Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Narayan Diwakar (Lords Cghs) on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE ( COMMERCIAL COURT )-01
NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI
CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS)
U/S 120-B r/w 419,420,456,468,471 of IPC &
Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec.15 of PC Act 1988
RC No. 07/2006/ EOU-VI/CBI/New Delhi
CBI No. 116/2019
CNR No. DLCT11-000520-2019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus.
1. Narayan Diwakar, (A-1)
S/o Late C.Lal,
R/O G-30, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New
Delhi-48.
2. Gopal Singh Bisht, (A-2)
S/O Sh. Inder Singh Bisht,
R/O 40/15A, Sach Nagar, Part-II Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
3. J.S Shama (A-3)
S/O Late Sh N.S. Sharma
R/O 1073/A-3, Ward No.1,
Mehrauli, New Delhi
( proceedings stands abated vide order dt
16.09.2001)
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 1 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
4. Mahesh Kumar (A-4)
S/O Late Sh Mange Ram
R/O KU-81, Pitam Pura,
New Delhi.
5. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (A-5)
S/O Late Babu Lal Aggarwal
R/O House No. RZ-D1/97A, Gali No.5,
Mahavir Enclave, Palam New Delhi-45
6. Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A-6)
S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o A-603 & 703,
Ashoka Apartments, Plot No. 35/2, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
(presently in Judicial custody in another case)
7. Ashwani Sharma (A-7)
S/o Late R.K. Sharma,
R/o 291/A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi-91.
8. Ashutosh Pant (A-8)
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Pant,
R/o B-160, Sadatpur Colony, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-94.
9. Naveen Kaushik (A-9)
S/o Late Mahendra Sharma,
R/o I-2/38, 2nd Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
10. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A-10)
S/o Late Moti Ram Thirwani, R/o 348E, Pocket-II,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-92.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 2 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
11. N.S.Khatri (A-11)
S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh Khatri
R/O 89-B, Shakti Khand-1, Indrapuram
Ghaziabad.
Date of Institution : 24.12.2007
Date of Arguments: 17.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.10.2025
JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. The brief facts of the case are that the present case has been registered as per order of Hon'ble High court of Delhi vide order dt. 09.01.06 & 13.02.06, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15487/2005 vide which CBI was directed to investigate the matter relating to allotment of land to 97 Group Housing Societies from 2000 onwards. In pursuance of the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, a Preliminary Enquiry No. PE SIJ 2006 E 0001 dated 9.03.2006 was registered in CBI EOU-VI, New Delhi to inquire into matter relating to Lords Cooperative Group Housing Society CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 3 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 ( hereinafter referred as " the said Society") and 4 other societies. The present Regular case was registered on the conversion of said PE into RC/SIJ 2006 E 0007/EOU-VI/New Delhi on 31.10.2006 against Sh. N. Diwakar, the then RCS, New Delhi, Gopal Singh Bisht, the then Clerk, RCS, Delhi, J.S. Sharma, the then Asstt. Registrar, office of RCS and Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, all private persons u/s 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
2. It is stated that the said society was registered under Nos. 615 G/H with office of RCS on 22.9.1983 having its registered office at 1668/1, Govind Puri Extn., New Delhi. At the time of registration, it had an MC headed by Amrit Lal and had a strength of 75 founder members. The freeze list of 70 members was sent to DDA on 4.9.1989 by the office of RCS and was containing the genuine signatures of the office bearers. This society had also an CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 4 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 account with Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Darya Ganj, Delhi operated by Shri Amrit Lal.
3. The investigation further revealed that this society was put under liquidation on 28.9.1989 as it had not submitted documents as asked by RCS from time to time and remained under liquidation.
4. The investigation reveals that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy hatched by accused persons amongst themselves for the purpose of the revival of the said society and thereby to obtain land, Shri Gokul Chand Aggarwal on 28.11.2002, while impersonating as Ajay Kumar, moved an application before RCS for revival of the said society. This application was marked to Vinay Kumar, dealing hand for processing the same and vide note dt. 10.12.02, he mentioned that the file of instant society was not traceable and Shri V.P Singh, the then AR(S) proposed for tracing out the file. In the meantime, Vinay Kumar was transferred and it was Shri Gopal Singh Bisht, CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 5 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Dealing Asstt. who took over charge from Shri Vinay Kumar. Shri VP Singh, AR(S) also superannuated from services and Shri J.S Sharma took over as AR (S). Gopal Singh Bisht processed the file and same was submitted to J.S Sharma for orders on reconstruction of the file of the instant society and approval was given by N Diwakar, RCS.
5. It is alleged that Gopal Singh Bisht in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy put up a note seeking approval to reconstruct the file of the society by requesting the society to furnish the original records along with registration certificate, bye-laws, etc. J S Sharma dishonestly and fraudulently forwarded the said note of Gopal Singh Bisht on 18.12.2002 to Sh. N. Diwakar, RCS who gave the approval on 18.12.2002 for reconstruction of the file.
6. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy Shri Gokul Chand Aggarwal while impersonating as Ajay CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 6 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Kumar noted the said order for submission of original documents of Lords Society to the office on 19.12.2002.
7. It is alleged that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, Shri J S Sharma vide his note dated 20.12.2002 forwarded dishonestly and fraudulently the note of Gopal Singh Bisht. In that it was mentioned that the society had produced the documents and had removed the shortcomings which had resulted into winding up and submitted the file to RCS for initiating further proceedings relating to the revival of the society.
8. It is alleged that, accordingly, on 24.12.2002, Sh. N. Diwakar as RCS ordered for sending the file to the Zone for verification of membership and status of audit, election, etc. and these instructions were noted by Gokul Chand Aggarwal while impersonating as Ajay Kumar.
9. The investigation has revealed that vide note dt. 30.12.2002, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, while impersonating as Ajay Kumar. produced CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 7 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 various documents before Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht and Sh. J.S. Sharma. And in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, both of them recommended the file for revival of the society.
10. The investigation has further revealed that a false verification report was submitted by Gopal Singh Bisht in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy on 31.12.2002. The same was put up to J.S. Sharma in which Gopal Singh Bisht had requested for revival of the society, approval of the freeze list of 115 members and forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land at subsidized rate.
11. The investigation has revealed that the instant society was having only 75 promoter members, while as the documents produced by Sh. Gokul Chand Aggarwal and dishonestly and fraudulently verified by Gopal Singh Bisht and Sh. J.S. Sharma, showed 98 members as promoter members. It showed the additional enrollment of 25 members and resignation of 8 members prior to freeze list thereby bringing CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 8 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the strength of the society to 115 members.
12. The investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, documents of New Delhi CGHS were produced by Gokul Chand Aggarwal fraudulently and dishonestly. The same were duly verified by Gopal Singh Bisht and J.S. Sharma to be the documents of Lords CGHS. The investigation further revealed that these documents did not relate to Lords CGHS. The file was put up to Sh. N. Diwakar, RCS for orders and Sh N. Diwakar in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, after hearing Gokul Chand Aggarwal, who impersonated as Ajay Kumar, passed the order on 02.01.2003 for revival of the said society. And the revival was with the conditions of conducting the audit and holding of elections in respect of Lords CGHS. It is alleged that Sh. N. Diwakar, RCS in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy also appointed Sh. N.S Khatri, a Clerk in Personal Section of RCS as an Election Officer for conducting the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 9 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 elections of Lords CGHS.
13. It is alleged that some of the members from New Delhi CGHS have been examined who confirmed their membership of New Delhi CGHS. New Delhi CGHS had become defunct and the amount earlier deposited by them as part of the land cost in their capacity as members of New Delhi CGHS was received by them. That amount was not part and parcel of Lords CGHS as Lords CGHS was separate and distinct Housing Society.
14. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. N S Khatri, dishonestly and fraudulently submitted a false report showing holding of election of the said society on 17.2.2003. Even without calling the members for election and his action resulted in election of Mahesh Kumar, as President and 6 other members as other office bearers of the said society.
15. The investigation has further revealed that similarly, a false undated audit report was submitted by .P.K Thirwani showing audit of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 10 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the accounts of the society for last 20 years i.e. 1983-84 to 2001-2002. The said audit report is signed by Mahesh Kumar and one Ajay Kumar, Secretary who is a non- existent entity and it was Gokul Chand Aggarwal who forged the said signatures. The identity of one more person could not be established during investigation as he had signed in capacity as Treasurer of this society on the audit report.
16. It is alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, all the balance sheets and other documents were countersigned without date by P.K Thirwani which shows the extent of dishonest and fraudulent intention on his part. As he did not conduct the audit by going to the spot and examining the books of accounts.
17. It is alleged that it is clear that the documents relating to membership of New Delhi CGHS were dishonestly and fraudulently used for the purpose of causing revival of Lords CGHS. Thereafter, J.S. Sharma, sent the approved CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 11 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 freeze list of 115 members to AR (Policy) on 3.1.03 for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land which was sent by AR (Policy) to DDA on 13.1.2003 for allotment of land.
18. Investigation has further disclosed that on the demand of DDA, Rs. 1,15,02,400/-were deposited by Shri Mahesh Kumar for the society as 35% of the land cost vide DD No. 071791 dt. 13.3.2003 of SBBJ ( State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur). Investigation has revealed that this amount was drawn by Shri Mahesh Kumar from A/c No. 28791 in the name of M/s MDR Foods maintained with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Delhi. Investigation further disclosed that M/s MDR Foods is the private company of Shri Mahesh Kumar and others and this amount was later on received back by Mahesh Kumar from the account of the Lords CGHS vide three cheques after about one month.
19. The investigation has further revealed that CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 12 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 society was allotted plot No.7, Sec.19, Dwarka measuring 6500 sq. mtr. for construction of 115 dwelling units for its members by DDA.
20. It is alleged that thereafter, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy Mahesh Kumar, Secretary has shown that all the 115 members of the society resigned in 2004 and transferred the records of the society to the new management vide the charge report dated 11.7.2004 and it was Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal who was elected as the President of the society on 12.7.2004.
21. The investigation has revealed that at the time of revival, the strength of the society was 115 members. During the year 2003-04, 98 members were shown to have resigned and the resignation letters of these 98 members, who were originally members of New Delhi CGHS, were forged. The GEQD report has established that the forgery was committed by accused Ashwani Sharma, Naveen Kaushik, Ashutosh Pant and Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 13 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
22. The investigation has further revealed that Lords CGHS had 75 promoter members, but as a result of the conspiracy amongst the accused persons, the said file of the society was replaced with the file of a defunct society i.e. New Delhi CGHS having 98 promoter members. The case of revival was processed fraudulently and dishonestly on the file of New Delhi CGHS being a part of Lords CGHS. At the time of revival, 98 members of the society were shown as members, out of whom 8 members had resigned and 25 new members had been enrolled, thereby raising the strength of Lords CGHS to 115 members.
23. The investigation has further revealed that Shri Mahesh Kumar was shown fraudulently and dishonestly enrolled as a member of society on 10.01.1984 and was shown as President on 20.10.2002. However, as per the file received from DDA, he was never a member of Lords CGHS. Similarly, accused Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was enrolled as a member of the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 14 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 society on 2.04.2003 in a proceeding headed by Mahesh Kumar and was made President from 12.07.2004 onwards of the society.
24. The investigation has further revealed that an analysis of the membership register and resignations shows that resignations of some of the members from Sl.No. 1 to 98 and from 99 to 115 were accepted during the tenure of Mahesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal as Presidents of the society and these members whose resignations were accepted were not the members of the Lords CGHS at any time.
25. The investigation has fuhrer revealed that some of the members from Sl.No.1 to 115 were examined who denied to have ever taken the membership of Lords CGHS and as such question of their resignations from the society does not arise. They have also denied their signatures on enrollment forms, affidavits and resignation letters. There is positive opinion of the expert on affidavits and enrollment forms and thus completely nail Vijay Kumar CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 15 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Aggarwal and Mahesh Kumar for having accepted the said forged resignations/affidavits during their tenure as Presidents of the society.
26. The investigation has further revealed that entire membership was fraudulently created by misusing the membership details/documents of the other society by name of New Delhi CGHS. Similarly, the bye-laws were also lifted from the same society by over writing the name of Lords CGHS. At present, 75% of the construction is complete on the land allotted to the society by DDA.
27. The investigation has further revealed that N. Diwakar, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Gopal Singh Bisht, Clerk, office of RCS, J.S. Sharma, AR (S), office of RCS, P.K. Thirwani, Auditor, office of RCS and N.S. Khatri, Clerk-III, office of RCS, Delhi had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Navin Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant. While discharging CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 16 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 their duties as such public servants and abused their official position as public servant for the purpose of causing revival of Lords CGHS on the basis of forged documents. Sh. N. Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and J.S. Sharma were fully aware about the antecedents of Gokul Chand Aggarwal as Gokul Chand Aggarwal represented himself before N. Diwakar for the purpose of causing the revival of many defunct societies.
