Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . (1) Narender Jindal, on 31 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL
JUDGE (P.C. ACT) (CBI)-22, ROUSE AVENUE COURT,
NEW DELHI
CC No. 397/2019
RC No.DA1-2000-A-0065/ACB/CBI
u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC.
CNR No.DLCT110015752019
CBI vs. (1) Narender Jindal,
s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain Jindal,
R/o CB-1A, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
(2) Pramod Jindal,
s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain Jindal,
R/o CB-1A, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
(3)Parveen Chopra,
s/o Sh. Om Prakash Chopra,
R/o CB-1A, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
(4) Ashok Kumar Hans,
(since deceased)
s/o Sh. A.C. Hans,
R/o 14/5, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi.
(5) Kulwant Singh,
(since deceased)
s/o Sh. Hira Singh,
R/o SD-373, Tower Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 02.04.2009
Date of Session Committal : 15.12.2015
Date of Arguments heard : 15.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 31.03.2022
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 1
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Narender Jindal and Parmod Jindal both son of Lakshmi Narayan Jindal and Praveen Chopra s/o Om Prakash Chopra are facing trial for offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as well as for charge u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. As it appears from the charge sheet RC No. DAI- 2000-A-0065 was registered on 9.11.2000 on the basis of source information to CBI that certain officers/officials of DDA namely Sh. V.K. Singhal, Director (Housing), Sh.R.P. Sharma, dealing clerk and other public servants as well as property dealers, in conspiracy with each other are getting certain DDA flats of prime location, illegally restored, which were earlier alloted to different persons but were cancelled by the DDA on account of defaults in payments by the allottees. Subsequently, after restoration of those flats same were allegedly being sold at premium. It is also alleged in the FIR that property dealers had approached allottees for obtaining their signatures on blank papers or forged their signatures for the purpose of getting their allotment restored. This include flat no. 214 and 215 in Pocket-1 of Sector-25, Rohini under EHS scheme, which were allegedly restored illegally.
3. During the investigation, it revealed that flat no.214 of above said locality of Rohini was originally alloted to one Ajay Kumar Jain s/o Tarsem Kumar Jain through draw of lots held by DDA on 28.3.1995 against the registration no. 42795. Demand cum allotment letter was issued to the allottee with the direction to make required payment as per schedule, by 1.11.96. After receipt of such demand cum allotment letter allottee Ajay CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 2 Kumar Jain applied for cancellation of his allotment and refund of registration amount by a letter. Accordingly, request of the allottee was allowed and after deducting usual cancellation charges, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was refunded to him by cheque no.111819 dt. 11.12.95 and intimation to this effect was conveyed to allottee by a letter dt. 14.12.95. Said refund amount was passed and cheque was encashed by the allottee.
4. It is alleged that in October, 1998 accused Narender Jindal a property dealer of Lord Krishna Properties, approached said Ajay Kumar Jain for selling the flat allotted in his name. Accused Narender Jindal allegedly obtained signatures of Ajay Kumar Jain on some documents including blank letters/ representations addressed to different officers of DDA, as well as GPA, SPA, Affidavit etc. All those documents on which above said allottee Ajay Kumar Jain had put his signatures were seized during the investigation from the current owner of the flat namely Dhanpat Rai who stated to have purchased said flat from accused Praveen Chopra. As per documents Praveen Chopra was shown to have purchased the said flat from Ajay Kumar Jain.
5. During the investigation of this case, file of DDA pertaining to above said flat No. 214 was seized. That file contained one application dt. 7.12.98 purportedly submitted by Ajay Kumar Jain to Commissioner (Housing) DDA for restoration of his flat mentioning that he has already deposited Rs.1,91,150/- in respect of said flat. It is alleged that allottee Ajay Kumar Jain not only signed the above said application seeking restoration of flat in his name but had also accompanied accused Narender Jindal to DDA office for signing certain documents. Accused Narender Jindal allegedly persuaded CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 3 allottee Ajay Kumar Jain to appear in public hearing of Director (Housing) on 28.1.99 for restoration of the said flat.
6. It further came in the investigation that in respect of above said flat no. 214 a sum of Rs.5,39,650/- was deposited by 12 different demand drafts of Rs.49,000/- as well as a cash amount of Rs.4,150/- with DDA. Since during those days if any person wanted to get demand draft prepared from the bank by cash, there was limit of Rs.49,000/-. As such different demand drafts were got prepared with the help of different persons. It came in the investigation that in this regard application forms for drafts were filled by accused no.1 Narender Jindal and his associates. Entire amount was financed by accused Praveen Chopra, Kulwant Singh and Narender Jindal. Those bank drafts were got prepared through different persons namely Vinod Kumar, Dhan Bahadur, Sumit Madan and Resham who were stated to be employee of Kulwant Singh as well as from Shrikant, Ashok Kumar Hans (accused), Manoj Nathani, Satnarayan and Annu Thomas. All those 12 drafts were got prepared by depositing cash in the bank with charges, in respect of above said flat no. 214, in the name of allottee Ajay Kumar Jain.
7. Details of those drafts are (i) demand draft no. 448001 dt. 17.2.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (ii) demand draft no. 448004 dt. 17.2.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (iii) demand draft no. 448006 dt. 17.2.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (iv) demand draft no. 448007 dt. 17.2.2000 of Rs.46,000/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 4 Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (v) demand draft no. 727821 dt. 30.11.98 of Rs.44,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Azad Pur, draft application filled by Parmod Jindal; (vi) demand draft no. 727822 dt. 30.11.98 of Rs.49,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Azad Pur, draft application filled by Parmod Jindal; (vii) demand draft no. 727823 dt. 30.11.98 of Rs.46,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Azad Pur, draft application filled by Parmod Jindal; (viii) demand draft no. 727824 dt. 30.11.98 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Azad Pur, draft application filled by Parmod Jindal.
8. (ix) Demand draft no. 448601 dt. 2.6.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (x) demand draft no. 448602 dt. 2.6.2000 of Rs.14,500/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar; (xi) demand draft no. 448603 dt. 2.6.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar and (xii) demand draft no. 448604 dt. 2.6.2000 of Rs.48,000/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank Shalimar Bagh, draft application filled by Vinod Kumar.
9. It is stated in the charge sheet that as per the GEQD opinion writing on the back of banker's cheque no.448001, 448004, 448007 and 448601 to 448604 regarding the said flat no. 214 was in hand writing of Annu Thomas employee of Narender Jindal. It is alleged that amount for getting the abovesaid drafts was made available by accused Praveen Chopra and Kulwant Singh. Vinod Kumar, Dhan Bahadur, Sumit, Madan and Resham were employees of Kulwant Singh whereas Shri Kant, Ashok Kumar Hans, Manoj Nathani, Satnarayan and Anu Thomas were CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 5 employees of accused Narender Jindal. It is stated that it surfaced in the investigation that above said employees of Narender Jindal and Kulwant Singh used to visit bank together to get the demand drafts made as one person at that time, could only get one draft prepared for maximum amount of Rs.49,000/- in cash. Therefore when drafts were to be prepared for lakhs of rupees, modus operandi adopted by accused persons was to send all the aforesaid employees simultaneously to get the demand drafts prepared for an amount ranging between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.49,000/-. It is stated that beside above employees one Deepak Khera also used to get the demand drafts prepared.
10. It is further alleged that from the file of flat no.214, Sector 25 (D-3) it also revealed that challan forms used for depositing the payment with the DDA, bear writing of accused Pramod Jindal and of Ms.Anu Thomas. GEQD report confirms that challan bearing no.046947 and 046979 were written by Anu Thomas and challan form bearing no.046673 was in the writing of accused Pramod Jindal.
11. In the above said file of flat no.214 (D-3), at page no.56 there is an application of allottee Ajay Kumar Jain submitted to DDA on 11.11.1999, which bear genuine signatures of Ajay Kumar Jain requesting for handing over of possession of afore said flat, also mentioning that due to financial constraints he could not earlier deposited the amount as per demand-cum- allotment letter issued in year 1995. Stating that he has already deposited Rs.1,91,150/- with DDA towards the cost of the said flat. It is stated that in response to said application of the allottee, case for restoration was considered by the GRC and by letter dated 16.02.2000 issued from Sh.Gurdev Singh, AD (EHS), CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 6 allottee Ajay Kumar Jain was informed about the restoration of the flat.
