Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Srichand Etc. (Chander Lok Cghs Ltd.) on 29 January, 2019
CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01 (PC ACT) NORTH-WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No.: 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008)
CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
CNR No. : DLNW01-000059-2008
RC No. 22(A)/2006/CBI/SCU-V/SCR-II/N. Delhi
U/Sec.: 120B IPC r/w Section
419/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13
(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,
1988.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERUS
1.Srichand S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh R/o H. No. 274-A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. ..............................................................................(A-1) CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
2. Anna Wankhede S/o Sh. Porongi R/o H. No. 148-C, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. ..............................................................................(A-2)
3. K.A. Kanekar Sh. Akoba Kanekar R/o H. No. 172-D, Pocket-B, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. .............................................................................(A-3)
4. S.P. Saxena S/o Late Sh. Raja Bahadur Saxena R/o 64 Adarsh Purwal CGHS Ltd., Princess Park, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi. .......................................................................(A-4)
5. Ashok Johri S/o Late Sh. Mani Lal Johri R/o 27A, Neelkanth Apartment, 46 IP Extension, Delhi. ..............................................................................(A-5)
6. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena R/o C-34/D, Madhu Vihar, Patparganj, New Dehi. .......................................................................(A-6)
7. P.K. Thirwani S/o Late Sh. Moti Ram R/o 348-D, Pocket-II, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. ..............................................................................(A-7) CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
8. Narayan Diwakar S/o Late Sh. Chatthi Lal R/o G-30, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. ......................................................................(A-8)
9. Satish Singh Aswal S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Aswal R/o H. No. 813, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. ......................................................................(A-9)
10. Ramesh Chander S/o Late Sh. Agya Ram R/o CD-52F, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. ....................................................................(A-10)
11. Kishore Aggarwal S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder R/o P-5, Gali No. 13, Madhu Vihar, Delhi. ............................................................................(A-11)
12. Rajat Verma S/o Sh. Dharminder Swaroop Saxena R/o A-2/701, Silver Estate Apartments, Sector-50, Noida. ...........................................................................(A-12)
13. Neeraj Mahajan S/o Sh. Yashpal R/o 118/4, MES Officers Enclave, Bibiwala Chowk, Bhatinda, Punjab. .........................................................................(A-13) CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
14. Sanjay Kapasia S/o Sh. Shiv Raj Singh F-382 Delta, Moida PS Kasna, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. .........................................(A-14)
15. Mohit Saxena S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Saxena R/o Flat No. 1011, Park Royal Apartments, Sector-9, Plot No. 10-A, 1st Floor, Dwarka, New Delhi. .....................................................................A-15)
16. Rameshwar Dayal S/o Sh. Ram Richpal R/o 4/12, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi. ............................................................................(A-16) ORDER ON THE POINT OF CHARGE:-
1. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI in short), which is the investigating as well as prosecuting agency in this case, has charge-
sheeted above named accused for having committed the offences punishable under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w Section 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the substantive offences thereof.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that A1 Srichand in conspiracy with his employees, friends and officials of the RCS office as CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) well as other private persons got prepared/forged proceedings of the General Body Meetings etc. as well as the resignations and enrolments of the members of the society Chander Lok CGHS Ltd and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, the said society was got revived, its freeze list of 75 members was got approved and a plot of land bearing No. 13, Sector-19, Dwarka was allotted to the society by DDA upon which flats were later on concluded. It is stated that the construction of the flats in the society was in full swing at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Chander Lok Cooperative Group Housing Society(hereinafter referred to as "the society") was registered with the office of RCS on 25.01.1980 vide Registration No. 508-GH with 52 promoter members. The society had its registered office at 81 Adhchini, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. Sh. Deep Chand was its President, Sh. Daya Nand was its Vice-President, Sh. Chander Pal was its Secretary and Sh. Rajbir was its Treasurer. However, the society was placed under liquidation vide order dated 25.11.1987 on the basis of enquiry conducted by Sh. S.K. Panchal, SI in the office of RCS, New Delhi under Section 55 of DCS Act, 1972. All the office bearers of the society are stated to have died by the year 1999.
