Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1 Dr. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A-1), on 10 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)
(CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CC No. 15/2011
Unique ID No. 02406R1105062008
RC-04(A)/CBI/ACU-IX, New Delhi
U/s 120-B r/w Section 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13(i)(d) of PC Act.
CBI Vs. 1 Dr. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi (A-1),
Son of late Dr. Kripal Singh Bakshi,
Resident of A-51, South Extension Part-I,
New Delhi-49.
2 Dr. Ramjee Singh (A-2),
Son of late Sh. Ram Sanahi Singh,
Resident of Ashok Nagar, Road No. 4,
Kankar Bagh, Patna.
3 Dr. Arun Bhasme (A-3),
Son of Sh. Nilkanth Rao,
Resident of 84, Chankayapuri,
Beed, Maharashtra.
4 Dr. M.R. Srivatsan (A-4),
Son of Dr. M.R. Radhakrishnan,
Resident of 24, 20th R Cross,
Bhubneswari Nagar, Hebbal Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-24.
5 Dr. Sibendranath Sinha (A-5),
(proceeding abated against him),
Son of Late Sh. J.N. Sinha,
Resident of 12, Circus Range,
Kolkatta.
6 Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja (A-6),
Son of Dr. Mulk Raj Juneja,
Resident of F-21, 3rd Floor, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi-110092.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 1 of 60
7 Dr. B. Sohan Singh (A-7),
Son of Sh. B.V. Gopal Rao,
Resident of 758/1, Journalist Colony,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.
Date of Institution : 18.02.2008
Date of framing of charge : 17.11.2009
Date on which case was received on
Transfer by this Court : 26.09.2011
Date of conclusion of arguments : 10.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 10.05.2016
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Atul Sharma, Learned Special PP for CBI.
Sh. V.K. Ohri, Learned Counsel for Accused Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi.
Sh. Shailendra Babbar, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr.
Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendranath Sinha & Sh. Kewal
Krishan Juneja.
Sh. V. Sudeer, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. B. Sohan Singh.
JUDGMENT
1 The case was registered on the basis of complaint received against Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi, President, Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH), New Delhi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Vice-President, Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH),New Delhi and Dr. Lalit Verma, Secretary, CCH, u/s 120-B r/w 13 (1)
(d) & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. It was alleged that the said accused persons and other entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to the same they abused their official position as public servants and irregularly granted recognition to Homeopathic Medical Colleges as well as granted increase in seats, both in graduation and post graduation levels in CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 2 of 60 different Homeopathic Colleges in violation of existing norms and guidelines of the Government of India. It is alleged that during the year 2000-2005, at New Delhi, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, M.P. and other places, accused Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh agreed do or cause to be done an illegal act by way of abuse of their official position as public servants and irregularly granted recognition to Homeopathic Medical Colleges as well as granted increase in seats in graduation levels in different homeopathic colleges in violation of the existing norms and guidelines. It was also alleged that the Executive committee granted recognition to various colleges despite the colleges were not fulfilling minimum and mandatory requirements for BHMS course as per Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983. Accused Dr. Bakshi asked Sh. S.P. Anand, Secretary of Hosiharpur Medical College to purchase medicine of Rs. 5 lacs from his own company M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for granting recognition to the college but he refused to purchase the medicine. Sh. Bakshi did not grant recognition to his hospital and college. Soland Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital had been supplied medicines worth Rs. 971645/- from the company of Sh. Bakshi and first payment of Rs. 381570/- was made to his company on 16.08.2005. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Ayush inquired and found irregularities and deficiencies in sanctioning and enhancing the seats in Homeopathic Colleges and Hospitals. The medicine of Rs. 691904.68/- were purchased by Shanker Homeopathy Hall of Ramjee Singh and his brother worth Rs. 1459991/- and medical college Abohar purchased medicines of Rs. 87251/- and Rs. 199450/- from the company of Shri Bakshi and permanent recognition was granted to the said colleges. The same act was done in pursuance of the said agreement. That during the year 2002-2005 and places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 3 of 60 Bihar and other places, accused, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, being a public servant as President of Central Council of Homeopathic by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant irregularly granted recognition to Homeopathic Colleges and Hospitals and granted seats in different colleges of graduate level despite the fact that colleges and hospitals were not fulfilling minimum and mandatory requirements for BHMS Courses by violating all the existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, and the medicine for Rs. 971745/-, Rs. 6,91,904,68/-, Rs, 1459991/-, Rs. 87251/- and Rs. 1999450/- were purchased from the company of Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi at his instance and Rs. 381570/- were only paid to the company in place of Rs. 971645/- which was not in public interest. During the year 2002- 2005, at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places, accused, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, being a public servant as President of Central Council of Homeopathic College and Hospital, asked S.P. Anand, Secretary of Medical College and Hospital, Hosiyarpur to purchase medicines for Rs. 5 lacs from his company i.e. M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for granting recognitions of his college and hospital in respect of said official act and to increase seats in different colleges. The recognition was granted to other colleges who were not filling minimum and mandatory requirements as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 while the Hosiyarpur Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital was refused to grant recognition because Sh. Anand refused to purchase medicine of above amount.
2 It is alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places, accused Ramjee Singh, being a public servant and Vice-President of Central Council CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 4 of 60 of Homeopathy, abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital and increased seats in graduation level of different colleges despite not filling minimum and mandatory requirements for BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all the existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in the public interest.
3 It is further alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and at places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh Punjab, Rajasthan, bihar and other places accused, Dr. Arun Bhasme, being a public servant and Executive Member of central Council of Homeopathy abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital as well as by increasing seats in graduation level of different colleges despite not filling minimum and mandatory requirements of BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in public interest.
4 It is further alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and at places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places accused, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, being a public servant and Executive Member of Central Council of Homeopathy abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital and by increasing seats in graduation level of different colleges for BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 5 of 60 violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in public interest.
5 It is alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and at places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places accused, Dr. Sibendranath Sinha, being a public servant and Executive Member of Central Council of Homeopathy abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital by increasing seats in graduation level of different colleges for BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in public interest.
6 It is further alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and at places at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places accused, Kewal Krishan Juneja, being a public servant and Executive Member of Central Council of Homeopathy abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital by increasing seats in graduation level of different colleges for BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in public interest.
7 It is further alleged that during the year 2002-2005 and at places CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 6 of 60 at New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar and other places accused, Dr. B. Sohan Singh, being a public servant and Executive Member of Central Council of Homeopathy abused his official position as public servant by irregularly granting recognition to Homeopathy College and Hospital by increasing seats in graduation level of different colleges for BHMS courses as per the Homeopathic (minimum standard of education) regulation 1983 by violating all existing norms and guidelines of Government of India and violating section 18, section 9 (2) of HCC Act, 1973 and section 48 of General Regulation of Central Council of Homeopathic Act, which was not in public interest.
8 Vide order, dated 17.11.2009, charge was framed against all the accused persons u/s 120-B IPC read with section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi was also charged u/s 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s 13 (2) of said Act. Accused, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi was also charged u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendranath Sinha, Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh were also separately charged u/s 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined PW1 Sh. Suraj Puri, PW2 Dr. Mrithunjoy Ghosh, PW3 Sh. H.D. Rikhadi, PW4 Mrs. Anil Rani Malik, PW5 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, PW6 Sh. Moni Sunder Banerjee, PW7 Sh. Sudhir Kumar, PW8 Sh. Ram Shankar Singh, PW9 Sh. Gulab Chand Mehta, PW10 Sh. Himanshu Tiwari, PW11 Sh. Suresh Prasad, PW12 Ms. Priti Bali, PW13 Sh. Chandrakant Jashbhai Tulsi Patel, PW14 Sh.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 7 of 60Pati Ram Shah, PW15 Dr. Birendra Sharma, PW16 Sh. Khem Chand, PW17 Sh. Girender Pal, PW18 Dr. Anish Dutta, PW19 Sh. Shailesh V. Doshi, PW20 Dr. Jitender Kumar, PW21 Sh. Shiv Basant, PW22 Sh. Suiyam Prakash Anand, PW23 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Girdhar, PW24 Sh. Paramjeet Singh Ranu, PW25 Dr. Amarjeet Singh, PW26 Sh. Fateh Singh, PW27 Sh. Mohd. Ali, PW28 Sh. Azad Kumar Samaiya, PW29 Sh. Rahul Kangat, PW30 Dr. Atul Kumar Singh, PW31 Dr. S.R. Islam, PW32 Dr. Munir Ahmed, PW33 Dr. B. Jagannadham, PW34 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, PW35 Dr. Tapan Kumar Mondal, PW36 Dr. Prakash Sharma, PW37 Sh. Kanwar Sain, PW38 Dr. Rajesh Sharma, PW39 Dr. S.C. Chambyal, PW40 Dr. Narendra Gupta, PW41 Dr. Jayesh K. Patel, PW42 Sh. Dalip Malaiya, PW43 Dr. Veerabramhachary, PW44 Ms. Neelmani Karn, PW45 Sh. Rakesh Bahl, PW46 Sh. Shoukath Ali P.K., PW47 Sh. Verghese Samuel, PW48 Sh. B.N. Rohal, PW49 Dr. Vinod Singh, PW50 Sh. Avdesh Kumar Saddi, PW51 Dr. Anand Bhushan Chowdhary, PW52 Sh. Manohar Chand, PW53 Sh. Rajender Sethi, PW54 Sh. B. Verma, PW55 Sh. Anup Kumar Rajoria, PW56 Sh. Parikh Vipul, Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, PW58 Dr. Jatin Shah, PW59 Sh. Ajay Kumar Pandey, PW60 Sh. R.K. Sangwan, PW61 Sh. D.S. Chauhan, PW62 Dr. Eshwara Das, PW63 Ms. Yoshita Bakshi, PW64 Sh. Subir Chakraborty, PW65 Dr. Vimal Kumar Dhawan, PW66 Dr. Surender Prasad Singh, PW67 Sh. Ram Nath Azad and PW68 Satender Gosain.
10 In the present matter, PW1, Suraj Puri, had deposed that he joined M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1991 as Sales Coordinator. He was promoted as DGM (Sales) in the year 2006. M/s Bakson had a largest range of the medicines in the country and the firm had supplied medicines to Homeopathic Centre Solan. He had further deposed that an OPD of homeopathic medical college and hospital is there at Solan and said college and hospital is being run by Mrs. Yoshita Bakshi, Managing Trustee. In his cross examination, PW1, had deposed that Bakson is No.1 CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 8 of 60 Indian manufacture of Homeopathic medicines.