28. The investigation has further disclosed that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik forged various documents including proceeding register, affidavits, General Body Meetings, audit report, election reports etc. They prepared false documents which were subsequently used as genuine and also forged the signatures of various members on the affidavits, proceeding register, AGM register, resignation letters etc.
29. During the course of investigation various CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 17 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 documents were collected and witnesses were examined. The opinion from GEQD, Shimla was also obtained which corroborated the versions relating to forgeries, preparation of false documents and using them as genuine for the purpose of cheating. Thereby, N. Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, J.S. Sharma, P.K. Thirwani, N.S. Khatri (all public servants except for N. Diwakar, who has since retired) and Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Navin Kaushik (all private persons) committed offences punishable u/s 120 B r/w 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and sec. 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
30. In addition to this, the public servants Sh. N. Diwakar, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Gopal Singh Bisht, Clerk office of RCS, J.S. Sharma, AR (S), office of RCS, P.K. Thirwani, Auditor, office of RCS and N.S. Khatri, Clerk-III, office of RCS, Delhi also CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 18 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 committed substantive offences u/s 15 of PC Act.
31. As per allegation the private persons Sh.
Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar also committed offences punishable u/s 420 and 471 IPC. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal also committed offences punishable u/s 419, 420 and 471 IPC and Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh pant, Navin Kaushi also committed offences punishable u/s 468 IPC.
32. The necessary sanction as required u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 has been obtained in respect of the public servants Sh. N. S. Khatri, Gopal Singh Bisht, J.S. Sharma and P.K. Thirwani. The charge sheet has been filed accordingly.
FRAMING OF CHARGES
33. After considering the material on record, vide detailed order dated 23.03.2012, Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided the charges against the accused persons. On 02.04.2012, accused persons were charged as under:
1 Narayan Diwakar Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 19 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (2) punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 2 Gopal Singh Bosht Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (2) punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 3 Gokul Chand Aggarwal Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S
419/420/468 /471 IPC.
4 J.S Sharma Under section 120-B r/w
419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
AND
Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15
r/w 13 (2) punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 5 Mahesh Kumar Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 420/471 IPC 6 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 420/471 IPC 7 Ashwani Sharma Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 20 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 468 IPC 8 Ashutosh Pant Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 468 IPC 9 Naveen Kaushik Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S 468 IPC 10 P.K.Thirwani Under section 120-B r/w
419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 11 N.S Khatri Under section 120-B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 AND Substantive offences U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988
34. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed and claimed trial.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED J.S.SHARMA (A-3)
35. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present case, accused J.S Sharma CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 21 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 has expired and Proceedings against him stand abated vide order dated 16.09.2001.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
36. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 30 ( Thirty ) witnesses. For the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been categorized in different groups. Although, the detailed testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent para's, wherever necessary. However, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of these witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has come on the record.
The witnesses who have never became the member of the said society and were the member of New Delhi CGHS but they were fraudulently shown as member of the said society. And witnesses who are the members of the said society but they have never resigned
37. As per the case of the prosecution, accused N. CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 22 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Diwakar, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Gopal Singh Bisht, Clerk, J.S. Sharma, AR (S), P.K. Thirwani, Auditor, office and N.S. Khatri, Clerk-III, office of RCS, Delhi had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Navin Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant for the purpose of causing revival of Lords CGHS. That was on the basis of forged documents which related to a defunct society by the name of New Delhi CGHS. Sh. N. Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and J.S. Sharma were fully aware about the antecedents of Gokul Chand Aggarwal as Gokul Chand Aggarwal represented himself as Ajay Kumar before N. Diwakar for the purpose of causing the revival of many defunct societies. Some of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution who have stated that they never became the member of the said society; they had not given any affidavit and denied their signatures on the affidavits, letters and receipts. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution, in this CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 23 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 regard, are as under:
38. PW1 is Sh Subhash Bhatia, he has deposed that he never became member of any group housing society including Lords CGHS Ltd. He has denied that Affidavit dated 17.12.2002 Ex. PW1/A bears his signatures at points A & B and he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit.
39. He has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 18.10.2004 Ex. PW1/B does not bear his signature at point A. He had not filed any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. The receipt for Rs.100/- dated 16.11.2004 Ex. PW1/C does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
40. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, J.S Sharma, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma,Ashutosh Pant and Navin Kaushik, but not by rest of the accused CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 24 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
41. PW 2 is Col (Retd.) Sh. Prem Nath Baveja, he has deposed that he never became member of any group housing society including Lords CGHS Ltd. He denied that Affidavit dated 18.12.2002 Ex. PW2/A bears his signatures at points A & B and he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit. He has further deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 23.07.2004 Ex. PW2/B does not bear his signature at point A. He had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation.
42. He has further deposed that receipt for Rs.100/-
dated 11.08.2004 Ex. PW2/C does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
43. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 25 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Bisht, J.S Sharma, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma,Ashutosh Pant Navin Kaushik and P.K Thirwani, but not by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, despite the opportunity being given to him.
44. PW 3 is Ms Veena Chawla, she has deposed that she never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, she was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. She knew K.K. Mehta, a member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. She has further deposed that one Babu Ram Sharma was President of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. She denied that Affidavit dated 21.12.2002 Ex. PW3/A bears her signatures at points A & B and she had not sworn and signed the said affidavit.
45. She has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 07.05.2003 Ex. PW3/B, does not bear her signature at point A. She had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. She has further deposed that receipt for Rs.100/- dated 17.06.2003 Ex. PW3/C, CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 26 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 does not bear her signature at point A. She had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
46. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Mahesh Kumar, but not by rest of the accused persons, despite the opportunity being given to them.
47. PW 4 is Sh Gulshan Chawla, he has deposed that that he never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, he was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He knew K.K. Mehta, a member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He denied that Affidavit dated 21.12.2002 Ex. PW4/A bears his signatures at points A & B and he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit.
48. He has further deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 25.11.2004 Ex. PW4/B, does not bear her signature at point A. He had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. He has deposed that receipt for CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 27 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Rs.100/- dated 27.12.2004 Ex. PW4/C, does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
49. He has deposed that in freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW4/D, his name has been wrongly shown at serial no.14 (membership no.15).
50. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Mahesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, but not by rest of the accused persons, despite the opportunity being given to them.
51. PW 5 is Sh. Naveen Arora, he has deposed that he never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, he was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He knew K.K. Mehta, a member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. who was friend of his father. As far as he remembered, his father was also member of new Delhi CGHS.
52. He has denied that Affidavit dated 19.12.2002 Ex.
PW5/A bears his signatures at points A & B and he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit. He CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 28 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 15.09.2003 Ex. PW5/B does not bear his signature at point A. He had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation.
53. He has deposed that the receipt for Rs.100/- dated 01.11.2003 Ex. PW5/C does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd. He has depsoed that he could identify handwriting of his father as he was well conversant with the same. He has denied that Affidavit dated 21.12.2003 Ex. PW5/D bears signatures of his father at points A & B and his father had not sworn and signed the said affidavit.
54. He has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 08.05.2004 Ex. PW5/E, does not bear signature of his father at point A. His father had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. He has CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 29 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 further deposed that receipt for Rs.100/- dated 24.05.2004 Ex. PW5/F does not bear signature of his father at point A. His father had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
55. He has deposed that in freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW4/D, name of his father has been wrongly shown at serial no.21 (membership no.24).
56. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Mahesh Kumar, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
57. PW 6 is Sh Prem Khanna, he has deposed that that he never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, he was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He did not know K.K. Mehta. He had not resigned from the membership of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He has denied that affidavit dated 18.12.2002 Ex. PW6/A bears his signatures at points A & B and he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 30 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
58. He has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 08.03.2003 Ex. PW6/B does not bear his signature at point A. He had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. He has deposed that receipt for Rs.100/- dated 18.08.2003 Ex. PW6/C does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
59. He has further deposed that he could identify handwriting of his father, as he was well conversant with the same. He has denied that Affidavit dated 19.12.2002 Ex. PW6/D bears signatures of his father at points A & B and his father had not sworn and signed the said affidavit. He has deposed that the withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 20.07.2004 Ex. PW6/E does not bear signature of his father at point A. His father had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 31 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
resignation and the receipt for Rs.100/- dated
14.08.2004 Ex. PW6/F does not bear signature of his father at point A. His father had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
60. He has deposed that in freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW4/D, name of his father has been wrongly shown at serial no.54 (membership no.60). He has deposed that in Bye- Laws of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW6/G, signatures appearing at Page 21 at serial no. 60 ( name of his father) and at serial no. 62 ( his name) at points A and B, are not their genuine signatures.
61. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Mahesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
62. PW 7 is Sh Baldev Sharma, he has deposed that he never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, he was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He knew K.K. Mehta, through whom, he became member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He did CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 32 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 not remember if he resigned from membership of New Delhi CGHS or not.
63. He has denied that Affidavit dated 18.12.2002 Ex.
PW7/A bears his signatures at points A & B as he had not sworn and signed the said affidavit. He has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 09.05.2004 Ex. PW7/B does not bear his signature at point A. He had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation.
64. He has deposed that receipt for Rs.100/- dated 16.06.2004 Ex. PW7/C does not bear his signature at point A. He had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd. He has deposed that in freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW4/D, his name has been wrongly shown at serial no.80 (membership no.87).
65. He has further deposed that in Bye-Laws of Lords CGHS Ltd, Ex. PW6/G, signature appearing at serial no. 87 at point C, is of him. However, he CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 33 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 had signed the Bye-Laws of New Delhi CGHS and not as Bye-Laws of Lords CGHS Ltd.
66. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused Mahesh Kumar, but not by rest of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
67. PW8 is Sh Krishan Kumar Mehta, he has deposed that he never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. However, he was member of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. He had not resigned from membership of New Delhi CGHS Ltd. The said society was allotted land by DDA and first installment was also deposited.
68. He has further deposed that later on the members of the society were not interested in making further payments and therefore, they intimated DDA as well as Office of RCS regarding the same and the society was closed. He has depsoed that the money already deposited was refunded by DDA to the society and which they further refunded to the members through cheques. He was Secretary of New Delhi CGHS Ltd.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 34 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
69. He has deposed that vide Receipt Memo Ex.
PW8/A which bears his signature at point A, he had handed over the documents i.e. photocopy of refund of amount Mark PW8/B deposited with DDA alongwith photocopy of the envelop vide which refund of deposit amount was sent to society by DDA and photocopy of cancellation of allotment letter Mark PW8/C alongwith photocopy of the envelop in which the cancellation letter was received duly attested by him at point A on both pages.
70. He has deposed that he became member of New Delhi CGHS in 1994 after preparation of Bye- Laws and its registration.
71. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
72. PW 9 is Smt. Jyoti Gupta, she has deposed that she had never became member of Lords CGHS Ltd. She has denied that Affidavit dated 18.12.2002 Ex. PW9/A bears her signatures at points A & B as she had not sworn and signed the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 35 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
said affidavit.
73. She has deposed that withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership of Lords CGHS Ltd. dated 29.11.2004 Ex. PW 9/B does not bear her signature at point A. She had not submitted any letter for withdrawal of share money or resignation. She has further deposed that receipt for Rs.100/- dated 29.12.2004 Ex. PW9/C does not bear his signature at point A. She had not received the amount mentioned in the receipt from the Lords CGHS Ltd.
74. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
75. PW 10 is Sh Kulbir Singh, he has deposed that in the year 1983-84, he was residing at B-90, Kalkaji New Delhi. In the year 1983, he had become member of one society i.e. Lords CGHS Ltd. through one Sh. S.K. Bhasin and one Sh. Jasvir Singh Dham. He had given them around CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 36 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Rs.2,000/- for becoming member of the said society.
76. He has deposed that he had submitted an application in this regard. He had also given copy of his Ration Card. His membership number was
68. Fee receipt of Rs.110/- was also issued to him.
77. He has deposed that he had never resigned from the membership from the said society. No money was ever refunded to him by the said society. He had attended one or two meeting of the society. He did not remember the place of the meeting as it is very old matter. He did not remember to whom the premises belonged where such meetings were held.
78. He has deposed that documents relating to his membership are not available to him as the same got destroyed in the 1984 riots by fire. He has deposed that Sh. S.K. Bhasin and Jasvir Singh Dham were also residents of Kalkaji. He do not knew any Amrik Singh related to the Lords CGHS Ltd.
79. This witness has been cross examined on behalf CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 37 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 of accused Mahesh Kumar, Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and J.S Sharma, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
80. PW 11 is Sh Inderjit Singh, he has deposed that he was running his family shop at Defence Colony, New Delhi. In the year 1983, his father had made him a member of Lords CGHS Ltd. through one Sh. Amrit Lal Budhiraja, who was neighbour and one Sh. Bhasin whose complete name, he did not remember, who was friend of Sh. Budhiraja.
81. He has deposed that he had signed an application regarding membership of the society and Rs. 110/- was also paid as membership fee. His membership number was 39. As he was quite young at that time, his father might had attended the meeting of the society. He has further deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the said society. No money was ever returned to him by the society. The office of the society was in Govind Puri but he did not remember the exact CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 38 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 address. He could not produce documents relating to his membership as his father used to look after the said documents.
82. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Mahesh Kumar, Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and J.S Sharma, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
83. PW 12 is Sh Kailash Kumar Garg, he has deposed that prior to his address i.e. 3104, Prestige Sunny Side Oak, Kadubishna Halli, Bangalore, he was residing at Plot No. 1660-A, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, Delhi since 1983 to 2016. There was no society named as Lords CGHS was registered in the above mentioned address i.e. 1660, Govindpuri Extension nor any office was there. There was no correspondence at any type in the name of Lords CGHS was communicated at above mentioned address. He has deposed that he was not known to any person named as Mahesh Kumar, Ram Babu Sharma, Bina Chawla, K.K. Mahto. CBI has recorded his statement.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 39 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
84. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused P.K. Thirwani and Mahesh Kumar, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
85. PW16 is Sh. Subhash Gupta, he has deposed that during the year 2007, he was running a shop of tobacco in Mehrauli itself. He had never been a member of any group housing society including Lords CGHS. He has further depoed that affidavit dated 17.12.2002 Ex. PW 16/A was not executed by him and it does not bear his signatures at points 'A'. He has deposed that request of withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from the membership of Lords CGHS, were not given by him.
86. He has deposed that he had not withdrawn any share money and question of being resigned or withdrawal of share money does not arise as he was never the member of the said society. He has further deposed that the said request of withdrawal of share money and acceptance of resignation from membership Ex. PW16/B does not bear his CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 40 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
signature at point 'A'. And the receipt dated
28.11.2004 Ex. PW16/C does not bear his signatures at point 'A'.
87. He has further deposed that in freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Ltd. Ex. PW4/D, he does not know how his name has been shown against serial no. 95 and membership no. 103.
88. He has further deposed that Gokul Chand Aggarwal was his relative and was known to him. He had met him once or twice. Now, he does not recognize him.
89. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Mahesh Kumar, Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, P.K. Thirwani and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
90. PW 17 is Sh Virender Kapoor, he has deposed that during the year 1983-84, he was dealing in purchase and sale of household old items. During the year 1983-84, he became a member of a group housing society, namely, Lords CGHS. He has deposed that he became member on the advice of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 41 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 his three close friends, namely, Mr. S.K. Bhasin, Sh. Jasbir Singh and Sh. Amrik Singh.
91. He has deposed that at the time of availing of the membership in the said society, he had made a payment of Rs. 110/- and had also submitted an application for seeking membership. His membership number was 23.
92. He has deposed that he had never attended any meeting of the said society and he even was not informed about the such meetings. He had never resigned from the said society. He has further deposed that all the aforesaid three persons as referred to by him, namely, Sh. S.K. Bhasin, Sh. Jasbir Singh and Sh. Amrik Singh, were the office bearers of the managing committee of the said society.
93. He has deposed that after seeing verification of membership of the society for sending the list of member Mark PW17/A (colly.) to DDA for allotment of land his name and further particulars as shown against serial number and membership number 23 have been shown correctly. He has CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 42 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 further deposed that as per his knowledge, no land was allotted to the said society by DDA.
94. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
95. PW 18 is Smt Anuradha Goyal, she has deposed that during the year 1984, she was just 8 years old and she was residing with her parents at near Jhandewala, Delhi. She deposed that during the year 2002, she was housewife. She did not remember if she had become a member of any group housing society or not. She even did not remember, if she had taken the membership of Lords CGHS or not.
96. She has deposed after going through the proceedings register from 04.01.2004 to 13.02.2004 placed at D-84, page no. 1 to 16, the proceedings dated 04.01.2004 i.e. Ex. PW18/A (colly.), Minutes of the Meeting of the Managing Committee, bears her signatures against serial no. 2 on page no. 1 and 12 at points 'A'. She has further deposed that the proceedings register from CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 43 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 06.01.2003 to 12.01.2005 placed at D-87 i.e. Ex. PW18/B (colly.) from page no. 1 to 100 having the minutes of different meetings, bear her signatures at points 'A' on page no. 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62 and 64.
97. She has deposed, after going through the proceeding register (GBM register) placed at D-86, from page no. 1 to 15, that the minutes of the meeting dated 11.07.2004 Ex. PW18/C, at page no. 3, against serial no. 38 bear her signatures at point 'A'. She did not remember as to in what capacity she had signed the aforesaid proceedings.
98. She has further deposed, after going through AGM Register from 20.10.2002 to 16.02.2003 placed at D-85, from page no. 1 to 11, that the minutes of the meeting dated 20.10.2002 at page no. 2, against serial no. 41 Ex. PW18/D are not having her signatures at point 'A'. The signature appearing at point A are not of her signature.
99. She has deposed, after going through application CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 44 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 form dated 06.01.1984 Ex. PW18/E placed at D-102, page no. 176, that on the said application form dated 06.01.1984, signatures at point 'A' are not her signatures and signatures appearing at points 'A' Affidavit dated 07.12.2002 Ex. PW18/F placed at D-40, page no. 108, are not her signatures.
100. She has deposed that affidavit dated 07.12.2002 Mark PW18/G, placed at D-42, page no. 147/C, appears to have been executed by one Sh. Ajay Kumar Goyal. After going through the same, the witness stated that she had no idea as to how her name had been shown at page no. 46 against serial no. 10, membership no. 108.
101. She has further deposed that his maternal uncle Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta told them that certain persons, including himself were being made member of a society and for that he was required to sign certain documents. Accordingly, she had signed certain documents at the instance of her maternal uncle Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta.
102. She has deposed that she did not have any idea as CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 45 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 to when she had resigned from the society. The purpose of availing the membership of the present society was that she was under the impression that she would be given a flat but it was not given.
103. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
104. PW19 is Sh Satya Pal Gaur,he has deposed that he had never been a member of any group housing society including the present society namely Lords CGHS. He had given a cheque of Rs. 2,000/- to Gokul Chand Aggarwal for becoming a member of some group housing society.
105. He has deposed that the application form dated 02.01.1984 Ex. PW19/A; Affidavit dated 17.12.2002 Ex. PW19/B;resignation letter dated 26.11.2004 Ex. PW19/C and withdrawal receipt dated 26.12.2004 Ex. PW19/D does not bear his signatures at point 'A' respectively.
106. This witness has been cross examined on behalf CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 46 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 of accused Gokul Chand Aggrwal, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
107. PW 20 is Sh Devender Kumar, he has deposed that in the year 2002, he was carrying the business of rice. He had become a member of a society, but he did not remember the name of the said society. He had become the member of the said society at the instance of his maternal uncle namely Sh. Ram Kishan Chawal Wale.
108. He has deposed that he was not aware whether he was office bearer or member of the managing committee of the said society or not. He had never been allotted any flat in the said society. He might have made some payment for availing the membership towards the membership fees etc.
109. He has further deposed that letters placed at D-55 from page no 45 to 50 Ex. PW20/A, PW20/B, PW20/C, PW20/D, PW20/E and PW20/F do not bear his signatures at points 'A' as a Secretary of the society. He has deposed that proceedings Register placed at D-86, having the proceedings CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 47 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 dated 11.07.2004 also at page no. 002 bears his signature at serial no. 16 at point 'A', Ex. PW18/C. The relevant entry having his signature is at Ex. PW20/G.
110. He has deposed that MC meeting Register placed at D-84, having the proceedings dated 04.01.2004 also at page no. 1 bears his signature at serial no. 3 at point 'B', Ex. PW18/A. The relevant entry is having his signature at Ex. PW20/H, proceeding Register placed at D-87, having the proceedings dated 06.01.2003 Ex. PW20/H1 also at page no. 02, proceedings dated 07.02.2003 Ex. PW20/H2 at page no. 03, proceedings dated 26.02.2003 Ex. PW20/H3 at page no. 06, proceedings dated 10.03.2003 Ex. PW20/H4 at page no. 08, proceedings dated 22.03.2003 Ex. PW20/H5 at page no. 11, proceedings dated 28.04.2003 Ex. PW20/H6 at page no. 15, proceedings dated 10.05.2003 Ex. PW20/H7 at page no. 18, proceedings dated 23.06.2003 Ex. PW20/H8 at page no. 21, proceedings dated 23.07.2003 Ex. PW20/H9 at page no. 24, proceedings dated CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 48 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 24.08.2003 Ex. PW20/H10 at page no. 26, proceedings dated 21.09.2003 Ex. PW20/H11 at page no. 28, proceedings dated 24.10.2003 Ex. PW20/H12 at page no. 30, proceedings dated 25.11.2003 Ex. PW20/H13 at page no. 32, proceedings dated 10.12.2003 Ex. PW20/H14 at page no. 34, proceedings dated 25.01.2004 Ex. PW20/H15 at page no. 36, proceedings dated 05.03.2004 Ex. PW20/H16 at page no. 38, proceedings dated 27.03.2004 Ex. PW20/H17 at page no. 40, proceedings dated 05.04.2004 Ex. PW20/H18 at page no. 44, proceedings dated 10.04.2004 Ex. PW20/H19 at page no. 48, proceedings dated 15.04.2004 Ex. PW20/H20 at page no. 52, proceedings dated 10.05.2004 Ex. PW20/H21 at page no. 57, proceedings dated 25.05.2004 Ex. PW20/H22 at page no. 59, proceedings dated 10.06.2004 Ex. PW20/H23 at page no. 61 and proceedings dated 20.06.2004 Ex. PW20/H24 at page no. 63 i.e. Ex. PW18/B (colly.) as referred bears his signatures at points 'X' on various pages.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 49 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
111. He has further deposed that he might have resigned from the said society but he did not remember as to when he had resigned. He has deposed that the aforesaid proceedings pertain to the present society namely Lords CGHS. He had become the member of this society only.
112. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
113. PW21 is Sh Narender Chopra, he has deposed that he had availed the membership of the present society, namely, Lords CGHS but he did not remember the year when he had taken the said membership. He had taken the membership through one Mr. V.K. Kapoor. As per his memory, he might have taken the membership in the year 2000 or even may be prior to that.
114. He has further deposed that Mr. V.K. Kapoor had come to him and he had asked him to become a member of that society. The fees was very less so CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 50 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 he became the member of the said society. He had never attended any meeting of the society.
115. He has deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the said society. He further deposed that Sh. V.K. Kapoor was known to him as he was his relative. He did not know any person namely Jasbir Singh and Amrik Singh.
116. He has deposed that he did not remember his membership number. He do not know whether any land was ever allotted to the present society or not. He had no communication at all with the society. He has deposed that he had few receipts which he had deposited with the CBI at their Lodhi Road office. He might have availed the membership of the society in the year 1983 but he did not know the exact year.
117. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
118. PW24 is Sh Ramesh Sharma, he has deposed that CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 51 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 he was residing at S-469, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi since the year 1978. He did not remember, if any of his family members was or is the member of Lords CGHS.
119. He has deposed that application dated 05.04.1984 Ex. PW24/A bears the signatures of his father Sh. Ram Babu Sharma at point 'A'. He identified the signatures of his father as he had seen him signing and writing. He has further deposed that Affidavit dated 06.04.1984 Ex. PW24/B bears the signatures of his father Sh. Ram Babu Sharma at points 'A'; bye-laws pertaining to the society Ex. PW6/G bears the signatures of his wife, namely, Ms. Madhu Sharma at point 'A' against serial no. 32. He identified the signatures of his wife as he had seen her signing and writing. The relevant entry encircled in red color is at Ex. PW24/C.
120. He has deposed that application Ex. PW24/D for registration of the society placed at D-13, page no. 36 bears the signature of his wife namely Mrs. Madhu Sharma at point 'A' at serial no. 32 and the relevant entry encircled in red color is at Ex.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 52 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 PW24/E. He has further deposed that the said application bears the signatures of his father also at point 'A'. The relevant entry encircled in red color is at Ex. PW24/F and the intensive enquiry proforma Ex. PW24/G placed at D-13, page no. 39, bears the signatures of his wife namely Mrs. Madhu Sharma at point 'A' against serial no. 32. The relevant entry encircled in red color is at Ex. PW24/H.
121. He has further deposed that resignation letter dated 08.05.2004 Ex. PW24/I placed at D-110, page no. 228 does not bear the signatures of his wife Mrs. Madhu Sharma at point 'A'. The receipt Ex. PW24/J also does not bear the signature of his wife at point 'A'.
122. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Mahesh Kumar, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
123. PW28 is Sh Subhash Gupta, he has deposed that he was doing a business of property dealing in the name of M/s Gupta Properties at Rohtak. During CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 53 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the period from 2003 to 2005, he was doing the business of property dealing in the same name at Dwarka at Kohti 452, Sector-19, Dwarka and also at Rohini at Kothi No. 11, Sector-28, Rohini Delhi.
124. He has deposed that accused Mahesh Kumar was known to him as he had visited his office at Delhi. He did not remember whether he had visited at Dwarka office or Rohini office. He had taken the membership of the present society namely Lords CGHS on asking of accused Mahesh Kumar. He had made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the society by cheque and cheque dated 10.04.2004 Ex. PW28/A had been issued by him and it bears his signatures at points 'A'.