12. It is alleged that on 01.06.2000 accused Narender Jindal submitted an application under fake signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar Jain to AD (EHS) along with the bank challan of Rs.1,58,500/- against interest and penalty charges for the aforesaid flat. In that letter request was made for issuance of conveyance deed pertaining to said flat no.214. It is alleged that as per the GEQD report the handwriting and signatures in the said letter were of Anu Thomas who used to be employee of accused Narender Jindal working as receptionist/computer operator. It is stated that subsequently conveyance deed was issued on 21.06.2000 in favour of the allottee, wherein accused Narender Jindal and his associate Ashok Kumar Hans signed the conveyance deed as witnesses. It is stated that aforesaid file of flat no.214 also contain one letter at page no.20 for issuance of conveyance deed, purportedly under signatures of Ajay Kumar Jain, however as per the GEQD report said letter was found to be in writing of Ashok Kumar Hans.
13. It is stated that similarly in respect of flat no.215, Sector 25, Pocket 1, allotted in the name of Ajay Kumar s/o Rajender Pal Gupta through draw of lots held on 28.03.1995. The file of the said flat was also seized during the investigation. It is matter of record that said Ajay Kumar applied for cancellation of his allotment and refund of registration amount by letter dated 24.06.1995. Said request was allowed after deducting usual cancellation charges and amount of Rs.5,000/- was refunded to him by cheque no.216520 dated 30.01.1996. Intimation to this effect was conveyed to the allottee by letter CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 7 dated 02.02.1996. It is alleged that accused Narender Jindal contacted aforesaid allottee Ajay Kumar in 1998-99, when during those days he was residing at Ludhiana, Punjab. It is alleged that accused Narender Jindal sent his brother Pramod Jindal to Ludhiana, for purchasing papers of aforesaid flat no.215 from Ajay Kumar. It is alleged that signatures of Ajay Kumar have been taken on numerous documents like GPA, SPA etc. Even said Ajay Kumar was also persuaded to appear in public hearing of Director (Housing) on 11.02.1999 for restoration of the flat.
14. It is stated in the charge sheet that as per the information received from DDA total sum of Rs.5,39,650/- was deposited in respect of aforesaid flat no.215, through 12 demand drafts as per the details (i) demand draft no.727833 of Rs.49,000/- drawn on PNB Azadpur (filled and submitted by Vinod Kumar, as per report of GEQD); (ii) demand draft no.727834 of Rs.48,150/- drawn on PNB Azadpur (filled and submitted by Pramod Kumar Jindal, as per report of GEQD); (iii) demand draft no.727835 of Rs.45,000/- drawn on PNB Azadpur (filled and submitted by Pramod Kumar Jindal, as per report of GEQD); (iv) demand draft no.727836 of Rs.49,000/- drawn on PNB Azadpur (filled and submitted by Shri Kant, as per report of GEQD); (v) demand draft no.447999 of Rs.48,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bag (filled and submitted by Vinod Kumar, as per report of GEQD); (vi) demand draft no.448000 of Rs.48,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Vinod Kumar, as per report of GEQD); (vii) demand draft no.448002 of Rs.46,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Vinod Kumar, as per report of GEQD); (viii) CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 8 demand draft no.448003 of Rs.48,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Vinod Kumar, as per report of GEQD); (ix) demand draft no.449046 of Rs.40,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Deepak Khera, as per report of GEQD);
(x) demand draft no.449047 of Rs.38,500/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh; (xi) demand draft no.449048 of Rs.40,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Narender Jindal, as per report of GEQD); (xii) demand draft no.449049 of Rs.40,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh (filled and submitted by Deepak Khera, as per report of GEQD).
15. It is alleged that GEQD opinion confirm that writing on the overleaf of bankers cheque no.447999, 448000, 448002 and 448003 was of Anu Thomas whereas on the overleaf of bankers cheque no.449046 to 449049 there was hand writing of Pramod Jindal. Scrutiny of DDA file of flat no.215 further revealed that challan no.046940 and 339013 used for depositing money in the DDA bear signatures of Anu Thomas and challan no.046674 bears handwriting of Pramod Jindal. As per GEQD report various letters in the name of Ajay Kumar, lying at page no.21, 25, 28, 34 were in writing of Ms.Anu Thomas. It is alleged that possession letter on the file, contained forged signatures of Ajay Kumar, allottee appended by Anu Thomas.
16. It is further alleged that DDA received on 15.11.1999 an application purportedly in the name of allottee Ajay Kumar, on which restoration process was initiated, such application bear forged signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar forged by Arun Kumar Hans, an employee of Narender Jindal. Whereas CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 9 an application dated 28.08.2000 vide which bank challan of Rs.1,58,500/- was submitted towards interest and penalty of the flat, bear forged signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar by accused Narender Jindal whereas application was written by Anu Thomas (as per GEQD report). Similarly application received to DDA on 07.12.1998, on which note for restoration of flat was initiated, also bear forged signatures of Ajay Kumar appended by Anu Thomas.
17. It is further stated that on the application dated 15.11.1999 there were forged signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar appended by Ashok Kumar Hans. DDA file of the said flat no.215 further revealed that flat was restored. Thereupon on 30.08.2000 DDA received an application dated 28.08.2000 purportedly from allottee Ajay Kumar seeking for issuance of conveyance deed. Such letter allegedly bear forged signatures of allottee and as per GEQD report which were appended by accused Narender Jindal.
18. It is alleged that in such manner the above said flat no.214 and 215 of pocket 1, Sector 25, Rohini, were got restored in year 2000, the market value of which were of Rs.12,50,000/- each. Whereas flat no.214 was purchased from Ajay Kumar Jain for Rs.5,39,650/- and sold to Praveen Chopra for Rs.4,52,000/-. Similarly flat no.215 was purchased from Ajay Kumar for Rs.5,39,650/- and sold to Pramod Jindal for Rs.6,11,000/- and was further sold to Kulwant Singh for Rs.6,50,000/- in year 2000. It is alleged that in this manner accused persons in conspiracy with each other cheated DDA by earning considerable premium, after getting those flats re-alloted in the name of original allottees and purchasing from them.
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 10
19. It is alleged that aforesaid flats were got restored from DDA on the basis of forged documents and false information. It is stated that accused Narender Jindal deposited false affidavit in the name of Smt.Sudharshan Kumari Jain (mother of the allottee of flat no.214 namely Ajay Kumar Jain). It is further stated in the charge sheet that accused Madan Sharma, Jagbir Chaudhary, J.P. Sharma, V.K. Singhal, M.S. Sharma, R.P. Sharma, M.L. Ahuja, Satbir Singh and Ajay Gupta, who were officers/officials of DDA have not been charge sheeted on account of insufficiency of evidence against them. As such initially charge sheet was filed as against accused Narender Jindal, Pramod Jindal, Praveen Chopra, Ashok Kumar Hans, Kulwant Singh and Anu Thomas for offences u/s 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
20. Since the charge sheet was filed for offences for trial before ld. MM, it is matter of record that when the matter was at the stage of charge on 15.07.2011 before ld. CMM, accused no.6 Anu Thomas moved an application to become an "approver". Application of accused no.6 Annu Thomas was alloted by ld. CMM vide order dated 10.09.2015 and court tendered pardon to accused Annu Thomas on the condition of her making full and true disclosure of entire circumstances within her knowledge related to offences she has been involved as well as against other persons. In the order dated 10.09.2015 itself ld. CMM noted that accused Annu Thomas is required to be examined as witness as per section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. On 06.10.2015 accused Annu Thomas was examined by ld. CMM and opportunity was given to other co-accused to cross-examine her. Thereafter vide order dated 30.11.2015 ld. CMM while referring to the provision of CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 11 section 306(5)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. stated that since that court had tendered the pardon to one of the accused, in such case the trial is now required to be conducted in the Court of Session and accordingly matter was referred before the ld. District & Sessions Judge (South West), Dwarka as during those days proceedings were pending in that court. Thereafter the then District & Sessions Judge transferred the matter to Special Judge, CBI posted at Dwarka. Thereafter matter remained pending before ld. ASJ of Dwarka Court. In the meantime when all the CBI cases were transferred to Rouse Avenue Court, the present matter was also transferred to ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court who after taking note of all the facts marked the present case to this court.
21. During the course of proceedings, before the matter was transferred to this court, accused Ashok Kumar Hans and Kulwant Singh expired. As such proceedings qua them stood abated. This court considered the entire material on the judicial record and vide order dated 28.09.2019, ordered for framing of charge as against accused Narender Jindal, Pramod Jindal and Praveen Chopra for offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with 120B IPC and for substantive offences u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as against them.
