Delhi District Court
Cr.Pc vs Director Of on 24 April, 2015
RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI RC No.: 7 (S)/94 PS: CBI/SIU-IX/ND U/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC CBI v. Surender Khosla Unique ID No.: 02401R0117201999 J U D G M E N T:
(a) S.No. of the case : 1/2/99
(b) Name of complainant : Sh V. Ramarao, Jt.
DGFT, Office of Jt.
DGFT, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi
(c) Date of commission of offence : During the period 1992 to 1994
(d) Name of the accused : (1) Surender Khosla
r/o C-16, Motia Khan,
Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi
& presently staying at
14-A/55, WEA Area,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi
: (2) Devender Yadav,
r/o 154-D, Phase-II,
Mayur Vihar, New Delhi
: (3) Manoj Sethi,
R/o 54-A, Phase-II, Mayur
Vihar, New Delhi
: (4) Rajesh Kumar Rathi,
R/o Vilage Rajour, PO
Mehrauli, New Delhi
: (5) Mukesh,
R/o H.No 135, Maidan
Garhi, Hauz Khas, New
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 1 of 49
RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015
Delhi.
: (6) Gyan Chand Asija
R/o Kundli Border, Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana
: (7) Jasmeet Singh Kohli,
R/o B-7/113, Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi
(e) Offence complained of : 120B r/w 380/420/468/471
IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 08.04.2015.
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 24.04.2015
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present RC was registered on the written complaint of Sh. V. Rama Rao, Joint Director, DGFT, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. In the present matter, during the period 1992 to 1994, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and pursuant to said conspiracy eight REP licenses bearing Nos P/W/1515257 to 1515265 all dated 04.02.1992 excluding license No. P/W 1515260 were stolen from the record sections of the office of DGFT. On these stolen licenses, premium has already been paid by the State Bank of India, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on behalf of Joint DGFT office , New Delhi to MMTC. Pursuant to the conspiracy, accused persons had erased the endorsement to the effect "premium paid" and thereafter, resubmitted those eight REP licenses for claiming premium of 6.4 crores in favour of M/s Alankar Impex on the basis of forged transfer letters and claim papers. After getting the knowledge, the office of DGFT lodged the complaint (Ex. PW13/A) to CBI.
2. On this complaint, present RC (Ex.PW 24/A) was registered.
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 2 of 49RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 During the investigation, it was revealed that accused Rajesh Kumar Rathi and Mukesh pursuant to the aforesaid criminal conspiracy stolen the eight REP licenses from the record section of the office of DGFT and thereafter, handed over the same to accused Devender Yadav. Investigation further revealed that accused Gyan Chand Asija had erased the endorsement to the effect "premium paid" on the back side of the licenses and thereafter, forged claim papers in favour of M/s Alankar Impex purportedly signed by one P. Khanna (fictitious person) and forged transfer letters purportedly issued by MMTC in favour of M/s Alankar Impex and purportedly signed by one Mukeem Kumar Managing Director of MMTC and these transfer letters were shown duly attested by one A. Ali Manager, SBI, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi were prepared. These eight REP licenses were never transferred by MMTC.
3. Investigation further revealed that accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli had committed the forgery on aforementioned documents and signed in the name of P. Khanna, Mukeem Kumar and A. Ali. Thereafter, PW Ravinder (then employee of accused Surinder Khosla) at the instance of accused Surender Khosla, accused Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi had submitted the aforementioned forged documents in the office of DGFT for claiming the premium of Rs. 6.4 crores.
4. In this case, accused no. 1 to 6 were chargesheeted initially and thereafter, accused no. 7 was chargesheeted through supplementary charge sheet.
5. After completion of the investigation, main charge sheet was filed u/s 120 B r/w sec. 380, 420/511, 468 & 471 IPC and substantive offences thereof against the accused no.1 to 6 and supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused no.7. Thereafter, the compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C. was made. On 13.02.2001, arguments on charge were heard and charge was accordingly framed against the accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli for offence u/s 120B r/w section 468 IPC and remaining accused persons were CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 3 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 charged for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC. Thereafter, trial was started and in order to prove its case CBI examined as many as 26 witnesses.
6. Thereafter, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Final arguments on behalf of CBI as well as by accused persons heard and in order to substantiate their arguments, written arguments as well as judgments were filed on behalf of accused Surender Khosla, Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi and Jasmeet Singh Kohli.
7. Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
8. PW-1 Ajit Malik deposed that since 1989 he was working as Health Manger in Inter Continental Hotel, New Delhi which was earlier known as Holiday Inn. There is a separate outlet under the name of In- shape in the hotel premises itself. All services related to health like Gym, steam bath, son bath etc are provided. These services are provided to members only and the hotel residents. The membership is provided on the basis of application/membership form. In order to became a member an application along with two photograph, certificate of doctor and two references are required. The person who moved the application and the references made by him are verified before allowing him to become a member. He could identified all the members of health Club. He identified accused Surender Khosla, Mr. Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi in the Court. On the application of Mr. Devender Yadav, the reference was of Sh. Surender Khosla. He has seen the receipt memo dated 09.10.1995 through which he handed four documents as per details mentioned therein to CBI Inspector S. Balasubramanium. This bears his signatures at point. Memo is Ex. PW1/A. He has seen membership relation form of accused Devender Kumar. This was given to him by the accused for obtaining with a medical certificate issued by Dr. H. Viramani.
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 4 of 49RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 The application form is Ex. PW1/B and the certificate i.e. Ex. PW1/C. Like wise another membership application form of accused Surender Khosla was also given to him for obtaining of membership. This was also enclosed with a medical certificate dated 03.03.93 issued by Dr. Yogesh Aggarwal. The application form is Ex. PW1/D and the M/C is Ex. PW1/E. After due verification as prescribed in our health club, membership was given to concerned persons. Once or twice Surender Khosla and Devender Kumar Yadav might have come together. Other wise they were coming as per their own convenience.
9. PW2 Sudeshji Rai deposed that he joined the office of CCIC now DGFT in the year 1982 as casual labourer in IP Estate, New Delhi. He became ad-hoc LDC in the year 1993. He was posted in the admin. Branch in the same office. In April, 1994, he joined record section in the office of DGFT. This a Y shape building at ITO. In December, 1993 or 1994 a person met him from Bombay and asked to fix a meeting with Mr. Amir Singh UDC in the same office. He told that he is a new man and does not know Mr. Amir Singh that is why he is requesting for that. In the lunch session, He introduced him with Mr. Amir Singh. After a week or 15 days the said person again came to him with the same request and he obliged. While he was posted with the record session after April, 1994, Sh. S.S. Mishra the then Controller told me that some licenses have been stolen from this office and an enquiry for the same is going on. Mejar Rathi was posted as Deputy Director in the same office at that time. After some time, perhaps August or September, Mr. Amir Singh had told to him that the Bombay party is commit a mistake by claiming double premium on one license and he is a fraud.
10. PW3 M.R, Rati deposed that in the year 1993, he was posted in Central licensing Area Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi as Deputy Director General Foreign Trade. His duties used to vary from time to time but in December CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 5 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 1993 he was also dealing with issuance premium against left over Replenishment licenses until July, 1991 REP Licenses by the office against the exports by exporters. However, this scheme was scrapped in July1991. Later on, it was decided to issue cash premium at the rate of 20% to such REP licenses which had not been utilized by the parties. According the State Bank of India was authorized to make the payment on account of cash premium to the exporters against such un-utilized REP licenses. A last date had been fixed for payment of such premium by the bank which had already expired. Thereafter, Ministry of Commerce authorized the port offices of DGFT to issue the premium for which the last date was 31.12.93. He has dealt the files of M/s Alankar Impacts. He has seen file no. Add.LIC/253/AM/91/ALS-I/CLA. This file was maintained in my office in official course of business in respect of M/s Alankar Impacts. He has seen its note sheet page no. 22-23. This file was put up before him by the concerned branch officer in his office on 29.12.93. Office had put up this file to him for his orders for issue of cash premium i.e. 6.4 crores. On this he had observed vide his order dated 29.12.93 that the main additional license issued to MMTC vide my order dated 29.12.93 that the main additional license issued to MMTC may also be considered for necessary endorsement of premium payment and for finalization of the case. This meant that the main additional license out of which these split up licenses were issued had also to be perused and endorsed. He had the doubt if cash premium had not been obtained against the main additional license only then party M/s Alankar Impacts was entitled to claim the premium as requested. My comments at page 22 and 23 on the said file of DGFT are marked as Ex. PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. Thereafter, the file was not put up before him for any further course of action and he had retired from that office in June 1994.