125. He has further deposed that he did not know any person in the name of Minika Garg, Manju Garg, Meghraj Verma, Rajesh Kumar and Pramod Garg.
126. He has deposed that he had taken the membership of the present society in the year 2004 and he resigned from the society within two months of taking the membership. He had received back his CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 54 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 money of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the society after his resignation. He did not remember whether it was returned to him in cash or by cheque.
127. He has further deposed that he had also given a loan of Rs. 55,00,000/- (55 Lakhs) to the society at the request of accused Mahesh Kumar and cheque dated 25.03.2004 Ex. PW28/B, in the sum of Rs. 55 Lakhs bears his signatures at points 'A' vide which he had given the loan to the society. He has further deposed that he had given the said loan as there was an understanding that he would be given the work of construction of the said society. He had received that money back from the society after two months and he had not carried out the constructions.
128. He has deposed that there was no agreement in writing between him and the society for carrying out the constructions by him. It was just a promise which was not agreed later on and his money was returned. He has deposed that he never purchased the said society from anyone. Since he had never purchased the society, the question of selling the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 55 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 same by him, does not arise.
129. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Mahesh Kumar, but not by any of the accused person despite the opportunity being given to them.
Witnesses from the office of Registrar Cooperative Society.
130. The office of RCS is the controlling and supervising Government authority over the Co- operative Group Housing Societies. It is a matter of fact that a file pertaining to each of such societies is maintained in the office of RCS from the stage of its formation and registration and all communications made with the society are placed in such a file by the office of RCS.
131. In the present case, the allegations against the private accused persons are that the documents relating to membership of New Delhi CGHS were dishonestly and fraudulently used for the purpose of causing revival of Lords CGHS. And thereafter public servant sent the approved freeze list of 115 members to AR (Policy) for onward transmission CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 56 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 to DDA for allotment of land. The file was processed in the office of RCS. Certain officials/officers during the relevant time who had actually processed the file pertaining to the present society, were posted as dealing assistants, or Assistant Registrar, and finally all proposals were approved by the Registrar, RCS.
132. The prosecution has examined the relevant officials/officers posted in the office of RCS. These witnesses were examined to prove the proceedings, notings and certain communications between the office of the RCS and the said society, as maintained in the office of RCS. In this regard, prosecution has examined following witnesses from the office of RCS.
133. PW 22 is Sh Vinay Kumar, he has deposed that during the year 2001 to 2004-05, he was posted in RCS office as a LDC. During his tenure, he also worked in South-Zone, RCS office. As per his knowledge, Sh. V.P. Singh was the AR. He had dealt with a file namely Lords CGHS in respect of issuing some circular.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 57 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
134. He has further deposed that the noting dated 10.12.2002 Ex. PW22/A, placed at D-14, page no. 1/N is in his handwriting and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. He has further deposed that one circular on the basis of the aforesaid noting was issued, dated 12.12.2002 i.e. Ex. PW22/B, placed at D-35 at page no. 8/C, by Sh. V.P. Singh, the then Assistant Registrar (South). He identified his signature at point 'A' as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their official duties and that of his initial at point 'B'.
135. He has further deposed that application dated 28.11.2002 Ex. PW22/C placed at D-39, page no. 2/C was marked to him by the then AR Sh. V.P. Singh vide his endorsement/signature made at point 'A'. He has deposed that Gokul Chand Aggarwal used to visit frequently Sh. V.P. Singh in the office so he also knows Gokul Chand Aggarwal. As per his memory, he had no conversation with Gokul Chand Aggarwal regarding the present society. Since the matter is very old i.e. 20-22 years old, he would not be in CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 58 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 position to identify Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
136. This witness has not been cross examined by any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
137. PW 23 is Sh Ved Pal Singh, he has deposed that he retired from the office of RCS in the year 2002. At that time, he was Assistant Registrar, South Zone. He was posted in the office of RCS in the Legal Department at the end of the year 2001. During the year 2002, he was not keeping well and he was on leave for around two-three months.
138. He has deposed that he had joined the RCS office in the month of January, 2002 in the South Zone and then he retired in the year 2002 itself. He used to look after the files pertaining to the societies. He has further deposed that noting dated 10.12.2002 Ex. PW22/A, placed at D-14, page no. 1/N bears his signatures at point 'A'.
139. He has deposed that the circular dated 12.12.2002 placed at D-35, page no. 8/C Ex. PW22/B, bears his signatures at point 'A'. He had given the charge to the then AR Sh. J.S. Sharma as he was CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 59 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 not keeping well. He has further deposed that noting dated 18.12 Ex. PW23/A placed at D-16, page no. 3/N, bears the signatures of Sh. J.S. Sharma at points 'A'. He had identified his signatures as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their official duties.
140. This witness has not been cross examined by any of the accused person, despite the opportunity being given to them.
Sanctioning Authority
141. In the present case, Gopal Singh Bisht, J.S. Sharma, P.K. Thirwani, and N.S. Khatri, are the public servant and they have also been charge-sheeted. Since they were the public servants, hence during the investigation requisite sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained by the IO. The authorities which had accorded the sanction to prosecute the above named accused persons, have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
142. PW13 is Sh R.K. Srivastava, he has deposed that CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 60 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 during the year in 2007, he was posted as a Secretary in the Department of the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC/Minorities Government of NCT of Delhi. He has deposed that accused Gopal Singh Bisht Bisht, at that time, was working as a UDC in the said Department. He had the authority to remove him from the service during the period he was posted under his supervision in the said Department.
143. He has deposed that he had received the requisition/request for granting the sanction to prosecute accused Gopal Singh Bisht. He has further deposed that along with the said request, he had received SP's report and some documents. He has deposed that he did not remember the exact nature of those documents/material sent by the CBI for that purpose.
144. He has further deposed that after going through the report of the SP and other material/documents sent by CBI, he applied his mind and accorded the requisite sanction to prosecute accused Gopal Singh Bisht vide Sanction order dated 31.12.2007 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 61 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Ex. PW13/A (colly). It bears his signature at point 'A' on the last page and on the rest of the pages his initial at points 'B' along with the official stamp.
145. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused Gopal Singh Bisht, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
146. PW14 is Sh Rakesh Mehta, he has deposed that on 28.01.2008, he was working as Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi. Accused P.K. Thirwani during the year 2008 was working as a Grade-I (DASS), Government of NCT of Delhi.And he being the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, was competent to remove him from his service.
147. He has further deposed that he had received a requisition from the CBI along with the report of the IO, statement of witnesses and also other documents for granting the sanction to prosecute accused P.K. Thirwani. He has deposed that after going through the said material and after applying CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 62 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 his mind, he had accorded sanction to prosecute accused P.K. Thirwani, the then Auditor posted in the office of RCS, New Delhi vide sanction order Ex. PW14/A (colly.). Which bears his signatures at points 'A' along with his official stamp on each and every page.
148. He has deposed that the said sanction order along with one forwarding letter no.
F.7(A)61/2007/DOV/689 dated 28.01.2008 i.e. Ex. PW14/B was sent to CBI, it bears the signature of the then Additional Secretary, Vigilance, Sh Ashutosh Kumar at point 'A'. He identified his signatures as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their duties.
149. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused P.K. Thirwani, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
150. PW15 is Sh D.M. Shukla, he deposed that on 19.12.2007, he was posted as a Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of NCT of Delhi. Accused N.S. Khatri, at that time, CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 63 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 was working as a LDC in the Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government of NCT of Delhi. He (PW15) had received a requisition/request from the CBI to grant the sanction to prosecute accused N.S. Khatri.
151. He has deposed that along with the request, he had received some statement of witnesses, documents and draft order from the CBI. After going through the material sent by the CBI and after applying his mind, he had accorded the sanction to prosecute accused N.S. Khatri vide sanction order dated 19.12.2007 Ex. PW15/A (colly) and it bearing his signatures at points 'A' on each page.
152. He has deposed that the said sanction order was forwarded by him to CBI vide communication dated 19.12.2007 Ex. PW 15/B which bears his signature at points 'A'.
153. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused N.S Khatri, but not by other accused persons despite the opportunity being given to them.
Witness from DDA CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 64 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
154. The role of DDA with regard to the co-
operative group housing society comes into picture when a request is made by the society through the office of RCS for allotment of land. Once the land is allotted the last action on the part of the DDA is generally to get executed Draw of Lots in the presence of their officers. For this purpose, at the first instance, the society would send a list of freezed members to the office of RCS with the request to onward transmission of the same to the DDA for allotment of land. And subsequently, another list is sent for Draw of Lots.
155. As stated earlier, a file is maintained by the office of RCS pertaining to the society, in a similar way a file is maintained pertaining to each of such societies separately by DDA also. And all proceedings and communications pertaining to the society are placed in that file. The officers who dealt with the file of present society during relevant time in the office of DDA, has been examined as prosecution witness as follows:
156. PW 25 is Sh. Paras Nath, who has deposed that he CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 65 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 had joined the DDA in the year 1989 and since then he was working there. He joined the Group Housing Society Branch in the DDA in the month of June, 2004. His job was as of Dealing Assistant.
157. He has deposed that file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) having the correspondences maintained by the DDA pertaining to the present society placed at D-46 bearing file no. F7(07)2003/GH/DDA was maintained by him. He has further deposed that the noting dated 27.08.2004 Ex. PW25/B, at page no. 35/N in the said file was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. He has deposed that another noting dated 02.09.2004 Ex. PW25/C at page no. 36/N in the said file was also made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'.
158. He has deposed that noting dated 06.05.2005 Ex.
PW25/D at page no. 43/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. He has further deposed that noting dated 04.05.2005 Ex. PW25/E at page no. 42/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 66 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
'A'.
159. He has deposed that noting dated 08.04.2005 Ex.
PW25/F at page no. 40/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. He has further deposed that noting dated 03.03.2005 Ex. PW25/G at page no. 40/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A) (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'.
160. He has deposed that noting dated 24.03.2005 Ex.
PW25/H at page no. 39/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. and noting dated 25.02.2005 at page no. 37/N Ex. PW 25/I in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly. was also made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'.
161. He has deposed that t noting dated 07.02.2005 Ex.
PW25/J at page no. 36/N in the said file Ex. PW25/A (colly.) was made by him and it bears his signatures at point 'A'. He has deposed that perpetual lease deed Ex. PW25/K placed at D-112, page no. 20 to 25 was executed on behalf of the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 67 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 DDA with Lords CGHS and the same was filled in by him in his own handwriting. The said perpetual lease deed bears the signatures of Lease Administration Officer namely Sh. Uma Shankar Bhardwaj at point 'A'. He was his senior and he has identified his signatures as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their ordinary official duties.
162. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal but not by any of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them.
163. PW 26 is Sh Manoj Kumar, he has deposed that he had joined the services of Delhi Administration in the year 2000. He was transferred to the office of RCS in the year 2003. He has further deposed that note-sheet file placed at D-15, pertaining to the said society maintained by the office of RCS. He had never dealt with the said file.
164. He has deposed that noting dated 18.12.2002 Ex.
PW26/A at page no. 2/N; noting dated 20.12.2002 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 68 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Ex. PW26/B at page no. 4/N at D-16; noting dated 26.12.2002 Ex. PW26/C at page no. 5/N at D-17; noting dated 30.12.2002 Ex. PW26/D at page no. 6/N at D-17; noting dated 31.12.2002 Ex. PW26/E at page no. 13/N at D-17; noting dated 02.01.2003 Ex. PW26/F at page no. 14/N at D-18 and noting dated 03.01.2003 Ex. PW26/G at page no. 14/N at D-18 bears the signatures of Sh. J.S. Sharma at point 'A' respectively. He identified his signatures as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of our ordinary course of duties.
165. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity being given to them.
Expert witness.
166. During the course of investigation certain specimen and alleged forged signatures were sent to GEQD for examination by the CBI to establish the case of forgery and role of accused persons who committed the forgery. Thr Prosecution has examined PW27 as expert to prove the report Ex PW27/C CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 69 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
167. PW 27 is R.S. Rana, GEQD, he has deposed that he was M.Sc in Physics and MCA. He had undergone three years in service training in the field of Scientific Examination of documents, detection of forgery and allied subjects in the Government of India Laboratory at Shimla. He had more than 29 years of experience in this field.
168. He has further deposed that during his service, he had examined lakhs of exhibits and have expressed his opinion thereon. He had also appeared as an expert witness in various courts of law of the country.
169. He has further deposed that documents of this case were received in the laboratory vide letter no. 101/3/7/2006-EOU-VI dated 11.05.2007 (D-1) and letter no. 6957/3/7/2006-EOU-VI dated 13.09.2007 (D-100) in sealed condition. And comprised of questioned documents and specimen documents i.e. Ex. PW27/A (colly.) & Ex. PW27/B (colly.) respectively. He has further deposed that he had examined the documents as per the aforesaid communication received from CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 70 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the CBI. And after examination he had given report no. CX-232/2007 dated 29.10.2007 along with the reasons for his opinion on 16 sheets. The said report dated 29.10.2007 bears his signatures at points 'A' and the signatures of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then GEQD at points 'B'. He has identified the signatures of Sh. N.C. Sood, the then GEQD as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their official duties. The reasons given by him also bears his signatures on each of the pages at points 'A'.