22. Accordingly charges were framed for aforesaid offences against the accused on 17.10.2019 and were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
23. In order to substantiate the prosecution case against the accused persons, 26 witnesses have been examined. Discussion of prosecution evidence CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 12 23.1 PW1 is Ms.Harvinder Arora who was working as Sr. Accounts Officer, Cash (Housing), DDA, Vikas Sadan. He deposed she joined the investigation with CBI and had seen a file pertaining to refund voucher. She proved pay order bill no.2671 dated 25.01.1996 Ex.PW1/A vide which she issued a cheque no.216520 (D-21) dated 30.01.1996 for Rs.5,000/- Ex.PW1/AA in favour of Ajay Kumar. She also proved pay order bill no.2171 dated 05.12.1996 Ex.PW1/B vide which she issued a cheque no.111819 (D-20) dated 11.12.1995 for Rs.5,000/- Ex.PW1/BB in favour of Ajay Kumar Jain.
23.2 PW2 is Radhey Shyam Meena who was working as UDC, Housing Accounts, DDA, Rohini. He proved file no.504 (D-3) (1025/ 95/EHS/RO) regarding allotment/restoration of EHS flat no.214, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini allotted in the name of Ajay Kumar Jain. He identified page no.32/C Ex.PW2/A of the said file which is calculation sheet for payments deposited by the allottee which was prepared by him (PW2) as per the instructions from AAO and AO on the basis of different payment vouchers. He deposed that as per said calculation sheet, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was adjusted towards registration amount, taken from the allottee. PW2 identified page no.9-10/N Ex.PW2/B of the said file which is a note regarding payments in respect of above said flat.
23.3 PW2 also proved file no.504 (D-2) (860/95/EHS/RO) regarding allotment/restoration of EHS flat no.215, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini allotted in the name of Ajay Kumar s/o Rajender Paul Gupta. He identified page no.26/C Ex.PW2/C of the said file which is calculation sheet for payments deposited by the allottee which was prepared by him CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 13 (PW2) as per the instructions from AAO and AO on the basis of different payment vouchers. He deposed that as per said calculation sheet, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was adjusted towards registration amount, taken from the allottee. PW2 identified page no.9-10/N Ex.PW2/D of the said file which is a note regarding payments in respect of above said flat.
23.4 PW3 is Manmohan Singh Luthra who identified pay order no.448006 dated 17.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.48,000/-, cash serial no.26 pertaining to Jaspal Kaur Pubic School, Shalimar Bagh Branch of Punjab & Sind Bank. He deposed that voucher was prepared for the purpose of deposit of Rs.48,000/- in favour of DDA and bank charged Rs.110/- as commission. On the basis of voucher, pay order no.448006/1769/2000 was prepared in the branch. He also identified pay order no.448007 dated 17.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.46,000/-, pay order no.448004, 448001, 447999, 448000 all dated 17.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.48,000/- each, pay order no.448002 dated 17.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.46,000/- and pay order dated no.448003 dated 17.02.2000 for a sum of Rs.48,000/-. He deposed that all these payments were made on the same day in cash, payable to DDA.
23.5 PW3 also deposed regarding pay order no.448601, 448603, 448604 all dated 01.06.2000 for a sum of Rs.48,000/- each, pay order no.448602 dated 01.06.2000 for a sum of Rs.14,500/-, and all those payments were made on the same day in cash, payable to DDA.
23.6 PW3 also deposed regarding pay order no.449047 dated 28.08.2000 for a sum of Rs.38,500/- and pay order nos.449046, 449048 and 449049 all dated 28.08.2000 for a sum of Rs.48,000/- each and all those payments were made on the CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 14 same day in cash, payable to DDA. He identified the above pay orders as Mark PX3/X (D-48).
23.7 PW4 is Deepak Khera who deposed that he know Kulwant Singh being neighbour and he on certain occasions given money to employees of Kulwant Singh for getting the draft prepared from the bank. PW4 also deposed that Narender and Praveen are partners of Kulwant Singh and he identified accused Praveen correctly in the court being the same person who was working as partner and sitting in the office of Kulwant Singh. PW4 identified draft application no.449046 dated 28.08.2000 (D- 48 page no.39) Ex.PW4/A of Punjab and Sind Bank. He identified his signatures at point A. PW4 also identified another draft application no.449049 dated 28.08.2000 (D-48 page no.38) Ex.Pw4/B of same bank and identified his signatures at point A. He also identified his specimen signature/writings on D-44, S- 128 to S-139 (Ex.PW4/C).
23.8 PW5 is Ajay Kumar Jain who deposed that he joined the investigation of CBI in this case. PW5 deposed that he had applied for the flat with DDA in his name and at that time a daft of Rs.15,000/- was deposited by his mother. PW5 says that flat no. 214 of Rohini Sector, which he do not remember due to passage of time, was allotted to him under the scheme of DDA. PW5 says that during those days due to lack of resources and the fact that his parents used to look after the affairs of the family, they decided not to take the allotment of that flat. Therefore, he filed application with the DDA for cancellation of allotment and refund of the amount. He says that Rs.5000/- was refunded to him.
23.9 PW5 deposes that after about 2 years of such refund CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 15 two property dealers of Lord Krishna Property, who were brothers and name of them was Narender Jindal but he do not remember the name of another, had approached him regarding the said flat. PW5 says that they came to his house after deriving information regarding the allotment of flat in his name. Both Narender Jindal and his brother told his mother that they would get said flat reallotted in his name and for that purpose he (PW5) would have to sign certain documents. When his mother inquired as to how would it be possible when they have already taken refund amount of that flat. PW5 says that Narender Jindal assured that flat would be reallotted in his name and assured that after reallotment they would purchase the flat in their name or in the name of someone else and for that purpose they assured to give Rs. One lac to them.
23.10 PW5 says that on the same day they gave Rs.40000/- to his mother as an earnest amount and they obtained his signatures on certain documents for the purpose of reallotment of said flat. PW5 says that 5/6 months thereafter they called him in the office of Rohini Court Ring Road and again obtained his signatures and also paid Rs.30000/- to him (PW5). Witness further says that again for about 4/5 months there was no progress and in the meantime his mother expired. Later PW5 stated to have been called and made to appear before some officers, however due to passage of time he was unable to recall as to before whom he had appeared. PW5 says later he was told that flat no. 214 has been reallotted in his name. Narender Jindal and his brother again obtained signatures on certain documents purportedly for selling the said flat in the name of someone. Witness says that those document though mentioned his name but CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 16 other particulars were blank and they told that they would fill the name of the person on that document, to whom it would be sold. 23.11 PW5 proves file no.504/1025/95/EHS/RO in his name pertaining to flat no. 214, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini having seen the same during the investigation. Said file is Ex.PW5/A. PW5 testifies that at page no. 25-C, 29-C, 56-C and page no. 58 and 59 of the above mentioned file letter/documents Mark PX to PX-4 respectively do not bear his signatures. PW5 further says that the affidavit dated 11.5.2000 (Mark PX-5) in the name of his mother Sudarshan Kumari Jain lying at page no. 30 of the said file Ex.PW5/A was never prepared by his mother as by then his mother had already expired.
23.12 PW5 further says that in respect of above said flat no. 214 he never deposited any money in the bank and had never seen the said flat at the site. Witness states that during investigation his specimen signature/writing were taken which are 11 sheets i.e. S-159 to S-169 which are Ex.PW5/B (colly.). 23.13 PW5 however stated in the court that he cannot identify accused Narender Jindal and his brother due to passage of time. PW5 was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI. He admitted of having giving statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW5/P-1 and further admitted that he had stated in his statement that he received telephonic call from Narender Jindal that process of reallotment of flat has commenced and that he would have to appear before Commissioner (Housing) DDA, Lok Adalat. PW5 further admitted in cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI that in November 1999 accused Narender Jindal and his brother Parmod Jindal had taken him to appear before Commissioner (Housing) DDA and on that day his photographs were taken and signatures CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 17 were taken on certain documents. PW5 further admitted other facts mentioned in his statement Ex.PW5/P-1 from point B to B, C to C and D to D which inter alia mention taking of his signatures on certain documents and visiting the office of DDA etc. In cross-examination by ld. PP, PW5 again did not identify the accused persons despite drawing his attention. 23.14 PW6 is Jagpal Singh Chaney who was an official valuer and deposed that he joined the investigation of the CBI, when he was asked in May 2004 to evaluate to flat no. 214 and 215, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini. PW6 deposes that on 15.5.2004 he visited the abovesaid two properties for evaluation and made inquiries in this regard from the property dealer of that area. Witness states that flats were residential flats of 28 square meters area. There was civic amenities like school, Hospital, Market etc in the near vicinity. Those flats were opened to be converted to free hold after payment of charges to the DDA. Witness states that after assessing all technical details including quality of construction, electrical work etc he prepared his valuation reports dated 17.5.2004 in respect of above said two flats which are Ex.PW6/A and B respectively.