11. PW4 K.P. Singh deposed that he was posted as Foreign Development officer in ALS-1 in the office of Joint Director General Foreign CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 6 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 Trade. He was looking after all the work relating to advance licenses and premium also. He has seen application mark Ex.PW4/A which was received in the section on 18.10.93. He put his initials and sent to the concerned clerk for diarising and handing over to the concerned dealing hand for dealing the case. His signature is at point A on Ex.PW4/A. The said application was submitted by M/s Alankar Impacts, 301 Naraoi Djra Street, 2nd Floor, Bombay-3 for claiming premium of Rs. 6.4 crores on the basis of the eight split of licenses mentioned in the application. Application was annexed with a letter purported to have been signed by partner of M/s Alankar Impex and letter purported to have been signed by Managing Director of MMTC in favour of M/s Alankar Impex and a declaration letter also signed by Managing Director of MMTC and application for claiming premium purported to have been signed by a person namely Pradeep Khanna on behalf of M/s Alankar Impex. Likewise seven more application were also annexed with the said application along with their closures. After diarising the application of M/s Alankar Impex Ex. PW4/A. It was diarised by dealing clerk in the office and was handing over to dealing assistant Amer Singh for further course of action. Now he has seen page no. 21 of note sheet in which said application of M/s Alankar Impex was dealt in our office by the dealing assistant proposing allowing premium of Rs. 6.4 crores. He made a quarry to the effect that where is the main license. His query is marked as Ex. PW4/B which bears his signature at point A. Sh. Amer Singh the dealing assistant vide his note dated 17.12.93 resubmitted the case stating that 18 splited licenses were issued and in this case only against eight licenses premium has been claimed. Therefore, main license cannot be asked. He after going through the case sent his senior officer Sh. M.R. Rati DDG. His initial together with noting in this regard is available in the encircled portion marked as Ex. PW4/C. Sh. M.R. Rati after observing the file made a note that normally split up license is not allowed in the ALS and asked to recheck up the same. He identified the writing and sign of Sh. M.R. Rati as he has worked with him. The noting CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 7 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 together with sign of M.R. Rati is available in encircled portion in red ink marked as Ex.PW4/D. He again endorsed the file to Sh. Amer Singh Dealing Assistant on 21.12.93. His initial together with endorsement in the name of Amer Singh may be seen in the encircled portion in red ink mark Ex. PW4/E. Now he has seen page no. 22 of the said file containing the note of Sh. Amer Singh stating that the split up licenses are as good as transferred licenses and premium is available on the split license and premium has already proposed my be released. He after going through the said note Sh. Amer Singh marked the file to Sh. M.R. Rati on 28.12.93 who in return marked the file to him for discussion. His initial on page 22 is at point A and endorsement in the name of Sh. M.R. Rati is at point B. The endorsement for discussion together with his signature at point C on page on 22. He made endorsement and resubmitted the file to him with the request that he date of premium is expiring on 30.12.1993. The case may be decided at his own level. He at his own level did not recommend release of premium to the party. His note in this regard is mark as Ex. PW4/F. Thereafter, he was transferred in other section and never dealt with this file. He has seen work register maintained in ALS-I section in CLA office and entry dated 04.02.92 to 06.02.92 for the splitting of additional licenses issued to MMTC in 18 entries are marked as Ex. PW4/G.
12. PW5 Sh. Rajesh Lamba deposed that in the year 1994, he was residing at 36/309 Unnat Nagar-11, with his parents and his mama viz. Devender Khanna. Accused Surender Khosla is his cousin (Bua's son). Surender Khosla had his own factory located at Basti Harphool Singh but he had never visited there known as Hinmic Pvt. Ltd. dealing in garments and plastic. He had applied import and export no. from RBI which he had obtained but he did not peruse further. His cousin Surender Khosla gave him the idea of opening the firm known as Resource Intn. and in furtherance, he applied for a code number. He did not know about the firm M/s Alankar Impacts or its partner Mr. Pradeep. He never started any firm by the name of M/s Alankar Impacts. He further stated that all the allegations are false like claiming CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 8 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 premium on the basis of REP license.
13. PW6 Ameer Singh deposed that in the year 1993 he had been working as Licensing Assistant in the office of Joint DGFT Asaf Ali Road. On 30.09.95 he retired from service. On 03.12.93, he submitted the file of M/s Alankar Impacts of Bombay to controller Sh. K.P. Singh after his noting. His note is Ex. PW6/A which bears his signature at point A. Further note dated 16.12.93 is Ex. PW6/B which bears his signature at point B. Further, note at page 22 is Ex. PW6/C and his signature at point C. Further, note at page 23 dated 22.02.94, at page 25 dated 30.06.94 at page 25 dated 05.07.94 and at page 26 dated 11.07.94 are Ex. PW6/D to G. all bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he was posted as Licensing Assistant in the office of Joint DGFT Asaf Ali Road, Delhi in 1995. He joined this department in 1962 and retired on 1995. This file is relating to MMTC of India Ltd. which is Ex. PW6/1, in which M/s Alankar Impax have moved 8 applications for additional premium. He made a notice to the effect in this file on Page No. 19 and 20, which is in his handwriting, it is exhibited as Ex. PW6/1A. He put up the file to Sh. K.P. Singh, Controller, who returned this file to him on 06.12.93. This noting is already exhibited as PW4/B. He again put up this file on 16.12.93 by noting which is already exhibited as PW6/B, which is in his handwriting, stating that the main Additional license has not been transferred by the MMTC to the party and so they cannot ask for them. This file was put up before Sh. K.P. Singh, on 17.12.93 who marked "please discuss", this noting is already exhibited as Ex. PW4/C. Then this file was put up before Sh. M.R. Rati, the then DDG. Sh. M.R. Rati who gave his observation that split- up licenses are not allowed under advance scheme. This noting is already exhibited as PW4/B. Then this file was returned to him and then he again put up this file to Sh. K.P. Singh, his noting is already exhibited as Ex. PW6/C. After discussion with the then DDG Sh. K.P. Singh on 29.12.93, he made a noting in his handwriting already Ex. PW4/F, giving observation that DDG may kindly decide the case at his own level and passed orders as to which section has to CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 9 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 execute. Thereafter, DDG M.S. Rati made a noting on 29.12.93, which is already exhibit as PW3/A. On noting dated 17.12.93, for putting up the file for payment of premium by way of issuance of cheque after usual checking of black listing of the firm, he on 22.02.94, after making noting, put up this file to Sh. Laxman Dass, the then Controller vide noting already exhibited as Ex. PW6/D bearing his signatures at point A at page no. 23 who by his noting dated 23.02.94, made observation that the license was valid upto 19.09.92. He identified his handwriting, this noting is Ex. PW6/1B, which bears his signatures at point A, who in turn submitted the file to DDG Vijay Kumar. Sh. Vijay Kumar marked the file to Smt. Parmila who was the then Joint DGFT, her signature are exhibited as PW6/1D, which bears his signature at point A. This was sent by Sh. Laxman Dass on 02.03.94. Signature of Sh. Laxman Dass is Ex. PW6/1E. The 8 applications submitted by Sh. Pradeep Khanna Partner of M/s Alankar Impax in their office are exhibited as Ex. PW6/1F to PW6/1M, each application bears 3 pages, M/s Alankar Impax also submitted a consolidated application for all the 8 licenses which is Ex. PW6/1N. On 30.06.94, he again submitted the noting in his handwriting which is Ex. PW6/1O, stating that the party has again submitted a letter to the Office requesting for release of premium of 20% against the said split up licenses. He also submitted that these licenses do not bear signatures of MMTC and from the bank. Sh. S. Sharda, Dy DGFT, approved his suggestion and made noting regarding this, which is exhibited as PW6/1P, and letter to MMTC and bank were sent. The letter dated 30.06.94, sent to MMTC by Sh. S.K. Sharda is exhibited as PW6/1Q. Copy of which also sent to SBI, Barakhamba Road, Delhi. On 05.07.94, vide his noting, he put up this file to Sh. Sharda, noting is already exhibited as PW6/F. Then Sh. S. Sharda asked for the letter issued from MMTC and bank for examination. Then he put up letter received from MMTC dated 08.07.94 Sh. Sharda, vide his noting dated 11.07.94 which is already exhibited as PW6/G. Letter received from MMTC in their office regarding confirmation of genuineness of the transferred licenseee is CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 10 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 Exhibited as Ex. PW6/1R (2pages). And letter received from bank is exhibited as Ex. PW6/1S. He was examined by the CBI officers to whom he has told all this.
14. PW7 Rakesh Kumar Bhatia deposed that he was partner in M/s Ganpati Export in 1993 which was dissolved in 1994. Thereafter, he used to listening work for import and export. He has also a company AMT export and USR export at F-186A. GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden, Delhi which was dealing in ready made garments and other items. He know Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi who are present in the court. (witness correctly identified the accused) They were working in DGFT office at that time. He has worked with Devender Kumar Yadav and Manoj Sethi at Mayur Vihar. They used to work of import and export license. The accused persons were having company in the name of Mega Export, Tilak Overseas and Alfa Footwears.
15. PW8 Ravinder Singh deposed that he was working with Surender Khosla in 1993 as assistant in his Company SB Exports and Hinmic Impex. Mr. Devender Singh Yadav and Manoj Sethi used to visit the said company. He used to look after the paper work of the company. He has seen there blank letter heads of M/s Alankar Impex and MMTC. Once Mr. Surender Khosla directed him to go CLA office where Sh. Devender Singh Yadav gave him two licenses which he has given to Surender Khosla in the office. The witness correctly identified the accused Devender Singh Yadav, Manoj Sethi and Surender Khosla in the court. In the year 1994-95 Surender Khosla directed him to deposit file of M/s Alankar Impex in the office of CLA at Asaf Ali Road. Accused Devender and Manoj Sethi were also present there. When a fax message was received from Mumbai regarding searches at Goregaon, Bombay, Surender Khosla removed all the documents relating to M/s Alankar Impex from his office and directed him not to tell anybody regarding M/s Alankar Impex. He was also examined by magistrate in 1995. He was examined by CBI officer three times. His statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 11 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 recorded by Ld. MM, Delhi about 15 years ago. The statement was shown to the witness and he admitted his signature appearing at point A on his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.. The said statement is Ex.PW8/1. The envelope containing the said statement is Ex.PW8/2. He further deposed that the documents pertaining to Alankar Impex were handed over to him by Surender Khosla, Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi from his office for depositing the same with CLA office. The said documents are already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW22/B1, Ex.PW22/B2, Ex.PW22/B3, Ex.PW6/1F, Ex.PW22/B4, Ex.PW22/B5, Ex.PW6/1G, Ex.PW22/B6, Ex.PW22/B7, Ex.PW6/1H, Ex.PW22/B8, Ex.PW22/B9, Ex.PW6/1I, Ex.PW22/B10, Ex.PW22/B11, Ex.PW6/1J, Ex.PW22/B12, Ex.PW22/B13, Ex.PW6/1K, Ex.PW22/B14, Ex.PW22/B15, Ex.PW6/1L, Ex.PW22/B16, Ex.PW22/B17, Ex.PW6/1M, Ex.PW22/B18, Ex.PW6/1M, Ex.PW8/3, Ex.PW22/B19.