170. He has deposed that the said report dated 29.10.2007 placed at D-24 along with the abstract is Ex. PW27/C. The reasons given by him in support of his said report are at Ex. PW27/D. He has further deposed that the aforesaid report and the reasons were forwarded to the CBI vide communication dated 05.12.2007, Ex. PW27/E under the signatures of Sh. N.C. Sood and the said communication bears the signatures of Sh. N.C. Sood at points 'A'.
171. He has deposed that the documents received by CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 71 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
GEQD were duly acknowledged vide
acknowledgment dated 14.05.2007 Ex. PW27/F placed at D-107 by Sh. Kulwant Singh, the then Photographer, Documents Division, GEQD, Shimla. The said acknowledgment bears the signature of Sh. Kulwant Singh at point 'A'. He identified the signatures of Sh. Kulwant Singh, the then Photographer as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their official duties.
172. This witness was cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons except by accused N.S Khatri, despite opportunity being given to him.
Witnesses from CBI
173. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court dated dt. 09.01.06 & 13.02.06, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15487/2005. Initially, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CBI officer and at the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered. During the investigation certain documents were received and seized from the office of RCS and also from the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 72 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 office of DDA as well as from some accused persons. From the stage of carrying out preliminary enquiry till filing of chargesheet, the officers from CBI, who one way or another, were part of the investigation have been examined as prosecution witnesses, which are as under:
174. PW 29 is the then Inspector Devender Singh, he has deposed that in the said society, he had carried out the preliminary enquiry pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He has further deposed that after the preliminary enquiry, he had made a complaint to the then SP, CBI recommending for registration of a regular case against the accused persons. The photocopy of complaint made by him dated 30.10.2006 Mark PW29/A, which bears impressions of his signatures at points 'A' on each of the pages as well as that of impression of signatures of Sh. A.K. Ohri, the then SP at points 'B'.
175. He has deposed that FIR dated 31.10.2006 Ex.
PW29/B also bears the signatures of Sh. A.K. Ohri, the then SP at points 'A'. The said FIR was CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 73 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
marked to Dy. SP Samsher Singh for
investigation. He has identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Ohri on the aforesaid documents as he had seen him signing and writing in discharge of their ordinary official duties.
176. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht , Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, P.K. Thirwani and N.S Khatri and rest of the accused persons adopted the cross examination done on behalf of aforesaid accused persons.
177. PW30 is Sh Narender Mahto, DSP,CBI, IO of the case, he has deposed that during the period from 2000 to 2008, he was posted as Inspector in CBI, EOU-VI (EO-II) Branch, New Delhi. The present case was entrusted to him for investigation in the year 2006. He has further deposed that the present case was registered on the basis of order of Hon'ble High Court. Initially, a Preliminary Enquiry was registered and on the basis of report of the Preliminary Enquiry, FIR was registered and accordingly investigation was marked to him.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 74 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
178. He has deposed that as per charge-sheet, the allegations in the present case are on the basis of forged and false documents. The accused persons has illegally revived the present society and on the basis of illegal revival a land was allotted by the DDA.
179. He has deposed that during the investigation, he had recorded statement of witnesses and collected several documents. He has deposed that FIR RC.SIJ2006E0007 dated 31.10.2006, placed at D-1A Ex. PW29/B bears the signature of the then SP A.K. Ohri at point A. He identified signature of Sh. A.K. Ohri as he had seen him writing and signing during the discharge of their official duties. Initially, the FIR was marked to Sh. Shamsher Singh, DSP/EOU-VI and thereafter investigation was marked to him.
180. He has deposed that complaint dated 31.10.2006 submitted by Inspector Devender Singh, CBI, EOU-VI New Delhi, Mark PW29/A, bears the signature of Inspector Devender Singh, at points A and the signature of the then S.P A.K. Ohri. He CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 75 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 identified their signatures as he had seen them writing and signing during the discharge of their official duties.
181. He has deposed that seizure memo dated 22.03.2007, regarding receiving of documents of Lord CGHS from Sh. K.K. Mehta, the then member of the society Ex. PW8/A bears signatures of Sh. K.K. Mehta at point A as he has signed the document in his presence. He identified his own signature at point B.
182. He has deposed that letter regarding refund of amount deposited with DDA by President of New Delhi CGHS vide letter no.
F-7(69)/90/GH/DDA/662 dated 16.09.1994 of Rs.1,38,0000/- vide cheque no. 505958 dated 17.08.1994 issued by Accounts Officer, DDA placed at D-65 Ex. PW8/B was seized vide seizure memo dated 22.03.2007 Ex. PW8/A. He has deposed that letter issued by Deputy Director (GH) to New Delhi CGHS regarding cancellation of allotment of land under Group Housing Scheme, at letter no. F-7/64(90)/GH/DDA/40 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 76 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 dated 18.08.1993, Mark PW8/C was seized vide seizure memo dated 22.03.2007 Ex. PW8/A.
183. He has further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.06.2007 Ex. PW30/1 regarding receiving of documents from DDA of New Delhi Society and Lord CGHS from Paras Nath, Dealing Assistant to identify the members and name of the society. He identified the signature of Paras Nath at point A as Paras Nath had signed the said document in his presence. He also identified his own signature at point B.
184. He has deposed that letter issued by the Assistant Registrar(GH) to Lords CGHS regarding registration of Group Housing Society vide letter no. F-47/615/GH/Coop/83 dated 03.10.1983 Ex. PW30/2, was seized vide seizure memo dated 26.06.2007 Ex. PW30/1 for investigation of this case. He has further deposed that file no. F-5(289)84/GH/DDA (Lords CGHS) regarding freezed list of members of Lords CGHS Mark PW17/A (Colly) was seized vide seizure memo dated 26.06.2007 Ex. PW30/1 for investigation of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 77 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
this case.
185. He has deposed that file F-5(177)84/GH regarding allotment of land to New Delhi CGHS Mark PW30/A (Colly) was seized vide seizure memo dated 26.06.2007 Ex. PW30/1 for investigation of this case. He has further deposed that cash receipt vide numbers 50 of Rs. 110/-, receipt of Rs. 250/- dated 19.01.1984, receipt of Rs. 125/- dated 30.11.1983, receipt of Rs. 125/- dated 14.02.1984, receipt of Rs. 125/- dated 14.04.1984 i.e. Mark- PW30/B (Colly) in respect of Narender Chopra, were received from Nikhil Chopra who was member of Lords CGHS for investigation purpose of the present case, vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 20.07.2007 Ex. PW30/3. He identified the signature of Nikhil Chopra at point As he has signed the document in his presence and he (PW30) also identified his own signature at point B.
186. He has deposed that the document was received from H.S. Manku, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi vide CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 78 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 production-cum-receipt memo dated 16.07.2007 . Ex.PW30/4 . He identified the signature of H. S. Manku at point A as the document has been signed in his presence and he also identified his own signature at point B.
187. He has further deposed that Statement of Account in respect of SB Account number 2054 Mark- PW30/C in the name of Lords CGHS from 29.01.2004 to 05.07.2004, was received vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 16.07.2007 Ex. PW30/4. He has deposed that cheques of Rs. 55 lakhs issued by President of Lords CGHS in favoure of MDR Food vide cheque no. 143447 dated 25.03.2004, Rs. 50, 02400/- issued by President of Lords CGHS in favour of MDR Food vide cheque no. 143449 dated 27.03.2004, Rs. 10 lakhs issued by President of Lords CGHS in favour of MDR Food vide cheque no. 143448 dated 26.03.2004, Mark-PW30/D (Colly) were received vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 16.07.2007 Ex. PW30/4.
188. He has deposed that original account opening CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 79 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 form of Lords CGHS opened by accused Mahesh Kumar, Devender Kumar and Anuradha Goyal vide SB account No. 2054 dated 29.01.2004, along with other documents i.e. Mark-PW30/E (Colly) was received vide production-cum-receipt memo dated 16.07.2007 Ex. PW30/4. He has deposed that the document mentioned in receipt- cum-production memo dated 09.08.2007 Ex. PW30/5, was received from H.S. Manku, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. He identified the signature of H.S. Manku at point A as the document has been signed in his presence and this witness has also identified his own signature at point B.
189. He has deposed that cheques i.e. Mark PW30/F (colly) were received from Punjab and Sindh Bank and deposit slip placed vide receipt-cum- production memo dated 09.08.2007 Ex. PW30/5. He has deposed that production-cum-receipt memo dated 16.07.2007 ( which is already PW30/4).
190. He has deposed that vide receipt memo dated CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 80 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 12.10.2007 Ex. PW30/6, the document mentioned in memo received from Sh. S.K Seth, Head Clerk, RCS Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He identified the signature of Sh. S.K Seth, Head Clerk at point A as the document has been signed in his presence and he also identified his own signature at point B.
191. He has further deposed that file of New Delhi, CGHS vide registration no. F-47/NGH/637/COOP Mark PW30/G (colly) was received from RCS, vide receipt memo dated 12.10.2007 Ex. PW30/6. He has further deposed that Audit Report of New Delhi, CGHS period from 1987 to 1988, 1988-89 Mark PW30/H (colly) was received vide receipt memo dated 12.10.2007 Ex. PW30/6. He has deposed that file relating registration certificate bye laws signed by all the member of New Delhi, CGHS received from RCS office (note sheet filed of New Delhi, CGHS file no.
F47/637(GH)COOP.1183) Mark PW30/I (colly) was received vide receipt memo dated 12.10.2007 Ex. PW30/6 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 81 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
192. He has deposed that letter regarding request for forwarding list of member to DDA for allotment of land for New Delhi, CGHS signed by Secretary, Ram Babu Sharma dated 05.04.1984 along with affidavit are Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B. The show cause notice issued by Deputy Registrar South and letter regarding request for forwarding list of member to DDA for allotment of land for New Delhi, CGHS signed by Secretary, Ram Babu Sharma dated 05.04.1984 along with affidavit are Ex. PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B. The show cause notice issued by Deputy Registrar South Mark PW30/J were received receipt memo dated 12.10.2007 Ex. PW30/6.
193. He has deposed that vide receipt cum production memo dated 03.05.2007 Ex. PW30/7 the document mentioned in aforesaid memo has been received from accused Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Secretary of Lords CGHS and he identified his signature at point A as he signed in my presence during the preparation of aforesaid memo by him. He also identified his own signature at point B. CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 82 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
194. He has further deposed that Audit File Mark PW30/K (colly) for the period from 1983-84 to 2001-2002 of Lords CGHS, audited by accused P.K Thirwani was received vide receipt cum production memo dated 03.05.2007 Ex. PW30/7. He has deposed that DDA file Mark PW30/L (colly), Lords CGHS has been received vide receipt cum production memo dated 03.05.2007 Ex. PW30/7.
195. He has deposed that Letter addressed to the Director, Govt. Examiner of Question documents, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh sent by A.K Ohri the then S.P. CBI EOU-VI dated 11.05.2007 alongwith enclosures Ex. PW27/A (colly) was sent to GEQD for obtaining expert opinion. He identified the signature of the then S.P. CBI A.K Ohri at point A as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He also identified his own signature at points B on Annexure- I, II and III. He has further deposed that acknowledgment dated 14.05.2007 Ex. PW27/F was received in the office of S.P CBI CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 83 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 EOU-VI during investigation. He has further deposed that the receipt cum production memo (seizure memo) dated 26.06.2007 is Ex. PW30/1). He has deposed that the document mentioned in Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 i.e. Ex. PW30/8, was taken from Shamsher Singh Dy. S.P. CBI/EOU-VI, New Delhi by him. He identified the signature of Shamsher Singh Dy. S.P. CBI/EOU-VI, as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties and also identified his own signature at point B.
196. He has deposed that a file having Correspondence and Noting maintained by DDA pertaining to the present society file bearing No. F7(07)2003/GH/DDA Ex. PW25/A colly, had been received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that a proceeding register form 06.01.2003 to 12.01.2005 related to Lords CGHS Ex. PW18/B (colly) was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 84 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
PW30/8.
197. He has further deposed that Proceeding Register Mark PW30/M from 20.10.2002 to 16.02.2003 was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that Proceeding Register Mark PW30/N (colly) from 24.07.1983 to 24.09.1987 was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8.
198. He has further deposed that Membership Register from serial No. 124 to 283 Mark PW30/O (colly) was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that a file Mark PW30/P (colly) regarding Resignation letter from page no. 1 to 337 was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8.
199. He has further deposed that a file Mark PW30/Q (colly) having Registration certificate, Bye laws, Freeze list, application of registration of society from page no. 1 to 41 was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 85 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 PW30/8. He has further deposed that Proceeding Register, GBM from 11.07.2004 to 14.11.2004 Mark PW30/R (colly), was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8.