11 PW2, Dr. Mrintyunjoy Ghosh, had deposed that he joined Bakson Homeopathy Medical College, 36 B, Knowledge Park, Phase-1, Greater Noida, as Principal on 09.08.2002. This college was established and formed in 2002 at D-6, Sector-10, Noida and in the month of May, 2003 it was shifted to above said address. He had deposed that D55 is search list Ex. PW2/A which bears his signatures at point A. He had further deposed that D39 contains inspection report, of Bakson Homeopathy Medical College which is Ex. PW2/A1. He was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI and PW2 was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. During cross examination by Ld. PP, PW2, Dr. Mrityunjoy Ghosh, had deposed that the college had got its own building since May 2003. He was inquired about Bakson Homeopathic Medical College. He was not aware about any inspection report. He did not have any knowledge about the contents of any such report. During cross- examination, PW2 has deposed that Homeopathic medicines are purchased from M/s Baksons Drugs Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd on payment. He does not know whether any unsigned inspection report, dated 31.5.02, was seized from their college in September 2005.
12 PW3, Sh. H.D. Rikhadi, had deposed that, in the year 2006, he was working as Assistant Secretary, Administration & Registration in the department of Central Council of Homeopathy, Janakpuri, New Delhi. He had deposed that the President, Vice President and members of the Executive Committee are not paid any salary and allowance regarding their participation in meeting and other activities of council. He had further deposed that D47 is letter, dated 1.3.2006, Ex. PW3/A. He had identified his signatures on the letter at point A. He deposed that he gathered the information from the office record regarding college mentioned in the said letter at point 1, 2 & 3. In his CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 9 of 60 cross examination, PW3 H.D. Rikhadi, had deposed that the President and Vice President are bound by the decision taken by the Executive Commitee. Central Council is a higher body than the Executive Committee. There are three categories of Central Council Members. Category A i.e. the elected members directly from the homeopathy Practitioners. Under Category B, representatives of various universities are notified as members by the Central Government. Third category consists of 40% of the members of Category A & B. They are nominated by the Government. All the decisions taken by the Executive Committee is sent to the Central Council and thereafter it is sent to the Government of India. There is a full fledged section dealing with the Report and inspections. This witness further deposed that he had gathered the information concerning three homeopathic medical colleges which is mentioned in Ex. PW3/A from the above sections. The Inspection Cell functions under Secretary. The records maintained by Inspection Cell is not computerised. However, it works manually including the typing work. As the Inspection Cell is not computerized, therefore the data is maintained manually.
13 PW4, Mrs. Anil Rani Malik, had deposed that she was working as Stenographer in Central Council of Homeopathy, Janakpuri. She had further deposed that D53 is a letter, dated 18.07.2007. She had identified the signature of Sh. H.D. Rikhari, Asstt. Secretary (Administration & Registration) at point A on the said letter. She had further deposed that vide said letter Ex. PW4/A, she had handed over to CBI the list of members of Executive Committee as well as of Central Council of Homeopathy for the years 2001- 2002, 2002-2003 & 2003-2004 which are Ex. PW4/A1, PW4/A2 and PW4/A3 respectively. In her cross examination, she had deposed that she handed over the list as per the record and she had no personal knowledge.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 10 of 6014 PW5, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, had deposed that he had been working in University Grants Commission, New Delhi since 1993. He had identified the signatures of Mrs. Urmil Gulati at point A on letter Ex. PW5/A. He had exhibited the circular dt. 23.08.2005 of UGC Ex. PW5/A1. In his cross examination, PW5 had deposed that Ex. PW5/A1 is not having signatures of any authority including of Mr. Jaiswal.
15 PW6, M.S. Banerjee, has deposed that he was posted in the Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as Section Officer in 2006 and continuing till date. Ayurvedic Yoga Unani Siddha & Homeopathy is a department known as AYUSH. He deposed that Central Counsel of Homeopathy is a statutory body and is not under the Administrative control of AYUSH. The department of AYUSH only gives grants and aid to CCH. Grant is given on the basis of the request made by CCH which is processed by department. He had handed over compilation Ex. PW6/A to CBI.
16 PW7, Sudhir Kumar, had deposed that he was working as Gramin Dak Sewak in the department of Post at village Khabra, Mujjafarpur, Bihar. Homeopathic Medical College was situated at village Khabra. The building was Pucca built and looking very beautiful. It was shifted to Mohalla Bela, City Mujjafarpur.
17 PW8, Sh. Ram Shankar Singh, had deposed that, in the year 2007, he was President of Vikas Sewa Sansthan. He had further deposed that Vikas Sewa Sansthan was having its own land in Khabra, District Mujjafarpur and the same land was rented to Mujjafarpur Homeopathy Medical College & Hospital for a period of 10 years and the term was extended upto 2008. An agreement was also entered into between Vikas CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 11 of 60 Sewa Sansthan and Mujjafarpur Homeopathy Medical College & Hospital. Sh. Radhey Shyam was the President at that time.
18 PW9, Gulab Chand Mehta, had deposed that he is Principal of Maharishi Mehi Homeopathic Medical College and the college was inspected in 2002 by inspectors appointed by CCH. He had further deposed that their college was having the requisite infrastructure for first year student at the time of inspection. He was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI and this witness was cross examined by ld. PP for CBI. During cross examination by Ld. PP, this witness denied the suggestion that there was inadequate space for library for 50 students. He also denied the suggestion that there was no facility for hostel at all.
19 PW16, Khem Chand, had deposed that he had joined CCH in 1987 as LDC and was promoted as UDC somewhere in 1997-2000. He had deposed that Sh. S.P.S. Bakshi was the President of CCH and letter Ex. PW16/A bears his signatures. This witness had also deposed that fax letter Ex. PW16/B is signed by Secretary Dr. Lalit Verma and President Sh. S.P.S. Bakshi. The letter Ex. PW16/B was placed before Executive Committee and Committee, accordingly, took decision which is contained in D10. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not know as to how many pages were there when the file was seized.
20 PW17, Girender Pal, had deposed that he passed his GHMS from National Homeopathic Medical College in 1962. He became Principal in 1965 of Homeopathic College Rajasthan. He had become member of Central Council of Homeopathic in 1974 and remained member till 2003. He was also nominated member of Executive Committee. Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi was President at that time. Dr. Verma was secretary and Dr. Ramjee Singh was CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 12 of 60 Vice President. He had further deposed that President and Vice President do not get salaries from CCH. This witness had been shown reports contained in D3 (a) of Burdwan Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital of 2001-02, D3 (b) of Metropolitan Homeopathic College dt. 14.6.2002, D3 (c) of Baroda Homeopathic Medical College dt. 14.6.2002, D3 (d) of Sagar Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 8.6.2002, D3 (e) of Anushree Homeopathic Medical College Jabalpur dt. 17.6.2002, D3 (f 1) of Mujaffarpur Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 8.5.02, D3 (f II) of Mujaffarpur Homeopathic medical College and Hospital dt. 19.10.02, D3 (g) of Cantt Homeopathic Medical College, Khilawat hajipur dt. 18.10.02, D3 (h) of Maharishi Mahi Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 19.10.02, D3
(i) of Rameshwar dass Kedia Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Motihar dt. 6.1.03, D3 (j) of G.D. Memorial Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Patna dt. 13.7.02, D3 (k) of Patna Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 17.10.02, D3 (l) of Sinha Homeopathic Medical college and Hospital dt. 31.8.02, D3 (m) of Malyan Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Tarantaran Amritsar dt. 31.8.02, D3 (n i) of Bacson Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 31.5.02, D3 (n ii) of Bacson Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital dt. 8.1.03, D3 (o) of Mangilal Nirban Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Bikaner dt. 18.6.02, D3 (p) of Solan Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Chamba Ghat Solan dt. 17.6.02, D3 (q) of Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Opposite Thana Hosiyar Pur dt. 31.10.02. Such 19 reports have, collectively, been exhibited as Ex. PW17/A as a member executive of CCH. This witness had deposed that recognition was given to respective colleges as they fulfilled the requisite norms. This witness has deposed that minutes of meeting of 93 rd meeting as contained in D6 are correct and are Ex. PW17/B. D8 is Minutes of 95th meeting which is Ex. PW17/D. This witness has further stated that document D51 contains one certified copy having certification of Dr. SP Singh CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 13 of 60 and pages no. 198 to 204 are copy of Mark PW17/F. During cross examination, this witness had stated that decision of the Executive Committee is based on majority and then decisions are put before the General House for approval and after approval by General House, the decision is sent to the Central Government.
21 PW18, Dr. Ashish Dutta, had deposed that he was appointed as Assistant Secretary (Technical) of Central Council of Homeopathy on 18.08.1993 and was commissioned by the President of CCH for inspecting Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Hosiarpur. This witness had further deposed that D-3 (Q) Ex. PW17/A (collectively) is the inspection report of said college of Hosiarpur which runs into nine pages.
22 PW18, Dr. Ashish Dutta, was even cross examined by the Ld.PP for CBI and during his cross examination by Ld. PP, he had denied that when he was called in CBI office, he was shown various inspection reports and he had seen such reports and he had pointed out the deficiency/insufficiency on the basis of Homeopathy (minimum standards of education). This witness further stated in the cross-examination by PP that he was never shown the reports and was never asked to give any comment about the aforesaid inspection reports.
23 PW19, Sailesh V. Doshi, had deposed that he is doing business of iron-steel trading since 1990 under the name and style of M/s Anil Trading Corporation at Doshi Chambers Building bearing No. 314-315, Jabal Pur, Madhya Pradesh. This witness had further deposed that they had rented out mezzanine and first floor to Anu Shree Homeopathic Medical College, Jabal Pur. This witness had further deposed that D43 contains tenancy agreement through which aforesaid portion of Doshi Chamber Building was rented out to CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 14 of 60 Anu Shree Homeopathic Medical College and tenancy agreement, dated 1606.2003 is Ex. PW19/A. In the cross examination, PW19, had deposed that rent agreement Ex. PW19/A does not bear his signature and he is not the author of the same.