23.15 PW7 is Kishore Chand, an Account Officer, DDA, who deposed that under the file no. 504(860)/95/EHS/RO there is a note dated 25.1.1996 regarding refund of earnest money in respect of flat no. 215 in the name of Ajay Kumar. Witness identified the said note as Ex.PW7/A. PW7 further identifies the bill regarding refund of Rs.5000/-, after deduction of cancellation charges already Ex.PW1/A having been signed by him. PW7 similarly also proves note dated 7.12.95 in file No. 504(1025)/95/EHS/RO regarding refund of earnest money in CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 18 respect of flat no. 214, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini in the name of Ajay Jain which is Ex.PW7/B. PW7 further says that by letter dated 7.2.2001 Ex.PW7/C addressed to IO of the CBI, he provided the information pertaining to above said flats. 23.16 PW8 is D.S. Chauhan who deposed that while he was working in November 2000 as Inspector CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi he joined the investigation of this case when search proceedings in different locations were going on. PW8 states that this matter was being investigated by Nirbhay Kumar, the then DSP, CBI, ACB. PW8 states that when he joined the investigation at 8PM in the evening, search proceedings were already carried out at the residential premises of V.K. Singhal an office of DDA. PW8 says that after his joining the proceedings he was asked to conduct search in the office of above said officer V.K. Singhal. PW8 states that he thereafter went to the office of V.K. Singhal along with him as well as with two independent witnesses namely V.K. Kannan and Ram Sagar. SI Ajit Singh of CBI was with them. PW8 states that they went to Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and conducted the search in the office of V.K. Singhal from 8.30 PM to 10.30 PM. Whatever relevant articles were seized during that search, a search-cum-seizure memo dated 10.11.2000 was prepared by him which is Ex.PW8/A. 23.17 PW9 is Ajit Singh who deposed that in November 2000 while he was officiating as SI, CBI, ACB he joined the investigation when search proceedings were conducted at the office of V.K. Singhal. This witness has deposed similar facts as deposed by PW8 and also identifies the search-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW8/A having signed by him. PW10 is V.K. Kannan who was the independent witness to the search proceedings at the CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 19 office of V.K. Singhal conducted by PW8 D.S. Chauhan. This witness has also deposed similar facts as stated by PW8 and PW9.
23.18 PW11 is Anu Thomas who was earlier arrayed as an accused in this case however later on her application, she was made witness/approver in the present case. PW11 in her deposition has stated that she moved an application Ex.PW11/A before CMM, Dawarka seeking permission to become approver. PW11 says that when she was called by the Magistrate for giving disclosure of the facts in her knowledge, her statement was recorded which is Ex.PW11/B. 23.19 Witness states that she hails from State of Kerala and came to Delhi in year 1994-95 for job. PW11 says that she permanently stated residing in Delhi with her family. She states that she was provided job in 1998 in Lord Krishna Property Dealing Firm. Witness says that she was given job of clerical work and to attend the telephone calls etc in that firm. She stated that accused Parmod Jindal was actively involved in the activities of said firm and accused Narender Jindal used to remain out of city. Witness states that the firm was involved in property dealing business particularly DDA flats. Witness states that beside her other persons namely Manoj, Shrikant and one Mr. Kumar and office boys were working in the office of above said firm.
23.20 PW11 further testifies that she know accused Praveen Chopra and Kulwant Singh as they both used to look after finance related issues of Parmod Jindal and Narender Jindal. Witness while identifying accused Parmod Jindal and Praveen Chopra in the court further testified that at the instructions of CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 20 accused Parmod Jindal she used to sign covering letters in the name of different allottees. Witness states that she used to sign those letters as if same were signed by allottees. PW11 says that accused Parmod Jindal also used to prepare covering letters and forged signatures of different allottees. Witness states that whenever she used to refuse forged signatures of allottes on any such letters she used to be rebuked by accused Parmod Jindal. Witness states that such covering letters annexed with demand drafts and other documents to be deposited with DDA in such a manner as if some were deposited by allottee himself seeking for reallotment of the flats already cancelled on account of non payment.
23.21 PW11 went on to testify that a list of those allottees whose flats have been cancelled used to be prepared and then in the name of those allottees covering letters used to be deposited with DDA seeking reallotment of flats in their name. PW11 says that since she was educated only upto 12 standard, she was not much aware about the legal technicalities or language written in those letters as she used to simply follow instructions of accused persons in this regard. PW11 states that she had an apprehension of loosing the job, therefore, she used to follow those instructions. Witness states that accused Praveen Chopra used to bring cash in the office of Narender Jindal and Parmod Jindal and from that cash other employees used to get demand drafts prepared. She had never seen any allottee of DDA flats visiting the office of accused persons. Witness states that during the investigation of this case her specimen signatures and handwriting were taken and she also identified other documents. Specimen signatures/handwriting of witness are collectively CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 21 Ex.PW11/C. 23.22 PW11 identified DDA file pertaining to flat no. 215 issued in the name of Ajay Kumar contained documents at page no. 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 28 as well as vouchers at page no. 30 filled in her handwriting. The file is Ex.PW11/D. Similarly, PW11 also identified from the file pertaining to flat no. 214 already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A having covering letter at page no. 72, challan at page no.73, printed application at page no.76 are in her handwriting. Witness testifies that signatures of the allottee at page no. 17 of file D-2 and at page no. 21 were forged by accused Parmod Jindal. Similarly, in file no.D-3 witness states that she had forged the signature of Ajay Kumar Jain on the covering letter at page no. 72.
23.23 PW11 testified that signatures of the allottee on printed application at page 76 of file D-3 were forged by accused Parmod Jindal at point A as well as at page no.79 accused Parmod Jindal signed in the name of allottee. Witness further identified the file D-5 Ex. PW11/E containing page no.4 which is a printed application form which was in her handwriting and at page no. 9A a bank voucher in her handwriting whereas at page no. 16 to 18 of that file accused Parmod Jindal forged the signatures of Ajay Kumar. PW11 further testifies that in another file D7 Ex.PW11/F containing an application form at page no. 158 which was in her handwriting and accused Parmod Jindal signed in the name of Ajay Jain. Witness further testifies regarding file D9 Ex. PW11/G containing one DDA form at page no.15 filled in her handwriting and signed by Parmod Jindal as Ajay Jain.
23.24 PW11 went on to testify regarding file D10 CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 22 Ex.PW11/H, D17 Ex.PW11/I in which documents at page no.14 etc. are in her handwriting. Witness further identifies the overleaf of drafts collectively Ex.PW11/J being in her handwriting. PW11 says that draft no.449046 to 449049 bearing handwriting of accused Parmod Jindal as Ajay Kumar Jain, those drafts are collectively Ex.PW11/K. Witness states that she had put signatures and writing on different documents on the instructions of accused Parmod Jindal and Narender Jindal. 23.25 PW12 is L. Nato Singh, Assistant Director/Scientist in CFSL who deposed that he has been expert in number of cases pertaining to forensic documents examination. He stated to have completed Master Degree in forensic science from University of Madrass and joined as Assistant GEQD in the office of GEQD in Shimla in 1998. PW12 says that he had given the expert opinion in more than 3000 cases. Witness states that CBI had sent documents of the present case for expert opinion while he was working in the office of GEQD Shimla and same were marked to him. After thorough examination of those documents comparing same with standard documents and questioned documents, he gave his expert opinion in this matter. Witness refers to letter dated 8.3.2002 Ex.PW12/A vide which his expert report was sent to SP, CBI. Report is Ex.PW12/B. Witness states that in this case he had filed supplementary report as sought by the SP, CBI. Upon seen the documents being part of D34 witness identifies forwarding letter dated 7.12.2002 Ex.PW12/C vide which the details of questioned documents were annexed, on which opinion of the expert was sought from the office of GEQD. Witness further proves his supplementary report Ex.PW12/D. 23.26 PW12 states that documents D35 and D36, D38 to CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 23 D46, D50 to D53 are specimen signature/handwriting of suspects forwarded to the office of GEQD for comparison with questioned documents which are Ex.PW12/P-1 to P-13. Similarly, there were other specimen signatures/writing sheets Ex.PW11/C, PW4/C AND pw5/B. Witness also identifies the questioned documents which are PW11/D, PW5/A, Pw11/E to PW11/Jk as well as PW12/P-14. He states that he compared specimen signatures/writing sheets with admitted documents and questioned documents and then gave report.