200. He has deposed that Proceeding Register, GBM from 04.01.2004 to 13.02.2004 Ex. PW18/A (colly) was received by Handing over/Taking over memo dated 05.01.2007 Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that letter addressed to him sent by Account Officer (project INA DDA) dated 04.10.2007 alongwith enclosures Ex. PW30/9 (colly) , have been received by him through speed post during investigation of the present case.
201. He has deposed that vide letter addressed to Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi, Letter No. 5992/3/72006 EOU- VI dated 06.08.2007 Ex. PW30/10 was sent by him for Bank documents related to Lords CGHS in respect of original demand drafts, original documents such as Pay-in-slip, Deposit slip, Withdraw-in-slip were called during the course of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 86 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 investigation. He (PW 30) identified his signature on the aforementioned letter at point A and also identified his official seal at point B.
202. He has deposed that letter dated 13.08.2007 addressed to Sh. N. Mahto, Inspector of Police, EOU-VI, Block No. 03, 5th Floor, CGO complex, New Delhi sent by Central Bank of India, Chief Manager, Subhash Chandra Srivastava along with documents Ex. PW30/11(colly) mentioned therein, has been received by him during investigation. He has further deposed that vide letter dated 31.08.2007 address to S.P CBI EOU-VI, Block-03, CGO Complex sent by M.P Sharma, Assistant Registrar(S) along with one enclosure Ex. PW30/12, Assistant Registrar informed that documents in respect of Lords CGHS have already been sent to CBI for investigation and no document of the said society is available in this office and that letter was marked to him by the then S.P. Sh. S.K. Peshin. He (PW 30) identified the signature of the then S.P. Sh. S.K. Peshin as he had seen him writing and signing during the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 87 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 course of his official duties.
203. He has deposed that an acknowledgment sent by Govt. Examiner Shimla addressed to the S.P CBI, EOU-VI, New Delhi dated 17.09.2007, Ex. PW30/13 was received in office during the investigation of the present case. He has further deposed that letter dated 13.09.2007 Ex. PW27/B (colly) addressed to the Director, Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, Letter No. 6957/3/7/2006, EOU-VI along with Annexures was sent by the then S.P. CBI Sh. S.K Peshin and he identified the signature of the then S.P. CBI Sh. S.K Peshin at point A. As he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He has identified his own signature at points B on Annexure 1, 2 and 3.
204. He has deposed that Letter No. 6957/3/7/2006, EOU-VI dated 13.09.2007 Ex. PW27/B (colly) addressed to the Director, Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, along with Annexures was sent by the then S.P. CBI Sh. S.K Peshin . He has further deposed that CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 88 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 during the course of investigation GEQD reports Ex. PW27/X, Ex. PW27/X-1, Ex. PW27/E, Ex. PW27/C, Ex. PW27/D have been collected from GEQD and filed with the charge-sheet in the present case.
205. He has deposed that vide letter dated 13.12.2006 Ex. PW30/14 (colly) addressed to the initial IO of the present case i.e. Sh. Samsher Singh, DSP, EOU-VI, CGO Complex, New Delhi, documents attached therein were received during the course of investigation by initial IO Sh. Samsher Singh. And further, he received the aforesaid documents through Sh. Samsher Singh for the purpose of further investigation. He has deposed that documents Ex. PW30/14 (colly) i.e. Bank statement of account of Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Account No. 5680 in respect of Lords CGHS was received vide Receipt cum Production Memo dated 30.05.2007 Ex. PW30/7. He has deposed that vide Receipt cum Production Memo, a document related to Audit file was received. And after going through the complete file of Audit CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 89 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 report from 1983-1984 to 2001-2002, he deposed that the Audit file had been received during the course of investigation from accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Office bearer. The aforesaid file is at Ex. PW30/15 (colly).
206. He has further deposed that application form Ex.
PW30/16 (colly) of enrollment of Lords CGHS in respect of accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Kishan Kumar Mittal, Sunil Kumar, Sambhu Dyal Sharma, , had been received vide Production cum Receipt Memo Ex. PW30/7 from accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. He has further deposed that application form Ex. PW30/17 (colly) of enrollment of Lords CGHS in respect of Sunil Sharma, accused Mahesh Kumar, Shiv Charan Singh, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Mahavir Singh, Surender Kumar, Chetna Singal, Gurucharan Das Gupta, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Ramesh Kumar Shama, Ajay Kumar Goel, Naresh Kumar, Devendra Kumar Singh, Harpal Singh, Subhash Chand, Anuradha Goel, Sanjeev Khullar, accused Mahesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Bhushan CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 90 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Gupta, Subhash Gupta, Ashutosh Gupta, Satvir Singh, Satpal Singh and Neeru Bhalla, had been received vide Production cum Receipt Memo Ex. PW30/7 from accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal.
207. He has deposed that a RCS file Ex.
PW30/18(colly) related to Lords CGHS, D-16 to D-28 except D-24 had been received from initial IO Shamsher Singh vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that affidavits i.e. Ex. PW30/19 (colly) except Ex. PW27/X2, Ex. PW18/F, Ex. PW16/A, Ex. PW19/B, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/D, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW3/A of members submitted at the time of revival of lords CGHS had been received vide handing over/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that request letter Ex. PW30/20 for revival of Lords CGHS to RCS dated 19.12.2002 signed by Ajay Kumar Secretary had been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
208. He has deposed that Affidavit Ex. PW30/21 of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 91 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Ajay Kumar Goel shown as a Secretary of Lords CGHS, had been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that affidavit Ex. PW30/22 of Ajay Kumar Goel shown as a Secretary of Lords CGHS had been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has deposed that an affidavit Ex. PW30/23 of accused Mahesh Kumar shown as a President of Lords CGHS had been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. An Affidavit Ex. PW30/24 of Ajay Kumar Goel shown as a Secretary of Lords CGHS had been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
209. He has deposed that request Ex. PW30/25 (colly) for withdrawal of deposit amount and resignation letter of operating members namely Mahavir Lal, Brij Lal Sharma, Shanti Devi, Radhika Sohali, Ram Babu Sharma, R.L Gupta and D.P Gupta which has been also signed in the name of Ajay Kumar, Secretary Lords CGHS, had been received for the purpose of investigation and also received CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 92 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
210. He has deposed that letter dated 27.12.2002 addressed to Ex-president Secretary Lords CGHS which had been signed by J.S Sharma, Assistant Registrar in respect of verification of records Ex. PW30/26 (colly) had been received for the purpose of investigation and also received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has further deposed that vide Notice Ex. PW30/27 (colly) issued to President/Secretary Lords CGHS by RCS dated 20.12.2002, documents had been received for the purpose of investigation and also received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
211. He has deposed that Annual General Body meeting dated 20.10.2002 alongwith consolidated list of members enrolled and consolidated list of members resigned Ex. PW30/28 (colly) had been received for the purpose of investigation and also received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has deposed that Freezed list of 115 member signed by President and accused Mahesh, CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 93 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Kumar, Secretary and Ajay Kumar Ex. PW 4/D had been received for the purpose of investigation and also received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
212. He has deposed that information in respect of revival of Lords CGHS was received in RCS office vide letter dated 19.12.2002 Ex. PW30/29 . The original records alongwith copy of registration certificate, bye-laws and other relevant documents correspondence have also been received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has deposed that vide circular Ex. PW22/B, issued by V.P. Singh dated 12.12.2002, in respect of tracing out of main file of Lords CGHS, RCS, had requested to the society to furnish original records alongwith copy of registration certificate, bye-laws and other relevant documents correspondence were received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
213. He has deposed that vide Wind-up order dated 28.09.1989 in respect of Lords CGHS signed by Registrar (GH) Hansh Raj, RCS vide which CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 94 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 requested was made to the society to furnish original records alongwith copy of registration certificate, bye-laws and other relevant documents correspondence. The same were received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8. He has deposed that copy of request for revival of Lords CGHS, page no. 4/C and original at page no. 1/C is placed at D-38. He has deposed that vide aforesaid letter/document, RCS had requested to the society to furnish original records alongwith copy of registration certificate, bye-laws and other relevant documents correspondence which were received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
214. He has deposed that vide request for revival of Lords CGHS dated 28.11.2002, Ex. PW22/C, RCS had requested to the society to furnish original records alongwith copy of registration certificate, bye-laws and other relevant documents correspondence which were received vide handing/taking over memo Ex. PW30/8.
215. He has further deposed that list of managing CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 95 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 committee of members 2002- 2003, List of resign member 2001-02, List of Books of Accounts and Records, Balance sheet of society 31.03.2001, List of resign members 2000-2001, Balance sheet 31.03.2000, List of members resign during the year 1999-2000, Balance sheet 31.03.1988, Receipt and Payment account ending on 31.03.1999, Certificate of cash in hand, Receipt and Payment account year ending on 31.03.1998, List of resign member during the year 1998-99, List of resign member during the year 1997-98, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1997, Certificate of cash in hand, List of resign member during the year 1996-97, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1996, List of resign member during the year 1995-96, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1995, List of resign member during the year 1994-95, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1994, Receipt and Payment account for the ending year 31.03.1994, List of resign member during the year 1993-94, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1993, List of resign member during the year 1992-93, Balance sheet as on 31.03.1992, were CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 96 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 seized vide handing over/taking over memo (Ex. PW30/8).
216. He has deposed that specimen writing pertaining to accused Ashwani Sharma, S-1 to S-136 and S-259 to S-276 Ex. PW30/26(colly), had been taken in the presence of probably namely Ram Niwas, Asst. Superintendent, Central Jail and he (witness) had identified the signature of the Asst. Superintendent, Central Jail at point A as he has signed the aforesaid proceedings in his presence. He has also identified his own signature at point B alongwith his official seal of CBI. He (PW 30) had also identified the signature of accused Ashwani Sharma at points C on each page.
217. He has deposed that specimen signature i.e. Ex.
PW30/27 (colly) pertaining to accused Naveen Kaushik, S-137 to S-258, had been taken in the presence of independent witness Balbir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. He identified the signature of Balbir Singh at point A as he has signed his presence. He also identified his own signature at point B. He also identified the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 97 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 signature of accused Naveen Kaushik at points C on each page.
218. He has deposed that specimen signature Ex.
PW30/28 (colly) pertaining to accused Mahesh Kumar, S-277 to S-285, had been taken in the presence of independent witness Balbir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. He identified the signature of Balbir Singh at point A as he had signed in his presence. He also identified his own signature at point B. He also identified the signature of accused Mahesh Kumar at points C on each page.
219. He has further deposed that specimen signature Ex. PW30/29 (colly) pertaining to accused Narayan Diwakar from S-286 to S-289 had been taken in the presence of independent witness Balbir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. He identified signature of Balbir Singh at point A as he had signed in his presence. He also identified his own signature at point B. He also identified the signature of accused Narayan Diwakar at points C on each page.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 98 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
220. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 30.03.2007 pertaining to accused Ashutosh Pant from S-290 to S-296, S-298 to S-310, S-312 to S-317 i.e. Ex. PW30/30 (colly), had been taken in Tihar Jail in the presence of Asst. Superintendent Mr. Rampal. He identified the signature of Mr. Rampal at points A as he had signed in his presence and identified his own signature at points B on each page. He also identified the signature of accused Ashutosh Pant at points C on each page.
221. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 24.03.2007 pertaining to accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal from S-318 to S-337 and S-337/1, S-338 to S-351, S-382 to S-386, S-415 to S-461 Ex. PW30/31 (colly) had been taken in the presence of Mr. Ram Kumar and he identified the signature of Mr. Ram Kumar at points A on each page as independent witness had signed in his presence. He also identified his own signature at points B on each page.
222. He has deposed that specimen signature from S-415 to S-461 had been taken in the presence of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 99 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Mr. Balbir Singh and he identified the signature of Gokul Chand Aggarwal at points C on each page. He identified the signature of Mr. Balbir Singh at point A. He identified the signature of Gokul Chand Aggarwal at points C on each page. He also identified his own signature at point B.
223. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 15.05.2007 pertaining to accused Gopal Singh Bisht from S-387 to S-393 Ex. PW30/32 (colly), had been taken in the presence of Mr. Balbir Singh and it bears Balbir Singh signatures at points A on each page. He identified the signature of Mr. Balbir singh as he had signed in his presence. He identified the signature of accused Gopal Singh Bisht at points C on each page. He also identified his own signature at points B on each page.
224. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 30.05.2007 pertaining to Vinay Kumar from S-394 to S-399 Ex. PW30/33 (colly), had been taken in the presence of independent witness namely, Mr. Balbir Singh and identified the signature of Mr. Balbir Singh at points A on each page as he had CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 100 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 signed in presence. He had also identified the signature of Vinay Kumar at points C as he had signed in his presence. He also identified his own signature at points B on each page.
225. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 01.09.2007 pertaining to S.P Singh from S-400 to S-404 Ex. PW30/34 (colly) had been taken in the presence of independent witness namely Mr. Balbir Singh and identified the signature of Mr. Balbir Singh at points A on each page as he had signed his presence. He also identified his own signature at points B on each page.