4. Prosecution alleges that accused Srichand surreptitiously obtained records of the society including proceedings register and membership register after the death of its Secretary Sh. Chander Pal. He alongwith accused Anna Wankhade jointly prepared bogus minutes CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) of the meetings dated 08.05.1981 showing the resignations of 10 promoter members and enrolments of 33 new members including accused Anna Wankhede, K.A. Kanekar and several bogus persons namely Surender Pratap etc. The strength of the society was increased from 52 to 75. False proceedings of another meeting dated 15.06.86 were prepared by accused Anna Wankhede showing the shifting the office of the society from Adhchini to 128 Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that the owner of the said premises had has denied having given the said premises to the society. In the same minutes of dated 15.06.86, there is mention of bogus election of the office bearers of the society showing the accused Anna Wankhede to have been elected as its President, Kamlesh as its Vice-President, Surender Pratap as its Secretary, K.A. Kanekar as its Treasurer and Chandra Prabha as its Executive Member. It is stated that Surender Pratap is a bogus person and his address recorded as G-5, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi is non existing. It is also stated that Chandra Prabha and Kamlesh too are non existing persons.
5. It is further alleged that the minutes of the several bogus meetings stated to have been held between the years 1986 and 1997 were prepared by accused Anna Wankhede. In the meeting dated 22.07.2001 election of the office bearers of the society is shown to have been conducted by a bogus election officer S.K. Sharma wherein the above office bearers were re-elected. In another bogus minutes dated 03.09.2001 Surender Pratap is shown to have been appointed as CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) Secretary of the Society and K.A. Kanekar as its Treasurer.
6. Further case of prosecution is that an application dated 07.09.2001 was submitted on behalf of the society under the signature of bogus persons namely Surender Pratap as its Secretary before the Assistant Registrar in the RCS office for revival of the society and approval of its final list of members. It was also mentioned in the letter that shifting of the office of the society from Adhchini to Vinoba Puri was informed to RCS office vide letter dated 18.06.86 and the society did not receive the notice of liquidation of its new address. It is alleged that accused Satish Aswal, the dealing clerk in the RCS office dishonestly and fraudulently as well as by abusing of his official position submitted a note dated 14.09.01 recommending sympathetic consideration of the request of the society for approval of its list of 75 members and also mentioned that the society had, vide its letter dated 18.06.86, submitted the list of 75 members for onward transmission for allotment of land whereas no such letter had been received in the RCS office from the society which fact was concealed by accused Aswal. He also concealed the fact that the enquiry under Section 55 of DCS Act had been conducted earlier by S.K. Panchal and the society was found not existing at the given address. It is stated that accused Ramesh Chander, the then Assistant Registrar (South), also justified the recommendation of accused Aswal dishonestly and fraudulently vide his note dated 14.09.01 and accordingly the file was sent to the Court of the Registrar.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
7. It is alleged that the bogus person Surender Pratap is shown to have represented the society before the Registrar on 04.10.01 and 05.10.01 and is also shown to have produced the original records of the society for verification before accused Satish Aswal on 08.10.01 as well as 09.10.01. Accused Satish Aswal and Rameshwar Dayal (Inspector Grade-II) are stated to have signed the notes prepared on 08.10.01 and 09.10.01 in this regard. The subsequent note dated 10.10.01 prepared in this regard accused Ramesh Chander (AR) is stated to have confirmed the verification of the records of the society and recommended revival of the society under Section 63 (3) of DCS Act. The Registrar i.e. accused Narayan Diwakar is stated to have passed revival order dated 02.11.01 ignoring forgery of the records of the society and without directing the verification of its address and members to be conducted.
8. The bogus person Surender Pratap is again to shown have produced the original records of the society before accused Satish Aswal again on 05.11.01. The note prepared by accused Aswal on that day, which is signed by accused Rameshwar Dayal also mentions that the original records were checked and verified, it bears the signature of Surender Pratap on its margin. The presence of said Surender Pratap is reflected in the subsequent note dated 07.11.01 also.
9. Accused P.K. Thirwani, Senior Auditor in the office of RCS is alleged to have submitted a bogus audit report dishonestly and by CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) abusing of his official position without actually visiting the registered office of the society at Vinoba Puri, in order to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is achieved. On the basis of the subsequent notes prepared by accused Aswal, which were signed and approved by accused Rameshwar Dayal as well as Ramesh Chander, particulars of the society were forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land to it and accordingly Plot No. 13, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted to the society by DDA. According to the prosecution, accused Mohit Saxena collected allotment letter from DDA and the possession of the plot was received by accused Neeraj Mahajan in the capacity of Vice- President of the Society in the year 2004.
