of the said register and there was no other space left in between these minutes.

11.4.3 While doing this manipulation accused persons lost sight that in no case the resignations of members and induction of new members in their place can take place on a single day as the society can invite applications from new members and consider the same only after the resignation of earlier resignee members are accepted and approved by the society and resultant vacancy is created. This established the role of accused A.K.Shankaran into the conspiracy with A.1 to A.4 from the very beginning.

11.5.1 Sh. I. C. Bansal has been examined as PW.29 who is one of the promoter members of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.149 of 313 society. He deposed that initially there were 60 members of the society and thereafter the membership was raised to 120 and that in the inception of Satyam CGHS, he was founder President.

11.5.2 He was shown the membership register (D16), Ex.PW9/A, on which his name is mentioned against sl.no.1 bearing his signatures at point A. He deposed that Sh.R P Gupta used to be Secretary of Satyam CGHS when he was President. Name of Sh.R P Gupta appears at sl.no.2 in the membership register. He deposed that the records of the society were being maintained by the Secretary of the society and he remained President of the society by the year 1989 when they all had lost interest in the affairs of the society as no land was allotted.

11.5.3 He deposed that he remained President CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.150 of 313 of Satyam CGHS till 1989 and at that time Sh.R P Gupta was Honorary Secretary of the society who used to prepare documents with regard to registration or other correspondences. He said that he was elected President of the society unopposed and after the period when he ceased to be the President, there was no election in the society.

11.5.4 He testified that in 1990, election was to take place but no one took interest or participated in the election and, therefore, no further election to the management of the society could be held; that till he was president of the society, general body meeting was held; that to his recollection no member of Satyam CGHS had resigned during the period when he was President of the society and he never accepted resignation of any member of the society as President. He resigned from the membership of the society near about 200203. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.151 of 313 11.5.5 He stated that he knew accused Parshuram Gupta, who had met him around 1997 in connection with affairs of the society and asked him whether he wanted to continue with the membership of Satyam CGHS and if so he should deposit the cost of the land with the society and hence he had deposited Rs.1.5 lacs towards the cost of land. He was associated with the society from its registration till 1990. He identified his signatures on letter dated 13.07.90 written to the RCS office which is Ex.PW29/C (Page87 of D3). The said letter shows that he had signed the letter as President of Satyam CGHS.

11.5.6 During his crossexamination, he said that 2nd time also he was unanimously elected President of the society and that Sh.R P Gupta was Secretary of the society during his entire period as President. He CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.152 of 313 confirmed that no new member had entered the society nor any member from society had resigned. 11.5.7 He specifically deposed "I do not remember when Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan became members of Satyam CGHS but they did not become members of society during my tenure as President." He deposed "had the secretary made Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal and Sh.Anand Mohan as members of the society during my tenure as President, it should have come to my knowledge and hence it is not possible that they could have been made member by secretary without my knowledge." He deposed that neither Sh.Anand Mohan nor Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal ever participated in any proceedings of the society during his tenure and he had not seen their faces during that period and hence he could say that they were not members of the society during his tenure as President. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.153 of 313 11.5.8 Ld.defence counsel had shown resignation letter of Chaturbhuj (Page30 of D8) and asked him about the signatures at point A thereon, to which he said that the signatures at point A are same as of his signatures and again said it appears to be like his signatures but he could not say with confirmity. The said letter is Ex.PW29/DA (page 30 of D.8). He was also shown the similar resignation letters, Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/N, PW7/Q, Ex.PW7/U and Ex.PW7/W and his answer was same in respect of all these resignations. He denied a suggestion that he was having the full control of affairs of management of Satyam CGHS even after 1990 or that is why he signed the resignation letters as mentioned above. Thereupon he volunteered that the signatures on the said resignations are not appearing as President of the society at that time.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.154 of 313 11.5.9 From face of these resignation letters Ex.PW7/H, Ex.PW7/N, PW7/Q, Ex.PW7/U and Ex.PW7/W, it is apparent that the alleged signatures of Sh.I C Bansal have not been made in his capacity as an office bearer of the society. It is simply written "signed before me" above his signatures. For example, on Ex.PW29/DA, there is remark at the bottom of page, "

approved by management committee on 09.06.98, resolution no.5" and then there is signature of accused/Nemi Chand Bansal and Madan Mohan Khanna on the same. The relevant resolution of the M.C. Of the society is Ex.PW.49/L.3 (D.9) which is signed by executive members including A.2 to A.4 but not by Sh.I.C.Bansal or Sh.R.P.Gupta. Thus neither Sh.I C Bansal nor Sh.R.P.Gupta were holding any post in the management committee of the society on 09.06.98. They were only ordinary members and hence they cannot be said to have signed any documents of the society in any CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.155 of 313 official capacity during this period.

11.5.10 Entire evidence of PW29/I C Bansal, as referred above, shows that he was associated with the affairs of the society as promoter member having membership no.1 and remained its President till 1990 and thereafter society had become defunct due to members not taking any interest in its affairs. Subsequently also he was shown as member and his membership continued till he resigned from the membership of the society in the year 200203.

11.5.11 There is no motive imputed to Sh.I.C.Bansal (PW.29) by the accused persons as to why he would have deposed falsely in the matter and, therefore, his testimony is found trustworthy, fully demonstrating that no resignations of old members or induction of new members was done by the society till CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.156 of 313 1990. This leads to the inference that the names of 25 members shown as resigned on 17.07.89 and 25 members inducted in the same year had in fact never resigned or inducted in 1989.

11.6.1 Ex.PW34/A (D30) is the list of members with their addresses to whom notices were sent by UPC post for a meeting organized by the society on 12.08.90. Same was handed over by Sh.R P Gupta, the then Secretary of the society to the IO of the case on 04.01.05 vide production cum receipt memo, Ex.PW53/F.4 (D27). This list contains the names and addresses of 107 members to whom the letters were sent and the names and addresses are the same which are contained in the register of membership. The name of Ms.Usha Kiran is the last name at sl.no.107 in the said list, Ex.PW34/A, who is having membership no.120 as per membership register, Ex.PW9/A (D16).

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.157 of 313 11.6.2 It has been submitted by ld.defence counsel for accused nos.1 to 4 that the said UPC list is forged list because the same is showing the names of 107 members only and not all the 120 members. Merely because the list contains names and addresses of 107 members out of strength of 120 members, to whom notices were dispatched by UPC post, does not mean that it is a forged list. There could be some reasons for not issuing letters to 13 persons out of 120 members of the society, which PW.29 I.C. Bansal, the then President of the society, could have clarified but accused persons preferred not to ask any question from him. They cannot now be permitted to read their own motive for sending notices to only 107 out of 120 members.

11.6.3 The UPC list of members to whom the notices were issued for meeting of 12.08.90 shows the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.158 of 313 names of those members also who have been shown resigned by accused nos.1 to 4 in the year 1989 vide various M.C. resolutions.

11.6.4 The agenda notice for the meeting, which was sent by the society to the members by UPC post for meeting to be held on 12.08.90, has not been handed over by Sh.R P Gupta, then Secretary to the CBI but a copy of the agenda notice for meeting of 12.08.90 which was sent to the RCS office by Sh.R P Gupta vide letter dated 13.07.90, is available at page nos.8889 of the RCS file, Ex.PW9/C (D3).

11.6.5 Then there is a noting dated 04.09.90, Ex.PW42/A (6/N of D6) showing that the Secretary and President had appeared in the RCS office with the records on that day and they were asked by the office to submit complete records and affidavit. Thereafter there is CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.159 of 313 another noting dated 12.09.90 showing that the secretary of the society attended the office for verification of the final list of members and he was asked to remove objections raised in the list and he promised to return the same by 13.09.90. There are signatures of Sh.R P Gupta and Sh.I C Bansal on the margin note dated 04.09.90 and again there are signatures of Sh.R P Gupta on the margin of note dated 12.09.90. This also proves that Sh.R P Gupta and Sh.I C Bansal had acted as Secretary and President of the society and were active for approval of the list of members till September, 1990 .

11.6.6 PW45/Rambir Singh posted as Asstt.Manager/Accounts Officer in Delhi State Co operative Bank Limited, Shahdara, Branch, Delhi has proved the certified copies of statement of account of Satyam CGHS bearing A/C NO.406 as Ex.PW45/G (70 pages) (D.53). He was not crossexamined by accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.160 of 313 persons despite opportunity offered to them and, therefore, there is no dispute about the documents which have been proved by him.

11.6.7 The first three pages of the statement of account, Ex.PW45/G show that the account of the society bearing No.406 was being operated by Sh.I C Bansal as President, Sh.R P Gupta as Secretary and Sh.Suresh Kumar as its Treasurer and the cheque book issued in the account was from leaf no.0775751 to 0775760. This statement at page no.3 shows that an amount of Rs. 3,000/ was withdrawn by the society on August, 11, 1990 and thereafter neither there was any deposit nor withdrawal except the interest amounts credited in the account from time to time till July, 13, 2000. This withdrawal of Rs.3,000/ on 11.8.90 appears to be in connection with the expenses to be incurred on meeting fixed for next day i.e. 12.08.90 as per the agenda sent to CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.161 of 313 RCS office and UPC dispatch list for sending the notices {(Ex.PW34/A (D3)}.

11.6.8 Page no. 4 of the same statement Ex.PW. 45/G shows that the account of Satyam CGHS with the office address of the society as 31/64, Bhikam Singh Colony, Vishwas nagar, Delhi with its office bearers as Sh.Madan Mohan Khanna, President, Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal, Secretary and Sh.Anand Mohan, Treasurer, who were authorized to operate the new account, had become operational. It is clear from the account opening form Ex.PW45/D that this bank A/C No.142 was opened vide this account opening form dated 17.06.98 to be operated by Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2), Nemi Chand Bansal (A.

3) and Anand Mohan (A.4) with their signatures thereon and also on the specimen signature card, Ex.PW45/C. Ex.PW45/B which is another specimen signature card with date of verification as 15.10.04, which shows the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.162 of 313 name of the President as Ms.Neeraj Singhal, Secretary as Nemi Chand Bansal and Treasurer as Anand Mohan with their specimen signatures through whom the account is being operated since then. The new account was opened by A.2 to A.4 with a deposit of Rs.10/, as on 17.06.98, as is evident from page no.4 of Ex.PW45/G and since then the operations in the account are regular. 11.6.9 It is clear from this account statement, Ex.PW45/G that there were no operations in the account of the society by way of withdrawal of refund amounts paid to the members whose resignations are shown as approved on 17.7.89 or by deposit of fee in respect of 25 members shown as inducted during 1989. Had the society approved resignations or inducted 25 members in 1989 and 3 members in April, 1997, the amount of share money/fee paid to resigned members and received from newly inducted members ought to have been found CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.163 of 313 withdrawn and deposited in the bank account of the society and would have been reflected in the statement of account.

11.6.10 As per Rule 30(4) of DCS Rules, 1973 , if the person, whose membership application has been approved by the committee, does not deposit the membership fee and share money within 14 days of information of his admission as a member of the society, the resolution of the society approving his membership shall become void and inoperative.

11.6.11 There are no refund vouchers in respect of refund amounts paid to the resignee members who are shown as having been refunded the share money. There are no office copies or the counter foils of the receipts which could have been issued by the society while admitting the members in the society from membership CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.164 of 313 No.121 to 145 purportedly admitted in the year 1989. The statement of account of the society for that period Ex.PW. 45/G also does not show any deposit for admitting them as member or for refunding the share money to the resignee members whose resignations are shown as approved on 17.7.89.

11.6.12 Only the share certificates are shown as issued to the members shown inducted in 1989, by the society 9 years after their purported induction as members of the society under the signatures of accused Anand Mohan (A.4) as Treasurer of the society on 02.08.98 , the counter foils of which are Ex.PW.26/E to Z and Z.1 to Z.5(D.67). The signatures of accused Anand Mohan on the same have been proved by PW.26 Mrs.Arti Goel, PW.29 I.C.Bansal and by GEQD opinion (PW.52). All these counter foils of share certificates are showing the registered office of the society as C21,Shivaji CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.165 of 313 Park, New Delhi, whereas the change of the address of the society to new place i.e. 31/6364, Vishwas Nagar , Shahdara, Delhi was already intimated by accused to RCS and DDA vide their letter dated 22.05.98 Ex.PW.30/C (D.14) and bank account already opened on 17.06.98 vide PW.45/D with new address. This proves that even the share certificates were fraudulently issued to the persons including A.2 to A.4 themselves, who are fraudulently shown as inducted in year 1989. It is apparent that since accused persons(A.2 to A.4) could not have procured the signatures of the office bearers of the society who worked during 198990, hence they forged these share certificates by showing them as having been issued on 02.08.98, i.e. 9 years after induction as members. 11.7.1 In Ex.PW9/A(D16), which is the membership register of M/s Satyam CGHS, it is shown that members from sl.nos.121 to 126 have been admitted CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.166 of 313 on 23.08.89, sl.no.127 have been admitted on 24.08.89, sl.nos.128 and 129 have been admitted on 25.08.89, sl.no. 130 have been admitted on 26.08.89, sl.nos.131 to 134 have been admitted on 28.08.89, sl.nos.135 to 137 have been admitted on 29.08.89, sl.nos.138 to 143 have been admitted on 31.08.89 and members at sl.nos.144 and 145 have been admitted on 01.09.89 but the serial of membership number of all of them has been written by the same black ink pen and same handwriting from sl. nos.121 to 145.

11.7.2 Anand Mohan (A4) is shown admitted to the membership on 29.08.89 at sl.no.137, Nemi Chand Bansal (A3) is shown admitted to the membership on 30.08.89 at sl.no.139, Madan Mohan Khanna A.2) is shown admitted to the membership on 23.08.89 at sl.no. 124 and Ms.Neeraj Singhal (PW.49) has been shown inducted to the membership on 23.08.89 vide sl.no.126. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.167 of 313 11.7.3 S/Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak have been inducted as members on 10.04.97 vide membership nos.146, 147 and 148 respectively. When we see the affidavits of newly inducted members as contained in Ex.PW9/C (D3), which is correspondence file of RCS office, we find that affidavits of Sh.Rajender Kumar Ex.PW33/A1, Sh.Anil Kumar Ex.PW33/A2, Sh.Manoj Kumar Ex.PW33/A3, Sh.Ashok Kumar Ex.PW33/A4, Sh.Krishan Lal Narang Ex.PW33/A5, Sh.Ramesh Chand Ex.PW33/A6, Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma Ex.PW33/A14, Sh.Jagdish ChandEx.PW33/A15, Sh.Anil Kumar Gupta Ex.PW33/A16, Sh.Ishwar Chand Bansal Ex.PW33/A21, Sh.Vijay Kumar Ex.PW15/B=Ex.PW33/A23, they all are blank in respect of the date of execution by deponents as well as in respect of their present age as shown in para no.2 of all CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.168 of 313 these affidavits.