16. PW9 Madan Pal deposed that in the year 1993-94 he was working in the office of Joint DGFT Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. During the year, 1994 he was posted in the record room in the office which was located at ITO. Accused Mukesh was also working there as a sweeper. The witness has correctly identified the accused Mukesh, Rajesh who are present in the court. They used to obey the orders of their superiors. He has not done anything else.
Thereafter, this witness was examined by Ld. PP for CBI as the witness was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross examination, he deposed that he had not stated to CBI that he had taken out five certificates and given them to Mukesh. Witness was confronted from portion A to A1 with his statement Ex. PW9/A recorded on 21.09.98 where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely because he has been won over by the accused persons.
17. PW10 R. Kumar deposed that he joined as LDC in DGFT in the CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 12 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 year 1988 and was promoted as UDC in 1997. In the year 1998, he was working at the special counter at PRO. The nature of his working there was to receive the application and correspondence relating to all the applications. He knew accused Devender Yadav (correctly identified), who was working as IVth class employee in their department. The accused was also the Union Leader. He knew Sh. O.P. Jaiswal, who was working as LDC in their office. He met accused Devender Yadav at the residence of O.P Jaiswal behind Gurudwara Bangla Saheb near Gole Market, New Delhi. As a Typist, he used to type letters, licenses etc. He has typed a number of licenses as a typist. He further deposed that he could not tell whether any application was moved by the firm Alankar Impex for the purpose of availing benefit. He was never posted in the ALS branch-I.
18. PW11 Shashi Bhusan deposed that he was working in private job in Narayan Indl. Area Phase-I at factory The Atlas Electric Industry (P) Ltd. In the year 1995, he was working in Mega Garment and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/-per month. Mega Garment was run by Mr. Jagdish Lal Sethi, father of Manoj Sethi. Accused Manoj Sethi was identified by this witness in the court. One shop was running at Patparganj Extn. Society Central Market, Delhi. He joined in the month of January/February, 1995 and he remained till 1998-99 in Mega Garment. The sales of the shop was run by him. Mega Garment used to purchase from Gandhi Nagar as well as Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. He knew accused Devender Singh. He knew Manoj Sethi, he also belongs to Rurki. Manoj Sethi also used to sit at cash counter. He did not know the exact margin of the profit of the shop. He knew only Devender Rawat present in the court.
19. PW12 Ajay Mishra deposed that in the year 1995, he was holding a consultancy firm in the name of Ajay Mishra at 23, Golden Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi-35. Consultancy started in the year 1993 still it is running. His CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 13 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 consultancy is running in the field of advising exim matters including EPCG license and various other license schemes. He knew accused Surender Khosla present in Court. Mr. Praveen Jain got introduced to Surender Khosla. Sueinder Khosla was running a company in the name of SB (Khosla) at Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Surender Khosla called him at the shop/office. He visited there in the year 1995. When he visited at that time Surender Khosla was alone at the office. He left his visiting card at the office of Surender Khosla. RCMC (Registration cum Member Certificate) was required by the accused Surender Khosla. He offered his fees Rs. 1000/-but Surender Khosla offered him only 500/- as consultancy. He knew accused Manoj Sethi present in Court. Manoj Sethi was a Clerk in the CLA section of Joint DGFT office at Asaf Ali road. In the year 1994-95, Manoj Sethi was transferred to Panipat or any some other place and in protest he resigned because he had small children. Accused Devinder Singh was also working in the office of DGFT, Asaf Ali Road in the same section. He did not know whether Surender Khosla had applied for any license in the office of DGFT as he never met him at his office but he used to come in the office of DGFT. He knew Rajiv Khandelwal who was friend of Sh. Praveen. He had met him in Sh. Praveen Jain's residence in Hauz Khas, South Delhi. Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal was running a group of industries namely Panasia Group Agro Oil Ltd. This firm was used to run solvent extraction plant in Rajasthan. These companies were listed in the BSE. He assisted to obtain the license for Rajiv Khandelwal for his listed companies. He was called at Holiday Inn Heath Club located at Connaught Place where he met Sh. Praveen Jain. He visited there once or twice.
20. PW13 V. Rama deposed that on 22.07.1994, he was posted in the office of DGFT and working as Joint Director General Foreign Trade. On that day, he has lodged the complaint in the office of the CBI, Delhi vide complaint No. 10/3/Hq./94-95/ECA-I, shown to him and is the same one, witness identified the signature at point A. The complaint is Ex. PW13/A. CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 14 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015
21. PW14 Roop Chand deposed that he retired on 31.01.2002 as LDC. At that time of retirement, he was working in Record Branch. He used to locate the files from the Record Room. It was not his duty to keep the files in the Record Room. He did not know anything about the file of Alankar Impex. He did not deal with the file of Alankar Impex during his period. He did not know whether Sh. K.L. Malhotra UDC dealt with this file or not.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI as he was resiling from his previous statement made to the IO. Witness denied the suggestion that he was dealing with the said file or he used to put the file before the controller as and when required. He recognized the photographs of Devender Singh and Manoj Sethi. He did not know when Devender and Manoj Sethi had left the job or not. He might have worked for 2/3 years in this section. He denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused persons.
22. PW15 A.K. Chakankar deposed that he was posted in DGFT since 1991 and he retired in the year 2003 from the post of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. The CBI has sent a letter bearing No. 4279/7(S)/94 SIU-IX, dated 13.09.1993, requiring him to send the licensing file no. ADDL/LIC/253/AM-90/ALS-I/CLA. In response to the said letter of CBI, he responded through a letter dated 13.09.1994. The said letter is exhibited as Ex. PW15/A and it bears his signature at point A. Along with this letter, he enclosed the abovesaid licensing file which contained 326 correspondence pages and 27 note-sheets. The original file also contains original copy of eight licenses which were used for claiming premium in duplicate.
23. PW 16 Dr. Bibha Rani Ray, Ex- Director, CFSL, CBI, Delhi deposed that a request to the Director of the CFSL, CBI was made by Superintendent of police, CBI, SPE, SIU-IX, ND vide letter no. 5085/3/7(S)/94-SIU-IX on 28.07.1998 for polygraph test in case RC No. 07(S)/94-SIU-IX/ND of Mr. Devender Yadav s/o Sh. Chander Singh. The case CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 15 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 was fixed for 29 to 31 July, 1998. The questionnaire and the brief facts of the case were enclosed alongwith the request letter mentioned above. The pre- test of Sh. Devender Yadav was conducted on 29.07.1998 and the polygraph examination on 30.07.1998 and 31.07.1998. At the relevant time, she was Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Lie Detection Division, CFSL (CBI), New Delhi. The report was submitted on 18.08.1998 vide number CFSL-98/L-386, which was forwarded on 20.08.1998. Dr. S.R. Singh Director, CFSL, CBI New Delhi at the relevant dates was her senior office and she could identify his signature also. The forwarding letter dated 20.08.1998 of Dr. S.R. Singh is Ex.PW16/A and the signature of Dr. S.R. Singh is at point A. The polygraph lie detector test report bearing No. CFSL-98/L-386 dated 18.08.1998 is Ex.PW16/B, which runs into two pages on a single sheet and each page bears my signature at points A Ex.PW16/B also bears the impression of my rubber stamp at point X. The Ex.PW16/B was prepared after conducting the polygraph test by me on Sh. Devender Yadav and as per the analysis and evaluation of polygrams, the findings there that Sh. Devender Yadav was not correct in his statement, regarding the crime under investigation. The request letter alongwith the questionnaire and brief facts is Ex.PW16/C (colly.), which runs into three sheets.
24. PW17 Rehmat Ali Bhatti deposed that on 14.01.99, he had handed over the Account Opening Form, Specimen signature card and certified copy of statement of account pertaining to the Saving Account no. 31327 of Mr. Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The same were seized by the Inspector of CBI SIU IX vide seisure memo Ex. PW17/A which bears his signature at point A. The specimen signature card of account holder Sh. Jasmeet singh (A/c no. 31327) is exhibited as Ex. PW17/B and same bears the signature of then Officer Sh. Raza Haider at point A which he could recognize as he was conversant with the signature during official course of duty. The account opening form of account no. 31327 is Ex. PW17/C which bears the signature CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 16 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 of Officer Sh. Raza Haider at point A. The certified copy of statement of account no. 31327 is Ex. PW17/D which bears the rubber stamp of the bank at point and same he could recognize and the certified copy also bears the signature of Sh. Jai Parkash, the then Officer at point B. The signature of Sh. Jai Parkash, he could recognize the same as he was conversant with his signature during the course of his official duty.
He had handed over the original account opening for of S/B A/c no. 30677, original specimen signature card of said account and statement of account pertaining to the account no. 30677 to the Inspector CBI SIU IX on 15.01.99. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/E bears his signature at point A. The specimen signature card of account holder Lalit Narang is Ex. PW17/F and same bears the signature of Sh. Raza haider the then Officer at point A. The account opening form of account no. 30677 is Ex. PW17/G and same bears the signature of Sh. Raza Haider at point A. The statement of account no. 30677 is Ex. PW17/H which bears the rubber stamp of the bank and signature of Sh. Jai Parkash the then Officer at points A & D.
25. PW-18 Sh. Suraj Tandon, s/o Late Sh. Amar Nath Tandon, Teller Services Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi deposed that during the period 1996, he was posted as Assistant Manager Customer Relations in ANZ Grindlays Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The account opening form of A/c No.30806 of Account Holder Sh. Jasmeet Singh Kohli was opened in Greater Kailash branch of ANZ Bank. The account opening form bears his signature and stamp of the bank at point A and B. There is another stamp of the bank at point C. The account opening form is being exhibited as Ex.PW18/A. The photograph of account holder is also affixed on Ex.PW18/A at point D to D-1. The specimen signature of the account holder bears his signature and stamp at point A and the same was Ex.PW18/B. There was another letter of ANZ Grindlays Bank addressed to Inspector S. Balasubramony, CBI. The witness recognized the stamp of the CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 17 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 bank at point A as well as the letterhead and the letter Ex.PW18/C.