24 PW20, Dr. Jitender Kumar, had deposed that he had joined as Lecturer in 1990 in Kent Homeopathic Medical College, Hazi Pur and was promoted as Professor and, thereafter, alleviated to the post of Principal. He had deposed that the college was recognized and was having affiliation from BRA Bihar University, Mujaffar Pur. This witness had further deposed that CBI had contacted him. PW20 had deposed that CBI had seized one register from the medicine store of their college and asked him whether the medicine had been purchased from M/s Bakson to which he had told the CBI that no medicine was ever purchased by their college from M/s Bakson. CBI had seen the register also and there was no entry or voucher showing that any medicine was ever purchased by their college from M/s Bakson.
25 PW20 was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI and during cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, this witness had deposed that he had never given statement of three pages. This witness was shown statement Ex. PW20/A which was read over and this witness had stated that this statement was given by him to CBI.
26 PW21, Shiv Basant, had deposed that he joined Department of Ayush, Ministry of Health, Government of India in May end or beginning of June, 2005. He had further deposed that D83 is the letter, dated 11.7.2005 Ex. PW21/A sent to CBI to investigate relating to functioning of CCH.
27 During cross examination, PW21, had deposed that in the letter CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 15 of 60 Ex. PW21/A, he had stated that there have been irregularities by the council in the matter of recognition of new colleges, increasing of seats and in course study. He had further deposed that in letter, Ex. PW21/A, he had not given any specific name of any college with regard to irregularity. He had also deposed that letter Ex. PW21/A did not talk about their department taking any action or not taking any action.
28 PW22, Suiyam Prakash Anand, had deposed that he joined his father and his father was running an institute i.e. Anand Model Education Society (Regd.) at Amritsar. This witness had further deposed that, in September, 1999, his father took over one society known as Education Research and Foundation Society and it was being run at Hoshiyarpur. One Homeopathic Medical College was being run under its banner at Hoshiyarpur. He had further deposed that there were 12 students in second year and none in first year at the time of taking over. Baba Farid University inspected their college and permitted them to continue to run the college with rider that they should seek approval from CCH. This witness has further deposed that they wanted to shift college from Hoshiyarpur to Amritsar. They accordingly purchased land in Amritsar. He had further deposed that Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi was president of CCH at that time and was not in the office at that time. They met Dr. Lalit Verma, Secretary of CCH who intimated Dr. Bakshi telephonically and then Dr. Verma told them to meet Dr. Bakshi at 4.00PM that day i.e. 16.09.2002, at his residence situated at South Extension, New Delhi. Inspection date was fixed as 31.10.2002. PW22 further deposed that he did not know as to why only one doctor came and why even that doctor was not of the rank of Principal who inspected the college and gave report and sent them a copy of report. That report was in their favour. This witness had further deposed that in February, 2003, CCH informed them in writing that all the powers had been taken away from CCH and they were asked to CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 16 of 60 represent before Central Government of India. However, in February, 2003 or during that period they had given recognition to various other colleges.
29 During cross examination, PW22, Suiam Prakash Anand had deposed that, at that point of time, the total sanctioned strength of students were 30 and they did not get the complete strength and they had only 5 students. He could not tell about the strength of faculty in the year 1999- 2000. This witness had further deposed, in his cross examination, that they applied in 2002 for grant of recognition to CCH for session 2002-03. This witness further deposed that the funds for running the college from the year 1999 to 2002 were borrowed by the society from its sister concerns as there were crunch of funds with the college due to shortage of students. They did not submit the balance sheets and statement of account of the college showing financial capacity of the college to run the same to CCH. During cross examination, PW22, had also deposed that the oral communication as stated by him in examination in chief was communicated to him by Dr. Lalit Verma. This witness had further deposed in his cross-examination that he did not mention the above said fact of demand of purchasing medicines in his representation to the CCH and Health Minister of Government of India and other higher officials of Government of India in December, 2002. He had further deposed in his cross-examination that all his contentions raised against CCH and its president were rejected. In his cross-examination, PW22, had further deposed that it was correct that, in the representations, they did not mention that Dr. Bakshi demanded to purchase medicines worth Rs. 5 lacs from his company for grant of recognition to his college and further they did not mention the aforesaid fact in his writ petition. He volunteered that they started complaining about Dr. Bakshi's demand after dismissal of writ petition. He denied the suggestion that their college was not financially viable and there was no proper infrastructure as required under CCH and it was not CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 17 of 60 recognized as per the inspection reports. PW22 admitted that he never reported the matter to the police regarding alleged demand of Dr. Bakshi. He further stated that his sister is a homeopathic doctor and his father is not a homeopathic doctor. During cross-examination, this witness has also deposed that they did not complaint of the demand of Sh. Bakshi made on 16.09.2002 to any authority. He had stated that the High Court had held that it is not possible to believe that all the members of the executive committee would have been influenced by Dr. Bakshi in taking a decision adverse to the petitioner college.
30 PW23, Dr. Rajinder Kumar Girdhar, had deposed that he joined HMC in 1990 and Sardar Tara Singh was President at that time of aforesaid college. Dr. S.C. Mittal was Principal at that time. The said college was recognized in the year 1976 and was promoted to BHMS in 1996. Last inspection was carried by Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) in April 2010 and inspections had been carried out from time to time as required. The said college applied for promotion to MD Homeo Course and they were asked to obtain certain documents from State Government and University concerned. Such document was NOC and affiliation certificate. This witness was declared hostile and nothing material has come against the accused persons during the cross-examination conducted by CBI.
31 In the present matter, PW24, Sh. Paramjeet Singh Ranu, is a material witness. He had made complaint regarding the accused persons. He has deposed that he is practicing as a homeopathic doctor for the last 22 years. He got the diploma in 1989 from LMH Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab as there was no degree in homeopathy in the country. He had deposed that he was conversant with the regulations provided under Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (HCC Act). He was elected in 1998 CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 18 of 60 as Member of Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) from State of Punjab. He was again elected as Member in 2005. He had deposed that executive committee is to be elected amongst the members of CCH. He had identified Dr. SPS Bakshi and deposed that Dr. SPS Bakshi remained President of CCH for 17 years and was so even before 1998 and in 1998 and even after 1998. He deposed that Dr. Ramjee Singh was the Vice President of CCH during tenure of Dr. Bakshi. Dr. Arun Bhasme was the Member of Executive Committee. Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. KK Juneja, Dr. Sohan Singh and Dr. Sibender Nath Sinha were the Members of CCH as well as the Members of Executive Committee. They objected the nomination of Dr. Ramjee Singh as member of the commission because one Dr. S.P. Singh, Advisor Homeopathy, Government of India, who was also the member of CCH was nominated as the Member Secretary of the commission. PW24 had deposed that the institutions which were fulfilling the norms of CCH were unnecessarily harassed and they had to approach the courts for justice. He had deposed that there were many allegations from colleges regarding purchase of medicines of Bakson company for the purposes of grant of recognitions. He had deposed that a list of institutions in the CCH was also handed over to him, as he was the member of CCH. The names of the colleges and the amounts related to purchase of medicines from Bakson Company was also mentioned in those lists. He had deposed that as per provisions of the Act, one of the member from the CCH was to be nominated as member of the commission. Dr. Ramjee Singh was proposed to be nominated as member of the commission. But the government nominated Dr. Ramjee Singh as member of the commission and one Dr. SP Singh, Advisor Homeopathy, Government of India, who was also the member of CCH, was nominated as the Member Secretary of the commission. A case was registered by CBI against the President, Vice President, Secretary and unknowns where he was called.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 19 of 6032 During cross-examination, this witness had stated that he was member of Central Council of Homeopathy. This witness had further deposed that during the time when he was Member of CCH and till date, the total strength of Members of CCH was around 40-50. He further stated that it was correct that he had also contested the election of CCH for becoming President and Vice President. This witness further deposed that he had lost the election. He further stated that it was correct that when he contested the election for President seat, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi was also contesting for the same post.
33 PW25, Dr. Amarjeet Singh, had deposed that during 2006, he used to run Homeopathic Pharmacy and was authorized dealer of various drug manufactures including M/s Bakson Drugs & Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. This witness had further deposed that he had supplied homeopathic medicines to Abhor medical college as per the demand raised by them. He had not supplied any medicine to any college in Ropar as there was no medical college in Ropar. This witness further deposed that every homeopathic institutions, including colleges in Punjab, were using drugs manufactured by M/s Bakson. This witness further stated that the supply was as per the demand raised by colleges, practitioners and institutions.
34 It is not out of place to mention that, there is nothing in the evidence of PW25 to show that there was any pressure on any of the homeopathic colleges or pharmacy to purchase any medicine from M/s Bakson. No material has come on the file to show that any pressure was exerted by M/s Bakson to purchase the medicine of Bakson. Further, nothing has come on record file to show that accused SPS Bakshi had attained any benefit, advantage or favour in his official capacity.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 20 of 6035 PW26, Fateh Singh, had deposed that he was in Inspection Cell of CCH in November, 2004 and inspection reports were received in their Branch of inspection Cell in sealed cover addressed to either President or Secretary of CCH which are placed in the meeting of Executive Committee of CCH through Inspector/Secretary.
36 PW27, Mohd. Ali, had deposed that he was Secretary of MNS Medical & Education Society registered at Jaipur. The society used to run one Homeopathic Medical College in Bikaner and society is also having one Nursing College at Bikaner. PW27 had further deposed that their college did not buy any homeopathic medicine direct from M/s Baksons. They had procured the medicines through Rajasthan Homeo Store at Jaipur. Their college was also inspected by Central Council of Homeopathy in the year 2002. This witness had further deposed that there was no deficiency noticed during such inspection. This witness was declared hostile by the ld. PP for CBI and cross examined by CBI.
37 PW28, Azad Kumar Samaiya, had deposed that he was Secretary of one trust known as Sri Digambar Jain Chatayala Trust and the said trust was having one building known as Taran Bhawan at Namak Mandi, Katra, Sagar. This witness had further deposed that there were 27 rooms at second floor which had been rented out by their trust to Sagar Homeopathic College. He had further deposed that he had visited the said college in order to see whether any unjustifiable activity was being carried out by the lessee. He did not come across any irregularity or illegality.
38 This witness was declared hostile by the learned PP for CBI and was cross-examined by Ld. PP. However, nothing material had come during CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 21 of 60 the cross examination conducted by ld. PP for CBI.