10. Prosecution further alleges that Smt. Kamlesh and Chandra Prabha shown to have been elected as Members of the Managing Committee in the election held on 24.11.02 by accused Anna Wankhede are bogus persons. Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar who are shown to have been elected as President and Vice-President respectively in the same election, have denied that they were members of the society at any point of time. The promoter members Chander Pal and Rajbir are shown to have attended the said meeting but they had died in the year 1999 itself. Vijay Bajaj and Sandeep Basil who also are shown to have attended the said meeting have denied their signatures on these minutes and also the fact that any election was held in their presence. In the meeting dated 23.12.02, the address of the society is shown to have been changed from Vinoba Puri to another bogus address i.e. Flat No. CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) 302, 3rd Floor, F-16, Preet Vihar, New Delhi but the owner of this flat has denied that any society existed there. The office of the society is again is stated to have been changed from Preet Vihar to Flat No. 664, Princess Park Apartment, Plot No. 33, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi vide minutes of meeting dated 12.10.03. It is alleged that accused S.P. Saxena has purchased the said flat in the name of his firm M/s GEE ESS Exim Pvt. Ltd and is living in this flat. Dr. Ashok Kumar and Ms. Sangeeta who are shown to have been elected as Executive Members in the election held on 26.12.03 have denied that they had become members of the society at any point of time. In the same meeting, accused Ashok Kumar is shown to have been elected as President, accused Neeraj Mahajan as Vice-President and accused Rohit Saxena as Executive Member. Another election of the executive body of the society is stated to have been conducted on 07.11.04 by election officer N.K. Basil but Basil has denied having conducted any such election. He stated that his neighbour Sh. Saxena has used his name. In another bogus meeting dated 19.01.04 stated to be held under the Chairmanship of Kishore Aggarwal (President) and also attended by Rohit Saxena (Secretary) and Sanjay Kapasia (Treasurer), it has been shown that 15 members including promoter members Chander Pal and Deep Chand have resigned from the membership of the society whereas Chander Pal had died in the year 1999 and Deep Chand had died in the year 1983.
11. Prosecution further alleges that the accused Anna Wankhede, K.A. Kanekar, Rohit Saxena, Kishore Aggarwal, Rajat CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) Verma, Neeraj Mahajan and Sanjay Kapasia, while working as office bearers of the society during different periods of time, have shown and accepted bogus resignations of various promoter members and also inducted various bogus members in the society vide fictitious minutes dated 08.05.81, 15.9.01, 21.01.03, 06.02.03, 19.01.04, 16.02.04, 02.03.04. Accused S.P. Saxena is alleged to have falsely shown that Sh. Shashank Sharma of M/s 4th Dimension was engaged the Architect at the time of obtaining the NOC from DDA Group Housing Cell whereas the said firm was never engaged as Architect by the society. It is also mentioned in the charge-sheet that an account of the society was opened in PNB Patparganj Branch Delhi by accused Kishore Aggarwal and Rajat Verma giving fake address of the society and the accused Mohit Saxena was introducer for the said account. Later on the names of accused Rohit Saxena and Neeraj Mahajan were added as operators of the said account. A bare look of the transactions made from the said account show that accused S.P. Saxena and other accused persons have received huge amounts from the said account in the name of their family members or firms or societies. Similarly, huge amounts are also stated to have been withdrawn by the accused from other two bank accounts of the society in UTI Bank Palam Branch and Nainital Bank Hasanpur Branch.
12. It is stated that the GEQD Shimla, in its opinion, has confirmed that accused Anna Wankhede has forged the signatures of various members of the society. The writings of the accused Ashok Johri CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) have also confirmed on the proceeding register of the society. The writings of the accused Rohit Kumar, Kishore Aggarwal, Rajat Verma, Neeraj Mahajan, Sanjay Kapasia and Mohit Saxena have also been confirmed on various documents related to the society.