11.7.4 Careful perusal of these affidavits would reveal that some figure against '199' as the year of execution was typed but it has been erased on all these affidavits. GEQD could not opine as to what was typed after '199' to make out in which year these affidavits were typed by the typist on the stamp papers. However, notarial stamp appearing on these stamp papers show the date as 08.09.90. PW33/Hitesh Sharma has already been examined, who has proved that his father/Khushal Chand Sharma (since expired) a Notary Public, had not signed these affidavits as Notary.

11.7.5 Besides, there are certain other affidavits on which the dates have been filled by the members such as Smt.Sunita Kumari Ex.PW33/A7 (Q46), Sh.Ashok Kumar Ex.PW33/A8 (Q50), Ms.Jaiwati Aggarwal CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.169 of 313 Ex.PW33/A9 (Q54), Sh.Satish Kumar Ex.PW33/A13 (Q58), Sh.Naresh Kumar Ex.PW33/A17 (Q74), Sh.Surender Kumar Ex.PW33/A18 (Q78), Sh.Kamlesh Gupta Ex.PW33/A19 (Q82), Ms.Neeraj Singhal Ex.PW33/A20 (Q86) and Sh.Gyan Chand Ex.PW33/A22 (Q94) but in these affidavits after '199', figure has been mentioned as '0' either by erasing the earlier typed figure or by overwriting '0' on the same. 11.7.6 The stamp vendor Sh.Baley Ram Tyagi (PW.46) whose stamp has been purportedly affixed on the back side of these stamp papers, showing the date of sale as 08.09.90, has deposed that his stamp vendor license had already expired in March, 1990 and thereafter he did not get it renewed and deposited the same with government office. After seeing the affidavits Ex.PW.33/A. 1 to A.9 and Ex.PW.33/A.13 to A.23 he said that though the vendor's stamp on their back side reflect his name but CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.170 of 313 neither the stamp nor the writing on the same pertain to him. His testimony that he has not sold these stamp papers remained unscathed during crossexamination as such the same inspires the confidence of the court. Thus, the prosecution has established that neither the stamp papers were sold to the accused persons on 08.09.90 by the stamp vendor whose stamp is shown as affixed on their back side nor the affidavits on these stamp papers were executed on that day by the notary public whose stamp is shown as affixed on the same. Thus A.2 to A.4 had forged their own affidavits and also got forged the affidavits of all others who are shown by them as having inducted in 1989.

11.8.1 An important fact has emerged from documents of Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Parkash Pathak, who were shown inducted as member in the society on 10.04.97 with membership nos. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.171 of 313 146, 147 and 148 respectively. Their respective age is mentioned as 25, 28 & 33 years in the register of membership, Ex.PW9/A (D16) as well as in their membership applications and affidavits. 11.8.2 The application for membership of Mohan Singh Bisht Ex.PW7/A shows his age as 25 years against the column of date of birth but his affidavit, Ex.PW7/B = PW.33/A.1 shows his age as 33 years. The application for membership of Amar Nath Pandey, Ex.PW8/A shows his age as 28 years against the column of date of birth but his age is mentioned as 35 years in the affidavit, Ex.Pw33/A10=Ex.PW8/1. Age of Prem Parkash Pathak is mentioned as 22 years in his application at page no.213 in the file Ex.PW9/C but his age is mentioned as 31 years in his affidavit which is Ex.PW33/A12. There is no controversy about purchase of stamp papers for these three affidavits which have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.172 of 313 been purchased on 22.09.97 as shown on their back side. 11.8.3 When Mohan Singh Bisht was examined as PW7 on 21.03.11, he mentioned his age as 47 years as on that date. Similarly, when Sh.Amar Nath Pandey was examined as PW8 on 05.05.11, he mentioned his age as 48 years. Although, these three members have been inducted as member of the society on 10.04.97 but their age in the membership register as well as in their applications for membership have been mentioned about 7 to 9 years less than their actual age as shown in their respective affidavits as also age at the time of recording examinationinchief of PW7 and PW8 before the court.

11.8.4 Thus, it is apparent that due to inadvertence, accused persons who forged the entries in the membership register in respect of membership nos. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.173 of 313 121 to 148 had written/got written the age of these three persons in the year 1997 by reducing 79 years from their actual age as they did in respect of 25 other persons shown inducted in 1989. They did not notice that in fact S/Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Parkash Pathak are being shown inducted as on 10.04.97 and not in the year 1989 as was in the case of 25 persons inducted vide membership nos.121 to 145. 11.8.5 Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the affidavits of the members, who have been shown inducted in the year 1989 and the relevant entries in the membership register have been forged in the year 1997 as a subterfuge although they were neither made member in the year 1989 nor actually sworn their affidavits in the year 1990. This was done by accused persons (A.1 to A.4) to create an evidence that the individuals whose names are mentioned against Sl. Nos. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.174 of 313 121 to 145 were inducted into the membership of the society in 1989 and that their affidavits were taken soon thereafter in 1990, as was the legal requirement for every member to tender to the society making certain declarations.

11.8.6 Thus, it has been clearly proved that the applications of all the 25 members shown as inducted in the year 1989 and their affidavits including those of A.2 to A.4 were ante dated and forged and even the applications of three persons, shown as inducted in 1997 have been forged which are undated and unsigned. The endorsement of approval by M.C. meeting on all of them have been forged by A.1 in his own handwriting in collusion with A.2 to A.4 to show that the approval to the induction was accorded by M.C. whereas there was no such approval by M.C. in respect of 25 members shown as inducted in 1989. Thus the same were forged and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.175 of 313 antedated by A.2 to A.4 alongwith members of M.C. who all were shown as fraudulently inducted in 1989. 12.1.1 The starting point of the conspiracy involved in this case is documented in proceedings register of the society Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) as created by A.2 to A.4 posing/representing themselves as executive members/office bearers of the society alongwith Smt.Neeraj Singhal (PW.49) and other persons who all were shown inducted as members of the society in 1989. First meeting of the management committee of Satyam CGHS is shown to had been convened on 02.03.07 without showing the quorum and the place of such meeting which is must for an usual meetings of the society. The Minutes of meeting are separately Ex.PW. 29/E. 12.1.2 As per PW.7 Mohan Singh Bisht , CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.176 of 313 the proceedings of Ex.PW.29/E (Q.107, 108 & 109) have been written in the handwriting of Sh.K.C.Gupta who was working with him in Delhi Cooperative Urban, T & C Society Ltd. This handwriting has also been identified by PW.49 Smt.Neeraj Singhal who is shown elected as Vice President of the society on the same day. She has testified that Sh.K.C.Gupta was her father. 12.1.3 Sh.K.C.Gupta had been Honorary Secretary of Delhi Cooperative T & C Society Ltd. as shown in Ex.PW.47/E (D.4 page 74/C) which is letter written by him to the Secretary of Satyam CGHS dated 22.12.98 a copy of which was endorsed to RCS, New Delhi in which accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) was working. This shows the reason for involving him in writing the proceedings of Satyam CGHS and showing his daughter Ms.Neeraj Singhal (PW.49) inducted as its member and Vice President at the beginning of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.177 of 313 conspiracy in 1997.

12.1.4 PW.49 Smt. Neeraj Singhal might be aware of the fact that she was actually shown inducted as member of the society in 1989 which was done only in 1997 as a game plan of her cousins Parshuram Gupta(A.

1) and Anand Mohan (A.4) alongwith remaining accused persons and her father K.C.Gupta who recorded most of the false minutes of proceedings of the society as proved by Smt. Neeraj Singhal herself. But she did not depose as might have been imagined by IO, which was obvious in such case where a witness is relative of accused persons and made witness instead of an accused despite of her clear involvement, without tendering her pardon by the court. However, she has proved all the proceedings carried out by accused Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan as office bearers of the society in which she was shown as Vice President. She CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.178 of 313 has not been cross examined by any of the accused persons despite opportunity, which means her entire testimony to the extent it supports the prosecution case, can be safely relied upon.

12.2.1 The CBI had to drop the testimony of PW R.P.Gupta, the first Secretary of the society who was tenant of the portion of house No.C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi, which was also the registered office address of the society, where he remained as tenant till 198990 (PW.32) and the records of the society were kept at its office in custody of Sh.R.P.Gupta as deposed by first President of the society Sh.I.C.Bansal (PW.29) . Then how they reached to the custody of accused persons (A.1 to A.4), has not been investigated by CBI. Several of resignation letters are also bearing his signatures as suggested by Ld. Defence counsel to IO of the case(PW.53). CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.179 of 313 12.2.2 Sh.R.P.Gupta was named as suspect in the FIR. It appears that the documents/records of the society were passed on by Sh.R.P.Gupta to accused persons (A.1 to A.4) and may be for consideration, but IO did not investigate this aspect and made R.P.Gupta witness in the case without tendering him pardon by the court and the end result was that the Ld. Public Prosecutor vide his statement dated 16.02.12 had to drop his testimony after interviewing him and satisfying himself that he had been won over by accused persons. 12.2.3 As per deposition of promoter member Sh.Banwari Lal (PW1) he had become member through Rajender (i.e. Rajender Pd.Gupta)by depositing Rs.500/, who paid him Rs.2,000 - 3,000/ while procuring his signatures on resignation letter Ex.PW.1/B. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel he stated that he did not remember that whether he had stated name of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.180 of 313 Rajender or his brother Kapoora as the person who paid Rs.2,000/ 3,000/ while obtaining signatures on resignation letter. Why Rajender or his brother had paid Sh.Banwari Lal more amount than he had deposited with the society, is not known. This also creates a reasonable doubt about the role of Sh.R.P.Gupta in passing on the records/documents of the society to accused Nos.1 to 4 for ulterior motive.

12.3.1 The minutes of meeting purportedly held on 02.03.97 by A.2 to A.4 alongwith other executive members, who all were self proclaimed members and office bearers, are as under: " A meeting of the MC of Satyam CGHS was held under the Chairmanship of Sh.Madan Mohan Khanna on 2nd day of March, 1997 , the members present and signed at the close of proceedings of this meeting. First of all CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.181 of 313 the minutes of the previous MC meeting dated 28.01.97 have been read out and were confirmed unanimously.

RESO No.1 The minutes of GB Meeting Dt.

               09.02.97   were   read   out   before   the 
               committee.   The same were discussed and 
               approved.     It   was   also   decided   that   the 
               proceedings be adopted unanimously.  

               RESO   No.2   The   newly   elected   MC   is   as 
               under:
                        President          Sh.Madan Mohan 
                                            Khanna
                        Vice President Smt.Neeraj 
                                            Singhal
                        MC Members Anand Mohan , 
                        Nemi Chand Bansal, Manoj 
                        Kumar, Satish Kumar, Sunil Kumar


12.3.2             Thereafter the minutes have been signed

by all members of committee. The signatures of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal is at point A, Smt.Neeraj Singhal at point B, Anand Mohan at point C. Besides, the signatures of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.182 of 313 Madan Mohan , Manoj Gupta & Sunil Kumar are also appearing, who all were falsely shown inducted as members of the society in 1989.

12.3.3 The reason for not recording the venue of the meeting is obvious because office of the society did not exist at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi at that point of time as it has come on record in unchallenged testimony of PW.32 Sh.Rakesh Yadav that Sh.R.P.Gupta remained as tenant in C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi from 1980 to 198889 and this house was sold by his father in the year 199192. As such no office of society was working at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi since 1990 onwards. 12.3.4 The office address of the society was subsequently got changed to a new address in 1998, which is office address of Parshuram Gupta (A.1). The resolution was passed on 20.05.96 about the change of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.183 of 313 address and same was intimated to the RCS office and to the DDA as per the letter dated 22.05.98 available in file Ex.30/E (D.13 at page No.5) and the resolution to this effect is Ex.P.49/L (page 25 of D.9).

12.3.5 The reason for opening of new account of the society in Shahadra branch of Delhi State Cooperative Bank is mentioned in the minutes of meeting dated 09.06.98 Ex.PW.49/L.3 that since the office of the society is being shifted to Vishwas Nagar, it will not be possible to operate the account at Moti Nagar. In view of this difficulty it was resolved as under: "Resolved unanimously that SB A/c be opened in the name of society with The Delhi State Coop.Bank Ltd., Shahadra branch. It has also resolved that the account will be operated by S/Sh.Madan Mohan KhannaPresident, Nemi Chand BansalSecretary and Sh.Anand MohanTreasurer jointly".

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.184 of 313 12.4.1 Then there are minutes of meeting dated 10.04.97 recorded at page no.3 of register Ex.PW. 7/Y (D.9) which is very short as under: " A meeting of the MC was held on urgent basis to accept the resignations and enrollments. The following resignations were placed and accepted and following membership applications were accepted: Placed & accepted Applications were accepted

1. Bal Mukand 102 1. Mohan Singh Bisht

2. Baisakh Chand 73 2. Amar Nath Pandey

3. Santosh Singhla 74 3. Prem Parkash Pathak 12.4.2 It is worthwhile to note that when a note was put up by accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) on 16.01.98 for approval of list, he mentioned the details of resignations of 28 members and enrollments of other 28 members as per Ex.PW.31/J (from page 17/N to 20/N). CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.185 of 313 He had mentioned on page no.18/N that the date of submitting resignation of Sh.Bal Mukand membership No. 102 was 01.04.97, date of MC resolution vide which it was accepted was 07.04.97 and the date of payment of security amount was also 07.04.97. As regards Baisakh Chand (membership No.73) and Santosh Singhla, (membership no.74) also the same date has been mentioned. As regards the enrollment of Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey & Prem Prakash Pathak, the date of their application for membership is mentioned as 01.04.97 , date of M.C.resolution vide which they have been admitted to the society has been mentioned as 10.04.97 and date of receiving their share money is also mentioned as 10.04.97. Whereas there is no resolution of the society dated 07.04.97 whereby the resignation of three members i.e. Bal Mukand, Baisakh Chand and Santosh Singhla has been shown as approved. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.186 of 313 12.4.3 As per minutes of meeting dated 10.04.97, as quoted above, the resignations of three members have been accepted and induction of three members in their place has been approved vide resolution dated 10.04.97 which is written at bottom of page no.3 of Ex.PW.29/E in small left over space, which is clearly an interpolation because none of the other minutes of the meeting have been written on such small and left over portion of the last page of minutes of a previous meeting. 12.4.4 There is no clue as to from where accused A.K.Shankaran has taken that the resignation of Bal Mukand, Baisakh Chand and Santosh Singhla have been accepted by the Managing Committee on 07.04.97 and how the money was returned to them on that date when their resignations were accepted on 10.04.97 as per interpolated minutes of meeting dated 10.04.97. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.187 of 313 12.4.5 In no case the resignation of three members and induction of other three members could be simultaneous. In no case the application for fresh membership of three persons could be invited on 01.04.97 i.e. before acceptance of of resignation of three old members which was done only on 10.04.97 by M.C. of the society. Remarkably the resignation letters of Bal Mukund (Ex.PW.52/K.30, page 26 of D.8), Baisakh Chand (page 27 of D.8 Ex.PW.9/E) and Santosh Singla (page 28 of D.8 Ex.PW.9/E) are dated 01.04.97. In his note Ex.PW.31/J (at page 19/N of D.6) also accused A.K.Shankaran has recorded the date of application for membership of Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak as 01.04.97.