226. He has deposed that specimen signature dated 06.09.2007 pertaining to J.S Sharma from S-405 to S-414 Ex. PW30/35 (colly), had been taken in the presence of independent witness namely Balbir Singh and he also identified his signature at points A as he had signed in his presence. He identified the signature of J.S. Sharma at points C as he had signed in his presence. He identified his own signature at point B.
227. He has deposed that charge report Mark PW30/36 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 101 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 had been handed over by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal during investigation and probably he had also given receipt in this regard to accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, of Lord CGHS Society where it was mentioned that on 11.07.2004 election of Lord CGHS was held in the office of Society KU-81, Pritampura Delhi. In which new member of the managing committee were elected accordingly original record of the society were handed over by outgoing managing committee to the incoming managing committee. Where it had been mentioned that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal is the President in the present society and accused Mahesh Kumar also shown as a office bearer of the society.
228. He has deposed that letter alongwith Annexures i.e. Ex. PW30/37, addressed to the Director Govt. Examiner of Questioned document Shimla Himachal Pradesh dated 13.09.2007 which had been sent by the then S.P., S.K Peshin, for obtaining expert opinion and he identified the signature of the then S.P., S.K. Peshin at point A CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 102 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 and also identified his own signature on the Annexures I, II, III at points B.
229. He has deposed that a request Mark PW30/38 for withdrawal of deposit and resignation from membership, shown to be resigned by Sohan Lal and letter regarding request for revival (only 2 nd part of the letter is available), was received from initial IO Shamsher Singh by handing and taking over memo Ex. PW30/8 . He has further depsoed that Receipt cum Production Memo dated 22.11.2007 Ex. PW 30/39, receipt of Rs. 125/- in the name of V.K Kapoor (Virender Kapoor) of Lord CGHS had been taken over by Virender Kapoor during investigation. He identified his own signature at point A and also identified the signature of Virender Kapoor at point B.
230. He has deposed that photocopy of receipt of Rs.
110/- in respect of membership fee of the members of society which was shown as signed by Ajay Kumar in original was received from initial IO Shamsher Singh by handing and taking over memo Ex. PW30/8 . He has depsoed that letter CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 103 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 received from State Bank from Bikaner and Jaipur addressed to the then S.P. CBI, R.S Dhankar alongwith documents Mark PW30/40 (colly) sent by the said Bank, it was informed that Account No. 28791 in the name of MDR Foods was required for the purpose of investigation. He has deposed that a reply had been received from the said Bank and documents had been also sent by Bank. He has deposed that aforesaid documents had been received in RC-12(S)/06/CBI/SCRIII, New Delhi (Railway Line Staff, CGHS). It had been found that aforesaid account was in the name of accused Mahesh Kumar.
231. He has deposed that after obtaining sanction from prosecution in respect of public servant and after getting GEQD opinion following examination of relevant witnesses, charge-sheet has been filed.
232. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
233. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.2025, prosecution evidence were closed on the submission of Ld Sr PP for CBI.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 104 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
UNDER SECTION 313 Cr P.C.
234. After completion of prosecution evidence. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded by the Court.
235. The answers given by accused Narayan Diwakar, during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, to most of the questions put to him were either " I do not know or it is a matter of record. However, he answers differently to few questions.
236. In respect of the question regarding revival order dated 28.11.2002 on the basis of forged document, accused Narayan Diwakar replied that "
Investigation was faulty and biased. The order of revival was a quasi-judicial order and had attained finality in the eyes of law. CBI is not a competent body to term order of revival as illegal. PW30 had filed a false case against me.
237. When the accused Narayan Diwakar was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that "
This is a false case against me".
238. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 105 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 " I have been falsely implicated in the present case. No PWs have deposed as against me.
I would further like to submit that In the present case the Liquidation proceedings were never finalized. By the operation of law (Rule 105 DCS Rules) the winding-up proceedings stood automatically terminated by after three years (maximum period). As per Rule 105 of the Delhi Cooperative Rules 1973 there is a provision for the deemed termination of the winding-up proceedings (maximum 3 years after the passing of the winding-up order) after which the Registrar is bound to cancel the winding-up orders by passing an order to this effect in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (VIKAS CGHS v. RCS etc.). I complied with the said orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. I was appointed as the Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS) Delhi under S.3 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. At the time of the passing of the order(s) of cancelling the winding-up I was aware of the judgment delivered by the Double Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the Civil Writ Petition No. 1767 / 1986 case entitled "VIKAS COOPERTIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. V. RCS "(decided on 21st Nov. 1986). Secondly it is submitted that cancelling the winding-up order of the society had nothing to do with the availability or the verification of the records. The only aspect that was to be taken into account was the provision of Rule 105 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rule, 1973. Therefore, the act(s) performed by me were done in absolute good faith CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 106 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 taking all the necessary steps as provided under the law. The copy of the judgment in "VIKAS CGHS v. RCS" is enclosed here-
with. There is no circumstance appearing against me. Therefore I may kindly be acquitted.
It is also pertinent to mention that the CBI has neither obtained sanction to prosecute under S.197 Cr.P.C. nor under S.19 of the PC Act. The said two sanctions operate in distinct mechanism and were mandatory even for a retired public servant. As per the newly amended law i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, (amended till 2018) applicable even to the present case (pending trial) the sanction under S.19 of the PC Act is now mandatory even for the retired public servants. Needless to mention that the provision of S.13(1)(d) of the old PC Act, 1988 has now been repealed. The present case is devoid of merits and also suffers the discrepancy due to the later amendments of 2018 which are applicable to the present pending case. Furthermore, it will be relevant to add that Dr. Kamini Lau the Ld. Spl. Judge, CBI had referred by way of reference under S.395 Cr.P.C. raising the question of scope & applicability vis-à-vis S.19 of the P.C. Act in respect of retired servants in the pending cases where the sanction under S.19 of the PC Act has not been taken in respect of the retired public servants. Thus the reference of the matter relating to the applicability of the newly amended PC Act (2018 amendment) is still pending before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter "M.Soundararajan v. State" Crl.A. CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 107 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 (MD) No.488 of 2018 has observed: "14. By amending paragraph 8 in Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 certain offences under the prevention of corruption Act,1988 are included to the PMLA,2002. Since, offence analogous is already in statute prior to the amendment, Chapter IV A and section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 alone will fall away from protection given under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution and therefore will have application to the pending cases either under investigation or pending trial after investigation."
Charges of conspiracy levelled under section 120(B) IPC are not sustainable against me. During my tenure as RCS, Delhi from 2001 to 2004 the entire RCS office was fully computerised by launching its own website on which about 10 lakh data was uploaded to cover to various information pertaining to about 5000 Cooperative Societies including the group housing societies with details of management committee of all societies, particulars of individual members, its election and audit position were given for the information to all concerned and the effected citizens of Delhi. A wide publication was also given this website through local newspapers and electronic media. There was facility for any type of enquiry complaint from the effected / interested persons of the public in order to speedy redressal of their complaints and grievances. The RCS office was given the distinction of completing the gigantic task of computerization in a fixed time schedule.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 108 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 For this achievement, a letter of appreciation was given by the Chief Secretary of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is therefore emphasized that in the face of such a transparency in the working of the department there cannot be any scope for any conspiracy of any kind either with any official of the department or the persons outside. It is established factor that transparency and conspiracy cannot go together."
239. During the statement, recorded u/s 313 Cr P.C, accused Gopal Singh Bhist has given answers to most of the question as "I do not know".
240. With regard to question that his specimen signature dated 15.05.2007 from S-387 to S-393 Ex. PW30/32 (colly), were taken in the presence of Mr. Balbir Singh. He has replied that " It is incorrect. Witnesses to specimen signatures are planted witnesses of CBI."
241. With regard to question of giving sanction order dated 31.12.2007 Ex. PW13/A (colly) by PW13 R.K. Srivastava. He has answered that " There is no material on record to show what document if any were ever send for perusal and for taking sanction. Even from the statement of PW13 it is amply clear that case records were actually not forwarded to him except the SP report CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 109 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 (for which also there is no proof on record). Sanction was passed without application of mind and in a mechanical manner."
242. When the accused Gopal Singh Bisht was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that "This is a false case against me."
243. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, has given answers to most of the question as " I do not know "
However, he answer to question that his specimen signature dated 24.03.2007 from S-318 to S-337 and S-337/1, S-338 to S-351, S-382 to S-386, S-415 to S-461 Ex. PW30/31 (colly) placed at D-125/D had been taken in the presence of Mr. Ram Kumar. He has replied that " It is incorrect. No specimen signatures of writing were taken from him and he was never called at CBI office for giving alleged specimen signatures or writing."
244. When the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that "It is a false case against me on the basis of false and fabricated GEQD report. CBI officials falsely implicated me on the basis of false and frivolous evidence in the present case. There is no complaint against me from DDA, RCS office or any member of the Lord CGHS.".
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 110 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
245. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
" I do not had any role in the revival of Lord CGHS Society. I am not a beneficiary of any land in the society. I was not a member of the society. No flat was allotted to me. I am innocent. I was falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI officials."
246. Accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
247. Similarly, the answers given by accused Mahesh Kumar , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him, were either "I do not know " or " it is a matter of record." However, he has answers to few questions.
248. When the accused Mahesh Kumar was asked as to why this case is against him, he replied that " I have been falsely implicated in the present case, in order to save the actual accused persons."
249. Accused Mahesh Kumar opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
250. In reply to the question whether he wants to say CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 111 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 anything else , he replied:
" I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I have never taken membership in any Co-operative Group Housing Society. During the relevant period, my maternal uncle namely, Ram Kishan Chawla Wale and his friend, one Mr Anand Prakash had instructed me and my family to deposit some money with the DDA on behalf of some Co-operative Group Housing Society, as a loan. As Mr. Ram Kishan Chawla Wale was my real maternal uncle (Mama), we got prepared a challan in favour of the DDA for the said amount, through M/s MDR Foods, which is a proprietorship concern. After some time, we received our money back. It is pertinent to mention that, at the time of extending the above-mentioned loan, my maternal uncle i.e., Mr. Ram Kishan Chawal Wale and his friend Mr. Anand Prakash also obtained my signatures and that of my family members on certain papers. I am not aware of the nature and/ or contents of the documents, on which my signatures were so obtained. I had also disclosed this fact to PW 30 Narender Mahto, during the investigation of the present case. I have been made a scapegoat in the present case, wherein I have been falsely implicated with the sole purpose to shield the real accused persons. My specimen and/ or admitted signatures were never obtained in the present case. It is also pertinent to mention that, several persons whose roles are described to be identical to allegations levelled against me, have been arrayed as a witness, while I have been falsely implicated as an CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 112 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
accused."
251. The answers given by accused P.K. Thirwani,
during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr PC, to most of the questions put to him, were either " I have no knowledge or "It is a matter of record. I had conducted the Audit of the Society in good faith, as per the documents/ records produced by the society".
252. When the accused accused P.K. Thirwani was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " This is a false case. I have not committed any crime under the IPC or PC Act. In addition to the bald allegation, there is nothing incriminating against me which connects me to the case. I have been wrongly prosecuted without being an iota of evidence against me."
253. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
"I had been working as a departmental auditor in the audit branch of the RCS office since 13th May 2000 to 29th September 2004 as auditor and my duty was to conduct the audit of various societies like CGHS, Thrift and credit society, transport society and store cooperative etc. The audit of the said society was assigned to me by the then AR (Audit) after he obtained the approval of RCS for the period from 1983-84 to 2001-02, I had CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 113 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 conducted the audit of the society in good faith on the basis of the records produced by the society. I as an auditor was responsible for conducting audit of the society and as per my knowledge and wisdom if any deficiency was found in the audit report, I used to mention the same in my Audit report. It was the duty of the concerned zone to take necessary steps for getting necessary compliance from the society or to get the objections raised in the audit report removed, before sending the list to Policy Branch of the office of RCS for onward transmission to DDA. In The present case also I had raised objections in my Audit Report pertaining to LORDS CGHS. Had I been in conspiracy, I would never had done so. There is absolutely no evidence on record to connect me with the criminal conspiracy, if any, in the case. It is a false case based on wrong interpretation of laws/evidence amounting to abuse of process of law by the prosecution. There is no complaint of any aggrieved person nor there is any loss to any individuals or the Governments. There is no evidence of any pecuniary benefit having been obtained by me or my family in the case. There is no violation of DCS Act/Rules/Directives by which any favour has been shown to any person or corporate body. Auditor has no role in the revival of the Society nor the list was sent to the DDA for land offer on the basis of Audit Report.
1 was not in picture till revival of the society as the Audit of the society was conducted after the Revival of the society and forwarding of the approved freezed list of members to DDA and had not dealt with the file at all during this process and as such CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 114 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 there was no question of my being part of criminal conspiracy for the revival of the society if any. My Audit report had no bearing on the revival order (which was done earlier to it) nor on the forwarding of the list of members to DDA by the Policy Branch. No incriminating material has been recovered from me during Investigation. There is no evidence against me for having cheated any person. I had done audit based on the documents provided by the society. I had no Knowledge of the same being allegedly forged one. It is the responsibility of the society to furnish correct information and the documents.