13. On the basis of the investigation conducted by the CBI, it was concluded that all the accused, in pursuance to the conspiracy, have committed the offences of cheating, forgery etc. and accordingly, charge-sheet has been submitted. It has been mentioned in the charge- sheet that Surender Pratap is a bogus person and his address also is non existent.
14. Sanction for prosecution of the accused public servants Satish Singh Aswal and P.K. Thirwani has been duly obtained.
15. Ld. Public Prosecutor as well as Ld. Defence counsels have been heard in detail on various dates. I have perused the charge-sheet and the entire material including the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C annexed with the charge-sheet. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of A5 Ashok Johri and A9 Satish Singh Aswal.
16. Ld. Public Prosecutor, while taking this Court through the charge-sheet and the documents filed alongwith it, submitted that there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against all the accused persons.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
17. The principles to be kept in mind by the court at the time of deciding charges against an accused are well settled in various pronouncements of the Honb'le High Court as well as apex court. Ld. Defence counsels have also referred to certain judgments in this regard such as UOI Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135, Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. State 2007(2) JCC 1489 and Sunil Bansal Vs. State of Delhi 2007(96) DRJ 9. In this regard, I find it apposite to reproduce the following observations of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Vs. State of Mahrashtra 2008(10) SCC 394 :
" It is stated that words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in section 227 Cr. P.C postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is not feasible or desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible.
18. The principles culled out by the Supreme Court in this regard in Prafulla Kumar's judgement (supra) also are very relevant and hence are reproduced herein above :
I.) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
II.) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. III.) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) be fully within his right to discharge the accused. IV.) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the 'total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
19. Ld. Counsel for A1 Srichand and A2 Anna Wankhede was unable to counter or explain the enormous evidence on record indicating the involvement of these two accused in the entire conspiracy as well as in the forgery of the records related to the society and therefore, in the end conceded framing of charges against them. It is manifest from the statement of PW81 Sushil Kumar Sharma, who was earlier a collegue of accused Sri Chand while working for ITDC Hotels and was later on given job by accused Sri Chand in his own office, that Sri Chand and Anna Wankhade have got the false proceedings of various meetings of Chander Lok CGHS as well as other societies written from him. He has identified various such proceedings of Chander Lok CGHS which had been written by him. He has also identified various such proceedings of the said society which had been written by accused Anna Wankhade as CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) well as accused Sri Chand.
20. Accused Anna Wankhade has been shown to have been elected as President of the society in the election held on 08.05.1986. In the same meeting, another resolution is shown to have been passed changing the office address of the society from Adhchini to 128, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The subsequent meeting dt. 10.08.1986 is shown to have been held under the Chairmanship of Anna Wankhade at the Vinobha Puri address. However, PW62 Ved Prakash who is the owner of the said house of Vinobha Puri has denied that he had provided the same to be used as Office of Chander Lok CGHS. The expert opinion of GEQD also confirms the handwriting as well as signature of accused Anna Wankhade on various bogus minutes of the society meetings.
21. The evidence on record, thus, indicates that accused Sri Chand and accused Anna Wankhade were the kingpins of the conspiracy and they went on to involve the other accused also in the same in order to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is achieved. Perusal of the notings dated 04.10.01 and 23.10.01 in the noting file of the RCS office related to Chander Lok CGHS reveals that the forged and bogus documents were produced before the RCS office on behalf of the society by accused Anna Wankhade, Surender Pratap and K. A. Kanekar in the capacity of President, Secretary and Treasurar respectively of the society.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
22. Ld. Counsel appearing for A3 K.A. Kanekar submitted that the GEQD opinion has not confirmed the writing or signature of this accused in any of the forged documents related to the society and therefore, he cannot be said to be a part of the conspiracy. Admittedly, this accused was Treasurar of the Society from 15.06.1986 and perusal of the proceedings of the meetings in which he had participated as the Treasurar of the society reveal that various bogus resignations have been accepted and various bogus members have been inducted in the society. These bogus resignations and induction of bogus members during his tenure as Treasurar of the Society is sufficient to indicate at this stage that he was acting in connivance with other accused and was a part and parcel of the conspiracy. As already noted herein above, he is shown to have been elected as Treasurar in the meeting dt. 15.06.1986 in which accused Anna Wankhade had been elected as President. He has also attended the subsequent meeting dt. 10.08.1986 at Vinobha Puri office address of the society, where the society was never having its office at all. Further, he alongwith accused Anna Wankhade have also used the forged documents of the society by producing the same before the RCS office on 04.10.2001 and 23.10.2001.