23.27 PW13 is Vinod Kumar who states that during year 1998 to 2000 he was employee in firm by name Kulwant & Company and its proprietor was Mr. Kulwant Singh. Witness states that his main duty was to attend the telephonic calls and show flats/properties to prospective buyers/clients. PW13 identifies draft application form dated 2.12.1998 in his name and also in his handwriting by which he got prepared the draft no.727833 of Rs. 49000/- from Punjab National Bank and that draft application and draft is Ex.PW13/A. PW13 further identified application for preparing drafts dated 7.2.2000 on the basis of which draft no.447999 to 448006 were prepared from Punjab and Sindh Bank. Those vouchers were also in the handwriting of PW12 and drafts are already Ex.PW11/J. Witness states that he had got prepared those drafts as per the instructions received from his office. Accused Praveen Chopra was associate. Since witness did not completely support the prosecution version/his previous statement, he was cross-examined by ld. PP for the CBI.
23.28 In cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI witness denies having given any statement to the CBI. His statement is CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 24 Ex.PW13/P-3. PW13 identifies his handwriting on voucher for preparing draft dated 7.2.2000 Ex.PW13/P-1 and PW13/P-2. Witness denies certain facts stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/P-3 from point A to A, B to B-1, C to C-1, D to D-1, E to E-1 and F to F-1.
23.29 PW14 is Alok Kumar who testifies that in December 2000 while he was working as Inspector CBI, on 14.12.2000 he was directed by DSP Nirbhay Kumar to conduct joint surprise check at Rohini DDA flats in question in this FIR. PW14 states that he along with team consisting of Inspector C.K. Sharma and two independent witnesses namely J.P. Maini and R.K. Chandel went to flat no. 214 and 215, Sector-25, Rohini. PW14 states that flat no. 214 was found locked, upon inquiry from flat no.215 which was occupied by R.K. Verma of property point he informed that flat no.214 is presently owned by one Dhanpat Rai. He provided phone no. of Dhanpat Rai. Said Dhanpat Rai was called who informed that he had purchased flat no. 214 from someone. Earlier ownership of the flat was in the name of Ajay Kumar Jain in the DDA record. Said Dhanpat Rai stated to have provided copy of property documents which were seized vide seizure memo. Joint surprise check memo was prepared which is Ex.PW14/A. Production cum seizure memo is Ex.PW14/B. Papers regarding flat no. 214 are collectively Ex.PW14/C. 23.30 PW14 further testifies regarding flat no. 215 which was occupied by R.K. Verma who stated that he was tenant of Kulwant Singh. Said Kulwant Singhw as also called who provided title documents of said flat, which were seized. Witness proved the surprise check memo Ex.PW14/D and seizure memo Ex.PW14/E and property documents pertaining to flat no. 215 are CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 25 collectively Ex.PW14/I. 23.31 PW15 Ajay Kumar Gandhi deposes that on 14.09.2001 he was working as Manager, PBX of SBI, Sector-31, Chandigarh. He deposes that on the instruction of branch manager Sh.Vinod Singla, he signed the statements of account of account no.2/15716 in the name of R.P. Gupta and Ajay Kumar, as the same were required by the CBI and the same were forwarded to CBI vide letter dated 14.09.2001. He also deposes that as per statement of account Ex.PW15/A, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was credited in the above mentioned account of Ajay Kumar on 27.02.1996 by clearance from DDA, Delhi, Vikas Sadan. 23.32 PW16 S.K. Tayal deposes that on 22.12.2000 he was working as Junior Engineer, DDA, RPD-10, Pocket-1, Rohini and on the instructions of his seniors, he joined the proceedings of CBI. He provided certain documents of flat no.214 and 215, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini to CBI office. He visited the CBI office and provided the site possession register indicating handing over of possession of above said flats to the allottees namely Ajay Kumar and Ajay Kumar Jain, vide seizure memo dated 22.12.2000 Ex.PW16/A. He proved the documents of flat no.214 Ex.PW11/G and documents of flat no.215, Sector 25, Pocket-1, Rohini Ex.PW11/H which were provided vide memo Ex.PW16/A. He also proved the site possession register of DDA, RPD-10, Pocket-1, Rohini as Ex.PW16/B in which description of flat no.214 and 215 are mentioned at page no.54 and encircled X and Y. 23.33 PW17 K.L. Nagpal deposes that in December 2000 he was posted as Senior Accounts Office, Cash Housing, DDA and he joined the investigation of CBI in this case. He deposes CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 26 that vide production cum seizure memo dated 14.12.2000 Ex.PW17/A, he provided original bills Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B for refunding of registration amount in respect of original allottees namely Ajay Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar. 23.34 PW18 Sh.C.K. Sharma deposes that in December 2000 he was working as Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi. On 14.12.2000 he along with Insp. Alok Kumar and two independent witnesses R.K. Chandel and J.P. Maini from DDA conducted joint surprise check at Rohini, DDA flats in connection with investigation of present case FIR. He deposes that he along with a team headed by Insp. Alok Kumar and independent witnesses and other staff went to flat no.214-215, Sector 25, Rohini. Flat no.214 was found locked and on inquiry from flat no.215 being occupied by Sh.R.K. Verma of property point, it was informed that flat no.214 was owned by Sh.Dhanpat Rai and his phone number was provided. Dhanpat Rai was called and he informed to Insp. Alok Kumar that flat no.214 was purchased by him from someone. Earlier ownership of the flat was in the name of Ajay Kumar Jain in the DDA record. Said Dhanpat Rai stated to have provided copy of property documents which were seized vide seizure memo and joint surprise check memo Ex.PW14/A was prepared. Production cum seizure memo is Ex.PW14/B. Papers regarding flat no. 214 are collectively Ex.PW14/C. 23.35 PW18 further testifies regarding flat no. 215 which was occupied by R.K. Verma who stated that he was tenant of Kulwant Singh. Said Kulwant Singh was also called who provided title documents which were seized. Witness proved the surprise check memo Ex.PW14/D and seizure memo Ex.PW14/E and property documents pertaining to flat no. 215 are collectively CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 27 Ex.PW14/I. 23.36 PW19 R.K. Chandel also deposes on the similar lines of PW18 and deposed regarding the same documents as deposed by PW18. PW20 Umesh Vashisth deposes that on 22.12.2000 he was working as Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi and on the instructions of Sh.Nirbhay Kumar, the then DSP he carried out the proceedings. One Mr.S.K. Tayal, JE DDA joined the investigation of CBI and he provided him documents Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H pertaining to flat no.214 and 215, Sector-25, Pocket-1, Rohini along with site possession register indicating handing over of possession of above flats to Ajay Kumar and Ajay Kumar Jain. Those documents were seized by him vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. He further deposes that as per site possession register Ex.PW16/B, description of flat no.214 and 215 are mentioned at page no.54 and encircled X and Y. 23.37 PW21 Sh.Nirbhay Kumar deposes that in November 2000 he was posted as DSP, CBI, ACB. On 09.11.2000 investigation of the present FIR was entrusted to him. He proved the FIR dated 09.11.2000 as Ex.PW21/A. He deposes that vide production cum seizure memo dated 20.12.2000 Ex.PW21/B, he seized documents related to flat no.215, Sector 25, Pocket 1, Rohini in the name of Ajay Kumar Gupta from Sh.Kulwant Singh. Vide production cum seizure memo dated 22.02.2001 Ex.PW21/C he seized documents related to flat no.214, Sector 25, Pocket 1, Rohini in the name of Ajay Kumar Jain from Sh.Dhanpat Rai. He deposes that vide letter dated 28.03.2001 Ex.PW21/D Sh.B.M. Sharma, Accounts Officer of DDA provided to him details of payments made against flat no.214 and CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 28 215, Sector 25, Pocket 1, Rohini which deposited in DDA. Vide production cum seizure memo dated 14.12.2000 Ex.PW21/E Insp. Om Prakash of CBI had seized original cheques related to SBI Vikas Sadan, DDA vide which refund amounts were refunded to original allottees Ajay Jain and Ajay Kumar Gupta. 23.38 PW21 further deposes that vide letter dated 05.03.2001 Ex.PW21/F Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh directed Sh.M.S. Luthra to hand over documents Ex.PW21/G related to said bank, to him. Vide production cum seizure memo dated 05.02.2001 Ex.PW21/H documents i.e. pay orders along with application-cum-vouchers Ex.PW12/P-14 related to PNB, Panchvati, Azadpur were seized. He deposes that letter dated 24.09.2002 Ex.PW21/I was sent to him by the then Director, Housing, DDA relating to procedure adopted by DDA in respect of allotment, cancellation and restoration of flats. Vide letter dated 17.05.2002 Deputy Director, EHS, DDA sent to CBI the agenda of the meeting of restoration committee held on 19.01.2000 and 21.01.2000. Witness deposes that he had gone through the said agenda and it was found that at serial no.56 and 57 against flat nos.214 and 215, Pocket 1, Sector 25, Rohini it was clearly mentioned in the remarks column that the registration money in respect of said two flats have already been refunded. He also deposes that vide letter dated 28.02.2002 Ex.PW21/J along with its annexures, the minutes of meeting of restoration committee held on 19.02.2002 and 21.02.2002 were sent to him by the Deputy Director, EHS, DDA.