12.4.6 The applications of Amar Nath Pandey (Mark PW.8/A at page 217 of D.3) is neither signed nor bearing any date. His affidavit Ex.PW.33/A.10(D.3) is CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.188 of 313 dated 22.09.97. Similarly, application of Sh.M.S.Bisht which is Ex.PW.7/A (D.3 page 215) is also unsigned and undated and the application of Sh.Prem Prakash Pathak is also unsigned and undated (Page 213 of D.3 Ex.PW. 9/C). The affidavits of all these three members are shown executed on 22.09.97. Then from where he has taken the date of their applications for membership , is not known as even the M.C. Resolution dated 10.04.97 (Ex.PW.7/Y at page 3 of D.9) does not speak about the date of their applications for membership. This confirms to the only possibility that he simply acted as per the wishes of A.1 to A.4 for getting the list of 120 members of Satyam CGHS approved by RCS and then forwarded to DDA for allotment of land, knowing fully well about the illegalities and fraud being committed by them.

12.4.7 PW.8 Amar Nath Pandey has even confirmed in his examination in chief, " I have also seen the affidavit CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.189 of 313 dated 22.09.97 which is signed by me at point A and B and the same is Ex.PW.8/1 = Ex.PW.33/A.10 (D.3 page

216). The said affidavit was enclosed with my membership form mark PW.8/A". He was not suggested by accused persons that he deposed falsely in this respect. From statement of PW.8 it is clear that he had given his application alongwith his affidavit dated 22.9.97. Thus, the date of making application could not be before the date on which the affidavit is shown as executed i.e. 22.09.97.

12.5.1 I proceed further to see as to how the minutes of meeting have been recorded of MC meeting dated 11.05.97 held under the Chairmanship of Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) and in presence of Anand Mohan(A.

4), Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Neeraj Singhal (PW.

49). The resolution no.1 was shown as accepted whereby it was resolved by them, "Accounts of the society be got CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.190 of 313 written and prepared upto 31.03.97 as early as possible and be got audited early thereafter". This shows that the accounts of the society were not maintained and they had decided to write the accounts upto 31.03.97 which were not existing. Vide resolution No.2 it is mentioned " The Secretary was requested to get the lists of members finalized so that further action in the matter is taken". This shows that the list of members was not finalized by the society whereas in the register of membership Ex.PW.9/A (D.16), after 10.04.97, on which date Sh. Prem Parkash Pathak bearing membership No.148 were shown as inducted, there was no new induction into the society till 02.07.98 and thus there is no question of finalizing any membership list by the Secretary after 11.5.97. This also shows that the minutes of meeting recorded in Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) were forged and manipulated by accused persons subsequently by antedating the same.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.191 of 313 12.5.2 Then there are minutes of meeting dated 05.07.97 Ex.PW.49/D wherein it is mentioned as Reso.No. 1, " the Secretary reported that the accounts upto 31.03.97 are ready for audit. The MC examined the records/Accounts/Balance Sheet etc. and approved them. Resolved that early action be taken to get the accounts audited by a departmental Auditor due to less transactions."

12.5.3 Vide resolution dated 14.08.97 Ex.PW. 49/E (resolution No.1) the MC is shown as having resolved that AR (Audit) be requested to depute a Departmental Auditor to audit the accounts of the society upto 31.03.97. As per resolution No.2 it was resolved that list of 120 existing members with all details be sent to RCS for freezing the list of 120 and to send the same to DDA for allotment of land. It is specifically stated therein that in this connection it was resolved that "Sh.Parshuram CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.192 of 313 Gupta be requested to kindly help the society in getting the list approved from RCS office. The necessary papers required from time to time in this connection shall be provided to him by the Secretary".

12.5.4 This shows starting point of the role of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) in the affairs of the society as per resolution of the so called managing committee of A.2 to A.4. There is no resolution to the effect that he was appointed as office secretary of the society and there is no mention that as to what will be the terms of his appointment/induction/engagement. 12.6.1 It is interesting to note that on 15.09.97 MC of the society has been shown as adopted resolution no.1 that " the Secretary informed the meeting that the audit of the society upto 31.03.97 has been completed. The audit report alongwith its enclosures were placed CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.193 of 313 before the Managing Committee for approval. They were examined and accepted unanimously". The resolution no. 2 is about the compliance of the suggestions made by Auditor in audit report. The suggestions and compliance thereof have been mentioned in minutes of meeting dated 15.09.97(Ex.PW.49/F).

12.6.2 The Auditor of the society Sh.Prem Nath Bajaj has been examined as PW.41 and he has stated that Audit report was used to be signed only by the auditor whereas papers/documents which were the basis of audit were got signed from office bearers of the managing committee of the society. He further deposed that whenever shortcomings were noticed by the Auditor in the books and functioning of the society the same were used to be mentioned in the audit report and if shortcomings were mentioned by the Auditor in the audit report it was the duty of the concerned zone of RCS office to get these CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.194 of 313 shortcomings removed and ensuring the compliance from the society concerned.

12.6.3 He deposed that Audit report was used to be submitted in triplicate to the Audit Branch of RCS office. After seeing the Audit report for the years 198990 to 199293 he stated that the same was submitted by him to RCS office which was counter signed by AR (Audit) at point A and the said Audit report was submitted on 17.09.97 as reflected from endorsement at point B on Ex.PW.41/A (D.3 page 130). Similarly he has also proved that the audit report submitted by his colleague Sh.M.P.Bajaj, Auditor for the years 199394 to 199697 which is marked as Ex.PW.41/G. 12.6.4 It is seen that the audit reports have been submitted by the auditor to the RCS office only on 17.09.97 and therefore, there was no possibility of any CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.195 of 313 of these audit reports to be looked into by the MC of the society and the purported compliance carried out in the meeting dated 15.09.97 i.e. before submission of audit reports by the Auditor. As such the proceedings dated 15.09.97 are also proved as forged, having been ante dated and manufactured subsequently and in doing so the accused persons failed to take care that the purported minutes of MC meeting is being shown as held on 15.09.97 which even precedes the date of audit reports submitted to RCS office.

12.6.5 If one carefully looks into the audit reports, he can find that the same have also been falsified by both the auditors, otherwise they could have easily noticed and highlighted the illegalities and forgeries committed by accused persons. IO could have easily found from the audit reports submitted by two Auditors of RCS office for the period 198990 to 199697 that when CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.196 of 313 they have shown the society as audited by them, at that time, there was no office of the society existing at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi after 1990; there were no transactions in the bank account of the society since 1990; there were no records of proceedings with the accused persons regarding their own induction as members of the society in 1989 and their election as executive members of the society, etc. But instead of implicating these auditors as accused in the case, IO preferred to examine them as witness for no valid reasons without tender of pardon by the court. As number of society cases are pending trial before this court, I am aware that such auditors who have given false audit reports in collusion with other accused persons, are facing trial for their alleged involvement. 13.1.1 The first noting of accused A.K.Shankaran is dated 26.09.97 at page 14/N (D.6) Ex.PW.31/D vide which he has put up three PUCs (Paper Under CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.197 of 313 Consideration) bearing diary No.1748 dated 27.08.97, diary No.1946 dated 16.09.97 and diary No.1947 dated 16.09.97. In fact the last two PUCs are bearing diary date as 17.09.97 of AR (W) and not 16.09.97.

13.1.2 PUC No.1 is letter of the society dated 20.08.97 addressed to Assistant Registrar (West) which was received in RCS office on the same date and diarized in diary of AR (W) on 27.08.97. The letter is in the handwriting of PW.7 Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht who has admitted his handwriting on the letter in the portion Q.104 with his signatures at point Q.105 which has been signed as for Honorary Secretary. In this respect Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht has admitted that letter was written by him at the instance of his colleague Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and was handed over to him after writing and signing the same, which is not denied by A.1. The letter is Ex.PW. 7/Z.1, available at page no.97 of D.3 (Ex.PW.9/C). In this CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.198 of 313 letter it has been mentioned: "We are a Coop. CGHS registered at Sr.No. 1023. Now on enquiry from DDA it has been revealed that the societies registered after us have been allotted land long ago since our list was not received from your office.

We feel, this has happened due to our ignorance regarding procedure.

Our accounts are ready and no change in membership has been made after 1990.

It is requested that the list of our frozen members be very kindly sent at an early date to DDA so that we may obtain land in the next lot.

We shall be highly obliged for this kindness. 13.1.3 It is remarkable that this letter was written by Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht on 20.08.97 and given to Sh.Parshuram Gupta (A.1) on the same date and it has CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.199 of 313 been deposited with RCS office on the same day as is apparent from the face of the letter.

13.1.4 It is pertinent to note that neither Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht nor Parshuram Gupta had any authority to write or sign this letter on behalf of the society as they were not the office bearers of society and Parshuram Gupta was not even member of the society. Whereas in the said letter it is mentioned that no change in the membership has been made after 1990, the minutes of meeting dated 10.04.97 in the register Ex.PW. 7/Y and communication addressed to RCS office show that Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht (PW.7) himself alongwith his colleagues Amar Nath Pandey, Prem Parkash Pathak were shown inducted as members in the said society besides approving resignations of Bal Mukand, Baisakh Chand and Santosh Singhla on 10.04.97 as per minutes of meeting dated 10.04.97, i.e., months before PW.7 Sh. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.200 of 313 M.S.Bisht had written letter to RCS. This also proves that M.C. Resolutions in Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) were ante dated and that accused persons (A.1 to A.4) had come to know that if Satyam CGHS is activated and its membership list is got approved, it shall become entitled for allotment of land by DDA as the societies registered much after Satyam CGHS had already been allotted land by the DDA. 13.1.5 Ex.PW.29/E shows that accused Madan Mohan Khanna was projected as President of the society, accused Nemi Chand Bansal was projected as Secretary of the society and accused Anand Mohan was projected as Treasurer of the society at that time. 13.1.6 It is thus clear that the said letter Ex.PW. 7/Z.1 was written/got written and got filed with RCS office by accused Parshuram Gupta in conspiracy with other accused persons (A.2 to A.4) and the Dealing Assistant of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.201 of 313 RCS office accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) who had put up this letter as was conducive to the design of A.1 to A.4. 13.1.7 Accused A.K.Shankaran had put up this letter, which was received at the office of AR (West) on 27.08.97 vide diary No.1748, along with two audit reports received in his office vide diary No.1946 & 1947 dated 17.09.97 which are mentioned as PUC II & III vide his note Ex.PW.31/D (page 14/N of D.6). PUC II & III are in fact the audit reports received only on 17.9.97 which means accused A.K.Shankaran had kept PUCI pending with him and awaited for the audit reports to come and then only put up the PUC No.I alongwith audit reports (PUC II & PUC III) in order to project before his superior authorities that the society has been audited upto date and being run genuinely.

13.1.8 There is no mention as to who had brought CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.202 of 313 this letter (PUC I) to RCS office on 20.08.97 but with the statement of PW.7 Mohan Singh Bisht it is clear that he had written the letter and given the same to Parshuram Gupta and on the same date it is shown delivered in the office of RCS, which means Parshuram Gupta had himself brought this letter to RCS office.

13.1.9 When the letter dated 20.08.97 along with audit reports were put up by accused A.K.Shankaran to AR (West) he had recommended that "if agree we may ask the society to submit fresh list and also to produce the records for verification". At this stage, the AR (West) had instructed vide note dated 29.09.97 "please inspect the society in the first instance".

13.2.1 Thereafter accused A.K.Shankaran again put up a note on 05.11.97 stating that as directed, he had visited the society on 10.10.97 for inspection of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.203 of 313 records and the inspection report is placed in the file. He noted "the society has also submitted a list of members of the society for approval and sending to DDA for allotment of land. As per the records, the society had submitted a list of 120 members (final list) in 1984 for approval and forwarding to DDA. The list contains M.No.1 to 120 as on that date. Thereafter in the year 198990 there were 25 resignations and 25 enrollments and in 1997 there are three resignations and enrollments. Now the present strength is also 120, containing M.No.upto 148. The society has been audited upto 199697 and audit report is placed in the file. The last election was held on 09.02.97. If agree, we may consider the list for approval and forwarding to DDA so that they may be able to get the land allotted."

13.2.2 One page inspection report made by accused A.K.Shankaran dated 10.10.97, placed at page CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.204 of 313 162 of the RCS file Ex.PW.9/C , is without any document which shows that no document was collected by him while conducting inspection of the society on the directions of AR (West). As per this report the address of the society is given as C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi and as per his note Ex.PW.31/E he has clearly stated that he had inspected the society on 10.10.97. The rented accommodation of Sh.R.P.Gupta, the first Secretary of the society, was registered office address of the society bearing house No.C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. It is in evidence of PW. 32 Sh.Rakesh Yadav that the portion of the said house was rented out to Sh.R.P.Gupta, who remained as tenant from 1980 to 198889 and his father has sold out the said house in the year 199192. Thus by no stretch of imagination the registered office of the society functioned/existed at C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi after 199091.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.205 of 313 13.2.3 One envelop is available at page no.92 of Ex.PW.9/C (D.3), which is a registered post, addressed to President/Secretary of Satyam CGHS C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi26 showing that the same has been returned back to RCS office with remarks, "no such person at this address, returned to sender sd10.06.91". Similarly there is one more registered envelop at page no.92A which is registered AD addressed to Secretary/President of Satyam CGHS , C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi, on which there is remark written in Hindi that there is no such Secretary or the society at this address and hence returned to addressee. This remark is dated 09.07.91. 13.2.4 These are the letters sent to the society by the RCS office by registered post, which have been returned undelivered. The return of these letters undelivered, corroborates with the testimony of PW.32 Rakesh Yadav to the fact that previous secretary of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.206 of 313 society, whose residence used to be the address of Satyam CGHS had already vacated the house before its owner had sold it in 199192 and thus the office of the society was not existing there since then. This correspondence file Ex.PW.9/C (D.3) used to be in possession of the dealing Assistant (A.5) who is presumed to be having knowledge of these envelops having been returned unserved, yet he deliberately did not put up this fact to the superior authorities in his note in order to screen the design of accused Nos.1 to 4. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused A.K.Shankaran was having knowledge that society office was not functioning at C21, Shivaji Park, Delhi. He never visited the society office in October, 1997 and had thus made a false report of carrying out inspection of the society on 10.10.97.