26. PW-19 Sh. Deep Chand s/o Late Sh. Meeru Singh, aged about 57 deposed that he was posted as UDC in the office of Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi during the year 1994. Sh. K.P. Singh was the Controller in the said office and he was working under him at that time. He did not remember the name of LDC working at that time in his section. He further stated that the Controller is the Authority to pass the premium claim order in their office. D-6 is the claim file and same had been dealt by his office. In D-6 document, there is a noting in his handwriting at point X to X1 and also under the noting, he put signature signature at point A. This noting belongs to the date 17.02.1994 and it pertains to processing of premium claimed by M/s Alankar Impex. The said portion is Ex.PW19/A. He knew accused Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi as both of them were working in his office (both accused persons correctly identified by witness). He processed the premium claim of M/s Alankar Impex at the instance of accused Devender Yadav. Thereafter, the file was resubmitted by Mr. Amar Singh, another dealing hand.
27. PW-20 Sh. Devender Sharma deposed that during October, 1993, he was working under Sh. Deshraj Gulati, who had the business of export of brass handicrafts. Sh. Deshraj had the residence at B-9 Vasant Kunj, Delhi and his office was situated at Munirka, Delhi. Manoj Sethi and Devender Yadav used to visit the office of Sh. Deshraj Gulati. Sh. Deshraj Gulati had asked him to bring one Sh. Gian. He accordingly went to Kundli and from there he brought Sh. Gian to the residence of Sh. Deshraj Gulati. Thereafter, Sh. Deshraj Gulati had directed him to take Sh. Gian to Mayur Vihar where Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi were residing. Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi handed over some papers to Sh. Gian and after receiving those papers, said Sh. Gian left the said place. Except handing over CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 18 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 those papers to Sh. Gian, no conversation took place between them in his presence. He did not know as to what was done by Sh. Gian with respect to those papers. On the very next day, said Sh. Gian came to the house of Sh. Deshraj Gulati alongwith certain papers where he handed over those papers to Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi, who had also come to the said house on that day. He further stated that he did not know as to what was done with respect to those papers by Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi. He had no knowledge about the nature of those papers. This witness correctly identified accused Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi and Gian in the Court by correctly pointing out towards them. Thereafter, Ld. Special APP for CBI cross examined this witness as he was partly resiling from his earlier statement given to CBI u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by CBI during the stage of investigation. It is also correct that Gian had visited Mayur Vihar on next day alongwith those papers. It is wrong to suggest that the papers which were handed over by Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi to Sh. Gian at Mayur Vihar were REP license. Vol., those papers were kept in closed envelope and that is why I am not aware about the nature of those papers. It is wrong to suggest that Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi had told Gian in his presence at Mayur Vihar or that he (Gian) should erase the seal and writing appearing on the back side of REP license or that they had also told Gian at that time that they would pay him a sum of Rs.1,000/- for erasing the seal and writing on the said license. It is wrong to suggest that seal and writing on aforesaid REP license had been erased on the next day when Gian produced those papers. It is further wrong to suggest that on next day, Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi also handed over two more REP license to Gian in his presence or that Gian had erased seal and writing on those two REP licenses by using some chemical substance. It is also wrong to suggest that Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi had also paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Gian after he had erased the seal and writing on those licenses. He did not know any person in the CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 19 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 name of Sh. Ravinder Singh Saluja. It is wrong to suggest that he had told the IO of this case in his statement that Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi used to visit the flat of Ravinder Singh Saluja for the purpose of getting the seal and writing appearing on licenses removed.
This witness was again confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. available on judicial record. The contents of the said statement were been read over to the witness on which he denied to have made the statement appearing at portion X to X1 in the said statement Mark A. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated entire, complete and true facts before the Court today in order to favour the accused persons or that he had been won over by the accused persons.
28. PW 21 Lalit Narang deposed that he ran the firm M/s Fair Deals Impex India at L-4 Cannaught Circus and the firm dealt in the sale, purchase of import licenses. There were 7-8 persons working under him since 1978. Sh. Jasmeet Singh Kohli used to reside in front of his residence. He had seen Sh. Jasmeet Singh Kohli writing and signing before him. He could recognize his writing/signatures on seeing the documents. On seeing the documents D-6, there was a document of Alankar Impex on which at point Q2 there appears to be a hand writing of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. He further deposed that he knew all the accused persons. The witness correctly identified all the accused persons, in the Court. Sh. Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi, at that time, were posted in the office of Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi and since he dealt in the purchase of import license application, for that reason, he knew them. Both the said accused persons used to visit his office and at that time, Jasmeet Singh Kohli was also present there in his office. The signature appearing at point Q-4 on Ex.PW22/B2 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. On Ex.PW22/B3, at point Q-5 there appears to be the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-6 to Q-8 on Ex.PW6/1F is in the handwriting of Jasmeet CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 20 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-9 on Ex.PW22/B4 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-11 on Ex.PW22/B5 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-12 to Q-15 on Ex.PW6/1G are in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-16 on Ex.PW22/B6 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-18 on Ex.PW22/B7 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-19 to Q-22 on Ex.PW6/1H is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-23 on Ex.PW22/B8 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-25 Ex.PW22/B9 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-26 to Q-29 on Ex.PW6/1I is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-30 on Ex.PW22/B10 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-32 on Ex.PW22/B11 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-33 to Q-36 on Ex.PW6/1J is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-37 on Ex.PW22/B12 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-39 on Ex.PW22/B13 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-40 to Q-43 on Ex.PW6/IK is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-44 on Ex.PW22/B14 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-46 on Ex.PW22/B15 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-47 to Q-50 on Ex.PW6/IL is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-51 on Ex.PW22/B16 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-53 on Ex.PW22/B17 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-54 to Q-56 on Ex.PW6/1M is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-57 on Ex.PW22/B18 is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The signature at point Q-58 to Q-60 on Ex.PW6/1N is in the handwriting of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. He further deposed that he had no other knowledge as to how and under what circumstances, the CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 21 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 aforementioned documents were prepared.
29. PW22 Mohinder Singh deposed that he was M.Sc. in chemistry and had received his specialized training in Scientific Examination of Document including Handwriting Identification and Forgery detection for about 3 years from Government of India Laboratory at Hyderabad. He had been in this profession for the last 36 years and had independently examined thousand of documents expressing his opinion on them. Prior to his promotion and postings as GEQD Hyderabad w.e.f 1st February 2008, he remained posted as AGEQD and Deputy GEQD in the Office of GEQD Shimla. The documents of this case were received for examination vide SP, CBI, SIU(IX) dated 09.02.1999, vide letter no. DP519/1999/00856/3/7(S)/94- SIU9, the photocopy of the said letter is on judicial record. Original of the same was brought by the witness. The photocopy of letter was being exhibited as Ex. PW22/A. The details of the document received with the aforesaid letter is as follows:-
1) Documents stamped and marked as Q1 on Ex. PW4/A, Q2 (a) on Ex. PW22/B1, Q3 & Q4 on Ex. PW22/B2, Q5 on Ex. PW22/B3, Q6 to Q8 on Ex. PW6/1F, Q9 & Q19 (a) on Ex. PW22/B4, Q10 & Q11 on Ex. PW22/B5, Q12 to Q15 on Ex. PW6/1G, Q16 & Q16 (a) on Ex. PW22/B6, Q17 & Q18 on Ex. PW22/B7, Q19 to Q22 on Ex. PW6/1H, Q23 and Q23 (a) on Ex.
PW22/B8, Q24 & Q25 on Ex. PW22/B9, Q26 to Q29 on Ex. PW6/11, Q30 & Q30 (a) on Ex. PW22/B10, Q31 & Q32 on Ex. PW22/B11, Q33 to Q36 on PW6/1J, Q37 & Q37 (a) on Ex. PW22/B12, Q38 & Q39 on Ex. PW22/B13, Q 40 to Q43 on Ex. PW6/1K, Q44 and Q44 (a) on Ex. PW22/B14, Q45 and Q46 on Ex. PW22/B15, Q47 to Q50 on Ex. PW6/1L, Q51 & Q51 (a) on Ex. PW22/B16, Q52 & Q53 on Ex. PW22/B17, Q54 to Q56 on Ex. PW6/1M, Q57 on Ex. PW22/B18, Q58 to Q60 on Ex. PW6/1N and Q61 on Ex. PW22/B19.
2) Specimen writing/signatures purported to be of Sh. Jasmeet Singh Kohli, stamp and Marked S-428 to S-538 and S-477/1 PW22 further deposed that the specimen writings/ signatures purported to be of Sh. Jasmeet Singh Kohli which were sent to GEQD, Shimla for examination and comparison were from S-428 to S-538 and S-477/1. These specimen writings in original are not available in record. However, some of these specimen writings were photographed in the office of CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 22 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 GEQD, Shimla by a Government Photographer under his supervision and guidance. He has brought with him photographs of the specimen writings market S-428, S-430, S-431, S-433, S-436, S-444, S-448, S-452, S-453, S-462, S-463, S-465, S-468, S-470, S-477, S-478, S-485, S-489, S-493, S-499, S-505, S-506, S-516, S-517, S-520, S-527 and S-529. He has also brought the original negatives of these photographs which are 32 in number and are contained in Wallet. The aforesaid photographs which are 27 in number, are now exhibited as Ex. PW22/B20 (Colly). The negatives are now exhibited as PW22/B21 (colly) After careful and through examination of all the original documents, he came to the conclusion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-428 to S-438, S-444 to S-452, S-463 to S-477, S-477/1 and S-478 to S-529 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q2 to Q61. No definite opinion could be expressed on rest of the items on the basis of material supplied. His detailed report containing the aforesaid opinion, bears his signatures at point A. Same is exhibited as PW22/B22. The said report also bears the signatures of Sh. N.C Sood the then Deputy GEQD, at point B. Sh. Sood had also independently examined the documents and came to the same conclusion as of myself. He identify his signatures at point B on Ex. PW22/B22 as he had signed in his presence. The detailed reasons in support of his aforesaid opinion are Ex. PW22/B23 which bears his signatures at point A on both the typed sheets and the same maybe read as part of his statement. Ex. PW22/B24 is a letter of GEQD Shimla vide which the opinion reasons and the original documents were sent to CBI. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Subhashish Dey at point A which he can identify as he had worked with him and he was acquainted with his signatures.