39 PW29, Rahul Kangat, had deposed that he was Director in Gujrat Institute of Hotel Management from 2001 to 2011 and one Mr. Jagat Parkash Singh was the trustee as well as Chairman of one trust known as VIM Trust. This witness had further deposed that the said trust had a building i.e. Vaid House in Vadodara near Taj Hotel. He had further deposed that when he joined the trust in 2001, one Baroda Homeopathic Medical College was being run earlier from first or second floor of the building i.e. Vaid House and the said college had been shifted to one building perhaps Shailja Complex situated opposite to Vaid House.
40 PW30, Dr. Atul Kumar Singh, deposed that, in 2002, he joined M.N. Homeopathic College, Bikaner, Rajasthan as Lecturer and became acting Principal in 2008. This witness had further deposed that their institute was to award BHMS (Degree Course). NOC was first awarded by State Government and then Central Council for Homeopathic (CCH) accords recognition. Such recognition was granted after the inspection. This witness has further deposed that he was not aware about the basic minimum infrastructural requirement in 2002 for running any institution.
41 This witness was declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Sr. PP for CBI. During cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, PW30, had deposed that he was never shown any inspection report by CBI. During cross-examination by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, he had been shown inspection report Ex. PW17/A, however, this witness had stated that no such report was shown to him by CBI. He had denied the suggestion that he had admitted before the CBI that there were various deficiencies in their institution as per Homeopathic Minimum Standard Education Act, 1983 i.e. shortage of CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 22 of 60 teaching and non-teaching staff and that affiliation from University of Rajasthan was still awaited.
42 PW31, Dr. S.R. Islam, had deposed that he joined Central Council of Homeopathy as Medical Inspector on 17.03.1981. His duty as Medical Inspector was to inspect the Homeopathic Medical Colleges and its examination process u/s 17 of CCH Act, 1973 as per the programme received from Universities. This witness had been shown inspection report, dated 11.06.2002, of Burdhwan Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Burdwan, West Bengal Ex. PW17/A. This witness had further stated that the said inspection report was carried out by him along with two other inspectors, namely, Dr. Kulwant Singh and Dr. Prabhat Kumar Singh which bears his signatures and their inspector revealed that everything was in order.
43 PW31 was declared hostile by the learned PP for CBI and he was cross-examined by the learned PP for CBI. During cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, this witness had denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely and his inspection report clearly indicated that the college was not fulfilling the minimum requirements as per CCH Regulations.
44 During cross-examination by defence, PW31, had deposed that the aforesaid college was already a recognized institution and he had gone for inspection for the extension of such recognition. He had further stated that in the general remark colum at page no. 5,8,10,12,14,17 & 19, he had noticed in his report various improvements done/made by the college.
45 PW32, Dr. Munir Ahmed, had deposed that he joined Government Homeopatic Medical College, Bangalore as Lecturer in 1992 and became Professor in 2004. He had deposed that D3 (e) is inspection report CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 23 of 60 pertaining to Anushree HMC, Jabalpur. Such report had been prepared by him and he was the only one who had inspected the said college and no other inspector remained associated with him during such inspection. This witness had further deposed that inspection report of Metropolitan HMC, Calcutta is contained in D3 (b) Ex. PW17/A (colly.) which is dated 14.06.2002 and it bears his sigantures at point A and same is correct.
46 During cross-examination, PW32, had deposed that he had mentioned at page no.2 of his report of Metropolitan HMC that there were 23 new appointments of the faculty and he also annexed the list of the same with his report. This witness had further deposed that, at no point of time, either before inspection or during inspection or subsequent to inspection, Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi the then President, CCH ever contacted him for influencing him for preparing report in a particular manner.
47 PW33, Dr. B. Jagannadham, had deposed that he joined Baroda Homeopathic Medical College, Baroda in 1992. This witness had further deposed that their college was also purchasing homeopathic medicines from time to time as per the requirement of the college. PW33 had further deposed that D31 is bill of Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Dated 29.5.02 whereby medicines worth Rs. 62,043/- were supplied to their college. He had exhibited the Bill as Ex. PW33/A. This witness had also deposed that they had been purchasing such type of medicines from other pharmaceuticals companies like SBL, Wilmers Schwabe, Father Mullers, R.S. Bhargav etc. This witness had also deposed that he continued to purchase medicines from M/s Bakson directly and quality of medicine was good.
48 PW34, Rajeev Kumar, had deposed that trust deed, dated 02.09.2002, Ex. PW12/B bears his signatures as a witness. He had further CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 24 of 60 deposed that he did not know anything else. This witness was declared hostile by the learned PP for CBI and was cross-examined. However, nothing material came out in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. PP for CBI. During cross examination by the defence, this witness had stated that CBI did not record his statement in writing.
49 PW35, Dr. Tapan Kumar Mandal, had deposed that he joined Burdwan Homeopathic Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal (BHMC) in 1978 as Lecturer in Pharmacy. He was Vice Principal of said college in 2000. In 2003, he became Principal and continued to hold the same designation. This witness had further deposed that their college got initially recognition from Council Homeopathic Medicine, West Bengal and then also from CCH. PW35 had further deposed that CBI never made any enquiry from him nor called him in connection with the present case. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI.
50 During cross-examination by the defence, this witness had stated that their college never bought any medicine of M/s Bakson. He further stated that CBI officers never came to their college for making any enquiry. He further stated that they had been getting recognition/extension of recognition from the concerned authorities including Department of Ayush, Government of India for the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and onwards.
51 PW36, Dr. Prakash Sharma, had deposed that he was working in the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) since 1976. He joined the institute as Laboratory Assistant. He did not know whether Rajasthan vidyapeeth entered into an agreement and memorandum of understanding with any other University/institute. This witness was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI. However, during cross examination by CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 25 of 60 Ld. PP for CBI, this witness said nothing material against accused persons.
52 PW37, Sh. Kanwar Sain, had deposed that he joined CCH in 1979 as LDC and got promoted as UDC in 1986. His job was related to meetings conducted by CCH which included sending of notices, sending agenda, circulation of minutes to members etc. He had identified the signatures of Dr. SPS Bakshi, President, Dr. Lalit Verma, Secretary, Dr. Ramji, Vice President on various minutes. This witness had further deposed that first seizure memo Ex. 37/A D4 and second seizure memo Ex. PW37/B, D13 bear his signatures at point A and documents mentioned therein were handed over to CBI. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI.
53 During cross-examination by defence, PW37, had deposed that all the files had been taken by CBI from their office. He denied the suggestion that both the seizure memos Ex. PW37/A and PW37/B were signed by him in CBI office.
54 PW38, Dr. Rajesh Sharma, had deposed that CCH had authorized him to inspect Solan Homeopathic Medical College. He had carried out the inspection along with Ms. Aaisha Ali, Registrar, State Homeopathic Council, Madhya Praded. He had further deposed that inspection report of the said college for the period 2002-2003 is running into 22 pages in all and is Ex. PW12/1. This witness had identified his signatures at point A. PW38 had further stated that, as per their report, the basic requirements for establishing first year of medical college were found fulfilled and the report is correct. This witness had further deposed that he had also inspected another college i.e. Bakson Homeopathic Medical College, Noida and the report of this college is Ex. PW38/A which bears his signatures at point A. This witness had further deposed that both the reports are correct CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 26 of 60 and he was never pressurized or influenced for preparing report in any particular manner.
55 During cross-examination, PW38, had stated that his signatures are not there on internal pages no. 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 of Ex. PW12/1. He had also stated that his signatures are not there on internal pages 1 to 21 of Ex. PW38/A. He had further stated that when he inspected both the colleges at the relevant point of time, both the colleges were fully equipped as per CCH norms to start their relevant courses for first year, at the relevant time.
56 PW39, Dr. S.C. Chambyal, had deposed that he joined Sri Guru Nanak Dev Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital in 1994. He had further deposed that CBI officials had visited their institution and collected various bills or copies of bills pertaining to purchase of medicines. The medicines used to be purchased through various local pharma homeopathic medicine stores. Such medicines used to be of different brands like SBL, Ralsons and also of M/s Baksons on some occasions. PW39 had further deposed that, while placing order, they used to mention the name of the medicine, potency and the quantity required but did not use to mention the brands. This witness had further stated that their college had applied for increase of seats in graduation course and also for start of MD course but CCH declined the same.
57 PW40, Dr. Narendra Gupta, had deposed that he had done his MBBS from Delhi University in 1986 and worked in Delhi Administration and CGHS till 1989. He had further deposed that one letter dated 11.7.2003 Ex. PW40/A (D41) was sent by their Administrator to M/s Bakson informing about continuation of facility of visiting their students, to their hospital.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 27 of 6058 PW41, Dr. Jayesh K. Patel, had deposed that, in the year 1993, he established Ahmedabad Homeopathic Medical College, Ahmedabad. In the year 1997, he established Rajkot Homeopathic Medical College, Rajkot and, in the year 2002, he established Jawahar Lal Nehru Homeopathic Medical College, Vadodara. He is managing trustee of all the aforesaid colleges. He was elected as member of CCH in the year 1996. He further deposed that Dr. SPS Bakshi was President of CCH since 1991 and Dr. Ramji Singh was Vice Presidence of CCH. He did not remember when he was elected as Vice President. He had further deposed that CBI had asked him about sanction of the colleges and functioning of council. He had further deposed that there were numerous reports of various colleges which he did not remember and CBI had shown those reports and he gave answers pertaining to the questions related to those reports. PW40 had further deposed that to popularize homeopathic science in the whole country, the matter was taken up in Parliament and ultimately Central Government enacted Central Homeopathy Act in 1973 to streamline all the colleges of country to award degrees and to make syllabus of various courses. This witness did not remember whether he had sent any complaint to Government of India in respect of functioning of CCH. This witness was declared hostile by the learned PP for CBI. He was cross-examined by learned PP for CBI but nothing material had come out against accused persons during cross- examination conducted by learned PP for CBI.
59 PW42, Dalip Malaiya, had deposed that he owned one building in Parkota Ward, Sagar. He had rented out part of said building to Sagar Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Sagar in 8 to 10 years back and a rent agreement was also executed to that effect. Copy of such rent agreement was seized by CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW42/A, D75.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 28 of 6060 PW43, Dr. Veerabramhachary, had deposed that he was CCH member since 1997 till 2005 and then nominated CCH member from 2007. This witness had further deposed that as CCH Member, he had been asked to inspect colleges and he had inspected Metropolitan Homeopathic Medical College, Calcutta and he was accompanied by two other inspectors i.e. Sh. Munir Ahmed and Dr. G. Moogi. The inspection report was prepared as per the actual observations. He had signed the inspection report at point A. The inspection report is Ex. PW17/A (D3) (b). He had further deposed that he had inspected the Bakson Homeopathic Medical College, Noida and inspection report was prepared as per the actual observations and he signed the inspection report. Such inspection report is Ex. PW17/A (D3) (n) (ii). PW43 had further deposed that both the inspection reports were prepared as per actual observations and there was no pressure. This witness had further stated that there was no resolution which can be said to be not proper. There were no short comings, irregularities etc which were overlooked. He had further deposed that decision was not taken contrary to the inspection report.