23. Hence, these three accused namely Sri Chand, Anna Wankhade and K.A. Kanikar appeared to be the three main conspirators and charges are liable to be framed against all of them.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
24. So far as A4 S.P. Saxena, is concerned, it was argued on his behalf that he was not involved in the revival of the society on the basis of alleged forged documents and as per the case of prosecution itself, he came into the picture only in the year 2004 after the land had been allotted to the society. It is thus contended that since the conspiracy came to an end on 04.06.04 when the land was allotted to the society by DDA, which was object of the conspiracy, acts done by this accused thereafter, even if unlawful, do not relate to the object of the conspiracy alleged in this case by the prosecution and hence, no charges can be framed against this accused. Similar arguments have been raised on behalf of A5 Ashok Johri, A6 Rohit Kumar, A11 Kishore Aggarwal, A12 Rajat Veram, A13 Neeraj Mahajan, A14 Sanjay Kapasia and A15 Mohit Saxena. It is argued that there is no evidence on record to show that any of these accused had met or communicated with the main conspirators i.e. A1 Srichand, A2 Anna Wankhede, A3 K.A. Kanekar and the accused public servants namely A7 P.K. Thirwani, A8 Narayan Diwakar, A9 Satish Singh Aswal, A10 Ramesh Chander and A16 Rameshwar Dayal and therefore, they cannot be held to be a part of conspiracy at all. It is argued that since the object of the conspiracy had already been achieved by securing allotment of land to the society before these accused are stated to have come into picture, the acts attributed to them cannot be stated to have been performed in pursuance to the conspiracy in question and hence, they all are liable to be discharged.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
25. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the conspiracy did not come to an end on the date when the plot of land was allotted to the society by DDA but continued even thereafter when the construction was being raised upon the plot of land and till the flats were allotted to the members of the society on that date. His submission is that the manipulation in the membership list of the society after the allotment of land to the society was in pursuance to the conspiracy hatched by the accused as their aim was to get the flats allotted to their relatives, friends etc. who had been inducted as members of the society after the date of allotment of the land. He argued that these accused cannot escape trial in this case for the offences of forgery, cheating and that of conspiracy merely by submitting that whatever they had done was after the land had been allotted to the society by DDA in which they did not play any role at all.
26. It is true that in this case, a plot of land at Dwarka was allotted to the society by DDA on 04.06.04. Thereafter, the construction of flats was undertaken by the society and the same was in progress when the charge sheet was filed. I was informed by both the parties during the course of arguments that the flats constructed on the plot of land in question have already been allotted to the members of the society as on that date. I wonder as to how it is argued on behalf of these accused that the conspiracy hatched in this case came to an end upon allotment of the land to the society by DDA on 04.06.04. It is CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) nowhere the case of the prosecution that the object of the conspiracy was only to secure a plot of land for the society. The conspirators i.e the accused would have stood to no gain at all by mere allotment of land to the society. It is evident that their ultimate aim was to see that the flats are constructed on the said land which are later on allotted to their friends, relatives etc from whom they would charge money and thus, get some financial gain. Securing land for the society from DDA was only a step towards fulfillment of the object of the conspiracy and the ultimate object was to ensure that the flats constructed on the land are allotted to the acquaintances of the accused alone who have been illegally and surreptitiously inducted as members of the society by way of forged minutes of various meetings. Hence, the forgery of the minutes of various meetings after the allotment of land to the society, in which genuine members have been shown to have resigned, some dead persons are also shown to have resigned, some fake members have been shown to have inducted in the society and some persons who had never applied for the membership of the society have also been shown as the members of the society and having attended those meetings, were the steps towards the attaining the object of the conspiracy. Thus these accused i.e A5, A6, A11, A13, A14 & A15 cannot claim that they were not the conspirators alongwith the other accused merely for the reason that the acts attributed to them were performed after the date of allotment of land to the society. They were office bearers of the society at one time or the other and it is manifest from the material on record that the minutes of the meetings of the society have been forged with CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) their connivance as well as concurrence. It also appears at this stage from the perusal of material on record that they were well aware of the fact that the bogus resignations are being shown to have been accepted in these minutes and bogus members are shown to have been inducted. Their conduct indicates at this stage that they were involved in the conspiracy and acted in such manner as to ensure that the ultimate object of the conspiracy is achieved. Hence, charges are liable to be framed against all of them.