13.2.5 It is thus proved that accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.207 of 313 A.K.Shankaran has falsified his report about visit to society office on 10.10.97 and that he had colluded with accused Parshuram Gupta and though him with accused Nos. 2 to 4 and furnished a false report and made a false noting by putting up misleading facts to the superior authorities of RCS office.

13.3.1 When he had put up his note dated 05.11.97 Ex.PW.31/E, as quoted above, the AR (West) vide his note Ex.PW.31/F (page 15 of D.6) directed "in the first instance , we may ask the society why the records were not provided in the past for verification on various dates. The documents i.e. resolutions, applications of members for enrollments/resignations etc. are not on record. The society's functioning in the past has to be adjudged whether it has followed all the rules/Byelaws. The elections are not held regularly". AR (W) had then marked the file to Dealing Assistant accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.208 of 313 A.K.Shankaran.

13.3.2 In the margin of above note of AR (West) Ex.PW.31/F, there is signature of accused Parshuram Gupta at point Q.106 with remarks "noted" for noting the instructions on 11.11.97. This shows that Dealing Assistant accused A.K.Shankaran, instead of writing a letter to the society for compliance of directions of AR (West), got noted these instructions from accused Parshuram Gupta by calling him to the office of RCS on 11.11.97, who was not even the member of the society. This further proves a clear nexus between accused A.K.Shankaran and accused Parshuram Gupta.

13.3.3 Thereafter, he put up a note on 17.11.97 Ex.PW.30/G at page 15/N to 16/N as under: " As noted above the society has now furnished the reason for non production of records in the past and approval of list CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.209 of 313 submitted by them. They have also produced the records of resignations and enrollments done by them after submission of final list. As per them, the last election of the society was held on 09.02.97.

The society has submitted that they were under the impression that their list has been approved by RCS office and sent to DDA.

However, when they were not allotted land they made enquiries from DDA then only they had come to know that their list has not been approved by RCS.

Now they have submitted the relevant records and also requested to send their list to DDA for getting them allotment of land. If agree the case may be considered for approval." 13.3.4 This note itself is motivated firstly, because when he was directed by AR (W) vide order dated 29.09.97 to inspect the society, he, without bringing CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.210 of 313 on record the actual facts put up the note on 05.11.97 alongwith his one page inspection report which was without any material particulars e.g. documents of the society such as election report, resolutions of MC approving resignations and induction of members from time to time etc., recommended the approval of the list and forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land to the society.

13.3.5 Secondly, when vide his note Ex.PW.31/F as quoted above, the AR had, on 05.11.97, passed specific direction to probe from the society as to why they did not provide the records in the past for verification and that the documents such as resolutions, applications of members for enrollments/resignations etc. are not on record and that the functioning of the society in past has to be adjudged in respect of following the rules and elections etc., accused A.K.Shankaran again CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.211 of 313 recommended the case for approval vide note Ex.PW. 30/G. He had written in his note that the last election of the society was held on 09.02.97 but he did not take from the society any documents/copies of resolutions as suggested by AR (W) to ensure that the society had actually conducted elections. At no stage the resolution dtd. 9.2.97 or any resolution of the society prior to that date was produced by A.1 to A.4 before RCS office or even during investigation and trial of the case despite notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to show that any election of the society had taken place on 9.2.97 or prior to that date. Thirdly, the AR(W) had observed that resolutions are not on record, yet A.5 did not call for the copies of resolution of the society. Fourthly, he did nothing to ensure that the society was functioning as per rules and byelaws. 13.3.6 When accused A.K.Shankaran had yet again put up the note Ex.PW.30/G seeking approval, AR CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.212 of 313 (W) directed "in view of above the records may be checked and proceed further in this matter". The said note is Ex.PW.30/H which is recorded on page 16/N of D.

6. 13.3.7 Thereafter a detailed note was put up by accused A.K.Shankaran which is available from page No. 17/N to 20/N and is Ex.PW.31/J. The basis of the note are the documents submitted by the society . The letter of society under the signatures of accused Nemi Chand Bansal dated 24.09.97 is Ex.PW.26/C vide which he requested " I am enclosing herewith the list of members of society as on this date. Kindly receive , acknowledge and approve the same at an early date and oblige". This letter is in the handwriting of Sh.Nemi Chand Bansal and his signature is at point Q.18 and the same was showing that it was marked to A.K.Shankaran 06.10.97. With this letter the list of members enrolled from nos.121 to 148 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.213 of 313 during the year 198990 & 199798 bearing signatures of accused Nemi Chand Bansal at Q.19 and the list of members resigned during the year 198990 and 199798 is given and the applications of the new members inducted on various dates of 1989 and 1997, alongwith their applications and affidavits have been forwarded. 14.1.1 Now, I shall be pointing out the quality of the enclosures forwarded to RCS office with letter Ex.PW. 26/C. 14.1.2 The application Ex.PW.52/K.3 of Sh. Rajinder Kumar for becoming member of the society made on 10.08.89 and at the bottom of the letter at point Q.21 it is written "MC Resol 1, by MC dt. 20.08.89 page 34" and the same has been opined by GEQD as the handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta. The affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Kumar is Ex.PW.33/A.1 (page 234 of D.3) on CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.214 of 313 which the column of age is blank and the column of verification is also blank at point Q.22. It appears that year was earlier typed but figure after '199_' has been deleted and it has been opined by GEQD that some strokes are there at point Q.22 which suggest that something was typed after '199_' . Similar is the case of application of Anil Kumar dated 05.08.89 and his affidavit which is Ex.PW.33/A.2, Manoj Kumar dated 05.08.89 Ex.PW.52/K.5 and affidavit Ex.PW.33/A.3, Ashok Kumar dated 10.08.89 and affidavit Ex.PW.33/A.4, application of Sh.Krishan Lal Narang dated 05.08.89 Ex.PW.52/K.6 and his affidavit Ex.PW.33/A.5, application of Sh.Ramesh Chand dated 09.08.89 Ex.PW.52/K.7 and his affidavit Ex.PW.33/A.6.

14.1.3 The applications of Sh.Amar Nath Pandey mark PW.8/A, Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht Ex.PW.7/A and Sh.Prem Parkash Pathak available at page No.213 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.215 of 313 on Ex.PW.9/C(D.3) are neither signed nor dated. On application of Satish Kumar dated 10.08.89 Ex.PW.52/K.11 at point Q.57 it has been written as passed/approved by MC Reso No.1 dated 20.08.89 . The affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma is Ex.PW.33/A.14 and his application is Ex.PW.52/K.12 dated 10.08.89. The application of Jagdish Chand is Ex.PW.52/K.13 and his affidavit is Ex.PW.33/A.15. The application of Anil Kumar Gupta is dated 05.08.89 (Ex.PW.52/K.14) and his affidavit is Ex.PW.33/A.16. On all these affidavits space meant for age is left blank and on their applications also 'approved by MC Reso No.1 dated 20.08.89' has been written by accused Parshuram Gupta.

14.1.4 In the affidavit of Sh.Naresh Kumar there is overwriting in respect of year of verification and his age is left blank which is Ex.PW.33/A.17. His application is Ex.PW.52/K.15 dated 06.08.89 on which it is written CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.216 of 313 'approved by MC Reso No.I dt. 20.08.89' which is also written by accused Parshu Ram Gupta as per the opinion of GEQD. Similar are the affidavits and applications of Surinder Kumar Gupta, Neeraj Singhal , Ishwar Chand Bansal, Gyan Chand and Vijay Kumar.

14.1.5 But remarkably accused A.K.Shankaran failed to highlight any of the discrepancies in the applications and affidavits filed by these persons, as submitted to him by accused Nemi Chand Bansal under his signatures. The remarks about approval by M.C. which have been written by accused Parshuram Gupta are not signed by any of the accused persons (A.2 to A.4) who represent themselves as the office bearers of the society.

14.1.6 It is not denied that these documents were not submitted by them (A.1 to A.4) on behalf of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.217 of 313 society and therefore, it was burden on them to establish as to who had written the remarks about approval by M.C. on these applications, if the same were not written by accused Parshuram Gupta. Accused A.K.Shankaran did not bring on record that the remarks of approval on these applications do not bear the signatures of the office bearers of the society and he also did not obtain copies of the M.C. resolutions from the society vide which all those 25 resignations and enrollments were approved, despite the remarks of the AR (W) vide his note Ex.PW.31/F that resolutions are not on record. The obvious conclusion is that accused A.K.Shankaran did not insist from A.1 to A.4 for placing on record those resolutions regarding resignations/enrollments of 28 members and elections of the society as he knew that there were no such resolutions with A.2 to A.4 who were projecting themselves as office bearers of the society. Only A2 to A.4 who represented the society before RCS office at that CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.218 of 313 time could be presumed to have the proceeding registers containing resolutions of the society vide which the resignations and enrollments of 25 members were approved, which they failed to place on record. 14.1.7 It has been proved by PW.33 Sh.Hitesh Sharma that these affidavits of 28 newly inducted members are not attested by his father Late Khushal Chand Sharma. The stamp vendor who has been examined as PW.46 Sh.Balle Ram Tyagi has also testified that he has not sold these stamp papers. The signatures and stamps of the stamp vendor have been proved as forged on the back of all these affidavits. Although accused A.K.Shankaran was not required to verify these affidavits from stamp vendor or the Notary Public but he was required to see these documents on face of them to find out whether the same were in order or not. The reasons are obvious. As he was acting in connivance CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.219 of 313 with other coaccused persons, therefore, he did not highlight the discrepancies as observed above which are glaring and appearing on the face of the documents submitted by A.1 to A.4 to RCS office.

14.2.1 Another letter written by accused Nemi Chand Bansal on 14.11.97 as Hony. Secretary of the society, which is Ex.PW.26/D, was marked to A.K.Shankaran by AR (W) on 17.11.97 . On this letter the signatures of accused Nemi Chand Bansal are available at Q.99 and body of letter at Q.98 was written by him as per the GEQD opinion, which is otherwise not disputed. Vide this letter he has stated that he is writing this letter in continuation of the correspondence on the above subject and enquiry made. He has stated in the letter that the list of members could not be got approved prior to this because he was under the impression that the list once submitted stands approved and he need to take no action. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.220 of 313 He stated that the last election of society was held on 09.02.97 and the society is now functioning regularly and the lapses, if any, may kindly be condoned and the list be approved.

14.2.2 With this letter he has submitted the details of the members resigned during 198990 & 199798. He has stated that the members had resigned on various dates during 1989 and their resignation were approved on 17.07.89 and the date of refund of share money is shown as 22.08.89 to 30.09.89. He has shown that three members i.e. Baisakh Chand, Santosh Singla and Bal Mukand had resigned on 01.04.97, the same was approved in the MC meeting dated 07.04.97 and the refund of their share money was made on 07.04.97. 14.2.3 Thus, there is clear contradiction between the minutes of meeting recorded in Ex.PW.7/Y CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.221 of 313 (D.9) at page No.3 which shows that a meeting was held only on 10.04.97 after the earlier meeting dated 02.03.97 and that there is no M.C.meeting shown held on 07.04.97. This kind of discrepancy can appear only when the documents are forged by the accused persons. The details of members who resigned during 198990 & 199798 have been given at the enclosed sheet available at page no.188 of Ex.PW.9/C (D.3) which is signed by accused Madan Mohan Khanna as Secretary/President of the society and the copies of the resignation letters of those persons are enclosed with the same which are available at page No.163 to 187 of Ex.PW.9/C (D.3). 14.2.4 These facts prove that accused Parshuram Gupta was handling the work of Satyam CGHS with RCS office as he was having knowledge and access to the RCS office due to the reasons that he had worked as President of Maha Laxmi CGHS which was CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.222 of 313 already allotted land and got constructed flats, one of which was allotted to him.

14.2.5 It is worthwhile to note that when accused A.K.Shankaran had put up a detailed note dated 16.01.98 Ex.PW.31/H (available from page 17/N to 20/N of D.6) he had also mentioned the date of MC resolution for acceptance of resignations of S/Sh.Baisakh Chand membership No.73, Santosh Singla membership No.74 and Bal Mukand membership No.102 as 07.04.97 with date of refund as 07.04.97. He had mentioned the date of the enrollment of S/Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak with membership No. 146, 147 & 148 respectively as 10.04.97 whereas no such resolution or meeting dated 7.4.97 is found recorded in Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9). Thus, it can be understood that if at all accused A.K.Shankaran had seen the minutes of meetings of the society dated 10.04.97, he would have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.223 of 313 become aware that there was no meeting of the society prior to that date and after 02.03.97 which is recorded as Ex.PW.29/E. 14.2.6 Thus, it is clearly established that A.K.Shankaran (A.5) had deliberately put up the note only in order to mislead his superior authorities and help the accused persons to get the false and fabricated list approved from RCS and forwarded to DDA.

14.3.1 When the note Ex.PW.30/G was put up before AR (W) on 17.11.97 , he directed vide his note Ex.PW.30/H (16/N of D.6) 'in view of above, the records may be checked and proceed further in the matter'. Yet accused A.K.Shankaran did not ensure that the relevant records of the society i.e. M.C. resolutions are at place. 14.3.2 He then put up another note Ex.PW.31/J CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.224 of 313 (17/N to 20/N of D.6) wherein he mentioned that society has submitted applications of newly enrolled members and their original affidavits and in all the enrollments the society has followed Rule 30 as they passed resolution in time and also for collecting the money before expiry of 14 days. He has mentioned that it appears that they have not informed to department of these enrollments and resignations within the stipulated time. He also recorded that they have not submitted the copies of resignation letters and resolutions passed by the society giving approval to the resignations and enrollments. He, therefore, recommended that he may write to society to furnish the copy of resignation letters and copies of resolutions of enrollments and resignations. His recommendation was approved by AR vide his note Ex.PW.42/B dated 19.11.98.