61 PW44, Ms. Neelmani Karn, had deposed that he joined Sinha Homeopathic Medical College as Gramin Dak Sewak in 1996. He had further deposed that CBI had made some investigation about the college. He told the CBI that some repairing/white wash work took place in the building in his presence. This witness had deposed that he had no concern with the working of OPD of said college.
62 PW45, Rakesh Bahl, had deposed that in 2007, he was posted as Assistant Branch Manager in Allahabad Bank, Madhotal Branch, Jabalpur. He had further deposed that CBI officials had come to his branch and joined him as independent witness. This witness had further deposed that CBI had taken him to Anushri Homeopathic Medical College, Katni Road, Jabalpur.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 29 of 60This witness had further stated that CBI had prepared an observation memo Ex. PW45/A which bears his signatures at point A. 63 PW46, Shoutath Ali P.K., had deposed that, from 1997 to January, 2009, he was posted as Principal in Hahnemann Homeopathic Medical College, Bhopal. He had deposed that D3 (m) Ex. PW46/A is inspection report of Kalyan Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Tarn Taran, Amritsar, Punjab. He had inspected the said medical college along with Dr. N.B. Singh on 31.8.2002 on the direction of CCH and prepared the inspection report. This witness had further deposed that they had examined man power, infrastructure and functioning and record of the said college and after preparing the inspection report Ex. PW46/A, they had submitted the same to Central Council of Homeopathic. PW46 had further deposed that the report is correct and is as per the observations they had noted, at the time of inspection.
64 In the present matter, PW47, Verghese Samuel, has deposed that, in the year 2007, he was posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Ayush, Government of India. He identified his signatures at point A on letter, dated 27.12.2007 which is proved as Ex. PW47/A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the contents of Ex. PW47/A is an opinion.
65 PW48, Sh. B.N. Rohal, deposed that he was posted as Junior Accounts Officer in the office of GMTD, BSNL, Solan. He deposed that he had gone to Solan Homeopathic Medical College, Solan Chamba Ghat, Solan, HP on 30.09.2005. The documents mentioned in search cum seizure memo were seized by CBI in his presence. D-58 and D-60 are the seizure memo which is Ex. PW48/A and which bears his signatures at point A on each page (total 5 pages). He had deposed that D-24, D-25 and D-26 are the CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 30 of 60 documents which were seized vide above mentioned seizure memo which are already Ex. PW12/F (D-24), mark AX (D-25), Ex. PW12/X (D-93), Ex. PW12/B (D21), Ex. PW12/C, Ex. PW12/A (D22), Ex. PW12/D (D23), Ex. PW12/E, Ex. PW48/B (D26).
66 PW49, Dr. Vinod Singh, had deposed that he was appointed as inspector by CCH to inspect the Baroda Homeopathic Medical College, Baroda. He had deposed that he along with Dr. R.Y. Nadaf and Dr. Raj Kumar S. Patil inspected the Baroda Homeopathic Medical College, Baroda on 4.6.2002. He had deposed that his inspection report is already Ex. PW17/A. He had further deposed that they also inspected Bakson Homeopathic Medical College, Noida on 31.5.2002. Such report is in D3 (n)
(i) which is already Ex. PW17/A. 67 PW50, Avdesh Kumar Saddi, had deposed that he was posted as Junion Engineer (Works) at Northern Railway, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana. He had further deposed that he went to factory and office premises of M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Parwanoo, H.P. on 30.9.2005. He further deposed that CBI prepared a search list and observation cum sealing memo at the said premises and he had signed the memos as witness. PW50, Avdesh Kumar Saddi, had deposed that D54 is search list and observation cum sealing memo which is Ex. PW50/A. He had further deposed that Ex. PW50/B colly. And Ex. PW50/C colly. Are the documents which were seized by the CBI.
68 PW51, Dr. Anand Bhushan Chaudhary, had deposed that they had inspected the medical colleges for their infrastructure facilities, teaching faculties, departments, laboratories, class rooms, equipments, instruments, charts etc. He informed the CBI about inspection of Sagar Medical College CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 31 of 60 and Bakson Homeopathic Medical College. His observation regarding Sagar Homeopathic Medical College is written in Ex. PW17/A D3 (d). He had further stated that he did not do anything about the observations mentioned in their report. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI.
69 During cross-examination conducted by ld. PP for CBI, PW51, had deposed that Bakson Homeopathic Medical College was affiliated to Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. He had further stated that Bakson Homeopathic Medical College was confirming all the regulations (based on 1983 Regulations) of minimum standard of education at the time of his inspection.
70 PW52, Manohar Chand, had deposed that, in the year 2005, he was working as Senior Parcel Clerk and was posted at Kalka, Haryana at Railway Station. Superintendent had directed him to meet CBI team at Railway Guest House. Search proceedings were conducted by CBI on that day. He had deposed that D59 is search list, dated 30.09.2005, and is Ex. PW52/A which bears his signatures at point A. He had further deposed that the observation cum sealing memo running into two pages bears his signatures at point A on each page and same is Ex. PW52/B. 71 In the present matter, PW53, Rajender Sethi, has deposed that he was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Tulsi Circuit Branch, Bikaner from 01.05.2005 till 2010. He along with CBI inspector visited Mangi Lal Nirban Homeopathic Medical College and Research Institute, M.H. Hospital Complex, near Karni Singh Stadium on 4.5.2007. The observation memo was prepared which is Ex. PW53/A (D91).
72 In the present matter, PW54, B. Verma deposed that he along CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 32 of 60 with CBI officials visited residence and office premises of Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi at A51, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. This witness has proved the search list Ex. PW54/A. This witness has confirmed and identified his signatures at point A on document D57 which is search list. The said document is Ex. PW54/B. This witness, during cross-examination, has deposed that he could not give the details and number of documents that were seized vide Ex. PW54/A and Ex. PW54/B. 73 PW55, namely, Sh. Anup Kumar Rajoria, has deposed that on 25.1.2007, he along with Anil Kumar, his Assistant Manager, had visited the Taran Taran Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Namak Mandi, Sagar nearby bank. One Sagar Homeopathy Medical College used to run there. This witness further deposed that the director of said college told that the college was being run there. This witness further stated that there was no student in the college. This witness has proved observation memo, dated 25.1.2007 as Ex. PW55/A (D89). Nothing material came out during cross-examination of this witness. This witness merely stated that the observation memo was prepared in his presence.
74 PW56, namely, Parikh Vipul, has stated that he along with Mr. Ashok Bhale accompanied with the CBI officer had gone to Baroda Homeopathic Medical College for observation. Observation memo, dated 9.3.2007 (D90) was prepared in his presence and the same is Ex. PW56/A. 75 PW57, Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, had deposed that he was working as Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, City Branch, Sagar, MP during January, 2007. He further deposed that CBI requested Branch Manager to join investigation of Sagar Homeopathic Medical College and he along with Manager had accompanied the CBI officials and visited the said college. He CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 33 of 60 had further deposed that college was existing there and there were 8-10 rooms from which the said college was running. There were no students. There were teachers sitting there. There were class rooms, labs and teachers rooms. He identified his signatures at points B on Ex. PW55/A D89.
76 PW58, Dr. Jatin Shah, had deposed that he was working in Bhagwan Homeopathic Medical College since 1987. He was promoted as Professor in 1993. He stated that Central Government, Department of AYUSH recognized homeopathic colleges in India. He could not say as to how the homeopathic colleges are recognized. He had visited the some medical colleges and had given the report. He had identified his signatures on Ex. PW17/A colly. D 3(i), Ex. PW17/A colly. D 3(l) (already exhibited) at point E. 77 He was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI and Ld. PP for CBI had confronted this witness with 161 Cr. PC statement from portions A to A1 and from B to B1 to which witness had denied having made any such statement.
78 During cross-examination, PW58, had deposed that both the colleges which he inspected were already recognized and were functioning.
79 PW59, Ajay Kumar Pandey, DSP, CBI, had deposed that he was working in CBI, ACU-IX in September, 2009. He had deposed that he had seized documents mentioned in the search list Ex. PW50/A. Search list bears his signatures at point C on all pages. He had seized the file D42 Ex. PW59/A. He had further deposed that he had also seized one computer hard disc from M/s Bakson Drugs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Parwanu, Himachal Pradesh vide observation cum sealing memo Ex. PW59/B. CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 34 of 60 80 PW60, R.K. Sangwan, DSP, had deposed that he was posted as inspector in CBI. He had gone to Solan at the instruction of inspector Satender Gosain, IO of the case. He had seized certain documents from Solan Homeopathic Medical College which are mentioned in search cum seizure memo Ex. PW48/A which bears his signatures.
81 PW61, D.S. Chauhan, DSP, CBI, had deposed that on 30.9.2005, he was posted in CBI, ACIII as inspection. He had seized several documents form the office of Central Council of Homeopathy, Janakpuri, Delhi vide seizure memo Ex. PW61/A. This witness had exhibited the documents as Ex. PW61/B to PW61/Q. 82 During cross-examination by defence, this witness had stated that he could not tell anything about the contents of the documents seized by him. He had deposed on the basis of seizure memo.