23.39 PW21 also deposes that the specimen hand writings/ signatures of Pramod Jindal, Narender Jindal, Anu Thomas, Vinod Kumar, Shrikant, Ashok Kumar Hans, Dhan Bahadur, CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 29 Madan, Resham Thapa, Deepak Khera, Sumiat Kumar, Manoj Nathani, Ajay Kumar Jain, Ajay Kumar, Jaswinder Singh @ Sonu and Praveen Chopra were taken. PW21 also deposes that vide forwarding letter dated 05.02.2004 Ex.PW21/L, Deputy Director, EHS, DDA sent to CBI the replies of DDA in response to CBI letter dated 31.12.2003 in which it was clearly mentioned that "apparently agenda was not shown to VC though the minutes were got approved by the VC DDA as per copy of minutes of the meeting dated 19/21.01.2000". It is also mentioned therein that "in the cases where refund of registration amount had already been made, restoration/allotment should not have been done/ made". The said reply also contains the names of senior DDA officials who were members of the restoration committee who were responsible for taking the decision/recommendation of restoration of the flats in question. It also makes a reference of letter dated 13.12.2000, copy of which was also enclosed with the said reply wherein Sh.D.B. Gupta, then Commissioner, Housing had categorically mentioned that "allotment of EHS flat no.214 and 215, Sector 25, Pocket 1, Rohini as per policy should not have been restored in the year 2000 as their registration money was refunded to the original allottees earlier". 23.40 PW21 also proved the letter dated 13.02.2004 Ex.PW21/M sent by Sh.B.N. Srivastava, Deputy Director, EHS, DDA to CBI. He also deposes that he had recorded the statement of some witnesses.
23.41 PW22 Manoj Nathani deposes that he was working as a surveyor in Lord Krishan Properties since 1996 and his work was to deal wit the party whose name DDA property, house, flat, plot, shop etc. were alloted. His work was mainly to approach CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 30 the parties to collect the documents pertaining to DDA property allotment. If any of the allottee was interested, he used to deal with them for amount agreed by them and then to sign on necessary documents such as GPA, SPA, Affidavit etc. and they used to give fixed amount in view of their signatures. He further deposes that all the said work was done at the instance of Narender Jindal who was owner of Lord Krishna Properties. PW22 identified accused Narender Jindal in the court. He also identified accused Praveen Chopra and deposed that Praveen Chopra and Kulwant Singh were the partners of firm namely Kulwant & Company who used to provide cash/finance for the abovesaid work to Narender Jindal.
23.42 PW22 also deposes that those allottees who used to be interested, money used to be deposited on their behalf by getting the drafts prepared in their names. PW22 along with certain other workers of Narender Jindal namely Mr.Kumar, Shrikant etc. used to prepare the drafts from the bank and used to deposit the money with DDA on behalf of the allottees. There were certain allottees who had got cancelled their flats from DDA and they contacted them for getting their flats restored from DDA and to sell them in the market. In this regard communication used to be sent to them and Narender Jindal used to sell those flats.
23.43 Witness PW22 was declared hostile and during cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI he deposes having stated to CBI that on 28.08.2000 he along with Deepak Khera, Narender Jindal, Praveen Kumar had gone to Punjab & Sind Bank where Narender Jindal handed over to him Rs.39,000/- in cash for getting a draft prepared for DDA and also gave him draft CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 31 application form on which his name and signatures were put. However he admitted that his specimen signatures were taken during the investigation on sheets Ex.PW12/P-10. 23.44 PW23 J.R. Gupta deposes that in year 2001 he was working as Accounts Officer, DDA. He joined the investigation of CBI in this case and in his presence IO DSP Nirbhay Kumar collected specimen signatures of Pramod Jindal, Narendre Jindal, Anu Thomas, Shrikant, Ajay Kumar Hans, Manoj Nathani, Ajay Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar on documents Ex.PW12/P-1, Ex.PW12/P-1, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW12/P-4, Ex.PW12/P-5, Ex.PW12/P-10, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW21/K. 23.45 PW24 K.K. Bajpai deposes that in January 2002 he was working as Director (Personnel), ICAR, Krishi Bhawan, Delhi and he had visited the CBI office in connection with certain work pertaining to his office. During his visit he was requested to join the proceedings as a witness regarding collection of handwriting/ signatures. In his presence specimen signatures of Pramod Jindal on sheets Ex.PW12/P-11 were taken. 23.46 PW25 Sh.Hitender Adlakha deposes that in 2009 he working on deputation with CBI as Inspector. Investigation of the present case was handed over to him on 30.01.2009 from DSP Ravi Gambhir. He compiled the documents relied upon with the list of documents, list of witnesses to be examined for providing the case and filed the charge sheet on 31.03.2009. 23.47 PW26 Praveen Ahlawat deposes that in November 2004 investigation of the present case was transferred to him from previous IO DSP Nirbhay Kumhar. During the investigation in July 2005 he recorded the statements of witness J.S. Channey and thereafter investigation was transferred to DSP CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 32 Ghambir.
24. P.E. was closed. After closure of the P.E. the entire incriminating evidence, as come on the judicial record was put to the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Narender Jindal denied entire evidence of prosecution. He states that he never met PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain or his mother. He stated that he has not made any payment to Ajay Kumar Jain or his mother. He further states that he had no communication with Ajay Kumar Jain at any point of time. He states that PW11 Anu Thomas was not his employee at any point of time. He showed ignorance to the rest of the prosecution case and the documents proved on record. Accused states that the investigation has not been fairly carried out by any of the officer of CBI. He states that he has been falsely implicated in the present case for protecting the real culprits. He states that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses as they have deposed falsely against him at the instance of CBI officials and real culprits, if any. He states that he is innocent and has no concern with the present case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
25. Accused Pramod Jindal denied entire case of prosecution. He states that he never met PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain or his mother. He stated that he has not made any payment to Ajay Kumar Jain or his mother. He further states that he had no communication with Ajay Kumar Jain at any point of time. He states that PW11 Anu Thomas was not his employee at any point of time. He showed ignorance to the rest of the prosecution case and the documents proved on record. He states that the investigation has not been fairly carried out by any of the officer CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 33 of CBI. He states that he has been falsely implicated in the present case for protecting the real culprits. He states that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses as they have deposed falsely against him at the instance of CBI officials and real culprits, if any. He states that he is innocent and has no concern with the present case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
26. Accused Praveen Chopra denied entire case of prosecution. He showed ignorance to the rest of the prosecution case and the documents proved on record. He states that the investigation has not been fairly carried out by any of the officer of CBI. He states that he has been falsely implicated in the present case for protecting the real culprits. He states that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses as they have deposed falsely against him at the instance of CBI officials and real culprits, if any. He states that he is innocent and has no concern with the present case. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
27. I have heard Sh. Lalit Mohan, ld. PP for CBI and Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma, ld. counsel for accused. I have also gone through written submissions filed by ld. PP for CBI as well as by ld. Counsel for accused persons.