30. PW-23 S.L. Mukhi deposed that he was working as Director Truth lab, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He retired as Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi on 30.11.05. He was M.Sc. in Chemistry. Before being selected through UPSC as a Document Expert in the year 1972, he had received the specialized training in the examination of disputed documents CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 23 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 from Sh. S.K. Gupta then Incharge of Document Division in the CFSL New Delhi. He had also received the training in the examination of disputed documents from Sh. S.K. Gupta then Incharge of Document Division in the CFSL New Delhi. He had also received the training in the examination of printed matter at Indian Security Press Nasik. In addition, he also received the training to operate all the scientific equipments being used in the examination of disputed documents at CSIO, Chandigarh. He was co-author in more than 18 papers/articles in National and International Forensic Science Journals. So far he had examined more than 5000 cases consisting of lacs of documents and appeared before mare than 2000 Hon'ble Courts. In this case, he had got an occasion to examine certain documents referred by CBI. The documents of this case were examined by him and after a thorough scientific examination he arrived at a following opinions:-
a) Scientific examination of the red enclosed portion mark Q1 on document already mark A1 (now exhibited as PW23/A1), Q2 already marked A2(now exhibited PW23/A2), Q3 already marked A3 (now exhibited PW23/A3), Q4 already marked A4 (now Ex. PW23/A4), Q5 already marked A4 (now Ex. PW23/A5), Q6 already marked A5(now exhibited PW23/A6), Q7 already marked A6(now exhibited PW23/A7), Q8 already marked A7 (now exhibited PW23/A8), Q9 already marked A7 (now exhibited PW23/A9), Q10 already marked A8(now exhibited PW23/A10) all of which bear official stamp at points A each, revealed that existing black stamp impression were affixed after physically/chemically erasing the original writings at this places.
b) The original writings in the red enclosed portion mark Q1 to Q3 on Ex.
PW23/A1 to A3, Q5 on Ex. PW23/A5, Q6 on Ex. PW23/A6, Q9 on Ex. PW23/A9 and Q10 on Ex. PW23/A10 could be partly deciphered. The original partly deciphered writings appears to be illegible strokes of the signature and there is a date below the signature which appears to read as 14.05.92.
In this regard, he had already submitted his report dated 18.06.97 consisting of one page and bears his signature at point X and is now CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 24 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 Ex. As PW23/B. Along with his report he had also submitted some of the photographic prints which are seven in number and pasted in a file cover as is now Ex. PW23/C(colly). These photographs reveals the portion of chemical/phisical eraser and the strokes of the figures 14.05.92 which are partly visible and are shown by red arrows on the photographs. His report was forwarded to CBI by his then Director Dr. S.R. Singh vide letter dated 26.06.97 which bears his signatures at point A. He identified his signatures as he had worked with him during the discharge of his official duty and he was acquainted with his signatures having seen him signing and writing. The said letter is Ex. PW23/D.
31. PW24 S. Balasubramany deposed that a written complaint dated 22.07.1994 was received from the office of Joint Director, General of Foreign Trade, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was signed by Sh. V. Rama Rao, Joint DGFT with respect to the allegations that eight Replenishment Licences were submitted by a firm namely M/s Alankar Impex of Mumbai for claim of premium. The Licenses were purportedly transferred to M/s Alankar Impex by M/s MMTC. The total Value of the premium was Rs. 6.40 crores. When the Joint, DGFT Office inquired into the matter, they found that MMTC had already claimed premium on the said licences and State Bank of India, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi had paid the premium. Further, the Joint, DGFT office also found that the documents submitted by M/s Alankar Impex regarding transfer of licenses were purportedly forged. They also found that the reverse side of the licenses have been erased by a chemical for the purpose of claiming premium again. They suspected foul play and handed over the case to CBI for investigation. The said complaint is already exhibited as Ex. PW13/A. The said complaint had been marked to the Joint Director, EOW and then further marked by the DIG, Incharge to the SP and subsequently an FIR No. RC 7(S)/94 was registered u/s 120B IPC read with Section 420/511, 380, 468/471 IPC and marked to the undersigned for CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 25 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 investigation. The first page of the complaint Ex. PW13/a also bears the signatures of Sh. Satish Chandra, the then DIG at point A, which he identified as he has worked with him and have seen him signing and writing. The said complaint also bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, the then SP at point B, which he identified as he had worked with him and had seen him signing and writing. The carbon copy of the FIR bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha on each page at points A. The same is now exhibited as Ex. PW24/A. He further deposed that at that time, he was posted as Inspector, SIU- IX. During the course of investigation, the original Licencing File pertaining to claim of premium by M/s Alankar Impex was seized from Sh. A.K.M. Chakankar, Dy DGFT vide receipt memo dated 13.09.1994 bearing his signatures at point A. Same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/B. The relevant pages/notings available in the said file, had already been exhibited as Ex.PW6/1A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW4/B, Ex.PW6/B, Ex. PW4/C, Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/E, Ex. PW6/C, Ex. PW4/F, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW19/A, Ex. PW6/D, Ex. PW6/1B, Ex. PW6/1C, Ex. PW6/1E, Ex. PW7/1D, Ex. PW6/E, Ex. PW6/10, Ex. PW6/1P, Ex. PW6/F and Ex. PW6/G. The said Licencing File was containing the original replenishment licenses which had been submitted for claim of premium by M/s Alankar Impex of Mumbai. The said licenses were already exhibited as Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex. PW23/A10. The said file also contained the Premium Claim Letters filed by M/s Alankar Impex with respect to each license for claim of premium and the same were already exhibited as Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW22/B1 to Ex. PW22/B19. The transfer letter of MMTC to M/s Alankar Impex had also been annexed with the Claim letters and the same were already exhibited as Ex. PW6/1F, Ex. PW6/1G, Ex. PW6/H, Ex. PW6/1I, Ex. PW6/1J, Ex. PW6/1K, Ex. PW6/1L, Ex. PW6/1M, Ex. PW6/1N and Ex. PW8/3. The said licencing file also contained clarification obtained from the office of MMTC regarding the genuineness of the transfer and the same was already exhibited as Ex. PW6/1R. In the said letter, they had CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 26 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 categorically stated that they had not transferred these licenses to M/s Alankar Impex and no person by name of Sh. Mukeen Kumar existed in MMTC and they have already claimed premium on the said licenses. The firm had requested that the premium be paid to their account with Union Bank of India, Goregaon, West, Mumbai.
Scrutiny of the Licencing File revealed that the firm M/s Alankar Impex had an address of Bombay and telephone number was also provided of the firm in Bombay. Investigation revealed that the said telephone number pertained to one Image Tours & Travels of Goregaon, West, Mumbai with proprietor Sh. Mohit Lamba. Searches were conducted at the office and residence of Sh. Mohit Lamba and Search lists were prepared and the same bears his signatures at point A on each Search List. The Search lists are now exhibited as Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D. Investigation revealed that M. Mohit Lamb's uncle Sh. Surender Khosla was a resident of Delhi and was operating a firm by name of Hinmic Impex in Delhi. Clarifications were obtained from Union Bank of India, Goregaon, West, Mumbai vide letter dated 26.09.1994 addressed to the Manager and the said letter bore his signatures at point A and his official stamp at point B and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/E regarding the existence of an account of M/s Alankar Impex with the Bank which was mentioned in the Premium Claim by the firm. The bank had replied vide letter dated 26.09.1995 addressed to him. That letter is now exhibited as Ex. PW24/F. The bank had stated that the firm does not maintain any account with the bank. The letter dated 13.09.1994 addressed to Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, the then SP, SIU-IX, CBI enclosing the Licensing File of M/s Alankar Impex is already exhibited as Ex. PW15/A. The letter from SP, SIU-IX calling for the said licencing file bears the signatures of Sh. R.K. Shukla at point A, who had signed on behalf of SP, which he could identify as he was well conversant with the signatures during the course of his official duty and the said letter was exhibited as Ex. PW24/G. Letters sent to Central Bank of CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 27 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 India, Goregaon, West, Mumbai for finding out if the account of M/s Alankar Impex existed or not. The said letter bore the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha at point A which he could identify and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/H. On receipt of information that Sh. Surender Khosla is the uncle of Sh. Mohit Lamba and was operating a firm namely Hinmic Impex from Delhi, searches were conducted at the office and residence of Sh. Surender Khosla and accordingly search list was prepared and the same bore his signatures at point A and signatures of Sh. V.K. Pandey, the then Inspector, CBI, SIU-IX at point B, which he could identify as he was well conversant with the signatures during the course of his official duty. The search list was exhibited as Ex. PW24/I. The office premises search of Sh. Surender Khosla was searched and accordingly search list was prepared and the same bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh. V.K. Pandey, the then Inspector, CBI, SIU- IX at point B and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW24/J. Some documents recovered during the course of the residential search is exhibited as Ex. PW24/K, Ex. PW24/L, Ex. PW24/M, Ex. PW24/N and Ex. PW24/O. They were the documents pertaining to his account with Union Bank of India, Goregaon, West, Mumbai and Membership Card with Holiday Inn and his personal diary. Some documents recovered from his office include the fax copy of the search conducted at Bombay at the residence of Sh. Mohit Lamba. The fax copy of search is now marked as PW24/P. Similarly, there was another letter dated 24.04.1995 addressed to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Goregaon, West regarding the account of Sh. Surender Khosla with the Bank of the said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha at point A which he could identify and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/Q. Letter was also sent to the Joint, DGFT calling for the register showing the receipt of 8 REP Licences when they were submitted by SBI after paying premium to MMTC. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Sinha, the then SP, SIU-IX at point A which he can identify and the same is now exhibited as Ex. PW24/R. Reply was received from Central Bank CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 28 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 of India, Goregaon, West that the account of Alankar Impex did not exist there vide letter dated 02.05.1995. After receiving the letter by the office of SP, same was marked to him vide his endorsement appearing at the portion encircled at point A which bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, the then SP at point B. The same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/S. During the course of investigation, Sh. Surender Khosla was arrested. He further deposed that during investigation of the case, the statement of Ravinder Singh who was the employee of accused Surender Khosla was recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and in this regard, he moved an application before Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, the then Ld. MM, THC, Delhi. The application bears his signatures at point A and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/T. His statement was recorded by the Ld. MM. The said statement is already exhibited as Ex. PW8/1. He also moved another application for getting the copy of Ex. PW8/1. The said application bears my signatures at point A and same is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/U. The carbon copy of Ex. PW24/U and Ex. PW8/1 are filed with the chargesheet as document D-13 and D-14 respectively. The said carbon copies are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW24/V. Further in the investigation the details of membership of Devender Yadav, Surender Khosla and Manoj Sethi accused in Holiday Inn was collected. At that time, Sh. Rajesh Ranjan was the SP, SIU IX, CBI/New Delhi. He had worked under him and seen him signing during course of his official duty and he could identify his signatures. The letter dated 06.10.1995, addressed Holiday Inn calling for the membership cards, bears the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, the then SP at point A which he identified. The said letter also bears the office stamp at point B and the letter was exhibited as Ex. PW24/W. The membership cards and other documents were collected from the Manager Holiday Inn, New Delhi by him vide receipt memo dated 09.10.1995 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. Ex. PW1/A bears my signatures at point B. Vide Ex. PW1/A I collected the documents Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. I also collected further documents from the Holiday Inn vide a receipt memo CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 29 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 dated 12.10.1995 and the same memo bears his signatures at point A and being exhibited as Ex. PW24/X. Vide Ex. PW24/X, he collected the document D-18 which was earlier marked as mark Y and same was exhibited as PW24/Y (colly.). During course of the investigation, the office of Joint Director of General of Foreign Trade, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi vide their letter dated 19.10.1995 had handed over the documents pertaining to the replenishment licences, the leave applications and joining report of accused Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi and also the receipt of State Bank of India showing payment of premium on the replenishment licences to MMTC. The said letter which was received during course of the investigation was exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z. The said letter was received by the office of the then SP, SIU, IX and thereafter, the said letter was marked to him and in this regard Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, the then SP, SIU IX made an endorsement and put his signatures at point A. The list (D-20) received from State Bank of India which shows that the payments were received against eight REP licences in question was collectively exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z1. There was another document received vide the Ex. PW24/Z. This is the letter dated 18.10.1995, addressed to DDC (ECA) CLA Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi issued by the Controller Record. Vide this letter, it was informed that the Controller Record were having the receipt of the licenses after premium payment. The said letter was exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z2. During course of investigation, SP, SIU, IX had written a letter dated 10.10.1995, addressed to Joint Director, General of Foreign Trade, office of Joint DGFT, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi calling for the documents pertaining to the case. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, the then SP at point A which I identify. The letter also bears the officer stamp of CBI at point B and the letter was exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z4. During course of the investigation, SP, Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, SIU, IX had written a letter dated 09.10.1995, addressed to Manager Holiday Inn regarding the membership cards of accused Manoj Sethi. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Ranjan at point A which he identified. The CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 30 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 said letter also bears the office stamp at point B and the letter is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z3. During the course of the investigation, the licences in which MMTC had already claimed premium were also collected vide D-6. Investigation revealed that the said licences already exhibited as Ex. PW23/A1 to Ex. PW23/A-9 had endorsement of payments of premium on the reverse of the licences which had been erased by the accused. Investigation further revealed that the said endorsements on the back side of the licenses were erased by the accused Gyan Chand Hasija. These licences have been claimed again for premium by the firm Alankar Impex on the grounds that it has been transferred to them by MMTC. Investigation revealed that the transfer letter purportedly issued by MMTC to Alankar Impex were forged one. The said transfer letters were already exhibited as Ex. PW22/B-2, Ex. PW22/B-3, Ex. PW22/B-5, Ex. PW22/B-7, Ex. PW22/B-9, Ex. PW22/B-11, Ex. PW22/B-13, Ex. PW22/B-15 and Ex. PW22/B-17. These transfer letters alongwith licences and the claim for premium of 6.4 Crores were submitted by Alankar Impex to the office of the Joint DGFT. The claim letter of M/s Alankar Impex are already Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/22/B1, Ex. PW22/B-4, Ex. PW22/B-6, Ex. PW22/B-8, Ex. PW22/B-10, Ex. PW22/B-12, Ex. PW22/B-14, Ex. PW22/B-16, Ex. PW22/B-18 and Ex. PW22/B-19. The signatures of the partner of Alankar Impex, P Khanna also appears on these letters. Investigation revealed that these signatures have been made by accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. Investigation also revealed that the signatures of the Managing Director of MMTC, Manager of State Bank of India, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi are forged one and the said persons did not exist in MMTC as well as State Bank of India. During investigation it was revealed that these premium claim papers of Alankar Impex was submitted to the office of Joint DGFT by Ravinder Singh, employee of accused Surender Khosla. These facts have been revealed by Ravinder Singh in his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC. Investigation further revealed that these licences were stolen from the office of Joint DGFT by accused Rajesh Kumar Rathi, Sweeper of CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 31 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 Joint DGFT office and handed over to accused Mukesh, Peon who in turn handed over the same to accused Devender Yadav. Investigation revealed that accused Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi used to meet in the office of Surender Khosla and also in Holiday Inn and had instructed Ravinder Singh, employee of Surender Khosla to file the premium claim on the basis of the forged documents. During course of investigation, the eight licences bearing number P/W/1515257, P/W/1515258, P/W/1515259, P/W/1515261, P/W/1515262, P/W/1515263, P/W/1515264 and P/W/1515265 all dated 04.02.1992 were sent for their forensic examination vide letter dated 20.02.1997. The said letters bears the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Ranjan at point A which I identify and the letter is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z5. Pursuant to Ex. PW24/Z5, a letter Ex. PW23/D alongwith the opinion (Ex. PW23/B) of S L Mukhi, the then Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-I, (documents) were received. Ex. PW23/D alongwith Ex. PW23/B were received by the office of SIU, CBI IX, New Delhi and in this regard there is a office stamp of the branch at point B on Ex. PW23/D. The said letter was marked to him for the purpose of the investigation and in this regard there is an endorsement at point C. Ex. PW23/C (colly.) is the part of Ex. PW23/B. Further the Polygraph test on accused Devender was conducted during investigation. In this regard, a letter dated 28.07.1998, was addressed to Director, CFSL. He had worked under Sh. A K Gupta, who was posted as SP, SIU, IX, New Delhi during the period July, 1998 and he could identify his signatures as he had seen him signing during course of his official duty. The letter dated 28.07.1998 bears the signatures Sh. A K Gupta at point A which he identified and the said letter already exhibited as Ex. PW16/C (colly.). Ex. PW16/C (colly.) also contains the questionnaire and the brief facts of the case. During course of investigation, the Polygraph (lie detector) test report was received vide letter dated 20.08.1998, addressed to SP, SIU, IX, CBI, New Delhi. The Polygraph Lie Detector test report is already exhibited as Ex. PW16/B and the letter dated 20.08.1998 is also already exhibited as Ex.