27. It needs note that not only those persons, who had hatched the conspiracy initially and acted in furtherance of the same, are liable to be charged with the offence of conspiracy but those persons also who join the conspiracy later on, at various stages and do some act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is a continuing process and continues till its object is achieved. All those persons who join the initial conspirators at a later stage and agree to assist them in fulfilling the object of conspiracy are also guilty of the offence of conspiracy. Further, it is not necessary that all such persons must know or must have come in contact with every other conspirator. To charge a person with the offence of conspiracy, it is enough if he has become aware of the conspiracy and has agreed to do or refrain from doing an act to ensure that the object of conspiracy is achieved. Mere knowledge of conspiracy does not inculpate a person. In the instance case, all the above named six accused were not only aware of the conspiracy but also acted in the manner as to lend their full assistance to fulfil its object.
CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.)
28. Perusal of the record shows that A11 Kishore Aggarwal, A12 Rajat Verma and A14 Sanjay Kapasia were got associated with the society in the year 2002-03. A12 is shown to have been inducted as member of the society on 07.10.02 whereas A11 & A14 became its members on 26.12.03. Later on, they were elected as office bearer of the society. They have signed various bogus minutes as the office bearers of the society. A14 acting as Secretary of the society has, vide letter dt. 28.04.04, authorized A15 to receive the letter of allotment of land from DDA. A11 & A12 had opened bank account in the name of company and were its signatories. From this bank account of the society huge amounts of money have been siphoned off by issuing cheques in the name of A15 Mohit Saxena, Madhu Saxena W/o A4 S. P. Saxena, M/s Emerald Builders owned by S. P. Saxena, A5 Ashok Johri and his relatives, Kavita Sharma employee of S. P. Saxena, Anita Kapasia W/o A14 Sanjay Kapasia, M/s Vasundhara CGHS run by S. P. Saxena and M/s Palwal CGHS run by S. P. Saxena as detailed in paragraph no. 31 of the charge sheet.
29. Further, the statements of PW40 Ram Kishan Dass Gupta, PW41 Pawan Aggarwal, PW59 Praveen Kumar and PW74 Ms. Kavita Sharma clearly show at this stage that accused S. P. Saxena alongwith his two nephews i.e accused Rohit Saxena and accused Mohit Saxena were managing the affairs of the society and were selling the membership of the society at a premium. PW74, who was working as a CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) receptionist in the office of accused S. P. Saxena, has stated that accused Kishore Kumar Aggarwal and Neeraj Mahajan also used to visit the office of accused S. P. Saxena to assist him in the writing, typing and field work. She has also stated that the records of Chander Lok CGHS as well as three other housing societies were in the custody of the accused S. P. Saxena at his office even though it was not the registered office of any of those societies. PW75 Ashwani Sharma has stated that accused Ashok Johri used to write and prepare the records of the society related to Chander Lok CGHS on the directions of the accused S. P. Saxena and has identified various proceedings to be in the handwriting of Ashok Johri. He has also identified his signatures on various pages of the proceeding register of the society, which have turned out to be bogus during investigation.
30. PW69, who is the Proprietor of the Architecture Firm M/s Forth Dimensions has denied that his firm was appointed as Architecture by the society, as was represented on behalf of the society by A4 S. P. Saxena before the concerned authorities.
31. Hence, there is sufficient material on record in the form of bogus minutes of meetings of the society, bogus resignations, induction of bogus members, statements of witnesses and GEQD opinion indicating involvement of all these accused in the conspiracy. It is evident that they have been acting in connivance with each other in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. No case for their discharge CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) has been made out.
