Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara Cghs ... on 23 July, 2021
CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI-15,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No. : 186/2019
CNR No. : DLCT11-000790-2019
FIR No. : RC No. 12(S)/2005/CBI/SCB-I/DLI
PS : SCB, CBI, New Delhi
U/s : 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/511, 468, 471
IPC and Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d), 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988
STATE
THROUGH
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
1. Sri Chand
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
R/o 274A, Pocket - C, Mayur Vihar,
Phase -II, Delhi-110091
..........Accused No. 1
2. Om Prakash Mittal (Expired)
S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal Mittal
R/o A-108, Shiv Vihar, Rohtak Road,
New Delhi -110087
...........Accused No. 2
3. Karamvir Singh
S/o Sh. Shobha Chand
CBI Case No. 186/2019 1 of 35
CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
R/o D-36, Pocket B, Mayur Vihar,
Phase -II, Delhi-110091
...........Accused No. 3
4. Brij Mohan Sethi (Expired)
S/o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o L-8, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi
..............Accused No. 4
5. R. K. Srivastava
S/o Late Sh. G. S. Srivastava
R/o G-12, HUDCO Place, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi
Also at: E-3, Type-VI, Govt. Banglow,
Altinho, Panjim, Goa
...............Accused No. 5
Date of Institution : 21.12.2006
Date of judgement reserved on : 17.07.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 23.07.2021
J U D G E M E N T :-
1. This case relates to the revival of Co-operative Group Housing Society namely Venkateshwara CGHS Ltd. It is the case of the CBI that this society was got revived on the basis of false and forged documents pursuant to a conspiracy hatched between the accused and also by resort to corrupt means.
2. The society Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd. was registered with the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies on 07.01.1984 vide registration no. 1287 (GH) having its office address as CB/11-C, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. Sh. P. K. CBI Case No. 186/2019 2 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) Rangarajan was its first Secretary who got it registered with RCS office. Since the society did not complete the requite statutory formalities, it was wound up vide order dated 31.10.1995 passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi U/s 63 Of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.
3. It is alleged that in the year, 1999, accused no. 1 Sri Chand collected all the records of the society from P. K. Rangarajan and moved an application dated 10.02.1999 for revival of the society in the name of P. K. Gupta who was falsely shown as Secretary of the society. Sri Chand impersonated as P. K. Gupta and also forged signatures on the said application as well as other documents. In connivance with the RCS officials namely Karamvir Singh and B. M Sethi, the then Liquidator and Assistant Registrar, South(since deceased), A1 Srichand got prepared a false report showing the desire of the members of the society to revive the dead society. The proceedings for revival of the society commenced on the basis of this false report prepared by accused Karamvir Singh. Accused Sri Chand alongwith co- accused O. P. Mittal(since expired) prepared forged record of the society like affidavits of the members of the society and proceedings of the society etc which were used as genuine in the RCS office in connivance with the RCS officials Karamvir Singh, B. M. Sethi and R. K. Srivastav. Accordingly, the society was got revived fraudulently.
4. Accused Sri Chand, in conspiracy with the other accused persons, is alleged to have replaced the affidavits of the original CBI Case No. 186/2019 3 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) and genuine members of the society with the forged affidavits. He also submitted these forged affidavits of 120 members in the RCS office for the purpose of revival of the society. The affidavits bear stamp of one stamp vendor namely S. K. Jain with License No. 205. However, the investigations have revealed that License No. 205 was issued to Sh. Satram Dass and not Sh. S. K. Jain. The affidavits bear attestation of Oath Commissioner namely P. R .Mahale who has denied having attested any such affidavit. Investigations have also revealed that P K. Gupta, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, who was shown as Secretary of the society, had never applied for membership of the society. He has denied having signed any document related to the society in this regard. Similarly, Mukesh Malik, who was shown as Treasurer of the society, also had never applied for membership of the society and has denied having signed any affidavits or documents with regards to the society matter.
5. Accused Karamvir Singh had been appointed as Liquidator in this case. He is alleged to have prepared a false report at the instance of accused B. M. Sethi without actually visiting the Registered office of the society. He is also stated to have prepared false proceedings dated 03.05.1999 of the Special General Body Meeting of the society on the dictation of the accused B. M. Sethi as well as Sri Chand. Sh. Vipin Nair, the owner of the premises No. C-73, Niti Bagh has denied that any office of the society existed at the said address or that any meeting of the society was ever held there.
CBI Case No. 186/2019 4 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
6. It is alleged that accused R. K. Srivastava, the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies, cancelled the winding up order dated 31.10.1999 of the society vide his order dated 19.11.1999 without following required procedure as well as the rules and without verifying authenticity/genuineness of the record produced before him on behalf of the society as he was acting in connivance with the other accused.
7. On the basis of outcome of the investigation carried out by CBI, charge sheet was submitted against 5 accused namely Sri Chand, Om Prakash, Karamvir, Brij Mohan, R. K. Srivastava. Sanction for the prosecution of public servants namely Karamvir Singh and R. K. Srivastav has been obtained U/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
8. Before the charges could be framed, accused B.M. Sethi and Om Prakash Mittal expired. Accordingly, proceedings against them stand abated in terms of the orders dt. 22.09.2009 and 12.01.2016 respectively.