83 PW62, Dr. Eshwara Das, had deposed that he was working in Ayush. He was also working as Director, National School of Homeopathic. He was Assistant Advisor, Homeopathic, Government of India. This witness had deposed that he did not remember whether he had dealt with document D3 (a) Ex. PW17/A colly. He had further deposed that such documents inspection reports were not sent to the ministry for consideration. He had further deposed that this document did not contain his signatures and he had not recognized signatures of anybody. This witness had further deposed that he did not remember and could not say as to whether Burdhwan Homeopathic Medical College was confirming to the minimum standard of education.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 35 of 6084 PW62 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross- examined by learned PP for CBI. During cross-examination by learned PP for CBI, this witness had denied having made portion A to A1 of statement Ex. PW62/A. During cross examination by learned PP for CBI, this witness had denied the suggestion that equipments in Department of Pharmacy were inadequate. This witness was confronted, by learned PP for CBI, with the portion B to B1 of Ex. PW62/A and witness denied the same. He denied the suggestion put by the learned PP for CBI to the effect that he stated before the CBI that college was not fulfilling requirements of minimum standard of Education, Regulation 1983. He denied the suggestion put by the learned PP for CBI that he stated before the CBI that the minutes of 93rd Executive Committee meeting, held on 21/06/02, under the agenda item 93.6 for enhancing the seat inspite of deficiencies, were totally irregular. PW62 was also confronted, by the learned PP for CBI, with the portion C to C1 which this witness had denied having made such statement to CBI. PW62 was also confronted, by the learned PP for CBI, with the portion D to D1 which this witness had denied having made such statement to CBI. PW62 was also confronted, by the learned PP for CBI, with the portion E to E1 which this witness had denied having made such statement to CBI.
85 During cross-examination by the defence, PW62, had stated that he was never a part of inspection team for any of the colleges, so mentioned in his examination in chief. This witness had also stated that he did not make any statement before CBI on the basis of his personal knowledge. This witness had also stated that while working as Joint Advisor, he happened to know A7 Dr. Sohan Singh for the reason that he is very renowned physician and he was also Medical Superintendent at JSPS Government Medical College. This witness had further stated that Dr. Sohan Singh did not have any medical college.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 36 of 6086 PW63, Ms. Yoshita Bakshi, had deposed that she was working with M/s Baksons as Consultant and was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/-. She resigned from M/s Baksons. She had further stated that she started her venture i.e. Solan Homeopathic Medical College in the year, 2002. She was running a health trust of India, which was having registered office at Champa Ghat and administrative office at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. Dr. Sheelwanti Tolani, Preeti Bali and herself were the trustees of the same. Later on, her children were also joined in the trust. This witness had further stated that Ms. Sheelwanti Tolani and Preeti Bali were family friends, being like minded, they started the trust. PW63 had further deposed that Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi was in no way related to either to the trust or college. She knew that he was President of CCH. She had further deposed that Dr. SPS Bakshi had visited the college only once in 2008 or in 2009. He had further deposed that she purchased homeopathic medicines for her college from M/s SBL, M/s Baksons on the basis of quality and cost effective as advised by the Principal. The payments for the medicines were made through cheque by the trust. This witness had further deposed that her college was inspected by various authorities and every inspection body gave her NOC as per the guidelines laid down by the Government. Their college was affiliated to Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth University. She had further stated that their college was complying with minimum requirements as per CCH Rules. Dr. Bakshi had only guided her in setting up trust and to run a medical college for the benefit of society. She had further stated that every year, their college was upgraded and more facilities were provided. She did not remember the amount and the quantity of drugs, which their college got in the year 2002-03. She had confirmed and identified her signature on document D28 Ex. PW54/D colly. She had further deposed that day to day work of the college was handled by the Principal.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 37 of 6087 PW64, Subir Chakraborty, had deposed that he is working as Accountant in M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. His job profile includes sale and purchase and maintaining accounts of M/s Bakson Group. This witness had further deposed that centralization of accounts was done at Parwanu office since 2004. Ex. PW59/A D42 was prepared by Finance Manager Mrs. Surjit Kaur. Though he cannot confirm it.
88 PW65, Dr Vimal Kumar Dhawan, had deposed that he became a member of CCH in 1998 and again in 2006. This witness had further deposed that there are various committees in CCH. Executive Committee does executory work of the council. He had never been the member of any committee. He used to attend general body meeting and seminars whenever CCH used to organize. This witness had further deposed that recognition to a college is always granted as per CCH Act & Rules. There is no relaxation for recognition of homeopathic medical colleges. However, it is done as per the Act and, if any relaxation is to be given, it is to be approved by general house and finally granted by Government of India, Department of AYUSH. This witness was declared hostile by learned PP for CBI. He was cross-examined by the learned PP for CBI. During cross-examination by learned PP for CBI this witness denied the suggestion that he stated before the CBI that college was not fulfilling requirements of minimum standard of Education, Regulation 1983. He had also denied the suggestion that he stated before CBI that minutes of 93rd Executive Committee meeting held on 21.06.02, under the agenda item 93.6 for enhancing the seat inspite of deficiencies, is totally irregular.
89 PW66, Dr. Surender Prasad Singh, had deposed that he is MD in Homeopathy from Rajasthan University. He was Chairman of Homeopathy Pharmacopoeia Committee. He had further deposed that under CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 38 of 60 Ministry of Health, there is a statutory body which is known as the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH). PW66 had further stated that Government had given this body right to independently monitor the homeopathic education and registration of homeopathy practitioners as per rules laid down in CCH Act 1973. He had seen D51 Ex. PW66/A. He had confirmed and identified his signatures at point A on this letter. He had further stated that he had not inspected any college and was not connected with the inspection reports. Affairs of CCH proceedings are done according to CCH Act 1973 and CCH Regulations 1984. He confirmed and identified his signature on additional document M-1023/07 at page no. 1 i.e. Minutes of the Sitting of CCH Enquiry Commission dated 10th June 2004, at page no. 2 i.e. Commission Inquiry, Complaint. This witness had further deposed that documents were received by him as Member Secretary and was passed on to the Hon'ble Commission.
90 PW66 was declared hostile by learned PP for CBI and was cross-examined by the learned PP. During cross-examination by learned PP for CBI, he had denied the suggestion that he stated before the CBI that equipments in Department of Pharmacy were inadequate. This witness also denied the suggestion that he stated before CBI that inspection report was not on prescribed format. He had also denied the suggestion that he stated before the CBI that the Executive Committee favoured colleges run by SPS Bakshi and other colleges which did not fulfill minimum requirement of CCH, while the same committee denied the recognition to Hoshiyarpur, HMC on the ground that it did not fulfill minimum requirement as per CCH regulations.
91 PW67, Ram Nath Azad, had deposed that FIR no. 04, dated 28.09.2005, u/s 120B of IPC read with 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988 was registered under the signature of Ms. Sonali Mishra, SP. This witness exhibited the FIR as Ex. PW67/A and he had identified the signature of Ms. CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 39 of 60 Sonali Mishra at point A. This witness had further deposed that document D56 Ex. PW54/A is search list, dated 30.09.2005, showing search of residence and office premises of Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi at A-51, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi. This witness had further deposed that document D57 Ex. PW54/B is search list, dated 30.09.2005, showing search of Corporate/Head Office of Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Pvt Ltd, J-21, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi. He had collected the documents and conducted investigation. He had identified his signatures dated 14.10.2005. This witness had identified his signatures at point B on each page of D2 Ex. PW26/A and Ex. PW26/B. This witness had further deposed that 13 sheets in respect of Ex. PW67/C did not form part of the documents Ex. PW67/C, however, Ex. PW67/C, list of members is part of document Ex. PW67/B. He had stated that the documents Ex. PW67/C were not specifically mentioned as part of document Ex. PW67/B. 92 During cross-examination by defence, this witness had stated that portion from point A to A1, in Ex. PW67/A, is by computer print out, whereas, portion from B to B1 is filled by manual typewriter. He could not say if the portion from point C to C1 was filled in by way of manual typewriter, however, it seemed that it had been filled in by computer. He could not show any document to support his claim with regard to compliance of provision of section 102 of Cr.P.C.
93 PW68, Sh. Satyender Gosain, had deposed that, during the year 2005-2010, he was posted as Inspector in ACU-IX Branch. He had further deposed that he had visited the Homeopathic Medical Colleges in question in various states i.e. Bihar, Punjab, Gujarat, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Solan Himachal Pradesh. He had shown the inspection reports to Principal/acting Principals, inspected the colleges, seized some documents CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 40 of 60 and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
94 This witness had further deposed that, during inspection of the buildings of colleges, he found that the minimum requirement of homeopathic medical colleges were not fulfilled, which were required as per the relevant statutes necessary for running Homeopathic Medical Colleges. The minimum requirements like strength of lecturers and the supporting staff, ownership of the land, the dispensary and hospital, the number of beds in the hospital, the equipments, hostels, labs were not as per requirement. He had also seized some medical bills for the purchase of medicines from M/s Bakson Homeopathic Drugs Company Limited. Thereafter, he had recorded the statements of concerned witnesses of AYUSH, Ministry of Health, the statement of one Mr. SPS Anand who was aggrieved party.
95 PW68 had also recorded the statement of Dr. Ranu and Dr. Girender Pal, Member of CCH who gave their dissent notes against the decision taken in the Meeting of Executive Committee for giving recognition to some homeopathic medical colleges, who did not fulfill the minimum standard requirements as per relevant statutes. PW68 deposed that the Executive Committee of CCH included Dr. Ramjee Singh, Vice President of CCH at that time, Dr. Srivatsen, Dr. Sinha, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. Girender Pal, Dr. Sohan Singh, Dr. K.K. Juneja and Dr. R.J.S. Yadav. PW68 deposed that the Executive Committee was presided over by Dr. SPS Bakshi, the then President of CCH. The above said Executive Committee, in the meeting held in June, 2002, gave recognition to various colleges. In that meeting, Mr. Girender Pal gave dissent note against the decision made by the committee. The executive committee also refused recognition to homeopathic medical college, Hosiyarpur of Sh. SPS Anand who told that Dr. Bakshi asked him to purchase medicines of Rs. Five lacs from his company i.e. M/s Bakson CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 41 of 60 Homeopathic Drugs Company Pvt Ltd otherwise he will never get the recognition. This witness further deposed that in December, 2012, the Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 was amended. PW68 further deposed that the executive committee presided over by Dr. SPS Bakshi asked Sh. SPS Anand, owner of homeopathic medical college, Hosiyarpur to approach the Central Government for recognition for his college giving the reference of amended Rule in the HCC Act, 1973.
96 PW68 further deposed that the said executive committee also gave recognition to Solan Homeopathic Medical College, Himachal Pradesh and Bakson Homeopathic Medical College, Greater Noida in 2002. It was mentioned that for affiliation, they had applied to Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Deemed University which was not competent to do so.
97 PW68 further deposed that the homeopathic medical colleges of Motihari, Katihar, Muzzafarpur, Lehria Sarai, Hazi Pur and Patna had applied for recognition, however, the executive committee granted recognition to Katihar, Lehria Sarai and Patna.