14.3.3 Even thereafter accused CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.225 of 313 A.K.Shankaran did not put up any letter to AR (W) for signature/writing in this respect and did not send any written communication to the society for compliance and rather he again put up a note on 28.01.98 which is Ex.PW.31/K. This confirms that he was maintaining direct communication with A.1 to A.4 for calling the records and information. This kind of communication is impermissible in government transactions. His note Ex.PW.31/K reads as under: "May kindly see the minutes above, the society has now submitted the copies of resignation letters which may kindly be seen at F/XF/Y. All the resignations have been accepted by the society in its MC meeting held on 17.07.89 except the last three which has been approved in the meeting held on 07.04.97. The society has refunded the payment to all the resigned members. No complaint has been received in this regard from anywhere. The society has followed the rule in all enrollments except that they have not informed of these CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.226 of 313 resignations/enrollments in time to the department. The original affidavits of the members and copies of applications of those persons are also placed in the file. In view of above if agreed, we may consider the list submitted by the society after taking into record the resignations and enrollments submitted by them for approval please".

14.3.4 From this note it is clear that despite the clear directions and understanding to the effect that the resolutions of the society approving resignations and enrollments of 28 members have not been submitted to RCS office and that the same were required, the society did not provide the same, yet accused A.K.Shankaran put up the note again, seeking approval. Now it can be understood that accused A.K.Shankaran who was having private communication with A.1 to A.4, must have become aware that A.1 to A.4 are not having any resolutions of the society vide which they have been CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.227 of 313 proclaiming that they are elected executive members of the society and also that there were no such resolutions of 1989 approving the resignations of 25 members and enrollments of 25 new members in their place including A. 2 to A.4.

14.3.5 On this note, AR (W) vide his recommendation at Ex.PW.42/C dated 02/02/98 observed, "kindly see the detailed note from page 14/N to 21/N wherein the proposal has been verified and as such we may take on record the 28 enrollments and 28 resignations as per details on page 17/N to 19/N and approve the list of 120 members for forwarding to DDA. As per records, the society sent the list of 120 members vide its letter dated 24.05.84. The society has been audited upto 199697 and the last election was held on 09.02.97 which has been reported at page 15/N." CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.228 of 313 14.3.6 The note was then put up to RCS through DR who had in turn send the file to AR (Policy) for looking into the matter as per his remark at point X.5 below Ex.PW.42/C. 14.3.7 The AR (Policy) vide his note Ex.PW.31/L observed that the detailed verification of the proposed membership may be got done from concerned zone itself and he had sent back the file to AR (West) who then marked the file to the Dealing Assistant, accused A.K.Shankaran who again, vide his detailed note Ex.PW. 31/M (page 23/N of D.6), put up as under: "May kindly see the minutes of AR (Policy) on prepage. It has been desired that a detailed inspection of proposed membership list may be done by the concerned zone itself. The policy branch has however, verified that the original strength of society is 120 members.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.229 of 313

In this connection, it is pointed out that the Resignations and enrollments of 28 members, each have been examined in detail from page 17/N onwards. The records pertaining to the resignations/enrollments have been verified and have been found to be in order. Now the policy branch has also verified the strength at 120 members.

In view of the above, if permitted, we may approve the list of 120 members as detailed below for sending to the DDA so that the society may be able to get land. Four copies of the detailed list as supplied by the society may be approved. .

14.3.8 Thereafter he has recorded the list of 120 members as on date. The note was then put up to AR (West) who forwarded the same to DR and then to the JR(W). The JR(W) vide note Ex.PW.31/O page 25/N of D. 6 forwarded the note to RCS for approval which reads as under: CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.230 of 313 "May kindly see with reference to the note of the Policy branch on page 22/N. As desired by the Policy Branch it has been confirmed by the Dealing Assistant/AR/DR (West) that all the 28 resignations/enrollments have been verified and found to be in order. However, the Policy Branch has confirmed the strength of the society of 120 members as communicated to the DDA.

In view of the submissions made by the AR and DR(W) proposal at A on page 21/N may be approved.

14.3.9 Thereafter the approval was accorded by RCS as available at 31/N of D.6 dated 03.11.98 Thus it may be seen that while accused A.K.Shankaran had written in his note Ex.PW./31/J dated 16.01.98 that the society has also not submitted copies of resolution passed by the society giving approval to the resignations and enrollments, yet he did not inspect the records of the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.231 of 313 society or obtained and placed in the file the copies of resolutions passed by the society in this respect. 14.3.10 Accused A.K.Shankaran had although noted that the Policy branch, while confirming the original strength of the society as 120 members, had desired that a detailed verification of the proposed membership may be done by his zone, yet without carrying out any inspection he had again put up the note seeking approval of the list as submitted by A.1 to A.4 for sending the same to the DDA. He also verified and signed on the list forwarded to DDA by RCS office (page 239 to 244 of D.3 Ex.PW.9/C and D.14 Ex.PW.30/B). Had he conducted inspection as desired by Policy Branch, he would have come to know that there were no resolutions of the society approving resignations of 25 old members and induction of new members in their place and he would also have come to know about the fact that some of them, whose CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.232 of 313 resignations have been forged, had actually never resigned or received the refund from the society. Thus, by again and again putting up the note for seeking approval for sending the list of 120 members of the society to DDA, as desired by A.1 to A.4 by ignoring all the illegalities, as observed herein, it is established that A.5 was thick and thin with A.1 to A.4 in the conspiracy.

14.4.1 Accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4, who were running the affairs of the society representing themselves as its office bearers and accused No.1 as its office Secretary, have not been able to furnish to the CBI or to the court, the proceedings of the society recorded prior to 02.03.97(D.9). Accused A.K.Shankaran also did not insist for the same. In all probabilities he was aware of the discrepancy in the MC meeting dated 10.04.97 recorded at page No.3 of Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) as pointed out above and that is why he did not place the copy of at least this CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.233 of 313 available resolution on record of RCS file. Even after when Policy branch desired that the detailed verification of the proposed membership list may be done by the concerned zone itself , he did not carry out or got done any physical verification of the members who were shown as resigned from the membership of the society in 1989 and certified in his note that 'the records pertaining to the resignation/enrollments have been verified and have been found to be in order'.

14.4.2 As already seen above, the documents which are the affidavits of the inducted members have been found defective and antedated on face of them as the column of age of the deponents and date and year of execution of most of the affidavits of new members have been left blank. Besides, the applications of B.S.Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak are neither signed nor dated and they are not supported by the copies CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.234 of 313 of M.C. resolutions approving resignations and inductions, yet they have been accepted by accused A.K.Shankaran and certified by him to be in order, obviously for the reasons best known to him which proves his involvement in conspiracy with other accused persons to get the list of member of Satyam CGHS approved, in which several persons have been shown as resigned whereas they did not resign and in their place new members have shown inducted by A.1 to A.4 including A.2 to A.4 themselves, who were themselves absolutely stranger to the society, which was lying defunct since 199091.

14.4.3 Ex.PW.52/E (D.68) is letter of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Directorate of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, dated01.04.2008, forwarding with it its supplementary opinion dated 17.03.08. Ex.PW.52/F (colly.) is the supplementary opinion dated 17.03.08. In this report GEQD opined that CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.235 of 313 at portions marked Q.22, Q.26, Q.30, Q.34, Q.38, Q.54, Q.58, Q.62, Q.66, Q.70, Q.74, Q.78, Q.82, Q.86, Q.90 and Q.94 some remnants of original strokes are visible at places, but it is not possible to decipher them completely. These Q points are on the affidavits of members shown purportedly inducted in the society in year 1989 and strokes are visible of typewriting some year after '199'. Meaning thereby that the year in which these affidavits were typed was some year after 1990 but these have been erased in order to show that the year of these affidavits was 1990 i.e. soon after their induction as member of the society in 1989. Accused A.K.Shankaran, deliberately did not note these manipulations in these affidavits and bring it to the notice of his superiors while putting up note on 16.01.98 Ex.PW.31/J (D.6 page 17/N to 20/N).

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.236 of 313 Members whose resignations forged: 15.1.0 Now we will see as to who are those members who have denied having ever resigned from the membership of the society and evidence proved on record in this respect.

15.1.1 Sh.Anil Kumar Saluja, who has been examined as PW5 has proved his membership with the society but denied having resigned from membership or having signed resignation letter Ex.PW5/B. The GEQD opinion corroborates his testimony that signature appearing on the resignation letter, Ex.PW5/B at point Q5 is not his signature.

15.1.2 He was not suggested by accused persons that signature on his resignation letter was done by him. What has been suggested is that Krishan Chand Gupta and Laxmi Narain had signed the resignation letter CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.237 of 313 on his behalf. Once it is conceded by A.1 to A.4 that the resignation letter in the name of Sh.Anil Saluja was not signed by him and then they suggested that it was signed by Krishan Chand Gupta and Laxmi Narain, the burden shifted on them to prove that it was forged by some one else, because only they have used this forged resignation letter to show that Sh.Anil Saluja resigned from membership of the society and inducted other person as member of the society in his place. Moreover, the GEQD (PW.52) has given a definite opinion that on this resignation letter Ex.PW.5/B the remarks appearing at the bottom, "approved by M.C. on dt. 17.7.89" (Q.218) is written by accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1). This has not been disputed by accused persons rather admitted as per Ex.PW.17/K (D.49).

15.1.3 Thus, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had got forged CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.238 of 313 this resignation letter to show Sh.Anil Saluja resigned from membership of the society in order to induct some other person in his place. It is also proved that accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) had forged the endorsement at point Q.218 certifying that it has been approved in M.C. Meeting held on 17.7.89, whereas there was no such meeting of the society having been ever held in 1989. A.2 to A.4 are party to such a forgery as they, representing themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society, filed/got filed this forged document alongwith other similarly forged documents with RCS office for inducing the RCS office to approve the list of 120 members of the society as submitted by them for onward submission to DDA for allotment of land , in which they were successful with the help of accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) who deliberately kept mum and put up misleading notes to his superiors in order to favour A.1 to A.4 in their effort to cheat RCS and DDA as per the conspiracy CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.239 of 313 hatched between all of them.

15.2.1 Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, who has been examined as PW3, has proved that he became member of the society. He also proved his original share certificate no.111 dated 25.09.84 issued to him by the society and proved the same as Ex.PW3/A. 15.2.2 He stated that he has not resigned from membership of the society and that the resignation letter in his name Ex.PW3/B (D.8 page 15) is forged one and he has not signed at point Q9. GEQD opinion which is based on comparison with his specimen/admitted signatures also corroborates his testimony that the resignation letter has not been signed by him. 15.2.3 This fact is admitted as much as he was not suggested by accused persons, during his cross CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.240 of 313 examination, that he had signed the resignation letter, which means the forgery of his resignation letter is admitted by accused persons who only suggested that Krishan Chand Gupta had refunded him the amount deposited by him for becoming member of the society, which he denied. He also denied the suggestion that Krishan Chand had told him (PW Vinod Kumar) that he had resigned from membership of the society. If such was the defence of accused persons, it was their onus to prove that it was the act of Krishan Chand.

15.2.4 In his case also there are remarks at the bottom of the Ex.PW.3/B "approved by M.C. on dt. 17.7.89"

(Q.220) which are in the handwriting of Parshuram Gupta (A.1) as per GEQD opinion and admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D.49).

15.3.1 PW.12 Sh.Roshan Lal Singhla has CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.241 of 313 proved his membership with the society and affidavit given by him on 02.04.84 as Ex.PW.12/A. He said that he did not submit his resignation from membership of the society and denied having signed resignation letter Ex.PW.12/B (D.8 page 4).

15.3.2 In his cross examination he was suggested that he had resigned from membership while purchasing a property in Paschim Vihar, which he denied. He was then suggested that his brother had signed the resignation, which also was denied by him. The GEQD opinion also corroborates testimony of Sh.Rohan Lal Singla that the signature at point Q.13 on resignation letter Ex.PW.12/B, has not been made by him.

15.3.3 Similar to the case of Sh.Anil Kumar Saluja (PW.5) the remarks are there at the bottom of this resignation letter, '"resignation approved by MC dt. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.242 of 313 17.7.89" (Q.221), which as per GEQD opinion, has also been written by accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1), which fact has been admitted in Ex.PW.17/K (D.49). 15.4.1 Sh.Ravinder Kumar Saluja, who has been examined as PW36, has also denied his signature on resignation letter in his name, Ex.PW36/B (D8, Page11) at Q.7. The accused persons have not suggested to him that the signatures appearing at the resignation letter was his signature. Rather he was suggested that his resignation letter was signed by Dammo or Laxmi Narain, to which he had shown ignorance.

15.4.2 The GEQD opinion is also confirming that signatures (Q.7) on the resignation letter of Sh.Ravinder Kumar Saluja is forged one. On the bottom of this letter also there are remarks at Q.219 "approved by MC dt . 17.7.89" which, as per the GEQD opinion, is in the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.243 of 313 handwriting of Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D.49).

15.4.3 Accused Parshuram Gupta came into picture only after the resolution dated 14.08.97 Ex.PW. 49/E (D.9) was adopted by the MC of the society which comprised of A.2 to A.4 as its President, Secretary and Treasurer. Hence it is established that on all the 25 resignation letters remarks "approved by MC dt. 17.7.89"

have been written by A.1 sometimes after 14.08.97. Thus, these remarks have been forged and antedated by A.1 on all these resignation letters in active connivance with remaining accused persons.

15.5.1 CBI alleged that one Savitri Devi had also not resigned from membership but since she has expired, hence the forgery of her resignation letter could not be proved.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.244 of 313 15.5.2 Besides, one Mrs. Bimla Devi (PW.14), who has although identified her signature on resignation letter, Ex.PW14/B (D.8 , page 19) which is dated 05.07.89, but she categorically stated that in her resignation letter her address is shown as 32 Bannu Enclave, Road No.42, Pitampura, Delhi, which is not possible as in the year 1989 she had not shifted to the said house which was purchased by her motherinlaw only in the year 1996 and the said house was not of her relative. She also stated that her signatures are appearing on the resignation letter but her name and address thereon have been added later on by someone.

15.5.3 During her crossexamination, she stated that her fatherinlaw had expired in the year 1992 and she had resigned at his instance but did not recollect the year in which she had resigned from membership of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.245 of 313 the society. On her resignation letter also there are remarks at point Q.225, "approved by MC on dt. 17.7.89"

which as per the GEQD opinion is in the handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and the same fact is admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D.49).