9. Vide order on charge dated 15.11.2018, it was held that the charges are liable to be framed against the remaining three accused Srichand, Karamvir Singh and R.K. Srivastava as under:-
(i) Charges for the offence U/s 120B readwith Section 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of P C Act, 1988 against all the three accused.
CBI Case No. 186/2019 5 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
(ii) Charges for the offence U/s 420/511, 468 & 471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC against the accused Srichand.
(iii) Charges for the offence U/s 420/511, 468,471 IPC r/w Section 468 IPC and U/s 15 readwith Section 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988 against accused Karamvir Singh.
(iv) Charges for the offence U/s 15 readwith Section 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988 against accused R. K. Srivastava.
10. Accordingly, charges were framed against these three accused. Since they denied the charges and claimed false implication, trial was held.
11. The prosecution examined 45 witnesses in total to prove the charges against the accused who can be, for the sake of convenience, categorized as under:-
(i) Those who had not taken membership of the society:-
PW1 Smt. Saroj Bhasin
PW2 Sh. Ashwani Sahni
PW3 Sh. Vipin Nair
PW4 Sh. Mohd. Arif Siddiqui
PW5 Sh. Mohd. Fazil Saddiqui
PW7 Smt. Manju Khosla
PW41 Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta
CBI Case No. 186/2019 6 of 35
CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
(ii) Those who had become members in 1983-1984:-
PW10 Sh. S. Ram Dass
PW12 Sh. Ramasubbu Kumar
PW19 Sh. T.V. Subramanian
PW25 Sh. K. Balachandran
PW26 Sh. P.K. Rangarajan
PW28 Sh. Gopalan Pasupathi
PW33 Sh. R.G. Venketraman
(However, they denied their sign on the MAF & affidavits in their respective names)
(iii) Those who became member in 2003-2004 i.e. long after the revival of the society:-
PW22 Sh. Tarun Kumar Aggarwal
PW39 Sh. Vinod Kumar
PW42 Sh. Jagdish Singh
(iv) Other private witnesses:-
PW6 Sh. Kashi Nath Yadav
PW8 Sh. Jai Bhagwan Sharma
PW11 Sh. Manmohan Chopra
PW13 Sh. Mohan Lal
PW20 Sh. Neeraj Kumar
(v) Witnesses from RCS Office:-
PW15 Sh. Manoj Kumar
PW16 Sh. Mohan Chand Joshi
PW17 Sh. Hari Darshan K.
CBI Case No. 186/2019 7 of 35
CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) PW21 Sh. B.K. Grover PW23 Sh. Raghubir Singh PW24 Sh. Harvinder Singh PW27 Sh. B.L. Sharma PW30 Sh. Jagan Nath PW43 Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma
(vi) Stamp Vendor:-
PW34 Sh. Pankaj Bharadwaj
(vii) Oath Commissioner:-
PW9 Sh. Pale Ram Mahla
PW18 Sh. Sudhir Mittal
(viii) Witnesses from SDM/DC Offices:-
PW14 Sh. Ashok Kumar
PW31 Sh. Mohinder Singh
(ix) Witness from DDA:-
PW35 Sh. Paras Nath
(x) Witness from DSC Bank:-
PW38 Sh. Surinder Kumar Abrol
(xi) Sanctioning Authorities:-
PW29 Sh. Vijay Kumar
PW40 Sh. Vijay Kumar
CBI Case No. 186/2019 8 of 35
CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
(xii) Witnesses to taking of specimens of accused Srichand:-
PW36 Sh. Virender Singh Dagar
PW37 Sh. Suraj Prakash
(xiii) GEQD:-
PW44 Dr. B.A. Vaid
(xiv) Witnesses from CBI:-
PW32 Sh. Raj Singh
PW45 Sh. R.C. Garvan
12. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating facts & circumstances were put to each of these accused in their examination U/s 313 Cr PC, which they denied. All of them claimed innocence.
13. Only the accused Karamvir examined one witness (DW1) in his defence. Other two accused chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.
14. I have heard Ld. PP as well as the Ld. Defence Counsels at length and also perused the entire oral/documentary evidence on record.
15. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, got the defunct society Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd revived on the basis of fake/forged documents with the object to cause a wrongful gain to CBI Case No. 186/2019 9 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) themselves.
16. Accused Srichand is stated to be the kingpin of the conspiracy who collected the records of the society from its Secretary Sh. P.K. Rangarajan and thereafter initiated the process for revival of the society on the basis of forged documents while impersonating as Sh. P.K. Gupta, newly elected Secretary of the Society.
17. It is not in dispute that Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd was registered in the RCS Office on 07.01.1984 with the registration No. 1287-GH having its registered office address at CB/11-C, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. Sh. P.K. Rangarajan was the first Secretary of the society who got it registered. It is also not disputed that the requisite statutory formalities were not completed on behalf of the society and accordingly, the same was wound up vide order dated 31.10.1995 passed u/s 63 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.