32. It was also sought to be argued on behalf of the accused A5 Ashok Johri that he was only an employee of the accused S. P. Saxena and cannot be held liable for the acts of his master. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record that he was a part of the conspiracy and he has not received any pecuniary or other benefit at all. The material on record including the GEQD opinion as well as the statements of the witnesses clearly indicate that accused Ashok Johri has written various fake proceedings of the society. Whether he had done so only in obedience to the dictates of his master i.e accused S. P. Saxena without any guilty mind cannot be ascertained at this stage. It would be seen only after the trial of the case.
33. Coming to the role of the accused public servants, I.e A7 P. K. Thirwani, A8 Narayan Diwakar, A9 Satish Singh Aswal, A10 Ramesh Chander and A16 Rameshwar Dayal. They are stated to have dealt with the file related to Chander Lok CGHS in their capacity as the officials in the office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies and being part of the conspiracy, connived with the private accused to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is achieved. Accused Narayan Diwakar was the Registrar, Co- operative Societies at the relevant time, accused Ramesh Chander was Assistant Registrar (South), accused Rameshwar Dayal was Inspector Grade-II, accused Satish Aswal was Dealing Clerk and CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) accused P. K. Thirwani was Sr. Auditor in the office of the Registrar.
34. Perusal of the noting file related to the Chander Lok CGHS maintained in the RCS office reveals that since the society was not functioning as per the rules framed under DCS Act and was not responding to the notices issued by the RCS office, Sh. S. K. Panchal was appointed as Enquiry Officer in this regard to look into the affairs of the society and as per the report submitted by Mr. Panchal in the year, 1987, the society was not found existing at its registered address. Accordingly, the society was put under liquidation vide order dated 25.11.1987. Thereafter, no correspondence was exchanged between the society and the RCS office till the year, 2001. A detailed note prepared by the accused Satish Aswal, the Dealing Clerk in his own handwriting on 13.09.01 mentions about the request having received from the Secretary of the society for revival of the society and approval of its final list of members. In this note, he has reproduced the contentions of the society but has nowhere noted that S.K. Panchal had been earlier appointed as an Enquiry Officer to look into the affairs of the society who reported that the society is not existing at its registered office. He has further mentioned that the society contends that it had intimated the RCS office about the shifting of its office from Adhchini to Lajpat Nagar in the year, 1986 vide letter dated 18.06.1986 and also about various resignations/enrollments from time to time but he neither noted as to CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) whether any such intimation had actually been received in the office nor recommended proper verification of the representations made in this regard on behalf of the society.
35. The manner in which the aforesaid note was prepared and forwarded by A9 Satish Aswal reproducing therein with approval the contentions of the society alone without referring to the past conduct of the society, undoubtedly indicates that he did not act honestly and bonafidely. It was his duty to check and verify the contentions of the society before forwarding the said note to higher authorities. Verification of the claims of the society as mentioned in the said note was not a tough job. It would have taken just a couple of minutes to go through a few pages of the noting file maintained in the office relating to the society. Had he done so, it would have come to his knowledge that no such letter dated 18.06.1986 has been received from the society intimating the change of its registered office address and also no information about the resignations from the membership of the society or fresh enrollments in it from time to time had been received from the society. He would also have come to know that Inquiry Officer Sh. S. K. Panchal, who was appointed to enquire into the affairs of the society in the year, 1987, had reported that the society does not exist at its registered office address. Either he was aware about the past conduct of the society which had lead to its liquidation and did not reflect the same deliberately in his note dated 13.09.01 or he choose not to go into the past conduct of the society deliberately. Whatever the case may be, it is CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) manifest at this stage that he was acting in connivance and dancing to the tunes of other accused particularly the accused Sri Chand and Anna Wankhade and, hence, prepared and forwarded the note favourable to the society in order to ensure that the past conduct of the society is not exposed and the object of the conspiracy is achieved at the earliest. It is a clear case of abuse of official position on the part of this accused.