15.6.1 Smt.Darshna Goyal who has been examined as PW.16, has also denied having signed resignation letter in her name Ex.PW.16/C (D.8 page 18). She clarified that she writes her surname as 'Goyal' and not 'Goel' and the address below her forged signature is also incorrectly mentioned as 1380/95, Tri Nagar whereas her correct address was H.No.1380/93 , Tri Nagar. She stated that she had told to her brother that she wanted to quit the society and accordingly she had quit but he did not sign any document for resigning from the society. 15.6.2 Thus, her resignation letter is also CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.246 of 313 proved as forged on which remarks "approved by MC on dt.17.7.89" (Q.224) are written, which as per GEQD opinion, is also in handwriting of Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and the same is admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D49). It was submitted by A.1 to A.4 to RCS office alongwith other documents in 1997 while seeking the approval of list of 120 members of the society. Thus, the onus of proof shifted to them to prove that they had no role in the forging of the resignation letter in the name of Mrs.Darshana Goyal, which they failed to discharge.

15.6.3 The certificate of having posted the notices to 107 members of the society for its meeting which was proposed to be held on 12.08.90 as seized by IO from Sh.R.P.Gupta {(Ex.PW.34/A) (D.30)} vide seizure memo Ex.PW.53/F.4 (D.27) shows the names of Sh.Roshn Lal Singla (sl.No.71), Anil Saluja (sl.No.90), Ravinder Kumar Saluja (sl. No.98), Vinod Kumar Gupta CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.247 of 313 (sl.No.99) and Smt.Savitri Devi (sl.No.95) also corroborates the fact that they had not resigned from the membership of the society and their resignation letters have been shown as accepted in 1989 by A.1 to A.4. 15.7.1 Besides above members, there are certain other members also on whose resignation the date of M.C. resolution has not been back dated like those on which the M.C. Resolution approving resignation has been back dated to 17.7.89, as seen above. These are with respect to resignation of S/Sh.Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Amlesh Kumar Bansal.

15.7.2 Sh.Ashok Kumar, examined as PW6, has proved his membership with the society but denied having resigned from its membership. He stated that the signature appearing at point Q3 on resignation letter in his name, Ex.PW6/D (D8, Page No.34) is forged one. It CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.248 of 313 finds corroboration from opinion of GEQD. On this resignation letter there is remark "approved by MC on 9.6.98 Resolution 5" (Q.217) which as per GEQD opinion has been written by accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) and is admitted vide Ex.PW.17/K (D.49). Below it there are remarks "amount refunded on 14.6.98 and then signed by accused Madan Mohan Khanna (A.1) and Nemi Chand Bansal (A.2). This is in accordance with M.C. resolution of the society Ex.PW.49/L.3 (D.9) in which accused Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) , Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Anand Mohan (A.4) participated as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society and as such signed the minutes dt.09.06.98.

15.7.3 Sh.Vijay Kumar has been shown inducted as member of the society on 29.08.89 vide membership no135 in the membership register Ex.PW.9/A (D.16). But when he was examined as PW.15 he denied CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.249 of 313 having become its member or signing any document pertaining to membership or resignation therefrom. He proved that signatures in his name on membership register, application Ex.PW.15/A, affidavit Ex.PW.15/B, resignation letter Ex.PW.15/C are forged. 15.7.4 During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for A.1 to A.4 he stated that once Parshuram Gupta (A.1), with whom he had family relations for last 30 years, had asked him whether he was interested in becoming a member of Satyam CGHS upon which he had given his consent. He said that later on Parshuram Gupta had asked him to pay some money for construction of flat and thereupon he (Sh.Vijay Kumar) had given his oral consent to him (Parshuram Gupta) that he did not want to remain member of the society. On a suggestion, he said that he cannot say if his brother Ashok Kumar had signed in his name on his behalf while becoming member or CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.250 of 313 resigning from the membership of the said society. 15.7.5 On membership application, in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar Ex.PW.15/A (D.3 page 191) which he has denied having ever made or signed, there are remarks at point Q.97, "approved by M.C.resolution no.I dt. 20.8.89". As per GEQD opinion the same is in the handwriting of accused Parshuram Gupta. 15.7.6 The GEQD opinion has confirmed that the signatures at points Q.15 and Q.16 of the affidavit in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar (Ex.PW.15/B, page 190 of D.

3) are not his signatures. GEQD opinion has also confirmed that the signature at point Q.11 on resignation letter in name of Vijay Kumar Ex.PW.15/C (page 102 of D.

8) does not tally with specimen signatures of Vijay Kumar.

The defence has not even suggested to the witness that any of signatures on these documents have been done by CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.251 of 313 him. Rather it has been suggested to him that his brother Vinod Kumar would have signed the same to which he has shown his ignorance.

15.7.7 It is well settled position of law that a party who alleges certain facts is only responsible to prove the same. Accused persons have failed to examine any witness to prove their assertion that the documents pertaining to membership and resignation of Sh.Vijay Kumar were signed/executed by his brother Sh.Ashok Kumar in his name. Further, on Ex.PW.15/C, there are remarks "approved M.C.meeting dt.3.6.03" at point Q.262 with signature below it at point Q.263. As per GEQD opinion, the remarks at point Q.262 are in the handwriting of accused Anand Mohan (A.4) who has signed below it at point Q.263. It has been proved by GEQD opinion that the proceedings of M.C. Meeting held on 03.06.03 have been written by accused Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) at Q. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.252 of 313 235 and Q.236. These M.C. Proceedings conducted by accused persons are not denied, which bear their signatures as office bearers/M.C.members. 15.7.8 Ex.PW.52/K.29 (D.72) is the refund voucher of Rs.30,100/ dated 07.08.03 vide which Sh.Vijay Kumar is shown as having acknowledged receipt of the same by signing at point Q.233. It is remarkable to note that the date of voucher is originally 06.08.03 on which overwriting has been done to make it 07.08.03, obviously to make it in conformity with the date of cheque as the receipt cannot precede the date on which the cheque is drawn. However, GEQD opined that signatures at point Q.233 have not been made by Sh.Vijay Kumar. 15.7.9 Then there is a bearer cheque of the same date i.e. 07.08.03(D.32) for Rs.30,100/ drawn in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar (Ex.P.52/K.31), the amount of CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.253 of 313 which is shown as withdrawn on 08.08.03 by signing as 'Vijay' at two places on the back of the cheque which is at point Q.234. The GEQD opinion is that the same has been written by accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1). The signatories of this cheque are accused Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2 ) and Anand Mohan (A.4) whose signatures appear on the face of cheque which tally with their specimen signatures available at Ex.PW.45/C (D.53) showing that they were authorized signatories of account at that time alongwith accused Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3). 15.7.10 This shows that amount of Rs.30,100/ was illegally and fraudulently withdrawn by accused Parshuram Gupta in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar, which was in active connivance with accused Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) , Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Anand Mohan (A.4). It also establishes that members such as Vijay Kumar were falsely shown inducted as the member CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.254 of 313 of the society and then falsely shown resigned for inducting some other persons in their place to earn money in the name of premium as the cooperative society flat costs much less than the market price due to allotment of land to the society by DDA at a predetermined rate, the market price of which is manifold.

15.7.11 Sh.Amlesh Kumar Bansal (PW.22) who is also one of the original member of the society, bearing membership No.99, has proved his membership and deposed that he had never resigned from membership of the society. He denied having signed on resignation letter in his name Ex.PW.22/C showing that the same was approved vide M.C.meeting of the society dtd. 09.06.98. He stated that he had filed complaint with RCS , got registered FIR No.540/05 PS Dwarka and also filed a civil suit. A copy of FIR No.540/05 has also been proved by PW.50 SI Sunil Kumar as Mark PW.50/A (D.51). CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.255 of 313 15.7.12 Thus, it is also proved that few members, such as Bimla Devi had resigned from the membership of the society but their resignation letters were pending without any decision thereon, which were subsequently misused and ante dated by the accused persons (A.1 to A.4) in order to show them as resigned members whose resignation letters were shown as accepted by the managing committee of the society.

15.7.13 The testimony of these witnesses fully demonstrates that the accused persons had got forged their resignation letters in order to induct some other persons in their place for the motive or reward other than legal remuneration which is also clear from the statement of Ms.Abha Bhardwaj as PW17, who had clearly testified that she had become member of Satyam CGHS through CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.256 of 313 property dealer/Neeraj, who had taken her to accused/Parshuram Gupta (A1).

15.7.14 She was inducted into the membership of the society vide her application dated 20.12.98, Ex.PW17/E and resigned vide letter dated 05.10.2000, Ex.PW17/F. She specifically deposed that she had deposited Rs.1.5 lacs to the society as first installment by way of cheque and also paid some premium amount in cash.

15.7.15 This shows that certain members of the society were deliberately shown resigned in order to induct some new members for ulterior motive and accused/Parshuram Gupta was instrumental in all these manipulations along with accused/Nemi Chand Bansal, Madan Mohan Khanna and Anand Mohan, who projected themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer after CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.257 of 313 showing themselves inducted as members of the society in the year 1989 itself whereas the society had not inducted any member till its old management was functional i.e 199091, when they lost the interest and society became inactive.

16. Forgery on cheque in the name of Vijay Kumar and withdrawal of Rs.30,100/ from account of the society: 16.1.1 One of the allegations against accused/Parshuram Gupta (A1) is that he forged the signatures of Sh.Vijay Kumar on the reverse side of the bearer cheque no.735304 issued by Satyam CGHS favouring Sh.Vijay Kumar, drawn on Delhi State Co operative Bank Limited dated 07.08.03 for Rs.30,100/ in the name of refund of his deposit and withdrew the amount. The signatures of the person withdrawing the money are available on the reverse side of the cheque, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.258 of 313 Ex.PW52/K31 (D32) at point Q234 and as per the opinion of GEQD, the handwriting at point Q234 matches with the specimen handwriting of accused/Parshuram Gupta (S.200 to S.207) and not with the writing of Sh.Vijay Kumar (S.26 to S.33). The said cheque, payment of which was made by Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited to the bearer, was seized by CBI vide production cum receipt memo, Ex.PW53/F.7 (D31). 16.1.2 Ex.PW45/C (D53) which is specimen signature card and account opening form, Ex.PW45/D of A/C No.142 maintained by Satyam CGHS show that signatories of the account are accused Madan Mohan Khanna as President, Nemi Chand Bansal as Secretary and Anand Mohan as Treasurer. The signatures of accused/Madan Mohan and Anand Mohan are appearing on the face of the cheque dated 07.08.03, Ex.PW52/K31, which clearly establishes that the cheque of Rs.31,100/ CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.259 of 313 was got issued in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar not intending to be delivered to him and the amount of cheque was withdrawn and misappropriated by accused/Parshuram Gupta by representing himself as Vijay Kumar.

16.1.3 This proves that the signature of Vijay Kumar was forged by accused Parshuram Gupta and even the cheque was drawn and delivered to him by A.2 and A.4 as subterfuge with an understanding that the amount will be withdrawn by Parshuram Gupta from account of the society in the name of refund to Sh.Vijay Kumar, who testified that he never applied for membership and never resigned from the same but he is fraudulently shown as inducted on 29.08.89 and his resignation accepted by MC. on 03.06.03.

16.2.1 Ex.PW52/K29 (D72) is the refund CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.260 of 313 voucher of Rs.30,100/ dated 07.08.03 shown as executed by Sh.Vijay Kumar on which 'Vijay' at point Q233 is written as the signature acknowledging the receipt of refund amount, but he testified that it does not bear his signature. The GEQD has also opined that writing at point Q.233 is not of Sh.Vijay Kumar.

16.2.2 It has come in the evidence that accused Parshuram Gupta had family relations with Sh.Vijay Kumar for last 30 years and that once he had asked him for inducting as member of the society on which he had given oral consent without signing any document. Under such circumstances in all probabilities it was accused Parshuram Gupta who had managed fake induction of Sh.Vijay Kumar and then his fake resignation from the society and fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.30,100/ in name of refund of his deposit pursuant to his fake resignation. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.261 of 313 16.2.3 Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) had committed forgery on the cheque for fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.30,100/ from the account of the society by forging the signature of payee, which was made possible by A.2 to A.4 by issuing a cheque in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar and handing over the same to A.1 for withdrawal of the amount forging signature in the name of Vijay. This amounts to signing of a 'document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money' made punishable under section 467. He not only acknowledged the receipt but actually took payment of Rs. 30,100/ by signing as Vijay on the back of the cheque. 16.3.1 It has been submitted by ld. counsel for A. 1 to A.4 that the CBI has not produced the stamp vendor register in the court to prove that the stamp papers of affidavits of 25 members shown as resigned in 1989 and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.262 of 313 executed affidavit in 1990, were not purchased in 1990 or that they were purchased in year 1997. In this respect, the efforts were made by CBI by writing letter to the Delhi Govt. whereupon a reply was received from SDM (HQ.I) (Stamp Branch) dtd. 1.1.08 stating that the records of 1990 being more than 12 years old, were already weeded out. Thus, it is not the case that CBI did not try to bring the evidence which was in existence. The direct evidence in the form of testimony of stamp vendor Sh.B.R.Tyagi has already been seen while appreciating the evidence on the issue.

16.3.2 It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for A.1 to A.4 that none of the persons inducted in 1989 have been examined to the effect that they were in fact inducted as members in 1997. The members who are fraudulently shown as inducted in 1989 by back dating included A.2 to A.4 and the other persons who are shown as executive CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.263 of 313 members of the society and they all were beneficiaries of the fraud and forgery. They have not been implicated as accomplice in this case with A.1 to A.4 but let out, probably because CBI did not want to enlarge the net to that extent. In any case they would not have deposed anything against their own interest, hence rightly not arrayed as prosecution witnesses.