18. Perusal of the file related to the society maintained in the RCS Office Ex. PW-32/2 reveals that a request letter dated 08.02.1999 was received in the office from the society seeking its revival and verification of the final membership list. It was accompanied by another letter of even date seeking change of office address of the society to C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-
110049. Both these letters have been purportedly signed by one Sh. P.K. Gupta in the capacity of the Honorary Secretary of the society. These two letters received from the society were taken CBI Case No. 186/2019 10 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) up vide note dated 10.02.1999 in the noting file Ex. PW-32/6. Thus the process for revival of the society commenced in the RCS Office.
19. In the aforesaid two letters, reference has been given to the proceedings of the General Body Meeting of the Society held on 27.01.1999, wherein it is stated to have been resolved unanimously to shift the address of the society from Munirka to Neeti Bagh. Copies of these proceedings were enclosed with the letter seeking change of address of the society. The proceedings of the said General Body Meeting can be found from the Page No. 6 to Page No. 10 of the Proceedings Register Ex. PW-26/7 (also marked as Ex. PW-32/11). Perusal of the same reveals that the said meeting was held on 27.01.1999 at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi under the Charimanship of Sh. P.K. Rangarajan to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee and accordingly, following members were unanimously nominated/elected to various posts :-
(1) Sh. Om Prakash Mittal - President
(2) Ms. Manju Khosla - Vice President
(3) Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta - Executive Member
(4) Sh. Mukesh Malik - Executive Member
(5) Sh. Shyam Lal - Executive Member
20. It also appears that Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta was nominated as Secretary of the Society whereas Sh. Mukesh Malik was nominated as its Treasurer. Perusal of the Minutes of subsequent Meetings of the Managing Committee of the society CBI Case No. 186/2019 11 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) dt. 02.02.1999, 18.11.1999 and 02.12.1999 as well as the minutes of Special General Body Meeting convened by the Liquidator reveal that these too are stated to be held at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. Manju Khosla is shown to be present in all these meetings.
21. Mr. P.K. Rangarajan has been examined as PW26 by the prosecution. He has deposed that the proceedings register (D-20) Ex. PW-26/7 is not a genuine register and the minutes recorded therein from Page Nos. 1 to 45 are not genuine. He further deposed that his signatures have been forged on these minutes at Point A. He also deposed that O.P. Mittal was never elected as President of the Society, Manju Khosla was never elected as Vice President of the society and Pawan Kumar Gupta as well as Mukesh Malik were never elected as Executive Members of the society.
22. PW3 is the owner of House No. C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049. He deposed that he has never permitted anyone to use the aforesaid house for any purpose whatsoever. He further deposed that two letters from RCS Office addressed to the society Venketeshwara CGHS were received at the address of this house whereupon he told the postman that this is a private house and no society was functioning from there.
23. Ms. Manju Khosla, appearing as PW7 for the prosecution, has deposed that she had never taken the membership of Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd. When her attention was drawn to the CBI Case No. 186/2019 12 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) above noted Minutes of the Meeting dated 03.05.1999, she deposed that she did not attend any such General Body Meeting of the society as she had no reason to do so and wondered how could she have been appointed as Vice President of the society. Similarly, Smt. Saroj Bhasin (PW1), who has also shown to have been present in the said General Body Meeting dt. 27.01.1999, has deposed that she had never become the member of the said society and therefore, there was no reason or occasion for her also to attend any such General Body Meeting of the Society.
24. PW7 has also denied her signatures against her name in the Minutes of subsequent to Special General Body Meetings of the Society stated to be held on 18.11.1999 and 02.12.1999 which are at Page No. 16 & 17 of the proceedings register Ex. PW-26/7.
25. Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows that all the minutes recorded in the proceedings register (D-20) Ex. PW-26/7 had been forged in order to make ground for revival of the society. In fact no such meeting had taken place particularly at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. It is a bogus register containing totally false minutes. Besides the said register, the affidavits of all 120 members of the society purportedly sworn on 08.02.1999, also were submitted in the RCS office in order to depict that all the members are genuine and interested in revival of the society. A separate affidavit dated 03.12.1999 of Sh. Om Prakash Mittal in the capacity of Secretary of the society was also submitted in the RCS Office, as required. These affidavits are found in the file D-5 (Volume II). These are purportedly attested by a notary CBI Case No. 186/2019 13 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) Sh. P.R. Mahla on 08.02.1999. Sh. P.R. Mahla has been examined as PW9. He has deposed that he has not attested these affidavits. He stated that the signature of the Notary Public appearing on these affidavits is not his signatures and the seal above the signatures found in his name, is not his seal. There are affidavits in the names of Saroj Bhasin, Ashwani Sahni, Akil (Arif) Siddiqui, Manju Khosla and Ramesh Gupta who have denied their signatures on these affidavits respectively. The separate affidavit in the name of Om Prakash Mittal (Secretary) Ex.PW- 18/1 is purportedly attested by Notary Public by the name Sudhir Mittal. However, Mr. Sudhir Mittal (Notary Public) appearing as PW18 deposed that the said affidavit has not been attested him. He stated that the seal and the initials appearing at Point X on each page of the said affidavit are not his seal and his signatures.