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 32 of 49RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 PW16/A. Ex. PW16/A alongwith Ex.PW16/B was marked to me by the SP, Sh. A K Gupta and in this regard he made a endorsement at point B and also put his signatures at point C on Ex.PW16/A which he identified. Investigation revealed that as per Ex. PW16/B the accused Devender Yadav was giving deceptive responses to the questions put to him during polygraph test. During investigation, a search was conducted at the residence of accused Devender Yadav in the presence of independent witness on 05.10.1995. At the spot, the search list was prepared regarding the items recovered from the spot. The search list was prepared by him in his handwriting and the said search list bears his signatures at point A and same was exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z6. In his presence, the other members of search team put their signatures on the search list Ex. PW24/Z6. The copy of the search list was also given to the accused Devender Yadav at the spot and in this regard his signatures was obtained at point B in my presence. During this search the membership card of Inn shape, Health and Fitness Centre having the inscription of Mr. D. Kumar was recovered from the spot. The said membership card (D-25) is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z7. During the aforesaid search the two visiting cards of accused Devender were also recovered from the spot and the same is being collectively exhibited as Ex. PW24/8 and Ex.PW24/Z9. He moved before the Court of Ld. CMM for recording the confessional statement of accused Mukesh u/s 164 Cr.PC. The application is already exhibited as Ex. PW25/B. The said application bears my signatures at point A. At that point of time, the J S Wadia, the then Sr. PP, CBI, SIU, IX, ND had forwarded the application and in this regard he put his signatures at point B which he identified as he was conversant with the same during course of his official duty. The statement of accused Mukesh u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded and the said statement is already exhibited as Ex. PW25/A. On Ex. PW25/A he identified the accused Mukesh before the Court and in this regard he put his signatures at point D on Ex. PW25/A. He also moved an application for getting the copy of Ex. PW25/A from the court and the said application is CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 33 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 already exhibited as Ex. PW25/C. Ex. PW25/C bears my signatures at point B and the signatures of J S Wadia, the then Sr. PP at point C which I identify. My application was allowed and I obtained the carbon copy of the statement Ex. PW25/A. He filed the carbon copy alongwith the chargesheet as a relied upon document D-26. The carbon copy of Ex.PW25/A (D-26) is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z10. Vide Ex. PW24/Z, the work register pertaining to the licences was received from the office of Joint DGFT. The said register is being exhibited as Ex.PW24/Z11 (colly.). It was revealed during investigation that the replenishment licences in question were issued in favour of MMTC. This fact is substantiated by Ex. PW24/Z11. During the course of investigation, accused persons Devender Yadav, Surinder Khosla, Mukesh, Rajesh Kumar Rathi were arrested. After completion of initial investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the six accused persons namely Suinder Khosla, Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi, Rajesh Kumar Rathi, Mukesh and Gyan Chand Hasija. The said chargesheet bears his signature at point A, B and C. The said chargesheet was duly forwarded by Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, the then SP, SIU-IX, whose signature I identify at point X. Further investigation revealed that one Jasmeet Singh Kohli resident of Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was also involved in this conspiracy. Investigation established that he had forged the signature of P. Khanna, proprietor of M/s Alankar Impex and the other signatures appearing in the documents on behalf of SBI and MMTC, at the instance of other accused persons Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi were forged by accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. Further, he received GEQD opinion (Ex. PW22/B22) on the questioned writings sent for comparison vide letter dated 03.05.1999 which is already exhibited as Ex. PW22/B24. The said letter along with opinion was received in their office and marked to him by the then S.P. Sh. Arun Kr. Gupta and in token of marking, he put his signatures at point B on Ex. PW22/B24. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed which bears his signatures at point A, B against accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The said supplementary CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 34 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 charge sheet is duly forwarded by Arun Kumar Gupta the then S.P. SIU-IX. He identified his signatures at point X. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli was also recorded vide an application moved by him already exhibited as Ex. PW26/A. The said application bears his signatures at point C. The statement of accused Jasmeet Singh u/s 164 Cr.P.C. already exhibited as Ex PW26/B. He was also arrested during the course of investigation. During course of investigation vide seizure memo dated 14.01.1999 already exhibited Ex. PW17/A, the account opening form, specimen signatures card as well as certified copy of statement of account of Jasmeet Singh Kohli, with Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank were seized by him. The seizure memo bears his signatures at point B. Vide seizure memo Ex PW17/A, he seized Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/C, Ex. PW17/D. During course of investigation, vide seizure memo dated 15.01.1999, he seized the documents pertaining to the account of Jasmeet Singh Kohli with Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank. The said seizure memo is already exhibited as Ex. PW17/E and same bears his signatures at point B. Vide Ex. PW17/E he seized Ex. PW17/F, Ex. PW17/G, Ex. PW17/H. During course of investigation, he seized documents pertaining to account of Jasmeet Singh Kohli with United Bank of India, Greater Kailash Part-I, vide seizure memo dated 15.01.1999 and the said seizure memo bears my signatures at point A and same is being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z12. Vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/Z12, he seized the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z13 and Ex. PW24/Z14. During course of investigation, he received a letter from United Bank of India. The said letter is Ex. PW24/Z15. During course of investigation, this witness seized account opening form of Jasmeet Singh Kohli and specimen signatures card of his account with ANZ Grindlays Bank vide seizure memo dated 15.01.1999 which bears his signatures at point A and same is Ex. PW24/Z16. Vide Ex. PW24/Z16, he received Ex. PW18/A, Ex. PW18/B, Ex. PW18/C. During course of investigation, letter was written to RPO, New Delhi to provide the passport file CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 35 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. The said letter bears the signatures of S.P. Arun Kumar Gupta at point A which he identified. The said letter is Ex. PW24/Z17. Vide production cum Seizure memo dated 05.02.1999, the passport file of Jasmeet Singh Kohli was seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at point A and same is Ex. PW24/Z18. Vide Ex. PW24/Z18, he seized passport file Ex. PW24/Z19. These documents were sent to GEQD as part of admitted handwritings and signatures of Jasmeet Singh Kohli. During course of investigation, he also received the carbon copy of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Jasmeet Singh Kohli and same is Ex. PW26/D. He also recorded the statement of witnesses Roop Chand, Madan Pal and Devender Kumar Sharma. The statement of Sh. Roop Chand recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC is the true and correct and same bears my signatures at point A and being exhibited as Ex. PW24/Z-20. The statement of Devender Kumar Sharma recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC already mark A is true and correct and same bears his signatures at point A. The statement of Sh. Madan Pal recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC already exhibited as Ex. PW9/A is true and correct and bears his signatures at point A.
32. PW25 Vipin Kumar Gupta, Advocate deposed that on 21.04.1998 he was working as Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. On that day, an application for recording the confessional statement of accused Mukesh u/s 164 Cr.PC was marked to him by Ld. CMM, Delhi. On the basis of the same, he proceeded to record the statement of accused Mukesh in his retiring room/chamber on 21.04.1998 at 03:35 PM. Before recording the statement of the accused, he put certain preliminary questions to him so as to satisfy himself with regard to the fact that the accused was taking his statement voluntarily and without any duress and pressure. After satisfying himself that the accused was making voluntarily statement, he recorded his statement which is Ex. PW25/A, which bears his signature at points A, B and C. The application marked by Ld. CMM to him is Ex. PW25/B, CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 36 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 which bears signatures and rubber stamp of Ld. CMM, Delhi at point A. After recording of statement, IO of the case namely Inspector S. Balasubramony moved an application for obtaining a copy of the said statement recorded by him. The said application is Ex. PW25/C, which was allowed by him vide his signature thereon at point A. The envelop containing the aforesaid proceedings is Ex. PW25/D. After recording of statement, he directed the Ahlmad to send the original confessional statement alongwith original application of IO as well as application for obtaining copy filed by IO in a sealed envelop to the concerned Court. A copy of the said statement was also given free of cost to the IO as per rules. He adhered to all the norms required to be followed in the matter of recording of confessional statement u/s 164 Cr.PC.
33. PW-26 Ms. Santosh Snehi Mann, Director (Academics) Delhi Judicial Academy Dwarka, Delhi deposed that on 08.01.1999, she was working as Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi. On that day, an application for recording the confessional statement of accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli was marked to him by the Link MM. The said application is Ex. PW26/A. The accused was produced before her from Judicial Custody for recording his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C on 08.01.1999. Inspector S. Balasubramony, the applicant was also present. The application was fixed for recording statement of Jasmeet Singh Kohli on 11.01.1999 at 10 a.m. Her endorsement to this effect is on the application bearing her signatures at point A and her stamp at point B. On 11.01.1999, accused Jasmeet Singh was produced before her from JC by the IO S. Bala Subramony the then Inspector of Police, SIU-IX/CBI/ND for recording his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She proceeded to her chamber to record the statement of accused Jasmeet Singh. Accused was also produced in her chamber on her directions. Before recording the statement of accused, she explained to the accused that he was not bound to make confession and that any confession CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 37 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 made by him may be used in evidence against him. After being explained the consequences of making statement, accused still desired to make the confession. In order to further ensure and satisfy herself that accused makes the confession voluntarily without any inducement, force or coercion, she put certain questions to him. Accused responded to the question frankly and confidently. She was satisfied that accused was making the confession voluntarily. She recorded his statement in her own handwriting, which is Ex. PW26/B bearing my signatures at point A and my stamp at point B. Accused signed at point C after accepting the recorded statement to be his correct version. In compliance of section 164 Cr.P.C., she certified the correctness of the statement and my certificate to this effect bears her signatures at point A with my stamp at point C. Proceedings were directed to be sent in a sealed cover to the court of CMM. Her endorsement to this effect bears my signatures at point B with her stamp at point D. The IO moved an application for copy of the statement of accused. The said application is Ex. PW26/C. The application was allowed and copy was given to IO. Her endorsement to this effect on the application of IO bears her signatures at point A with her stamp at point B. The carbon copy of the statement which is cited as D-12, also bears her signatures at point A and same is Ex. PW26/D. The sealed envelope which contained the proceedings is Ex. PW26/E. BRIEF REASONS FOR MY DECISION Now I appreciate the evidence and the final arguments in support of their contention from both the sides.
34. Ld Counsel Sh Deepak Gandhi had argued the case on behalf of accused Surinder Khosla, Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi and Jasmeet Singh Kohli. It was argued that the investigation conducted by the CBI was faulty one and investigating agency did not try to trace out the real P. Khanna of M/s Alankar Impex. Ld Counsel had submitted that P. Khanna was CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 38 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 a real identity and same was not a fictitious person as alleged by CBI. It was further argued that CBI filed the first chargesheet on 31.12.1998 and supplementary charge sheet on 27.05.1999 and prior to the filing of initial chargesheet, CBI had recorded the statement of PW Lalit Narang U/s 161 Cr.P.C but same was filed with the supplementary chargesheet in order to falsely implicate accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. It was further argued that in the garb of supplementary charge sheet, CBI had conducted re-investigation of the case and through which, CBI had given clean chit to accused Manoj Sethi for the offence of forgery and implicated accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli for the same and this was not permissible under the law. It was further argued that in the present case, there were two GEQD opinions and CBI deliberately suppressed the first one and filed the second opinion in order to implicate accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. Further, CBI did not examine the PW N.C Sood in order to suppress true facts about the GEQD opinion. It was further argued that relied GEQD opinion was given on the basis of photographs of the documents and not on originals of the same. It was also argued that accused Surinder Khosla had no connection with the present matter and there was no evidence against him. It was further argued that CBI failed to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for accused persons very vehemently argued that there are major contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and in this connection he has argued that PW 8 Ravinder Singh had deposed in the Court that he had submitted the licenses at the instance of accused Surinder Khosla, Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi during the year 1994 while the fact is that those eight REP licenses were submitted for their further processing in the office of DGFT New Delhi in the month of October, 1993, which is a major contradiction. Ld. Counsel for the aforesaid four accused persons had submitted that the rest of testimony of PW 8 could not be relied upon. It was further submitted that the polygraph test conducted on accused Devender Yadav could not be relied upon as no prior permission of the concerned Court CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 39 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 had been taken for subjecting the accused Devender to polygraph test. On the strength of PW-24/D-1, Ld. Counsel argued that the documents in the record section were under the complete supervision of an officer to the rank of Under Secretary and IO did not investigate on this aspect and for that reason, on this account only, the whole prosecution case fails. It was argued that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against accused Manoj Sethi. It was further argued that CBI did not bring all the prosecution witnesses in the witness box in order to suppress the real truth of the case. On these grounds, Ld Defence Counsel has put his case.