16.3.3. The ld.counsel for A.1 to A.4 has submitted that no offence is made out against accused persons u/s 467 or 468 of IPC because as per section 463 IPC which defines forgery, two ingredients are required to be satisfied, firstly, the falsification of document and secondly intention to cause damage to a person or support any claim or commit any fraud. In this case, I have recorded findings as to what documents have been falsified by A.1 to A.4 e.g. resignation letters including endorsement on them about approval by M.C., affidavits of newly inducted CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.264 of 313 members by ante dating to the year 1990; the proceedings of M.C.meetings falsely showing A.2 to A.4 inducted as the members of the society and then elected as executive members/office bearers, issuing bearer cheque of Rs. 30,100/ in the name of Sh.Vijay Kumar falsely shown as inducted and resigned and withdrawing of the amount from bank account of the society by A.1 by signing on the reverse side of the cheque as Vijay; fraudulently representing the society in the assumed capacity of office secretary, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society and signing letters, documents and deeds etc. in those assumed capacities, etc. Thus, the large number of documents have been falsified by A.1 to A.4. As regards the second ingredient, the intention of A.1 to A.4 in falsifying these documents, was to get allotted land from DDA in the name of the society for 120 members on the basis of forged documents after getting the list of 120 members approved from RCS and forwarded to DDA. But CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.265 of 313 for these forgeries by A.1 to A.4 in active connivance with A.5, the society with bogus members became entitled for allotment of land from DDA in preference to the other societies which would have been deprived due to allotment of land to societies such as Satyam CGHS which had been got activated by such unscrupulous persons as A.1 to A.4. Thus, there is no doubt that the ingredients of forgery are fully satisfied in this case. 17.1.0 In brief the main incriminating circumstances which have been proved individually against accused persons are summarized as under: Parshuram Gupta (A.1) : 17.1.1 He was the mastermind behind entire conspiracy of making the RCS file of Satyam CGHS active after a gap of 7 years in 1997 by getting a letter (Ex.PW. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.266 of 313 7/Z.1) written and signed from his colleague Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht (PW.7) and filing the same with RCS office. Whereas the said letter is shown as signed by Secretary of Satyam CGHS but neither he nor Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht were its Secretary. Since he had experience of working as President and Secretary of Mahalaxmi CGHS in which he was allotted a flat (Ex.PW.53/E), he had access to RCS office and this letter was got put up on file through Dealing Assistant accused A.K.Shankaran, who deliberately did not raise any objections as to the circumstances which were sufficient to create reasonable doubt. During initial period only accused Parshuram Gupta was interacting with RCS office particularly accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) who, instead of calling for informations/documents from society by issuing letters by post or by messenger, got noted the instructions of AR (W) Ex.PW.31/F by taking signature of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) at point Q.106 on 11.11.97, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.267 of 313 whereas accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1) was not having any authority to represent Satyam CGHS. 17.1.2 He used to entertain the persons approaching him for becoming member of Satyam CGHS through property dealers and used to obtain consideration for the same although he was not having any authority to induct any person as member of Satyam CGHS which facts have been proved by PW.17 Mrs. Abha Bhardwaj. 17.1.3 He proclaimed himself as Office Secretary of Satyam CGHS without there being any such appointment by the society, its general body or managing committee. The minutes of M.C. Meetings fraudulently shown as held on 02.03.97 and onwards as per register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9), are fabricated as all the managing committee members who are shown as having attended such meetings of the society, namely accused Madan CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.268 of 313 Mohan Khanna (M.B.No.124), accused Nemi Chand Bansal (M.No.139), accused Anand Mohan (M.No.137), Neeraj Singhal (M.No.126), Manoj Kumar (M.No.130), Satish Kumar (M.No.135) and Sunil Kumar (M.No.122) were not the genuine members but they were fraudulently shown inducted as members of the society by previous management (which functioned upto the year 1990 only) whereas no resignation out of 120 original members or inductions of any new members in their place was approved as per the documents proved and the statement of witnesses examined, as discussed above. Even the fake managing committee of the society vide its resolution dated 14.08.97 Ex.PW.49/E (D.9) is shown as having only resolved "that Parshuram Gupta be requested to kindly help the society in getting the list approved from RCS office. Necessary papers required from time to time in this connection shall be provided to him by the Secretary". Thus he was never appointed CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.269 of 313 Office Secretary of the society even by the fake M.C. 17.1.4 It has been proved that he was working with Sh.K.C.Gupta in Delhi Urban Credit & Thrift Society , Ms. Neeraj Singhal (PW.49) has admitted that accused Parshuram Gupta and Anand Mohan are her cousin brothers and that her father Sh.K.C.Gupta had recorded the proceedings in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9). Without any authority he filed the request letter with RCS(Ex.PW.7/Z.1, page 97 in D.3) written and signed by his another colleague Sh.Mohan Singh Bisht (PW.7) at his instance and given to him which was filed with RCS office on 20.08.97 ; attended the office of RCS on 11.11.97 and signed on the note sheet at Q.106 Ex.PW.31/F (D.6 page 15/N) without any authority obviously in collusion with accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5); written false remarks of approval on resignation letters of old members and the membership applications of new members who all were CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.270 of 313 fraudulently shown resigned and inducted in 1989 (contained in file Ex.PW.9/C i.e. D.3 and Ex.PW.9/E i.e. D.

8) by ante dating the same; and communicated with DDA on behalf of the society by signing as its Office Secretary e.g. vide letters Ex.PW.30/D.15, D.17, D.20, D.24 and D.25 written on various dates (DDA file D.13). 17.1.5 In Ex.PW.17/K (D.49), which is the statement containing the details of the noting and signatures while accepting members' resignations as submitted by A.4, being Secretary of the society, the name of accused Parshuram Gupta (A.1), has been mentioned as the person who put the noting on the resignation letters of all those members whose resignation letters are shown as accepted by M.C. of the society on 17.7.89. Neither the exhibition of this document is objected nor its contents are denied. Thus, it is clear that it was accused Parshuram Gupta who had ante dated notings on all these CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.271 of 313 resignation letters and nothing has been shown by A.1 to A.4 that there was any resolution of the society actually accepting resignation of those 25 members in 1989. Once accused Nos. 1 to 4 admit that such a noting was made by them, the burden shifted on them to prove that there was any such resolution of M.C. Dated 17.7.89 vide which resignation letters of these 25 members were ever put up and accepted in M.C. In same Ex.PW.17/K (D.49) it is shown that I.C.Bansal was President and R.P.Gupta was Secretary of the society at the time of acceptance of resignations in M.C. Meeing dated 17.7.89 which impute knowledge on the part of A.1 to A.4 that only they can tell as to from where this information has been taken. But when notice was issued to them by IO, they, vide their common reply Ex.PW.17/G (D.46), clarified that they are not having any such registers. Whereas Sh.I.C.Bansal (PW.29) has been shown as President of the society in 1989 (Ex.PW.17/G) at the time when resignations of 25 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.272 of 313 members are shown as accepted and 25 members shown as inducted including A.2 to A.4 and their entire executive projected as elected in February, 1997 yet A.2 to A.4 did not put this fact to PW.29. In fact Sh.I.C.Bansal had clearly testified that no member had resigned or joined the society till he remained President of the society. 17.1.6 He had fraudulently got drawn a bearer cheque of Rs.30,100/ favouring Sh.Vijay Kumar and withdrew the proceeds of the same from society's account by signing as Vijay on the reverse side of the cheque acknowledging the receipt.

17.2 Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2), Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) and Anand Mohan (A.4) 17.2.1 Without they having been actually inducted as members of the society at any point of time, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.273 of 313 shown themselves as elected executive members of the managing committee of the society by forging the proceedings in the register of the proceedings dated 2.3.97. (Ex.PW.29/E) in register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) onwards and shown themselves as having conducted all the proceedings in the proceeding registers of the society as President, Secretary and Treasurer which continued till investigation of the case. All these proceedings/minutes have been signed by them showing themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society whereas they were never inducted as members of the society. Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9), PW.7/Z (D.10), Ex.PW.49/M (D.87) and Ex.PW.49/P (D.88) are those registers on which all the proceedings have been forged by A.2 to A.4 alongwith others who all are falsely shown inducted as members of the society and then elected as executive members of the society.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.274 of 313 17.2.2 They forged the entries in the membership register of the society Ex.PW.9/A (D.16) from membership number 121 and onwards wherein name of accused Madan Mohan Khanna is mentioned against serial no.124 with his signature against the entry, name of accused Nemi Chand Bansal is mentioned against serial no.139 and name of accused Anand Mohan is mentioned against serial no.137 with their signatures against their respective names. I have already discussed the reason for reaching to the conclusion that they had never been inducted as members of the society yet they shown themselves inducted as members in 1989 by forging the entries from serial no. 121 onwards.

17.2.3 A.2 to A.4 opened and operated the account of Satyam CGHS as President, Secretary and Treasurer as is shown by Ex.PW.45/A to G (D.53) without there being any authority with them, as their own induction CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.275 of 313 to the membership of the society and then showing elected as its office bearers had been forged by them, as discussed above.

17.2.4 Sh.P.N.Bajaj Auditor of the society has submitted his audit report Ex.PW.41/A for the financial years 198990 to 199293. The statements and documents provided to him which form the basis of the audit report and are Ex.PW.41/B to F, Ex.PW.52/K.21 & K. 23 have been forged without any basis and signed by A.2 as President and A.3 as Secretary of the society and also affixed an stamp of Satyam CGHS to lend credence to the same. Similarly they have signed and furnished forged documents to the Auditor Sh.M.P.Bajaj who submitted his audit report for the years 199394 to 199697 Ex.PW.41/G. The forged documents submitted to Sh.M.P.Bajaj by A.2 and A.3 are bearing their signatures with purported stamp of Satyam CGHS and they are Ex.PW.41/H (colly.). CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.276 of 313 17.2.5 They have signed all the letters/correspondence addressed to RCS office and DDA, falsely representing themselves as President , Secretary and Treasurer e.g. A.2 signed list of members sent to DDA by ARCS with letter Ex.PW.30/A falsely certifying it as having been authorized by M.C. of the society and also certifying that enrollments have been done in accordance with DCS Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973 and that the information given therein is as per the record of the society. He also signed letters Ex.PW.30/C (D.14) informing DDA about change of address and other documents as President of the society as discussed. A.3 falsely signed and sent the letters Ex.PW.30/D.3, D.5 to D. 8, D.10 and D.11 addressed to DDA and various letters and statements sent to RCS office as already discussed. A.4 signed Ex.PW.30/D.37 to D.40 addressed to DDA, perpetual lease deed Ex.PW.30/D.32, Ex.PW.30/D.31, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.277 of 313 Ex.PW.30/D.15, D.17, D.20, D.24, D.25 and D.26. He also fraudulently signed share certificates issued to members falsely shown inducted by A.2 to A.4. These are only illustrative of the documents signed by them in their falsely assumed capacity as office bearers of the society. 17.2.6 They have falsely represented themselves as office bearers of the society before DDA and RCS office as per deposition of official of DDA and RCS office such as PW.30 and PW.47, which fact has not been disputed by them. They have also not disputed having signed all the documents representing as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society from time to time. In fact none of the proceedings signed and submitted by them to RCS office, DDA, bank and IO of the case posing as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society, have been denied by raising any objection in exhibition of documents or by putting any contrary suggestion to the CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.278 of 313 witnesses who proved the same.

17.2.7 They forged their own affidavits as members of the society amongst 25 members who have been shown by them as inducted in the year 1989 whose names are mentioned in the membership register from serial nos. 121 to 145 by antedating the same to the year 1990 on the stamp papers on which the signatures, date and seal of the notary public and the stamp vendor have been proved as forged. After forging attestation of these affidavits they submitted the same to RCS office. A.K.Shankaran (A.5) 17.3.1 He deliberately did not mention in his note Ex.PW.31/K (D.6) about non production of copy of resolution by the society with regard to resignation and induction of 28 members who had been shown as CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.279 of 313 resigned/enrolled despite the fact that in his earlier note Ex.PW.31/J he had pointed out that the society had not submitted the copy of resolution giving approval to resignations and enrollments. As per the resignation letters of 25 members (Ex.PW.9/E, D.8) the same are shown as approved vide M.C. meeting held on 17.07.89 and the enrollments of new members in their place are shown approved vide M.C. Resolutions dated 21.08.89, 23.08.89, 24.08.89, 25.08.89, 26.08.89, 28.8.89, 29.08.89, 30.08.89, 31.08.89 and 01.09.89 {(Ex.PW.9/A membership register (D.16) and Ex.PW.9/CRCS file D.3)}. 17.3.2 As per the same exhibits, it is shown that the resignations of three other members Bal Mukand, Baisakh Chand and Santosh Singhla were approved by MC on 10.04.97 by overwriting the date on the remark portion of each of these resignation letters which was earlier 07.04.97 and induction of Mohan Singh Bisht, Amar CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.280 of 313 Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak was shown as approved by MC on 10.04.97. But accused A.K.Shankaran did not bring on record any of these resolutions. Rather in his note he had mentioned the date of approval of resignation of these three members as 07.04.97 instead of 10.04.97 which was recorded in register of proceedings of society Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9) as also on the face of these resignation letters.

17.3.3 Had he brought on record the copy of the minutes of M.C. Resolution dated 10.04.97 it would have been exposed to the higher authorities of RCS office that the resignation of three members and inductions of 3 new members in their place was shown as approved on the same date (10.4.97) by same resolution which was not possible as the applications for membership of prospective members are accepted by the society only when the resignation of previous members are first CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.281 of 313 approved by M.C. In his note Ex.PW.31/K he noted that "all the resignations have been accepted by the society in its M.C.meeting held on 17.7.89 except the last 3 which have been approved in its meeting held on 7.4.97". Whereas neither he placed on record a copy of resolution dated 17.7.89 nor accused Nos. 1 to 4 could produce the same before IO or the Court. The proceedings register Ex.PW.7/Y (D.9), in which the proceedings of M.C. of the society are shown recorded since 2.3.97 onwards, does not show any resolution of 7.4.97 and rather show the approval of 3 resignations and 3 enrollments in their place on 10.04.97. 17.3.4 He submitted a bogus inspection report dtd. 10.10.97 without carrying out any inspection or verification of the society. Had he actually carried out inspection of the society for verification of records he would have come to know that the office of the society CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.282 of 313 was not functional from C21, Shivaji Park, New Delhi which was sold out by its owner by the year 199192 and its Secretary R.P.Gupta, who was earlier a tenant in the said house, was not residing there since 198990 whose rented accommodation was the registered office address of the society(PW.32). The information regarding non residing of office bearers of the society and existence of the office of such society was available in the RCS file as the registered envelops addressed to President/Secretary of the society had come back undelivered to RCS office with such remarks of Post office thereon dt.10.6.91 and 9.7.91. But he deliberately concealed this information and made a false inspection/verification report dt. 10.10.97 (page 162 of Ex.PW.9/C RCS file D.3).

17.3.5 Not only this, despite suggestion by the policy branch that the detailed verification of the proposed membership list be done by the zone and direction to him CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.283 of 313 by AR (W) vide note Ex.PW.31/L, he without actual verification, again put up the note recommending approval of list of 120 members for sending the same to DDA for allotment of land (Ex.PW.31/M) confirming that the resignations and enrollments of 28 members, each have been examined in detail which have been verified and found in order. Clearly he had recorded this in his note without seeing the M.C. resolutions and ignoring the apparent discrepancies in the dates of approval by M.C. mentioned on the resignation letters of Baisakh Chand, Santosh Singla and Balmukand and membership applications of M.S.Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak and also regarding the fact that their applications were undated and unsigned besides the apparent discrepancies and deficiencies in affidavits of members inducted in 1989. All these letters are not bearing the name/designation of any of the office bearer of the society who endorsed thereon that the same have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.284 of 313 been approved in M.C. Meeting dated 10.04.97. The deficiency regarding erasing of the year of the affidavits of new members and not writing of their age and the date of swearing the affidavit has also been ignored by him while putting up the note with his recommendations. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that he had done so in order to pass undue benefit to A.1 to A.4 and to help them in their fraudulent design to take allotment of land from DDA in the name of the society in which new members were inducted by them in clandestine manner without any lawful authority with them.