26. The above named persons Saroj Bhasin, Ashwani Sahni, Akil (Arif) Siddiqui, Fazil Saddiqui, Manju Khosla and Ramesh Chand Gupta have been shown to be the members of the society with membership numbers 98, 80, 108, 109, 115 & 99 respectively. They have been examined as PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW7 & PW41 respectively. All of them deposed that they had never become the members of the society and also denied their signatures on the membership application forms as well as the affidavits in their respective names.
27. Vide letter dated 10.12.1999 [at Page 448/C in file Ex. PW-33/5 (D-7)], the Secretary P.K. Gupta had submitted original affidavits of all the 120 members of the society which had been CBI Case No. 186/2019 14 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) purportedly received from them at the time of their enrolment in the year 1983-1986. These affidavits are from page No. 445/C to 326/C in the said file Ex. PW-33/5. These bear the serial nos. from 76691 to 76758 (of year 1983), 1126 to 1132 (of year 1985) and 938 to 970 & 1802 to 1813 (of the year 1986) on their back side. These have been attested by an Oath Commissioner appointed by Delhi High Court which is depicted from the seal of Oath Commissioner affixed on them. These only bear the initials of the Oath Commissioner. His name does not appear at any place on these affidavits. However, as per the deposition of PW26, he had prepared a list of members of the society Ex. PW- 26/4 in response to the letter dt. 08.12.1983 received from RCS Office and forwarded the same to RCS Office vide letter dt. 27.12.1983 (Ex. PW-26/3). He deposed that the list shows the respective serial numbers of the stamp papers purchased in the name of original members of the society and is attested by the concerned stamp vendor at Point A. The serial numbers of the stamp papers issued in the names of the 66 members of the society in the year 1983 reflected in the said list are 40191 to 40209, 40211 to 40218 and 41881 to 41920. The list is duly certified by the stamp vendor and bears his seal as well as license number.
28. The serial numbers of the stamp papers in the name of original 66 members of the society as mentioned in the above list Ex. PW-26/4 prepared by PW26 in the year 1983 nowhere match with the serial numbers of the stamp papers submitted in the RCS Office vide letter dt. 10.12.1999 at the time of seeking the revival CBI Case No. 186/2019 15 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) of the society. There is no cross-examination of PW26 on this aspect of his testimony on behalf of any of the accused which implies that the authenticity of the list Ex. PW-26/4 is not in question at all. All this leads to the conclusion that the original genuine affidavits of the members of the society of the year 1983 were removed and replaced by the fake/forged affidavits which were then submitted in the RCS Office during the process for revival of the society. Manifestly, therefore, the affidavits of the members at Page numbers 445/C to 326/C in the file Ex. PW- 33/5 are totally forged ones.
29. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence led by the prosecution that the entire records of the society including its proceedings register, membership application forms, affidavits as well as membership list had been forged in the year 1999 in order to seek its revival. The membership list contains the names of the persons who had never taken membership of the society. The affidavits in the name of the members were manipulated and forged. Even the signatures of the Notary Public have been forged on those affidavits. It is thus manifest that the revival of the society had been sought on the basis of totally forged and fictitious documents.
30. The crucial question which now arises for consideration is whether the forgery in the records of the society was done in pursuance to any conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution and if so who were the conspirators and who is the actual imposter?
CBI Case No. 186/2019 16 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
31. Sections 120 A and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code make conspiracy a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be :-
(a) an object to be accomplished,
(b) a plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object,
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement or by any effectual means, and
(d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.
32. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of the two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. The essential ingredients of this offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved by direct evident or by circumstantial evidence or by both.
33. Like most crimes, conspiracy also requires an act (actus CBI Case No. 186/2019 17 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) reus) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). The agreement constitutes the acts, and the intention to achieve the unlawful object of that agreement constitutes the required mental state. To convict a person for the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution must show that he agreed with others that together they would accomplish the unlawful object of the conspiracy. A major problem arises in connection with the requirement of an agreement in determining the scope of a conspiracy - who are the parties and what are their objectives. This determination is critical, since it defines the potential liability of each accused.
34. Where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from the circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give arise to a conclusive and irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirator for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of 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.
[See State Vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253, Yakub Razak Menon Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1, Isher Singh Vs. State CBI Case No. 186/2019 18 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585, State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha (2017) 6 SCC 263, Firozuddin Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596].
35. As already noted hereinabove, the revival of the society was sought by submitting a letter dated 08.02.1999 in the RCS office. The letter is at Page No. 30 in the file Ex. PW-32/12 which bears the signatures of one P.K. Gupta as the Honorary Secretary of the society. The subsequent correspondences from the society to the RCS Office also bear the signatures of P.K. Gupta as Honorary Secretary of the society. It was submitted by Ld. PP that even though the signatures are in the name of P.K. Gupta, yet it is evident from the expert opinion of the GEQD Ex. PW-44/1 that the same have actually been appended by accused Srichand. He submitted that P.K. Gupta, in his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC, has denied having any concern with the society and also has denied that signatures in his name on various correspondences sent on behalf of the society to RCS office, are his signatures. It is pointed out by him that this witness had expired before he could be examined in this case. It is his submission that accused Srichand was the main Conspirator who conceived the idea of forgery of the records of the society and actually forged/got forged those records, whereupon he involved the RCS Officials that is accused R.K. Srivastava (the then Registrar Cooperative Societies) and Karamvir (who was appointed as Liquidator for the society) in the conspiracy to ensure that the society gets revived without any objection in the CBI Case No. 186/2019 19 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) RCS office and its approved list of members is forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land to it.