36. Same can be said of the accused Ramesh Chander and Rameshwar Dayal. The note dated 13.09.01 of the accused Satish Aswal was justified and recommended by accused Ramesh Chander in the capacity of Assistant Registrar(South). He did not bother to ask the Dealing Clerk Satish Aggarwal or any other official in the office to verify the claim of the society in the said note. The subsequent notes prepared by the accused Satish Aswal have been signed by accused Rameshwar Dayal mentioning therein that the records of the society(which are stated to have been produced by fictitious persons namely Surender Pratap) have been checked and verified. If in fact the original records of the society had been checked, the forgery and fabrication would have definitely come to their notice. The whole process then culminated in passing of the order dated 02.11.01 by the Registrar i.e accused Narayan Diwakar whereby the society was revived. He also appears to have believed the contentions of the society as reproduced in the notes prepared by accused Satish Aswal and put up before me with favourable recommendations by accused Ramesh Chander. He too did not bother to ask them as to whether these claims/representations made on behalf CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) of the society had been checked and verified. The order for revival of the society is a very serious order having vide ramifications and the Registrar cannot be expected to pass such kind of order with closed eyes without going through the entire record related to the society available in the office. The manner in which the application for revival of the society has been dealt with in the RCS office by the above named accused clearly indicates that they were not discharging their functions honestly and bonafidely but were acting in connivance with the other accused in order to assist them in achieving their illegal objects.
37. It was argued on behalf of the accused Narayan Diwakar that he being the Registrar, had passed the revival order on the basis of notes prepared by A9 Satish Singh Aswal duly approved and forwarded through A10 Ramesh Chander(Assistant Registrar) and, therefore, he had no reason to disbelieve the documents submitted on behalf of the society. However, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the manner in which the Registrar appears to have passed the revival order without satisfying himself about the correctness/genuineness of the claims of the society is sufficient to impute the knowledge of illegal acts upon him also. Had he acted properly and without such knowledge, he would have certainly detected the fraud and forgery. He was not expected to approve the notes without application of his mind.
38. So far as the accused P. K. Thirwani is concerned, he had CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) been assigned the task of conducting the audit of the society which was a condition precedent put forth by the Registrar in the revival order dated 02.11.01. Material on record shows that he did not conduct the audit of the society actually and has submitted a fictitious audit report which indicates that he too was acting in connivance with the other accused. He has not made any effort to check/verify the records of the society and has submitted the false audit report to help the accused to achieve the object of the conspiracy.
39. It is true that there is no direct evidence on record to show that there was any meeting of minds between these accused public servants and the private accused or that they had jointly agreed to do the illegal acts in question. In this regard, it may be noted that qua the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct evidence as the conspiracies are always hatched behind close doors and not in public view. The ingredients of this offence can be derived from the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused which can be gathered from the perusal of the material annexed with the charge sheet. Further, it is settled position of law that the charges can be framed against the accused even on the basis of strong suspicion that he has committed the offence.
40. As already noted herein above, the manner in which the accused public servants have processed the application for revival of the society and the circumstances in which the society was revived vide CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) order dt. 02.11.01 of the Registrar are sufficient to indicate at this stage that they were functioning hand in glove with the other accused and thus, were the part and parcel of the entire conspiracy.
41. Hence, charges are liable to be framed against all the above named accused as under:
i.) For the offence punishable u/s 120B, readwith 419/420/468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)d of P. C. Act, 1988 against all the 16 accused.
ii.) For the offence u/s 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A7 P.K. Thirwani, A8 Narayan Diwakar, A9 Satish Singh Aswal, A10 Ramesh Chander & A16 Rameshwar Dayal.
iii.) For the offence u/s 419/420 IPC against A1 Sri Chand, A2 Anna Wankhade, A3 K. A. Kanekar, A4 S.P. Saxena, A5 Ashok Johri, A6 Rohit Kumar, A11 Kishore Aggarwal, A12 Rajat Verma, A13 Neeraj Mahajan, A14 Sanjay Kapasia and A15 Mohit Saxena.
iv) For the offence u/s 468 IPC against A2 Anna Wankhade, A5 CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31 CBI Vs. Srichand etc. (Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.) Ashok Johri, A6 Rohit Kumar, A11 Kishore Aggarwal, A12 Rajat Verma, A13 Neeraj Mahajan, A14 Sanjay Kapasia & A15 Mohit Saxena.
v) For the offence u/s 471 IPC against A2 Anna Wankhade & A3 K. A. Kanekar.
42.) Charges be framed accordingly.
Announced in the open court today (VIRENDER BHAT) SPL. JUDGE: CBI-01: N/W: ROHINI DELHI/29.01.2019 CBI No. 52/2016 (Old No. 64/2008) Page No. 29 of 31