17.3.6 In his inspection report dated 10.10.97 (page 162 of PW.9/C in D.3) he has certified that the last election and last AGBM was held on 9.2.97 and it is held as per rules. Whereas, no copies of any such AGBM as held on 9.2.97 was taken by him and A.1 to A.4 have also not been able to produce any register of the society in CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.285 of 313 which such minutes of any AGBM and /or elections are shown recorded. Thus, accused A.K.Shankaran certified the holding of AGBM and elections without there being any record to this effect. Not only this he has also certified that the society is maintaining ledger, cash book and other records properly and that the society is holding regular M.C. meetings which is altogether a bogus report as neither he had placed the copies of any such records with his inspection report nor A.1 to A.4 could produce the same to IO or before the Court.

17.3.7 If we carefully look at Ex.PW.26/C (D.3 page 238) which is letter of the society written by A.3 as its Secretary on 24.9.97 alongwith first note of A.5 which is dated 26.09.97, (Ex.PW.31/D) the angle of prior concert is apparent between A.5 and other accused persons. Vide his note dt. 26.09.97, A.5 had put up , "if agreed, we may ask the society to submit the fresh list and also to produce CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.286 of 313 the records for verification" but before that note A.3 had already written letter on 24.09.97 sending with it the list of 28 members who joined in 198990 and 199798 and the list of 25 resigned members and the application and affidavits of 28 members inducted in the society during 198990 and 199798.

17.3.8 There was no communication shown as addressed to the society in respect of suggestions made by A.5 in his note Ex.PW.31/D and moreover the letter of A.3 has even preceded the date of the note. Again, in the list of newly inducted members which is enclosed with letter Ex.PW.26/C, there are 28 names whereas in the list of resigned members there are 25 names only. Yet when the note Ex.PW.31/E was put up by A.5 on 5.11.97 he recommended 'the last election was held on 9.2.97. If agreed we may consider the list for approval and forwarding to DDA, so that they may be able to get land CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.287 of 313 allotted' , he did not point out the glaring discrepancy that there could not be a list of 28 members newly inducted in the society as against only 25 resigned members as per the list of resigned members.

17.3.9 The applications for membership of S/Sh.M.S.Bisht, Amar Nath Pandey and Prem Prakash Pathak, who are shown as inducted in 1997, were also submitted alongwith applications and affidavits of remaining 25 inducted members with the letter of A.3 to ARCS Ex.PW.26/C but they were neither signed nor dated and they also do not bear remarks on face of them as to vide which M.C. Meeting their induction has been approved like in 25 other resignations. Yet accused A.K.Shankaran just ignored these discrepancies showing that his recommendations for approval of list was clearly in violation of the facts, figures and documents available before him. This shows that his all out effort was to get CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.288 of 313 the list of the members of the society approved in order to help A.1 to A.4. It also establishes that he had maintained his personal contact with accused persons for flow of informations between them, he being party to the conspiracy with A.1 to A.4.

17.3.10 When on recommendation by A.5 for approval vide Ex.PW.31/E dtd. 5.11.97, AR (W) did not forward the note to DR/JR/RCS and rather raised some queries vide note Ex.PW.31/F, accused A.K.Shankaran, instead of writing a letter to the society got it noted from Parshuram Gupta on 11.11.97 and took his signature on the margin of the note at Q.106. It again confirms the private channel of communication between A.1 and A.5 and entertaining of A.1 on behalf of the society by A.5 without there being any authority with A.1 to represent the society.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.289 of 313 17.3.11 After the observations of AR (W) were noted by A.1, a letter dated 14.11.97 Ex.PW.26/D (D.3 page 189) under the signatures of A.3 Nemi Chand Bansal was received at RCS office. There is no diary number of RCS office on this letter which again shows its receipt by A.5 privately from accused persons. With this letter is enclosed a sheet of 'details of resigned members during 198990 & 199798' which is handwritten and signed by Madan Mohan (A.2) as its President/Secretary. This list shows the names of 28 persons resigned from membership of the society till then, with dates of resignation and dates of M.C. meetings in which the same were approved.

17.3.12 The resignation letters of only 25 members were submitted with this letter but the resignation letters of three members i.e. Baisakh Chand, Santosh Singla and Bal Mukand, whose resignation letters CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.290 of 313 dated 1.4.97 shown as accepted vide M.C. Meeting dated 07.04.97, were not submitted to RCS office with the letter Ex.PW.26/D. Yet A.5, vide his note dated 17.11.97 (Ex.PW.30/G) again recommended for considering the request of the society for sending the list to DDA for allotment of land. Even then AR (W) vide his note dated 19.11.97 (Ex.PW.30/H) directed 'records may be checked and proceed further '. Thereupon A.5 again put up the detailed note dated 16.01.98 recommending the approval, the discrepancies of which have already been discussed. 17.4.1 The ld.counsel for accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) has submitted that A.5 was not named in FIR. He has also submitted that Sh.Gopal Dixit , the then RCS, was named in FIR but he has been let of by CBI. It is not a legal requirement that a person whose name is not in the FIR cannot be chargesheeted or that the person whose name is mentioned in the FIR be CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.291 of 313 necessarily chargesheeted by the investigating agency. 17.4.2 He has then submitted that A.5 was only an UDC in the department and such his duty was only to put up the documents as received from the society. I have already discussed how A.5 has misled his superiors by putting a false inspection report and the notes recommending approval of list as desired by A.1 to A.4 with whom he was thick and thin into the criminal conspiracy hatched by them. Hence, there is no scope for him to plead innocence that he was only an UDC of the department hence not liable.

18.1.1 The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that accused A.K.Shankaran (A.5) while working as a public servant obtained for the benefit of A.1 to A.4, a pecuniary advantage in getting forwarded the list of members of Satyam CGHS to DDA from RCS office for CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.292 of 313 allotment of land by corrupt and illegal means i.e. by doing acts and omissions, as discussed above, by way of submitting false notes on the basis of false and forged documents without verification. From the facts and circumstances discussed above his dishonest intention is also clear.

18.1.2 The prosecution has established with cogent evidence that all accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy in 199798 to abuse the office of public servant in order to cheat the office of RCS and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them to approve the freeze list of members of Satyam Cooperative Group Housing Society on the basis of false and forged documents for getting the allotment of land from DDA at a predetermined rate which is much cheaper than the market rate. Besides, the prosecution has also successfully proved all the offences charged against CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.293 of 313 accused persons individually, as discussed above. 19.1 In view of my above findings, I hold all accused persons guilty of offences punishable u/s 120B r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Accused persons have also been found guilty of substantive offences punishable as under: Parshuram Gupta (A.1) :U/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2): U/s 420,468, 471 IPC Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3): U/s 420, 468 & 471 IPC Anand Mohan (A.4): U/s 420, 468 & 471 IPC A.K.Shankaran (A.5): U/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act I convict all the accused persons accordingly. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.294 of 313 A copy of judgment be given to accused persons and a copy of the same be sent to Registrar of CoOperative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority for their information and necessary action as per law.

Announced in the open                         (R.P.PANDEY )
Court on 27.11.2013                    Spl.Judge,   CBI,   Rohini  
                                             Courts : Delhi




CBI Case No.01/08
CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta                             Page No.295 of 313
      IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY, SPECIAL

JUDGE01 (PC ACT) CBI : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI CBI CASE NO.01/08 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) VS.

1.Parshuram Gupta (A.1) s/o Sh.Motiram r/o JD6A, Pitampura, Delhi88

2.Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2) s/o Sh.Prithvi Chand Khanna r/o 1637, Ground Floor, Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh, Delhi110034

3.Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3) s/o Sh.Hukam Chand Bansal r/o B112, Rajiv Nagar, Begam Pur, Delhi86

4.Anand Mohan (A.4) s/o Sh.Om Prakash Gupta, r/o D311, Anand Vihar, Delhi110092 CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.296 of 313

5.A.K.Shankaran(A.5) s/o Late Sh.Kesavan Namboodiri r/o 1596, Type III, Delhi Admn.Flat, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.

FIR NO.RC 1/E/2007/EOUVII/CBI/N.DELHI U/S 120B/420/468/471IPC & PC ACT, 1988 Date of filing charge sheet : 03.06.2008 Date of Judgment : 27.11.2013 Date of hearing on sentence : 03.12.2013 Date of order on sentence : 03.12.2013 CASE ID NO. 02404R0017642008 ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. Vide a judgment dated 27.11.13, accused persons have been convicted for offences punishable u/s CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.297 of 313 120B r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. They have also been found guilty and convicted for substantive offences punishable as under: Parshuram Gupta (A.1) :U/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC Madan Mohan Khanna (A.2): U/s 420,468, 471 IPC Nemi Chand Bansal (A.3): U/s 420, 468 & 471 IPC Anand Mohan (A.4): U/s 420, 468 & 471 IPC A.K.Shankaran (A.5): U/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act

2. The offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC is punishable with an imprisonment extendable upto 7 years and fine; the offence of forgery u/s 467 IPC is punishable CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.298 of 313 with imprisonment for life or the term extendable upto 10 years and fine, the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating u/s 468 IPC is punishable with an imprisonment extendable upto 7 years and fine; the offence of using as genuine a forged document u/s 471 IPC is punishable in the same manner as an offence u/s 467 or 468 IPC as is the case and the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant u/s 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of one year extendable upto 7 years and fine. The punishment for offence u/s 120B IPC for commission of offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act is extendable upto the maximum punishment provided for those individual offences, like abetment.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.299 of 313

3. Today, the matter was fixed for hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence. I have heard Sh.N P Srivastava, Ld.Public Prosecutor for CBI and Sh.R K Jain, ld.counsel for convict nos.1 to 4 and Sh.R P Shukla, ld.counsel for convict no.5.

4. It has been submitted by ld.Public Prosecutor that the convicts have cheated the RCS office in getting approved the list of 120 members of Satyam Cooperative Group Housing Society by forging various documents to show the resignation of old members and induction of new members to the extent that ultimately only one of them CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.300 of 313 remained as genuine member out of list of 120 member who were existing at the time of registration of the society. He has submitted that with active connivance of convicts Parshuram Gupta (A1) and A K Shankran (A5), the remaining convicts Madan Mohan Khanna (A2), Nemi Chand Bansal (A3) and Anand Mohan (A4) not only shown themselves fraudulently inducted as members of the society but also illegally took over the society posing themselves as elected President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society, respectively, along with certain other persons whose induction as members and then posing them elected as executive members in the society was also forged. He has submitted that convict Parshuram Gupta (A1) even withdrew Rs.30,100/ from society's CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.301 of 313 account by forging signature of one of the member who has been fraudulently shown as inducted and then resigned, besides minting money by inducting new members in the society by charging premium after illegally taking over its control by him along with convicts Madan Mohan Khanna, Nemi Chand Bansal and Anand Mohan. He has also submitted that whereas murder of a person affects only one family, the deeds of convicts in this case have affected 119 families as 119 members out of total 120 original members of the society have been fraudulently shown as resigned from the membership of the society by these convicts. He has, therefore, prayed for exemplary punishment to all the convicts. CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.302 of 313

5. Ld.counsel for A1 to A4 has submitted that convict/Parshuram Gupta (A1) has not obtained any wrongful gain from the society as he was not even the member of the society. He has submitted that he is aged about 55 years old, his mother is aged about 89 years old, he is having two daughters of marriageable age and sole earning member of his family. As regards convict/Madan Mohan Khanna (A2), he has submitted that he has even resigned from the membership of the society and thus not allotted any flat, aged about 58 years and a daughter of marriageable age. As regards convict/Nemi Chand Bansal (A3), he has submitted that he is aged about 58 years and having a daughter of marriageable age. As regards convict/Anand Mohan (A4), he has submitted that he has CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.303 of 313 old parents and a daughter of marriageable age. Hence, he has prayed for a lenient view while sentencing these convicts.

6. Sh.R P Shukla, ld.counsel for convict/A K Shankran (A5) has submitted that he has retired from Government service this year and his wife, who is suffering from kidney ailments and his mother are dependent upon him for their look after. Hence, he has pleaded for a lenient view while sentencing him in the matter.

7. They have also submitted that convicts have CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.304 of 313 undergone rigors of investigation and trial for about 6 years. They have, therefore, submitted that a lenient view may be taken and that convicts may be punished with minimum sentence prescribed under the law.

8. The convicts have cheated the RCS office by getting forwarded a freeze list of 120 members of Satyam CGHS to DDA which included 28 fraudulently inducted members including A2 to A4. They have cheated DDA by getting allotment of 7000 sq.meters of land in Dwarka, New Delhi at a predetermined (concessional) rate in the name of Satyam society with fraudulently inducted members, which was not entitled for allotment of land for CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.305 of 313 the reason that its freeze list was not approved.

9. The convicts have also cheated the genuine members of the society who were falsely shown as resigned/expelled by the convicts without any authority. They cheated many innocent persons who, in search of shelter in Delhi acquired membership in the society believing that accused persons are genuine office bearers of the society and paid some premium amount also to convicts over and above the actual cost of the flats. Convict/A K Shankran has jeopardized the public interest and cheated with faith of the public service by misleading his institution for his petty gains. The convicts, therefore, CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.306 of 313 do not deserve undue leniency.

10. After considering the rival contentions and keeping in mind the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as discussed above, I sentence the convicts as under: Parshuram Gupta (A1) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 420 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months; RI for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ for offence committed by CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.307 of 313 him u/s 467 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months. Madan Mohan Khanna (A2) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 420 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.308 of 313 undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

Nemi Chand Bansal (A3) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 420 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.309 of 313 fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

Anand Mohan (A4) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 420 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 468 IPC and CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.310 of 313 in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months; RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 3,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 471 r/w 468 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

A K Shankran (A5) is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ for offence committed by him u/s 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.311 of 313

11. All the convicts are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/each for offence of criminal conspiracy u/s120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act, 1988 and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months each.

12. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

13. The convicts shall be entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC.

14. The convicts are taken into custody and their bail bonds with sureties stand discharged.

CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.312 of 313

15. A copy of this order be supplied to the convicts free of cost.

16. File be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open court (R.P.PANDEY) on 3rd December, 2013. SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)0I ROHINI COURTS:DELHI CBI Case No.01/08 CBI Vs. Parshu Ram Gupta Page No.313 of 313

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs . on 3 December, 2013