36. Perusal of the ordersheets of this case reveal that P.K. Gupta had been summoned for 06.07.2019 to depose in this case but it was reported on the summons that he has already expired. Hence, this court does not have the benefit of his testimony.
37. It is true that as per the expert opinion Ex. PW-44/1, the signatures in the name of P.K. Gupta and various other signatures on the forged documents have been appended by accused Srichand. As per the deposition of the IO PW32 as well as the two independent witnesses PW37 & PW38, the specimen signatures/writings S-1 to S-82 are that of accused Srichand. It is these specimens of accused Srichand which were sent to GEQD alongwith the questioned documents for comparison and opinion. However, the GEQD (PW44) does not appear to have given his opinion upon comparison of the above specimens S-1 to S-82 of accused Srichand with the questioned documents. He has deposed in his cross-examination that the specimen signatures of accused Srichand received in this case were not sufficient for examination and opinion and therefore, he found it necessary to examine his signatures/writings received in their laboratory in another case. Thus, the specimens of accused Srichand, on examination of which PW44 had rendered his opinion, have not been proved by CBI in this case. There is no evidence on record as to who obtained those specimens, when, where and in whose presence. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainity that the CBI Case No. 186/2019 20 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) specimens which were examined by PW44, on the basis of which he has given his opinion, were that of accused Srichand. This renders the expert opinion Ex. PW-44/1 totally nugatory and unreliable.
38. Having discarded the expert opinion Ex. PW-44/1, this court does find some amount of inculpatory evidence on record indicating the involvement of accused Srichand in the forgery of the records of the society. It would be pertinent here to refer to the deposition of the PW26 again. He wass the founder member of the society as well as its Secretary till the year 1995 when the society was wound up. I find it apposite to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of his testimony:-
" Upon receipt of the winding up order, I was not aware what to do. Further, I was also involved in my personal problems. Later on, I thought to find out what can be done regarding the society. Accordingly, I visited the RCS office in the year 1999 to enquire as to what formalities have to be completed. During my visits to the RCS office, one peon namely Raghubir introduced me to a person named Srichand saying that he is the consultant of the society and he would help me out. Accordingly, I met Srichand and apprised him about the position of the society. He asked me to provide him the documents regarding the society which I did. He had acknowledged the receipt of documents vide receipt dated 04.02.99 (D-8 at page No. 2). This receipt is in my handwriting and bears the signature of Srichand at point A which I identify as he had signed the same in my presence. The receipt is Ex.PW26/2. The details of the documents CBI Case No. 186/2019 21 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) handed over by me to Srichand is mentioned in the said receipt.
However, I did not receive any communication either from RCS office or from Srichand thereafter and I presumed that he must have completed the requisite formalities. I do not know what happened to the society thereafter".
39. This witness correctly identified accused Srichand during the course of his deposition before this court. It would also be useful to reproduce hereunder the statement of this witness in his cross-examination on this aspect:-
" I cannot tell the exact date when I had visited the RCS office to know about the procedure for revival of the society. No Resolution was passed in any meeting of the society for handing over the records of the society to any other person. Sh. V.K. Murty was President of the society at that time. I do not recollect the names of other office bearers. I had not taken written consent from other office bearers of the society for handing over the records of the society to any person. (Vol. I had taken verbal consent but I do not recollect who had given such verbal consent).
I had not written any letter to the RCS office informing that I have appointed Srichand to manage the affairs of the society. I had not written any letter either to RCS office or to the members of the society informing them that I have handed over the records of the society to Srichand. I am not in possession of any copy of the affidavit or the copy of any documents which I had submitted initially at the time of registration of the society. I had not written any letter to the RCS office CBI Case No. 186/2019 22 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) even after the handing over the documents to Srichand, to know about the status of the society."
40. Relying upon the above cross-examination of PW26, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Srichand that he is not a trustworthy witness and have deposed falsely. He argued that PW26 is a well qualified person having a Degree in Law also and therefore, it can't be believed that he would handover the original documents of the society to a totally stranger and thereafter would not do any follow up action. It was further argued by him that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Srichand had, at any point of time, met the other accused in this case and therefore, he cannot be said to be a conspirator.
41. The above receipt Ex. PW-26/2 is dated 04.02.1999 i.e. only four days prior to submitting application on behalf of the society in RCS office on 08.02.1999 for its revival. PW26 has very clearly stated that this receipt is in his handwriting and Srichand had signed it at Point A in his presence in token of having received the documents mentioned therein. He also identified the accused Srichand to be the same person to whom he had handed over the documents of the society and who had executed the said receipt Ex. PW-26/2. He has denied all the suggestions put to him in the cross-examination in this regard.