28. Ld. PP for the CBI submits that case of the prosecution is proved on the record. He submits that evidence of PW5, PW11 along with the expert witness PW12 L. Nato Singh, it is well proved on the record that accused Narender Jindal has forged signatures of allottees of flat no. 214 and 215, Sector-25, Rohini. Ld. PP for the CBI further submits that PW11 was earlier charge sheeted as an accused in this case, however, she CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 34 later became 'approver' and deposed in the court inculpating herself as well as deposing against other accused persons. Ld. PP submits that her evidence is reliable and proved the charge against the accused persons.
29. Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma, ld. Counsel for the accused persons on the other hand submits that even if the evidence as come on the record is taken on record, prosecution still failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that since the charges against the accused are for offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The most essential ingredient required to be proved was "dishonest intention" as well as "wrongful gain" attributable to any of the accused persons. It is submitted that offences not proved. He submits that even as per the prosecution story two allotees of the flats no. 214 and 215 were well aware about the process having initiated for re-allotment of flats in their own name and that if at all there was some gain in the re-allotment of flats, there is no evidence showing that accused have gained any monetary benefit in it. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submits that admittedly it is not the prosecution case that re-allotment of flats was illegal as none of the DDA officer has been arrayed as accused in this case.
30. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submits that evidence of PW11 Anu Thomus is not worthy of any reliance. He submits that evidence of approver cannot be accepted unless it is credible and corroborated on material aspects of the prosecution case. Counsel submits that there are certain inherent ambiguities in the evidence of PW11 as noted in his written submissions, to show that her evidence is not credible or trustworthy. Ld. Counsel further submits that allottee of flat no.
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 35 215, Sector-25, Rohini namely Ajay Kumar Gupta has not been examined by the prosecution despite giving many opportunities whereas the another allottee PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain has not identified the accused persons to be the same who had approached him. He submits that even the evidence of PW5 does not establish any of the ingredient of the offences as against the accused persons.
31. Having considered the submissions and examining the evidence as come on the record, first of all it be noted that as a matter of record, FIR in this case was registered on the basis of source information that certain officers of DDA, as named in the FIR including one Mr. V.K. Singhal, then Director (Housing), H.S. Sharma, then Jt. Director etc were in conspiracy with certain employees of DDA as well as property dealers, to restore the cancelled allotments of certain flats of DDA and thereby gaining money as those flats were of prime location and there was premium on those flats. But despite registration of FIR by name against different DDA officers/officials, none of the officer of the DDA has been made accused in this case. Even none of the DDA officer/official connected with re-allotment of cancelled flats were made witness in the matter, for reasons best known to CBI.
32. It is very surprising that the FIR in this case was registered with specific allegations that various DDA flats of prime locations, allotment of which had earlier cancelled, were being illegally restored to the allottees and are being disposed off to gain illegal money. However, in the charge sheet it is not even the case of prosecution that such re-allotments of cancelled flats were illegally done. Although it came in the evidence of PW21 Nirbhay Kumar, the then DSP who initially investigated the CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 36 matter that he joined different officers of DDA in the investigation and also collected the agenda of Restoration Committee and Minutes of Meeting of such Committee held on 19.2.2002 as well as on 21.2.2002 which are Ex.PW21/J. Beyond this document there is no whisper of words in the entire charge sheet or even any evidence led by the prosecution to prove that re-allotment of cancelled flats in question i.e. flat no. 214 and 215 of Sector-25, Rohini were illegally restored. No officer/official of DDA has been made accused or witness to setup a case that there was any illegality in restoration of above mentioned flats in question.
33. From the facts and the evidence as discussed above, it is evident that it is even the admitted case of prosecution that flats no. 214 and 215 were restored by the DDA. Now the question for consideration is if such flats were restored by DDA, whether there was any misrepresentation, falsity or illegality in applying for restoration or any illegality committed after these flats were restored. Admittedly, in respect of above said two flats, only one allottee PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain has been examined whereas allottee of flat no. 215 Ajay Kumar Gupta has not been examined as he was not traceable despited giving numerous opportunities to the prosecution to trace him and to get him examined.
34. Let us now consider the evidence of PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain. I have already discussed his evidence above. So without going into elaborate discussion of his evidence, PW5 had admitted that he was earlier allotted flat no. 214, which was cancelled on his application and amount was refunded to him after cancellation. This witness further stated in his evidence that CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 37 two property dealers of Lord Krishna Property, name of one of them being Narender Jindal met them and his mother (PW5) that they would get their flat reallotted in his name. PW5 stated in his evidence that those property dealers further assured that after re- allotment of their flat they would purchase it in their name or in the name of someone else and assured to give Rs. One Lac. PW5 admitted that his mother received Rs.40,000/- on the same day as earnest amount from them and then his signatures were taken on certain documents for the purpose of re-allotment of flat. PW5 in his deposition further admitted that later again his signatures were taken on certain documents and Rs.30,000/- was given to him. PW5 also admitted in his deposition that he was taken to the office of DDA and also admitted that flat was actually reallotted in his name.
35. Now taking such evidence of PW5 on the face of it, once it is not the case of prosecution that re-allotment of the flat was illegal, when PW5 himself admitted that nothing has been concealed from him regarding re-allotment of flat, which was actually reallotted in his name. From his deposition it has also come on the record that it is he who on two occasions received money. PW5 also admitted that he signed many documents on his own for re-allotment of flat as well as later to sell it to other. PW5 in his examination-in-chief as well as in the cross- examination by ld. PP for CBI has not identified any of the accused persons. As such, the evidence of PW5 does not substantially inculpate accused so far as for offences for which accused have been charged. No doubt, PW5 has deposed regarding certain signatures in the DDA file for his flat Ex.PW5/A which was forged by the accused persons. I would CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 38 discuss this fact little later. Fact remains that deposition of PW5 makes it clear that flat was reallotted in his name there was no misrepresentation to him and he also received money from the accused persons voluntarily.
36. PW5 in his cross-examination admitted that he himself signed certain documents for re-allotment of flat in his name and he signed those documents voluntarily. PW5 further admitted in his cross-examination that there was no pressure on him when he appeared before Sr. Officer of DDA for the purpose of re-allotment of flat. PW5 in his cross-examination recorded on 2.3.2020 further admitted that the persons who had approached him whenever asked for signing certain documents he never raised any objection for signing and signed the documents voluntarily. PW5 admitted that he voluntarily visited the office of Sub-Registrar and signed documents there. PW5 also admitted that those who had approached him for the re- allotment of the flat also had already informed him that after re- allotment said flat, same would be transferred in the name of someone else. Thus, from such deposition of PW5 the element of deceitful intention or misrepresentation etc is missing.
37. In this context, let us now discuss evidence of PW11 Anu Thomas. As noted above PW11 was earlier arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet filed before CMM. Later she was made approver. PW11 says that on 14.7.2014 she moved an application Ex.PW11/A to become approver. Thereafter Magistrate recorded her statement on 6.10.2015 which is Ex.PW11/B. PW11 says that she got job in Lord Krishna Property dealing firm for clerical work and to attend calls etc. Said firm was of accused Narender Jindal and Parmod Jindal.
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 39 PW11 says beside her Manoj, Shri Kant and one Mr. Kumar and two other office boys were working there. Witness says that accused Praveen Chopra and Kulwant Singh finance related issued of those Jindal brothers. PW11 says that she at the instructions of Parmod Jindal used to sign covering letters in the name of different allottees as she used to be asked to sign those letters as if same were signed by allottees. PW11 says that whenever she used to forge signatures of allottee on any such covering letters, she used to be rebuked by accused Parmod Jindal.
38. On being asked about the mode/procedure for issuing covering letters and depositing money with DDA, PW11 states that as a list of allottees whose flats were cancelled, used to be prepared and then in the name of those allottees covering letters used to be filed with the DDA for re-allotment of flats in their name and thereafter flats used to be sell in the open market. PW11 says that she used to follow the instructions as she had an apprehension of loosing the job. Witness says that accused Praveen Chopra used to bring cash in the office of Narender and Parmod Jindal. From that cash other employees used to get drafts prepared. PW11 says that she had never seen any allottee of DDA flats visiting the office of accused.