35. It was argued on behalf of accused Rajesh Kumar Rathi that there was no evidence against him and CBI had falsely implicated him in the present case. It was argued on behalf of accused Gyan Chand Asija that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against him and even PW Devender Sharma had turned hostile. It was argued on behalf of accused Mukesh that only his confessional statement is on record and same has not been corroborated with any other piece of evidence. It was further argued that even the confessional statement cannot be relied upon.
36. On the other hand, Ld. Special APP for CBI has put up his detailed arguments and also rebutted the arguments put forth by the Ld Defence Counsel. It was argued by Ld Counsel for CBI that it is a case of criminal conspiracy which was hatched in secrecy and executed in secrecy and acts of each co-conspirator be read against the other to prove the factum of conspiracy and their involvement in the conspiracy which was hatched and executed during the period 1992 to 1994 with the object to claim premium amount to the tune of Rs. 6.4 crores on stolen eight REP licenses on the basis of forged claim papers, transfer letters and other documents. With the examination of 26 prosecution witnesses and exhibited documents and CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 40 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 circumstantial evidences, prosecution has been able to prove the role of each and every accused and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, all the accused persons be convicted for the charged offences.
37. Ld Counsel for accused persons has very vehemently argued that the investigation is defective one and there are major contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and also argued that prosecution has failed to form the chain of evidence, so cogent that it pointed out towards the guilt of accused person and none else. First of all, I will deal the argument of defective investigation and major contradictions as argued by Ld Defence Counsel.
38. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case on the judicial file beyond reasonable doubts and such doubts in the prosecution story entitle the accused to acquittal. In a case reported as Rama Kant Rai v. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243 it has been ruled that a person has no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourites other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not a imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts or probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 41 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuition of judge.
While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. In Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab J.T. 2003 (6) S.C. 248 it has been ruled that exaggerate devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must be nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law (see : Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and other J.T. 1989 (4) S.C. 38; AIR 1990 SC 209 prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused (see: State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastva J.T. 1992 (1) SC 340; AIR 1992 SC 840). A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is must grow of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether if the meticulous hypersensitivity for eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish (See :
Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1978 SC 1091). "A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties." Per Viscount Simon in Stirland Vs. Director of Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (PC), 315 quoted in State of UP Vs Anil Singh CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 42 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 JT, 1988 (3) SC 491; AIR 1988 SC 1998.
In Visveswarn V. State 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal trial duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies and minor contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be appreciated. Accused be not allowed the benefit of defective investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape of criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must ignore technical objections.
39. Therefore, in view of the above reasons and settled proposition of law, this Court hold that the contradictions as pointed out by Ld Defence Counsel that PW-8 Ravinder Singh has deposed that he had submitted the licences in the year 1994 whereas as per prosecution case, REP licenses were processed in the month of October, 1993, is a minor contradiction.
40. Now, I proceed to discuss the law of criminal conspiracy as has been held in case titled as Yash Pal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2433 "the very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 43 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another;
amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant fact is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes mis-fire or over-shotting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy."
41. Further, in Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, 2003 CRL. J 4801, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of conspiracy than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available. Offence of conspiracy can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the person who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference.CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 44 of 49
RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 It was noticed that sections 120-A and 120-B IPC have brought the law of conspiracy in India in line with English law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the Courts must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy, some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by the choice of necessity. During the subsistence, whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under 120B of IPC."
42. In view of the aforementioned law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC is a distinct offence and it is not necessary that each member of the conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy so long as they are co-conspirator in the main object of the conspiracy. It is settled principle of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in secrecy and the same can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 45 of 49RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015
43. The arguments advanced by Ld Defence Counsel that CBI has suppressed the material witnesses does not hold ground. On perusal of the order sheets, it is evident that Ld Predecessor of this Court had directed the CBI to undertake the verification of all the remaining witnesses and in compliance of the directions, CBI has done the same and examined all the available witnesses. The other argument advance on behalf of accused persons was that the statement of PW Lalit Narang u/s 161 Cr.P.C had been recorded prior to the filing of chargesheet but the same was not cited by the CBI at the time of first chargesheet and same was done in order to implicate accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli. This argument is also not relevant on the ground that when the statement of PW Lalit Narang was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, the further investigation was kept pending by the CBI and after receiving the conclusive GEQD opinion against accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli, supplementary chargesheet was filed in the present case and same was permissible in law. It was further argued on behalf of accused persons that in the garb of further investigation, CBI conducted re-investigation. This ground is also not tenable as the factum that CBI had kept the further investigation u/s 173 Cr.P.C pending had been disclosed at the time of filing of the main chargesheet before the Court and after receiving the conclusive GEQD opinion against accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli, supplementary chargesheet was filed and this, in my opinion, was part of further investigation and not re-investigation as argued by Ld. Defence Counsel. It was also argued by the Ld Counsel for accused that there were two GEQD opinions, however, the CBI has conveniently chosen to rely on the GEQD opinion given by PW 22 which was based on the photographs and not on the original documents and the other GEQD opinion given by N.C Sood was not relied upon as it was against the case of CBI and for that reason witness N.C Sood was deliberately not produced in the witness box. This contention also does not hold any merit on the ground that IO explained in his testimony that there is only one conclusive GEQD opinion and the same was relied by the CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 46 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 CBI. The accused persons did not lead defence evidence in order to prove this contention. So, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is only one conclusive GEQD opinion in this case. Further, with the examination of PW-22 Mohinder Singh, the prosecution successfully proved the opinion Ex.PW22/B-22 and the said opinion was a joint one in which PW N.C Sood had also opined besides PW Mohinder Singh and PW-22 also identified the signatures of witness N.C Sood on the said opinion. The other contention that the opinion of PW-22 was based on photographs and not on the original ones is also without any merit which is clear from the testimony of PW-22 and therefore, these contentions also hold no ground. The accused persons also relied upon document Ex.PW24/D-1 in support of their case. In my opinion, the document Ex. PW-24/D-1 had not been duly proved by the accused persons through a competent witness and for that reason, same cannot be read in their defence. Another argument raised by the Ld Defence Counsel that the confessional statements of accused persons were taken under duress by the CBI. This contention also does not has any merit as the statements were recorded before the Ld. Magistrates who have proved the same. Another contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-8 had deposed that he had submitted REP licenses in the year 1994 while the fact is that the file for premium had been under process since October, 1993. In my opinion, considering the circumstantial evidence on record and the totality of the facts in hand and the testimonies of all the witnesses, this argument does not hold any ground. Moreover, merely the ground that witness has uttered the year as 1994 as it is a minor contradiction and does not demolish the whole prosecution case.
44. In the present case, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the factum of lodging of present case on the complaint Ex.PW13/A before the CBI which resulted into registration of RC Ex.PW24/A. The testimonies of PW-1 Ajit Malik, PW-8 Ravinder Singh, PW-19 Deep Chand and PW-21 Lalit Narang clearly prove the factum of hatching of CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 47 of 49 RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015 conspiracy by the aforesaid accused persons with the object to claim premium on eight REP licenses from the office of DGFT on the basis of forged documents. PW-8 Ravinder Singh, employee of accused Surender Khosla, had identified the documents submitted in the office of DGFT and he further deposed that he had done so at the instance of accused Surender Khosla, Devender Yadav and Manoj Sethi. PW-19 Deep Chand, employee of DGFT has clearly stated that he had processed the file of M/s Alankar Impex at the instance of accused Devender Yadav. There is also a polygraph test conducted on accused Devender Yadav and the report has been duly exhibited as Ex.PW16/B. These testimonies also prove the role of accused Surender Khosla, Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi in the conspiracy. PW-21 Lalit Narang during his examination identified the handwriting of accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli on the questioned documents. Further, his testimony has been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW-22 Mohinder Singh who also proved his opinion Ex.PW22/B-22. Beside these evidences, there is also confessional statement of accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli which corroborates his role as well as the role of other accused persons. Ex.PW22/B-22 also proves that P. Khanna of M/s Alankar Impex was a fictitious person. On these testimonies, I find that accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli was part of the conspiracy. The testimonies of PW-23 Sh S.L Mukhi and PW-20 Devender Sharma ( prior to turning hostile) raises a compelling circumstance that accused Gyan Chand Asija was also co-conspirator and pursuant to the conspiracy, he had erased the endorsement "premium paid" on the back side of eight REP licenses. There is also confessional statement of accused Mukesh Ex.PW25/A which elaborates his role as well as the role of accused Rajesh Kumar Rathi and considering it with depositions of other witnesses raises a compelling circumstance against accused Mukesh and Rajesh Kumar Rathi and leads to the conclusion that they were also the part of conspiracy.
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 48 of 49RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish that the evidence come on record on appreciating collectively formed the chain so cogent and firm which clearly pointed out towards the accused persons that they have entered into conspiracy to cheat the office of DGFT by stealing the REP licenses and forged them and other documents. Hence, I am of the considered view that prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jasmeet Singh Kohli is convicted for offence u/s 120B r/w section 468 IPC. And accused Devender Yadav, Manoj Sethi, Rajesh Kumar Rathi, Mukesh, Gyan Chand Asija and Surender Khosla, on the basis of evidence come on record, are convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 380/420r/w511 /468/471 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 24.04.2015 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 49 of 49
RC No. 7 (S)/94, PS CBI/SIUIX/ND , u/s 120B r/w 380/420/468/471 IPC DOD:. 24.04.2015
CBI v. Surender Khosla & Ors Page 50 of 49