42. It has come out in the cross-examination of PW26 that he was well qualified (having a Law Degree also); no resolution had CBI Case No. 186/2019 23 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) been passed in any meeting of the society for handing over the records of the society to any other person; he had not taken written consent from office bearers of the society for doing so; he did not inform the members of the society about the handing over of records to Srichand; and he did not follow up the matter with Srichand thereafter. These facts do raise suspicion about the conduct of this witness but do not falsify his testimony to the effect that he had handed over the records of the society to accused Srichand. Such conduct of PW26 may, at best, indicate that his intention and motive was not genuine or bonafide as projected by him in his testimony. What transpires from scrutiny of entire testimony of this witness PW26 is that he must have colluded with accused Srichand and handed over the records of the society to him in lieu of some monetary or other consideration. In other words, PW26 appears to have sold the society records to accused Srichand malafidely, unlawfully and in breach of trust. These records have been utilized to prepare further manipulated/forged record in order to make out a case for revival of otherwise defunct society. Had the IO been more vigilant & professional in conducting investigation of this case and had he made a deeper probe to ascertain the actual motive of PW26 behind his handing over the society records to accused Srichand, he would have definitely arraigned him as an Conspirator in this case instead of citing him as the witness. PW26 has patently committed criminal breach of trust in parting with the society records unlawfully and without taking written consent from other office bearers in a meeting. But nothing can be done now as he has already been examined as a prosecution CBI Case No. 186/2019 24 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) witness in this case.
43. Even though the motive & intent of PW26 in parting with the records of the society remains doubtful, yet it is established beyond any doubt that he had handed over these records to none other than the accused Srichand. Assuming for the sake of arguments that testimony of PW26 in this regard can't be trusted in view of his own malafide & criminal conduct, still there is enough evidence on record which inculpates accused Srichand.
44. PW3, who is the owner of House No. 73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi which is shown to be office address of the society, has deposed that he had received two letters from RCS Office addressed to the society Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd which he handed over to a representative of society sent by accused Srichand. In the cross-examination, he clarified that the said representative had verbally told him that he is the representative of Srichand.
45. This witness is an Advocate by profession. His late father K.M.K. Nair also was a lawyer. As per his deposition, accused Srichand was not a stranger to him. Accused Srichand used to take legal advice from his father and was his client. There is nothing in his deposition to disbelieve him. There was no reason or occasion for him to take the name of accused Srichand falsely in this case. He appears to be a trustworthy witness.
46. What becomes now manifest is that since the address of CBI Case No. 186/2019 25 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) residential house of PW3 was known to accused Srichand, he conveniently used the same as office address of the society at the time of seeking its revival. These appears to be acquiescence on the part of PW3 and his father also for the same. This is evident from the fact that PW3 never enquired from accused Srichand, who had sent his representative to collect the letters, as to why he has mentioned their residential address as the office address of the society.
47. Be that as it may, the testimony of PW3 clearly indicates that Srichand was connected to the society in some way or the other and was interested in its revival.
48. PW20 is another material witnesss with regard to the involvement of accused Srichand in this case. He is a practicing chartered accountant. He used to conduct audit of the society and prepared the audit reports Ex. PW-20/1 to Ex. PW-20/15 for the years 1984-85 to 1997-98 respectively. He had deposed that the documents of the society were brought to his office by accused Srichand for audit purpose. He also identified the said accused in court during his deposition. In his cross-examination it has nowhere been put to him that accused Srichand had not provided him the documents of the society for audit purposes.
49. PW13 has very candidly stated in his testimony that he has written names of some members below the minutes of the proceedings of Special General Body Meeting dt. 03.05.1999. he further admitted that he had filled up the membership application CBI Case No. 186/2019 26 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) forms which are at Page Nos. 260/C to 314/C in file D-5. He deposed that he did not know the persons in whose name are these application forms and they had not come to him for filling up these forms.
50. These application forms pertain to the year 1983 which is manifest from the date mentioned at the bottom of each form. PW13 had no concern with the society or these members in the year 1983. Though he did not state as to at whose instance had he filled up these forms citing "inability to recollect" yet his overall deposition indicates that he had done it in the year 1999 at the behest of accused Srichand. He was well known to accused Srichand since 1992 as both were office bearers of Naval Technical Officers CGHS and used to visit the office of the said society frequently which premises was owned by the son of accused Srichand. Both are, admittedly, facing prosecution together in seven CBI cases related to other Co-operative Group Housing Societies. It is manifest that he did not take the name of accused Srichand in this case only in order to shield him due to the above close association with him. Had he done the said writing work at the instance of any other person, he would definitely have named that person before this court. When he recollected vividly that these forms were filled up by him, it is difficult to believe that he was unable to recollect the name of the person at whose instance did he perform this task. Only logical inference which can be deduced from scrutiny of his entire testimony is that these forms were fabricated by him in the year 1999 at the instance of accused Srichand.