39. From such evidence of PW11, there is no evidence of cheating. Though PW11 in her deposition went on to testify that in file D-2 Ex.PW11/D, at page no.17, 21 there are forged signatures of Ajay Kumar allottee by accused Parmod Jindal. PW11 further testifies that in file D-3 Ex.PW5/A at page no. 76, 79, 80 there are forged signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar Jain by accused Parmod Jindal. Similarly, in file D-5 Ex.PW11/E there CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 40 were forged signatures of allottee Ajay Kumar at page no. 16 to 18 by accused Parmod Jindal. In file D-7 Ex.PW11/F there is forged signatures of Ajay Jain by accused Parmod Jindal at page no.158.
40. Taking the testimony of PW11 on the face of it, she had simply stated that she being an employee was forging the signatures of certain allottees on certain documents for re- allotment of cancelled flats of different allottees. It is established proposition of law that evidence of approver should be examined with more care and should not be accepted unless it is corroborated on material aspects. Evidence of PW11 does not appear to be inspiring because in the charge sheet filed in year 2009, she was made accused no.6 and later she applied for becoming approver on 14.7.2014. She failed to explain about the delay in moving such application Ex.PW11/A. Moreover, PW11 in her cross-examination states that she joined the investigation of CBI in year 2001 itself when she stated all those facts as are mentioned in her statement given before CMM Ex.PW11/B. She stated in cross-examination that all the facts stated by her in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement in the court were stated to CBI officer when she joined the investigation.
41. PW11 failed to give any evidence or documents regarding her employment in Lord Krishan Properties. Rather she stated in her cross-examination that she was present in the office of Lord Krishna Properties when CBI conducted the raid there. Whereas as a matter of fact, even as per charge sheet no raid was ever conducted at Lord Krishna Properties. Witness failed to furnish the address of Lord Krishna Properties either in her statement Ex.PW11/B or in her deposition recorded in the CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 41 court. PW11 further admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know who is the owner of the premises where from Lord Krishna Properties was being run.
42. Evidence of PW11 so far as with regard to accused Parveen Chopra that he along with Kulwant Singh (since expired) used to provide finances to Jindal brothers is also very general in nature as she has not given any specific date, time or place about providing such finances or as to the exact amount. PW11 though alleged that she used to sign certain documents on the instructions of Parmod Jindal but never made any complaint in this regard, even after year 2001 when she joined the investigation with CBI or even after filing of charge sheet when she was made accused. Such conduct of witness Anu Thomas does not inspire confidence on the version as given by her in her deposition. She admitted in her cross-examination that she did not file any complaint against accused persons during 2001 to 2013 when she was arrested.
43. Thus, deposition of PW11 also does not establish the offence of cheating. In this context, let us discuss the legal requirement for proving the offence of cheating. Section 420 IPC deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. To hold a person guilty of 'Cheating' as defined under S. 415 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that he has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. In CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 42 other words, S. 415 of the Indian Penal Code, requires deception of any person and thereby (a) inducing that person to : (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody's mind, reputation or property.
44. In view of the aforesaid provisions, a person may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but may not fraudulent or dishonest.
45. It be noted that deception to any person is the quintessence of the offence. The definition of the offence of 'cheating' embraces some cases in which transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which no transfer occurs. Accused in this case have been charged for offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and the (iii) means rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v.
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 43 State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 979)).
46. In the facts of the present case as I noted above, the deception or dishonest intention is not proved beyond doubt because admittedly the allottees of flat no. 214 and 215 were never concealed any facts regarding re-allotment of flat or that after its re-allotment it would be sold to someone else. Only one allottee PW5 has been examined who admitted that he was well aware about the process of re-allotment rather admitted that he signed many documents whenever he was asked to sign, voluntarily. This shows that there was never any deception. PW5 also admitted to have received money. On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that accused has wrongfully gained any money. In such circumstances, even taking the deposition of PW5 and PW11 on the face of it, I find that the offence of cheating is not proved.
47. This brings me to discuss other offences for which accused have been charged. Accused have been charged for offences u/s 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Section 467 punishes forgery of valuable security, Will etc, section 468 lays down punishment for forgery committed for the purpose of cheating and section 471 punishes using of forged documents as genuine. Thus, the common element in section 467, 468 and 471 IPC is offence of forgery. Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of `forgery' as:
"Whoever make any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 44
48. In Order to constitute forgery, the first essential ingredient is that the accused should have made a false document, or a part of such document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. Section 464 of the Code lays down the circumstances under which a person is said to make a false document. As per S. 464 of the Penal Code, a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document. The definition of a "false document" contained in S. 464, I.P.C., would show that a person is said to make a false document under Cl. (1), if any signature, mark, writing etc. of another is made with requisite mens rea, or under Cl.(2) if a document is materially altered unauthorized or under Cl. (3) if a document is got executed from a person of unsound mind or intoxicated person or a person who from deception practiced on him does not know the contents of the document.
49. A reading of Sections 463 and 464-of the I.P.C. will clearly show that in addition to establishing that the document is a false document, it must be further proved that it was forged by the accused with one of the intents mentioned above. The mere making of a false document with any of the intents referred to above would constitute an offence under section 463. It is not necessary that the document should be used by the accused. The expression 'intent to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 45 property. So offence of forgery is said to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention.
50. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that- "a person is said to have made a 'false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
51. Apex Court held that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant. It was observed as:
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 46 with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed...."
52. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, Apex Court, after analysing the facts of that case, observed as:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document."
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 47
53. So from above discussion of provision and case law to attract penal provision of offence forgery there must be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. If the document is to be altered it has to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of the accused. Merely changing a document does not make it a false document. What constitutes 'making' of a document, depends essentially upon the nature and the use it is intended for.
54. In the facts of the present case even if it is taken on the face of it as deposed by PW5 and PW11 that in file D-3 Ex.PW5/A on certain pages there were forged signatures of PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain, similarly, PW11 also refers to different pages in different files to show that signatures of allottees have been forged by accused Parmod Jindal. Evidence of PW12 expert witness Nato Singh also establish this aspect. In the peculiar circumstances of this case it is not even disputed by PW5 Ajay Kumar Jain who was one of the allottee of flat no. 214 that he had also signed different documents genuinely when such documents were filed before DDA for re-allotment of cancelled flat. It is not the case of the prosecution that any of the accused person signed or forged the signature of someone who were not the allottee or had any intention to deceive DDA by forging signatures of someone who was not the allottee. Only one allottee of flat no. 214 has been examined as PW5 who had admitted in his evidence that many documents were signed by him, which were filed to DDA for re-allotment. In such circumstance, when one allottee Ajay Kumar Gupta has not been examined and PW5 has not disputed of him being aware about the re-allotment and had signed certain documents, there was no reason for any of the CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 48 accused persons to forge signatures when certain documents in the same file bear the genuine signatures of the allottee. As discussed above, forgery involves preparing false document as defined in Sec.464 IPC. A document is false, when any contents is false and prepared by accused, claiming to be owner. Which has not been done in this case. Thus, element of dishonest or fraudulent intention as required in section 464 IPC for making false document is missing in this case. Once the ingredient of offence of forgery is not proved, offence of section 467, 468 and 471 IPC, to my mind has not been proved beyond doubt.
55. Now this court is left with to consider the proof of criminal conspiracy, if any, for charge of section 120-B IPC. For the purpose of proving criminal conspiracy, there must be evidence on the record to show that there was prior concert or agreement of mind between the accused persons to do any legal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means. No doubt, such evidence may not be direct but there must be some circumstance proving such necessary ingredients. In the present case, there is no evidence at all even from the deposition of PW4 Deepak Khera, PW13 Vinod Kumar, PW22 Manoj Nathani or even from evidence of PW5 and PW11 to prove that in any manner it was accused Parveen Chopra had provided money, from which different drafts were prepared. Even if it is assumed that certain drafts were so prepared from the bank during those days. That fact by itself does not attract any penal provision, when there is no evidence of accused Parveen Chopra or any other accused had provided money for getting illegally prepared those drafts in the name of different allottees. Such drafts as are referred to in the evidence of PW4 and PW22 as well as PW13 CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 49 have not been shown to allottee PW5 in his evidence. Even otherwise, PW4 and PW22 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case completely. Thus, there is no evidence at all on the record proving offence of criminal conspiracy.
56. For the reasons so stated above, accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused no. 1 Narender Jindal, no.2 Parmod Jindal and no.3 Parveen Chopra are hereby acquitted for all the offences.
Announced in open (SHAILENDER MALIK)
court on 31.03.2022 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Rouse Avenue Courts,
New Delhi
CBI vs Narender Jindal & Ors. CC No.397/2019 Page no. 50