98 Statements of all the accused persons had been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the accused persons have denied having committed any offence. They have claimed themselves to be innocent. All the accused persons have opted not to lead defence evidence.
99 Accused SPS Bakshi has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C., that the President of CCH is an ex-officio member and he had no right to vote except when there is tie between the members of Executive Committee. He had stated that, as long as he remained President, he had never exercised his right to vote as there was never a tie between the members. All CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 42 of 60 the decisions were taking democratically and the decisions were put in the General House and, after their approval, it was sent to Central Government and till date the Government had not objected to any of the decisions made by the CCH. Dr. SPS Bakshi had stated that one member i.e. Mr Paramjeet Singh Ranu, had developed inferiority complex and personal grudge against him and due to this he made complaint against him and made false allegations and all the allegations made, were found to be false. Accused SPS Bakshi had claimed that Sh S.P. S Anand had made false allegations on behalf of Mr Ranu and he filed writ before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and same wad dismissed with strictures and it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the allegations made against him were concocted and it was an afterthought. SPS Bakshi had claimed that he never lived in B-55 NDSE Part- I, New Delhi. He is staying at A-51 for the last 50 years, and he is running his clinic, in the same premises, for the last 43 years. He is in no way connected with B-55, NDSE, Part-I, New Delhi.
100 Accused, Dr. Ramjee Singh has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that the Central Council of Homeopathy is a body which consists of doctors, who have already established in their respective fields and in order to help and promote homeopathy education in this country, they rendered honorary services for this cause. During his tenure, none of the college was given any special treatment and none of the decision of the Executive Committee was ever influenced for any consideration, whatsoever. All the decisions were taken in most democratic manner. All the members of Executive Committee, including President and Vice President, had decided the matter of recognition of colleges, increase in number of seats, only in the interest of development of field of homeopathy. None of the members ever influenced either inspectors, visitors or any other person to give favourable report. None of the members, including himself, was ever involved in any CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 43 of 60 conspiracy of any nature whatsoever, either in supporting or in objecting to any decision so taken. All the decisions were taken democratically, thereafter, were tested at General House and finally approved and cleared by Govt. of India, inspite of the fact that government had every right to over turn any of the decisions. Accused Dr. Ramjee Singh has claimed that all the decisions, taken during his tenure, regarding recognition of colleges and increase in numbers of seats were never overturned by Govt. of India. He had rendered his honorary services to central Council of Homeopathy and he is not a public servant in any manner. Investigation against him is vitiated because of no authority. Dr. Ramjee Singh has claimed that all the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has claimed himself to be innocent.
101 Statement of accused, Dr. Arun Bhasme u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is identical on certain aspects. Accused, Dr. Arun Bhasme has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC that the Central Council of Homeopathy is a body which consists of doctors, who have already established in their respective fields and in order to help and promote homeopathy education in this country they rendered honorary services for this cause. During his tenure, none of the colleges was given any special treatment and none of the decision of the Executive Committee was ever influenced for any consideration, whatsoever. He further stated that all the decisions were taken in most democratic manner. All the members of Executive Committee, including President and Vice President, had decided the matter of recognition of colleges, increase in number of seats, only in the interest of development of field of homeopathy. None of the members ever influenced either inspectors, visitors or any other person to give favourable report. None of the members, including himself, was ever involved in any conspiracy of any nature whatsoever, either in supporting or in objecting to any decision so taken. All the decisions were taken democratically, thereafter, were tested at General House and finally CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 44 of 60 approved and cleared by Govt. of India, inspite of the fact that government had every right to over turn any of the decisions. He has stated that all the decisions, taken during his tenure, regarding recognition of colleges and increase in numbers of seats were never overturned by Govt. of India. He had stated that he had rendered his honorary services to central Council of Homeopathy and he is not a public servant in any manner. Investigation against him is vitiated because of no authority. He has stated that all the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He had claimed himself to be innocent.
102 Similarly, the statement of Dr. M.R. Srivatsan is identical with statement of accused, Dr. Ramjee Singh and Dr. Arun Bhasme. Accused, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that the Central Council of Homeopathy is a body consisting of doctors, who have already established in their respective fields and in order to help and promote homeopathy education in this country they rendered honorary services for this cause. During his tenure, none of the colleges was given any special treatment and none of the decisions of the Executive Committee was ever influenced for any consideration, whatsoever. He further stated that all the decisions were taken in most democratic manner. All the members of Executive Committee, including President and Vice President, had decided the matter of recognition of colleges, increase in number of seats, only in the interest of development of field of homeopathy. None of the members ever influenced either inspectors, visitors or any other person to give favourable report. He had stated that none of the members, including himself, was ever involved in any conspiracy of any nature whatsoever, either in supporting or in objecting to any decision so taken. He has stated that all the decisions were taken democratically, thereafter, were tested at General House and finally approved and cleared by Govt. of India, inspite of the fact that government CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 45 of 60 had every right to over turn any of the decisions. He further stated that all the decisions, taken during his tenure, regarding recognition of colleges and increase in numbers of seats were never overturned by Govt. of India. He had stated that he had rendered his honorary services to central Council of Homeopathy and he is not a public servant in any manner. Investigation against him is vitiated because of no authority. All the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has claimed himself to be innocent.
103 Statement of accused, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja u/s 313 Cr.P.C., is identical on certain aspects with statement of accused, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme and Dr. M.R. Srivatsan. Accused, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC that the Central Council of Homeopathy is a body which consists of doctors, who have already established in their respective fields and in order to help and promote homeopathy education in this country they rendered honorary services for this cause. During his tenure, none of the colleges was given any special treatment and none of the decisions of the Executive Committee was ever influenced for any consideration, whatsoever. He further stated that all the decisions were taken in most democratic manner. All the members of Executive Committee, including President and Vice President, had decided the matter of recognition of colleges and increase in number of seats, only in the interest of development of field of homeopathy. None of the members ever influenced either inspectors, visitors or any other person to give favourable report. None of the members, including myself, was ever involved in any conspiracy of any nature whatsoever, either in supporting or in objecting to any decision so taken. All the decisions were taken democratically, thereafter, were tested at General House and finally approved and cleared by Govt. of India, inspite of the fact that government had every right to over turn any of the decisions. He had claimed that all the decisions, CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 46 of 60 taken during his tenure, regarding recognition of colleges and increase in numbers of seats were never overturned by Govt. of India. He had stated that he had rendered his honorary services to central Council of Homeopathy and he is not a public servant in any manner. He had claimed that investigation against him is vitiated because of no authority. All the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has claimed himself to be innocent.
104 Accused, Dr. B. Sohan Singh has claimed, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that as per Investigation Officer, there is no material either oral or documentary against him. He further stated that no witness had deposed against him. He has further stated that, PW24, Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu, had also spoken in his favour. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was made an accused as he is a "public servant" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) (iii), Sec. 2 (c) (viii) and Sec. 2 (c) (xii) which is incorrect.
105 I have heard arguments on behalf of CBI as well as accused herein and have gone through the material available on record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
106 It has been contended by learned Special PP for CBI that certain norms as per the CCH Act had not been followed in the present matter. It has further been contended that, at the time of grant of recognition, the homeopathic medical colleges or institutions should have its land as per the CCH Act. Further, it has been argued that there should be full strength at the time of grant of recognition. Learned Special PP for CBI has further contended that accused SPS Bakshi had used his position as President in order to sell the medicines of M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceutical. It has further been contended that he had improperly acquired benefit from his CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 47 of 60 position as President of CCH. Learned Special PP for CBI has further contended that all the accused persons had conspired with each other while granting recognition to various homeopathic medical colleges and institutions.
107 It has been contended by learned counsels for accused persons that the accused persons were not instrumental in making any sale to any of the homeopathic medical colleges. It has further been contended that M/s Bakson Homeopathic Drugs Pvt Ltd has been having about 22% of the sale of homeopathic medicines in India. Thus, it is a considerable amount of sale percentage in Indian market. It has been argued that there is nothing on the record file to show that there was any forceful sale of the medicines to medical colleges. Further, there is nothing on the record file to show that recognition was granted to any medical colleges in violation of CCH Act. Learned counsels for the accused persons had further contended that the sale to any medical college or institution was as per demand raised by them and the said sale was against the payment of price of the homeopathic medicines. It has further been stated that the said sale was made by the agents of M/s Bakson Homeopathic Drugs Pvt Ltd. It has been contended that SPS Bakshi had no role to play so far as those sales were concerned. It has further been contended that there is nothing on the record file to show that accused, Dr. SPS Bakshi, was instrumental in making any forceful sale to any of the homeopathic medical colleges and institutions by using any coercive tactics.
108 Learned counsels for the accused persons had further contended that CBI has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. It has further been argued that there is no material, on the record file, to show that any illegal act was committed or that any act was committed which was not legal but was committed by illegal means. It has further been CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 48 of 60 contended that all the acts done by the accused persons had been done by legal means within the scope of their authority while working as President, Vice Present and Members in CCH. In crux, it has been argued that ingredients of section 120A, which deals with criminal conspiracy, have not been made out, in the present case. Learned counsels for the accused persons had further contended that, in the absence of ingredients of section 120B, no criminal liability can be fastened against the accused persons on that ground.
109 The relevant provisions which are required to be considered in the present case are reproduced below for ready reference:-
Section 120-B of the IPC provides as under:-
Section 120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
110 The definition of criminal conspiracy is contained in Section 120-A of IPC, which provides that:-
Section 120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 49 of 60 (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-it is material whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
111 The Supreme Court of India, in Sushil Suri V. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2011 SC 1713, has held that, "the essential ingredient of the offence of "criminal conspiracy" is the agreement to commit an offence. Mere proof of such an agreement is sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy."
112 The Supreme Court of India in, Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanke V.State of Gujrat, 2012 (10) JT 286; has observed as under:-
"The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available and, therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused";
113 The ingredients of criminal conspiracy have also been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in John Pandian V. State, JT 2010 (13) SC 284, as under:-
"Circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 50 of 60 committed by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy".
114 The Supreme Court of India, in Sanjiv Kumar V. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 782:, has held that, "The offence under section 120B is an agreement between the parties to do a particular act. Association or relation to lead a conspiracy is not enough to establish the intention."
115 The Supreme Court of India, in Vijayan V. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) SCC 54:, has held that, "To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful Act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence".