CBI Case No. 186/2019 27 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
51. The testimony of above witnesses indicates undoubtedly that accused Srichand was the kingpin of conspiracy in this case. He received the original records of the society from PW26, on the basis of which he fabricated/got fabricated further records of the society w.e.f 1995 (i.e. the year when it had been put under liquidation) onwards to make out a good case for its revival. It appears that he involved PW13 and some other persons in the fabrication of records of the society so that the object of the conspiracy (i.e. revival of society and approval of its membership list) is achieved. The evidence on record further reveals that he won over certain officials posted in RCS office also and involved them in the conspiracy so that the forgery of records does not get exposed in the office which would have frustrated the object of the conspiracy. However, there is no evidence on record to indicate that he was the actual imposter or that he had submitted the forged records of society in RCS Office. So, the charges u/s 468 IPC & 471 IPC have not been proved against him.
52. Accused Karamvir Singh is one of such officials who had colluded with accused Srichand and assisted him in achieving the object of the conspiracy. Admittedly, accused Karamvir Singh had been appointed as Liquidator for society Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd vide noting dated 16.02.1999 to take action as per the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and to submit a report accordingly within 15 days. This was a step in the process of examination of the revival request of the society and intended to ascertain the genuineness of the said request. The report submitted by him is dated 04.05.1999 and is Ex. PW-24/2, CBI Case No. 186/2019 28 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) wherein it is stated that he had called the Special General Body Meeting of the Society on 03.05.1999 at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi to seek the views of the members for revival of the society. He has enclosed the Minutes of the said Special General Body Meeting alongwith his Report. The above referred report of the Liquidator i.e. accused Karamvir Singh is patently false and fabricated. Firstly for the reason that the Special General Body Meeting convened by him on 03.05.1999 is stated to have been taken place at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. As already noted hereinabove, PW3 who is the owner of the said house has deposed that no society was functioning from his house. He has further deposed that two letters from RCS Office addressed to Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd were received at the address of his above house which he later handed over to the representative sent by accused Srichand and told the postman that this is a private house and no society was functioning from there. Even though he has been cross-examined on behalf of accused Srichand, interestingly there is no cross-examination of this witness on behalf of accused Karamvir Singh. In case accused Karamvir Singh had actually convened the Special General Body Meeting dated 03.05.1999 of the society at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi, it was for him to cross-examine PW3 on this aspect and bring out facts to support his contentions. It is, therefore, evident that actually no such meeting had been convened and no such meeting had taken place on 03.05.1999 at C-73, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. Further, the Minutes of the said meeting which appear at Page No. 12 to Page No. 15 in the proceedings register Ex. PW-26/7 show the presence of P.K. Rangarajan, Manju CBI Case No. 186/2019 29 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) Khosla, Aqil Siddiqui and Saroj Bhasin in the same. These four persons appearing as PW26, PW7, PW3 & PW1 respectively have denied having attended any such meeting of the society. PW1, PW3 and PW7 have further deposed that since they had never taken membership of the society, there was no reason or occasion for them to attend any such meeting. PW26, who was the founder member of the society, has gone further to depose that the entire proceedings register Ex. PW-26/7 is not genuine and has been fabricated. He has deposed that his signatures too has been forged at Point A against his name in the Minutes of the above meeting dated 03.05.1999.
53. The evidence on record, thus makes it clear that accused Karamvir Singh had actually not convened any Special General Body Meeting of the Society. To the contrary he has prepared the totally false minutes of the said meeting as well as the report Ex. PW-24/2. Such conduct of this accused is sufficient to indicate that he was won over by accused Srichand and had colluded with him by joining the conspiracy. The task assigned to him was to submit a false report which he did in order to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is achieved and the forgery in the records of the society does not get exposed. There is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that he had done his duty as liquidator bonafidely, honestly and in due discharge of his responsibilities as a Public Servant. This manifests that he had submitted the false report in order to assist accused Srichand to get the society revived on the basis of forged documents so that its membership list is approved and forwarded to DDA for CBI Case No. 186/2019 30 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) allotment of land to it which would have caused huge financial gain to accused Srichand. Accordingly, he is liable to be convicted of the charges framed against him.
54. So far as the accused R.K. Srivastava is concerned, he was the Registrar Cooperative Societies at the relevant time and he had passed the order dated 02.12.1999, thereby reviving the society Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd. It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for this accused that he had joined as the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14.09.1999 i.e. at a very late stage and at that time the process for revival of society had been almost completed. It is his submission that the entire process had taken place during the tenure of Sh. Gopal Dixit, the previous Registrar and nothing more remained to be done except the passing of the formal revival order, which was then passed by this accused R.K. Srivastava. He further argued that there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was any meeting of minds between the accused R.K. Srivastava and accused Srichand. He pointed out that accused Karamvir Singh had been appointed as a Liquidator by the previous Registrar Gopal Dixit on the proposal of Assistant Registrar B.M. Sethi and at that time accused R.K. Srivastava was not in picture at all. He would argue that the perusal of noting file Ex. PW-32/6 would reveal that the decision for revival of the society had already been taken before this accused R.K. Srivastava appointed as the Registrar. On these submissions, the Ld. Counsel urged this court to acquit him.