116 Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides as under:-
Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.-Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 51 of 60 rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
117 Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides that.- Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
118 Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides with the situation as to when the public servant is said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct. It reads as under:-
Sec. 13 (1) (d) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 52 of 60
119 In the present matter, there is nothing on the record file to show that there was any violation of the Rules in giving the recognition to the homeopathic medical colleges or institutions. The authenticity of the allegations that the rules were violated is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence through the evidence of PW22 SP Anand or PW24 Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu. There is clear, cogent and clinching material on the record file to show that PW24 Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu was having his vested interest to implicate the accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh. He had contested the elections against SPS Bakshi and Dr. Arun Bhasme. Further he had lost the elections by huge margin. The possibility of false implication on behalf of PW24 Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu is not ruled out in the present matter. PW24 Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu had motive to falsely implicate the accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh.
120 It may, further, be mentioned that CBI has not been able to produce any evidence on the basis of which it can be inferred that there was conspiracy between the accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh. No material has been placed on the record file to show that the accused persons have conspired. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the science of homeopathy is one of the branches of medical science and is, at the developing stage in this country. This branch of medical science is developing in India, accordingly, there is possibility of less CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 53 of 60 infrastructure available with various homeopathic medical colleges and institutions. So far as the question of grant of sanction or recognition is concerned, nothing is there on the record file to show that any favour was done by the President of CCH, namely, SPS Bakshi as well as other members of CCH. It may be pointed out that President and the other members are only recommendatory authority and have no control regarding the decision of grant or withholding of sanction for recognition of homeopathic medical colleges and institutions. There is nothing on the record file to show that recognition was given to those institutions who did not fulfill the requisite norms as per the CCH Act. It may be mentioned that in the meetings of Central Council for Homeopathy (CCH), the dissent notes were put by the members. Further, as per the evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the CBI, there is ample evidence on the record file to show that those dissent notes were considered in those meetings. This fact is clear from the evidence of PW24, Paramjeet Singh Ranu as well. Thus, no unfairness can be imputed either to President SPS Bakshi or to other members regarding the grant of recognition to various homeopathic medical colleges and institutions. It is a matter of fact that dissent notes put forward by PW24 Paramjeet Singh Ranu had been considered in the various meetings held by CCH. Since the dissent notes had been considered, it can safely be concluded that there was no malice or culpable intention on the part of the accused persons while granting sanction for recognition.
121 Thus, it is established, through the evidence of PW24, that he had some grudge against Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi due to election rivalry. He had lost the election against Mr. Bakshi for the post of President. It has come in the evidence of PW24, namely, Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu, that Mr. Bakshi had got 45 votes and this witness himself had got only five votes. Thus, the election result went against PW24, namely, Dr. Paramjeet Singh CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 54 of 60 Ranu. PW24 had also admitted that accused Sh. Bhasme was his rival for the post of Vice President in one of such elections and he contested for the post of Vice President and lost. It has also come in the evidence of PW24 that he had given dissent notes. During cross examination, this witness had stated that one of dissent notes was considered in meeting No. 36 vide agenda No. 36.17 and after discussion over the same the name of Dr. Ramjee Singh was approved. This witness further stated that it was correct that there were 36 members who had attended the said meeting No. 36. This witness deposed that it was correct that relevant record regarding such meeting which is contained in D14 also contains such dissent notes.
122 It is clear from the above discussions that PW24, namely, Dr. Param Jeet Singh Ranu, had vested interest for making the complaint against S.P.S. Bakshi and other accused persons. Further, it is clear from the record file that dissent notes were considered in the various meetings. There is nothing on record file to show that President of CCH, Sh. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, had at any point of time disallowed the consideration of his dissent notes.
123 Further, there is nothing on the record file to show that President of CCH i.e. Sh. S.P.S. Bakshi had, at any point of time, influenced any of the homeopathic medical colleges to buy any medicine from Bakson. Since, no material has come on the record file to show that Sh. S.P.S. Bakshi had, at any point of time, utilized any influence to coerce over the homeopathic medical colleges, the court is of the considered view that there was no forced supply of medicines by M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals. Further, no evidence has come on record file to show that S.P.S. Bakshi was instrumental in making any supplies to any of the homeopathic medical colleges. Thus, there is nothing on the record file to show that accused, namely, Satinder Pal CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 55 of 60 Singh Bakshi had forced any of the colleges to buy any medicine. It may be mentioned that PW25, Dr. Amarjeet Singh, had deposed that he had supplied homeopathic medicines to Abhor medical college as per the demand raised by them. This witness further deposed that he was authorized dealer of various drug manufacturers, including, M/s Bakson Homeopathic Drugs & Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. During cross-examination, this witness has further stated that the supply to various homeopathic practitioners and institutions were as per the demand raised by such colleges, practitioners and institutions. There is nothing on the record file to show that accused S.P.S. Bakshi had, at any point of time, used any pressure tactics against any of the homeopathic medical colleges, practitioners and institutions. As is clear from the evidence of PW25, the supplies to various colleges, practitioners and institutions were as per the demand raised by them. No material has come on the record file to show that there was any forced supply to any of the homeopathic medical colleges, practitioners and institutions.
124 It may be pointed out that, in the present matter, it has come on the record file that all the accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh were discharging public functions. It has further come on the record file that they were doing honorary service in the field of homeopathy. Thus, it is clear that no personal benefit was being derived by any of the accused persons while working in the CCH on various posts. Thus, it is concluded that all the accused persons were working within the public domain but without getting any remuneration.
125 Since, CCH was an elected body and the decisions were taken democratically, it cannot be said that President, SPS Bakshi, Vice President, CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 56 of 60 Ramjee Singh were in a position to dominate the will of others so far as the decisions of the Executive body of the CCH were concerned. Thus, no single Member of the CCH or the President or Vice President or Secretary can be said to have any direct control on the decisions of the CCH. It may be mentioned that, even as per the evidence of PW24, Paramjeet Singh Ranu, elections were held in the CCH. After going through the evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW24, Paramjeet Singh Ranu as well as evidence of PW22, S.P. Anand, it is crystal clear that CBI has miserably failed to prove the existence of criminal conspiracy between the accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh. There is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove any conspiracy between the accused persons. The evidence of PW24, Paramjeet Singh Ranu contains certain bald statements which are self contradictory in itself. He has referred to the dissent notes. At the same time, there is clear evidence to the effect that his dissent notes were considered in the meeting held by CCH. Further, he has improved upon his statement in the court. Since, the recognition was granted as per CCH Act, CBI has failed to prove that accused persons, namely, Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr. Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Dr. Sibendra Nath Sinha (proceedings already abated against him), Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh had abused their official position while granting recognition or sanction to various homeopathic colleges and institutions. It has already come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd was having 22% of the sale of homeopathic medicines in the country. None of the witnesses has been able to show that there was any forced sale on behalf of the President, namely, Dr. SPS Bakshi with respect to M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Since, CBI has not been CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 57 of 60 able to bring any cogent and reliable evidence to the effect that there was any forced sale of homeopathic medicine on behalf of SPS Bakshi, I am of the considered view that there was no inducement and enticement on behalf of Dr. SPS Bakshi to any of the homeopathic medical colleges or institutions to purchase the medicines from M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. There is no evidence on the record file to show that accused Dr. SPS Bakshi was in any way instrumental in making the institutions to purchase medicines from M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. The decision, either to purchase or not to purchase the medicines of M/s Bakson Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, was self decision of the various institutions and no forceful means had been used by accused Dr. SPS Bakshi in this regard. He had no role to play regarding the purchase of medicines by homeopathic medical colleges and institutions.
126 It is not out of place to mention here that no nexus or motive has been proved on behalf of the CBI between the accused persons so as to bring on record the ingredients of criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B of the IPC. There is nothing on the record file to show that any illegal act was committed by any of the office bearers of the CCH. Further, no material has come on the record file to show that any illegal means were adopted. Thus, the ingredients of criminal conspiracy, which are requisite u/s 120 A, are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
127 At this stage, it may be pointed out that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the CBI and have turned hostile. They deposed nothing against the accused persons, namely, Dr. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr, Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh. Further, during their cross- examination on behalf of learned PP for CBI, nothing material could be CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 58 of 60 elucidated so as to support the case of the CBI.
128 It may be pointed out that homeopathy is a branch of medical science and is at the developing stage. This branch of science needs to be developed, keeping in view the beneficial affects which it provides. Thus, it is a science in "depth" which is at the developing stage. The role of CCH is to promote this branch of medical science. In the case in hand, none of the accused persons was getting any remuneration except TA & DA allowances. Further, they were giving honorary services to the CCH. Thus, they were functioning for the cause of CCH in the field of homeopathy.
129 The evidence, in the present case, of PW24 Paramjeet Singh Ranu is of dubious character due to political rivalry between him and Dr. SPS Bakshi and Dr. Ramjee Singh. He had contested the elections against both these persons and lost by huge margin. PW24 Paramjeet Singh Ranu is an interested witness and is not inspiring the confidence of the court. No criminal liability can be fastened on the basis of his evidence. Similarly, the evidence of PW22 SP Anand is also not fully supporting the case of CBI. He has improved on certain material aspects while deposing before the court. He is not supported by any of the documentary evidence regarding his deposition before the court. Thus, his evidence is uncorroborated from any corner. It is clear from the record file that CBI has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons for the offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w sec. 7 and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act.
130 In view of above material on the record file, I do not find any material, on the record file, to convict the accused persons u/s 120-B IPC r/w sec. 7 and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act.
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 59 of 60131 In view of the above discussions, accused persons, namely, Dr. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr, Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them u/s 120-B IPC r/w sec. 7 and u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act. Proceedings have already abated against accused, Dr. Sibendranath Sinha.
132 Bail Bonds are cancelled. Respective sureties are discharged.
133 All the acquitted accused, namely, Dr. Satinder Pal Singh Bakshi, Dr, Ramjee Singh, Dr. Arun Bhasme, Dr. M.R. Srivatsan, Sh. Kewal Krishan Juneja and Dr. B. Sohan Singh are simultaneously directed to submit Bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
134 Ahlmad is directed to paginate and book-mark the file as per the latest circular so as to enable digitization of the entire record.
135 File be consigned to record Room.
Announced in the open Court (RAMESH KUMAR)
On this 10th May of 2016. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
CC no. 15/2011 CBI Vs Dr. S.P.S. Bakshi etc Page 60 of 60