CBI Case No. 186/2019 31 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd)
55. It is true that accused R.K. Srivastava had joined as Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14.09.1999 and the previous Registrar Sh. Gopal Dixit had, vide noting dated 05.07.1999 recommended revival of the society subject to the conditions contained in the previous note dated 28.06.1999. However, perusal of the noting file Ex. PW-32/6 reveals that as directed by Sh. Gopal Dixit in the above note dated 05.07.1999 itself, the file related to the society was put up before the Hon'ble Minister of Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for his perusal in view of the decision taken in the first meeting of the Working Committee of Delhi Cooperative Development Board on 01.05.1998. It appears that by the time the file reached the Hon'ble Minister, the Registrar Gopal Dixit had been transferred from the office and therefore, the Hon'ble Minister wanted the new Registrar also to examine the case. Accordingly, he made endorsement dated 02.08.1999 to the effect that "the new RCS may also see the case first".
56. When the file reached back to RCS Office, accused R.K. Srivastava had taken over as the Registrar. The file was put up before him for the first time on 10.11.1999 upon receipt of some opinion from the Department of Law & Justice. He issued notice to the Managing Committee to appear before him on 17.11.1999 at 3.00 pm to present its case. Perusal of the ordersheet dated 17.11.1999 passed by accused R.K. Srivastava on the file reveals that documents related to the society were placed before him on that date by O.P. Mittal, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh Malik representing themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer CBI Case No. 186/2019 32 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) respectively of the Society. They also gave certain assurances to R.K. Srivastava who appears to have believed those assurances as well as the documents submitted by them without any further enquiry or verification and accordingly, passed revival order dated 02.12.1999.
57. It is difficult to say that accused R.K. Srivastava did not conduct any effective proceedings in this case and merely passed a formal revival order. The Hon'ble Minister had remanded the file back to the RCS Office not as a mere formality but for the reason that he wanted the new Registrar also to examine the case on its merits and not to simply go by the recommendation of the previous Registrar Sh. Gopal Dixit. Since the society had not been revived when the file was put up before accused R.K. Srivastava as the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Hon'ble Minister had wanted the new Registrar also to examine the case on its merits, it was for R.K. Srivastava to conduct strict scrutiny of the entire case including the documents submitted on behalf of the society before him on 17.11.1999 and to take the decision accordingly. To the contrary, he has shown a completely casual approach. He has neither examined the entire case nor did he apply his mind to the documents/notings on record. He proceeded to believe blindfoldedly as was communicated to him by the three office bearers of the society who appeared before him on 17.11.1999 and whatever has been mentioned in the note dated 28.06.1999. The conduct of the said accused and the circumstances in which he had passed the revival order dated 02.12.1999 clearly indicate that he had colluded with the other CBI Case No. 186/2019 33 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) accused and was part of the entire conspiracy.
58. No doubt accused Karamvir Singh had been appointed as a Liquidator by the previous Registrar Gopal Dixit and he had submitted his report during the tenure of Gopal Dixit, it cannot be said that there was no occasion for him and accused R.K. Srivastava to enter into the conspiracy by having meeting of their minds. As already noted hereinabove, the manner in which the accused R.K. Srivastava passed the revival order without examining the case with open mind and without applying his mind to the documents/notings on record, is sufficient to indicate that he had been taken into confidence by accused Karamvir Singh and other conspirators for which reason he choose not to launch any enquiry with regards to the documents submitted on behalf of the society or with regard to the report which had been submitted by accused Karamveer Singh. So far as the conspiracies are concerned, it is not necessary that every conspirator must have joined the conspiracy at the initial stage when the same is hatched or put in action. A person may join the conspiracy at any stage till the object of the conspiracy is finally achieved. Had accused R.K. Srivastava been vigilant, bona-fide and honest in his approach as a responsible public servant and had he not acted in connivance with other accused as well as against the public good, he would have detected the fraud and forgery and would never have passed the revival order in question. He has certainly acted against the public good in order to cause undue pecuniary advantage to other conspirators, particularly to accused Srichand. Therefore, he is also liable to CBI Case No. 186/2019 34 of 35 CBI Vs. Srichand Etc (Sri Venketeshwara CGHS Ltd) be convicted.
59. In the light of above discussion, all the three accused namely Srichand, Karamvir Singh and R.K. Srivastava are hereby convicted as under:-
(i) All the three accused are convicted for the offence of conspiracy U/s 120B r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w section 468 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
(ii) Accused Srichand is also convicted of the offence u/s 420/511 IPC; (he stands acquitted of all other charges)
(iii) Accused Karamvir Singh is also convicted of the offence u/s 468 IPC, 471 IPC and u/s 15 r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
(iv) Accused R.K. Srivastava is also convicted of the offence u/s 15 r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Announced through Video Conferencing
on CISCO Webex Meetings App. on this
23rd Day of July, 2021 Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER BHAT
BHAT Date:
2021.07.24
13:27:01 +0530
(VIRENDER BHAT)
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-15,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
CBI Case No. 186/2019 35 of 35