I acted in a bona-fide manner. I had not committed anything wrong. There is no Incriminating material against me. My sanction u/section 19 of PC Act 1988 is an Invalid Sanction, was obtained In a mechanical manner by an Incompetent Authority without application of mind without going through any of the relevant documents and the same cannot be relied upon. In addition to this there is no sanction u/section 197 of CrPC obtained against me for IPC offences, which is mandatory and as such the prosecution is illegal. I am innocent and had been wrongly implicated."
254. Accused P.K. Thirwani has opted to lead defence in his defence, but he has not produced any Defence Evidence.
255. Accused Vijay Kumar Agarwal, during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, has answered to CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 115 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 most of the questions that "I do not know as it does not pertain to my tenure or Freeze list was filed before I became office bearer of the society.".
256. When the accused Vijay Kumar Agarwal was asked as to why this case is against him ,he replied that " No public witness has deposed against me. There is certain deposition which are given at the behest of CBI. ".
257. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied as under:
"I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I was not associated with the society when it was revived. I became office bearer much after the land allotted to the society by DDA. In fact, possession of land was also taken before I became office bearer. There is no allegation of me getting any pecuniary benefit much less illegally or by wrong means. I, like other office bearers of the society, was performing my duties. It is submitted that none of the members inducted during the tenure of me being one of the office bearers were challenged. It is submitted that there is no reason cited in the entire chargesheet as to why I was singled out and prosecuted from the other office bearers of the society during the common tenure."
258. He has opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
259. The answers given by accused Ashwani Sharma , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 116 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
"I do not know" .
260. To the questions, with regard to taking specimen signatures /writing from S-1 to S-136 and S-259 to S-276 Ex. PW30/26(colly), taken in the presence of probably namely Ram Niwas, Asst. Superintendent, Central Jail, he replied that " It is incorrect. No alleged specimen handwriting and signatures Ex.PW30/26(colly) from S-1 to S-136 and S-259 to S-276, placed at D-125/A were ever given by him in this case during investigation as stated by PW30."
261. When accused Ashwani Sharma was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " None of the PW's has deposed against me except the investigating officer with malafied intention and if, any person deposed against me apart from investigating officer, that is because of the pressure of the IO of this case.
262. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
"I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 117 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
263. Accused Ashwani Sharma has not led any evidence in his defence.
264. The accused Ashutosh Pant , during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, stated to the most of questions put to him that " I do not know " He answers differently to few questions.
265. When the accused Ashutosh Pant was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that "None of the PW's has deposed against me except the investigating officer with malafied intention and if, any person deposed against me apart from investigating officer, that is because of the pressure of the IO of this case."
266. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied that :
"I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
267. Accused Ashutosh Pant has not led any evidence in his defence.
268. Answers given by accused Naveen Kaushik, during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 118 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 most of the questions put to him were " I do not know " However, he has answers differently to few questions.
269. When accused Naveen Kaushik was asked that his specimen signature i.e. Ex. PW30/27 (colly) S-137 to S-258, placed at D-125/B, had been taken in the presence of independent witness Balbir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. He replied :
" It is incorrect. No alleged specimen handwriting and signatures Ex.PW30/27(colly) from S-137 to S-258, placed at D-125/B were ever given by him in this case during investigation as stated by PW30."
270. When he was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied:
" This is a false case filed by the IO against me with malafide intention. He has not conducted fair and proper investigation. Further, he has made me scapegoat in this case with vested interest. The investigation conducted by IO (PW-34) was arbitrary, unfair and was not in accordance with law. It is evident from his testimony that the investigation done by him is a sham exercise."
271. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied:
" I am innocent. Investigation conducted by the investigating officer in this case is perfunctory, partial, improper and shoddy. Further, the investigating officer has not taken my specimen handwriting / signatures, nor I have given any specimen handwriting / signatures in this case. I CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 119 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 will file my written submission u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C."
272. Accused Naveen Kaushik opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
273. Similarly, the answers given by accused N.S Khatri , during the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, were " I do not know or I have no knowledge "
except answers given differently to a few questions.
274. When the accused N.S Khatri was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that " This is a false case against him.
275. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything else , he replied: " I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the case. There is absolutely no evidence against me in the case. I have not been linked with any forged document. I never forged any document. I did not commit any wrong. "
276. Accused N.S, Khatri opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
277. I have heard Ld Counsel for the accused persons as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI and have gone through the file also. I also considered the same.
278. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the sanction in the present case has been accorded by the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 120 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 competent authority against the public servants / accused persons qua offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. And so far as sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is concerned. There is no need to obtain the same as the act being done by the public servants/ accused persons was not within the ambit of being done by them in discharge of their official duty.
279. It is argued that the sanction order against the public servant has been accorded by the sanctioning authority by applying its minds being based upon the material before it. The draft of the sanction order may be sent to the sanctioning authority by the investigating agency and merely sending the draft sanction is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is further argued that the evidence of the handwriting expert is a vital evidence which has been proved by the prosecution against the accused persons. It can be safely relied upon by the Court. It is submitted that mens rea is not necessary to be proved for the charges being framed U/S 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act against the accused persons charge with. It is CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 121 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 further argued that if a fact has been deposed by a witness in his /her examination in chief and no question is put to the witness in cross examination on that fact, it amounts to admission of that fact. Learned Senior PP argued that the evidence brought on record against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt against them.
280. Learned Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the following case law:
I) Hema Vs State of Madrass Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2013 State of Appeal.
ii) Murari Lal Vs State of MP AIR 531
iii) K. Satwant Singh Vs The State of Punjab, 1960 AIR 266, 1960 SCR (2)89
iv)Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State Crl. Appeal No.19/2007.
v) Munna Lal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh criminal Appeal no-490 of 2017
vi) Yash Pal Mittal Vs State of Punjab 1978 SCR
vii)Umesh Kumar Vs State of A.P. decided on 06/09/2013, criminal Appeal No-1305 of 2013.
viii) State of Maharastra Tr. CBI Vs Mahesh G Jain 28/05/2013, criminal Appeal No-2345/2009
ix) Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana decided on 23/05/2024. SC
x) Iqbal Mussa Patel Vs State of Gujrat 2011 2011 SCC (Cri.) 654.
xi) Renu Gosh Vs CBI decided on 2111 SCC OnLine Del 5501
xii) State through S.P Nalini CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 122 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
xiii) Sushil Kumar Tiwari Vs. Hare Ram Sah and Ors SLP(Crl) No.18377 of 2024.
281. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused persons have vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove charges being framed against the accused persons.
282. Considered. Perused.
283. This is an admitted fact that the said society was registered under Nos. 615 G/H with office of RCS on 22.9.1983 having its registered office at 1668/1, Govind Puri Extn., New Delhi. At the time of registration, it had an MC headed by Amrit Lal and had a strength of 75 founder members. The freeze list of 70 members was sent to DDA on 4.9.1989 by the office of RCS. It is also a fact that the society was put under liquidation on 28.9.1989 as it had not submitted documents as asked by RCS from time to time and remained under liquidation.
284. As per the allegations in the charge sheet the said society was allegedly got revived on the basis of forged documents. The allegations are that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy for revival CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 123 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 of the said society and also forged the document for that purpose.
285. The question which has to be answered by the Court is as to whether accused persons charge with have committed forgery in the record of the said society for getting revival of it.
286. Before giving any observation whether the accused persons have committed the offence or not . I would like to discuss, firstly the evidence of GEQD qua disputed handwriting . And whether the prosecution has able to prove the opinion of handwriting expert to the extent that it were the accused persons who have committed the forgery. Because the prosecution is vehemently relying upon the evidence of handwriting expert.
287. The admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert report is based upon certain facts because it is corroborated in nature and not a substantial evidence. Before giving any observation upon the admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert. I would like to mention here certain judgments being rendered by the Hon,ble High Courts as CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 124 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to evidential value of hand writing expert.
288. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709 has held that " Relevancy of Expert's Opinion rest on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached by the expert is also relevant".
289. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of H.P. Vs Jai Lal & Ors (1999) 7 SCC 280 has observed that "credibility of expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. The report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross examination".
290. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sandeep Dixit Vs State Crl Rev 260/2011 decided CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 125 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 on 27th April 2012 has observed " that the opinion of an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is merely an opinion and not a conclusive proof of the validity of the handwriting in question and the learned ASJ exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the framing of charge against the petitioner merely on the report of the GEQD without corroboration."
291. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 has observed that "We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 126 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
292. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Maharashtra Vs Damu S/O Gopinath Shinde & Others (2000) 6 SCC 269 has observed that "
without examining the expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed".
293. I would also like to mention here certain basic principle to be considered before relying upon the report/opinion of hand writing expert. The entire process of examination of documents by an expert can be looked at three stages i.e i) taking over of specimen signatures/handwriting pertaining to the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 127 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 accused persons (ii) sending the same to the GEQD alongwith questioned documents and
(iii) the report of the GEQD given after examination, on the basis of material sent to them.
294. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, prosecution is under obligation to establish beyond all doubt that all the above mentioned processes at different stages were done and executed in accordance with law and there is no doubt in either of the said processes. In case it is found that there is a serious doubt in the story of the prosecution at any stage of the process, then obviously benefit would go to the accused persons.
295. So in view of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Superior Courts on the admissibility of evidence of handwriting expert. I will consider the same while appreciating the evidence qua accused persons while dealing the evidence against accused persons in particular. And while considering their specific role being alleged against them in committing forgery.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 128 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Settled proposition of law while considering sanctions for prosecution against the public servants.
296. One another issue in this case is whether the sanction accorded U/S 19 of the P.C Act against the public servants, who are charged in the present case for the offences U/S 15 r/w 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and substantive offences u/s 13(1)(d) punishable u/s13 (2) r/w sec. 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, is accorded by the competent authority after considering the necessary material before them. There are law being interpreted by the Hon'ble Superior Courts on the issues how the sanctioning authority has to considered the material placed before it, before according sanction against the public servant as well as its admissibility if same is not accorded as per law.
297. The sanction for prosecution of a public servant for the offence under P.C. Act is required U/S 19 (1) of P.C Act . Before further proceeding I would like to reproduce Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 129 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the PC Act.
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013--
a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 130 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
from his office."
298. On bare perusal of language of the section 19 (1) of P.C Act, the court is precluded from taking cognizance of an offence under certain sections mentioned in this provision if prosecution wants to prosecute a public servant. The sanction must be from competent Government, it may be Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. Even otherwise, if the cognizance is taken, this issue can be raised subsequently and prosecution/ proceeding can be dropped if there is no valid sanction on record. The provision deals the intention of the legislature to protect a public servant against harassment and malicious prosecution.
299. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979 Cai LJ 633) has observed as under:
"The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned."
300. The Privy Council in the case of Gokul-chand CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 131 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Dwarkadas Momrka v. The King (AIR 1948 PC
82) has observed as under:
"The sanction to prosecute is an important matter, it constitutes a condition precedent to the Institution of the prosecution and the Government has an absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction. They are not, as the High Court seem to have thought, concerned merely to see that the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. They can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them, for example, that on political or economic grounds they regard a prosecution as inexpedient."
301. In the case of Bhagwan Mahadeo Sathe Versus State and Another, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2350, it was held that:-
"12. In the present case, the record indicates that the draft sanction letter was forwarded to the sanctioning authority along with the other papers. The actual sanction which is granted is verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction. This also clearly discloses that there was a non-application of mind while granting sanction to prosecute. Under all these circumstances, in my view, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted for the offences of which he is charged. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of."
302. In the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Crl.
Appeal No. 1838/2013 date of decision 22.11.2013. it was held that:
13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 132 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution.
Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.
15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non- application of mind.
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 133 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. 16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
303. In the case of the State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case under the provisions of the 1988 Act, wherein the prosecuting agency had submitted a very detailed report before the sanctioning authority and on consideration of the same, the competent authority had accorded the sanction.
Hon'ble Supreme Court found that though the report was a detailed one, however, such report could not be held to be the complete records CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 134 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 required to be considered for sanction on application of mind to the relevant material on record and thereby quashed the sanction.
304. Before further adverting to the facts of the case I will like to reproduced the observations made by The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Shakuntla Joshi & Ors CRL L.P. 128/2022, decided on 25.08.2025. That CRL L.P. was aroused from the RC No.18(a)/2006/SCU.V/CBI/SCR.II/New Delhi and CBI case No.184/2019, in which accused were acquitted. The said FIR was registered by the CBI on the basis of order of Hon'ble High Court, as the present FIR has been registered regarding reviving of CGHS. The observations are as under:
"28. The learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order after appreciating the evidence. The learned Trial Court scrutinized the acts and the conduct of the respondents to ascertain whether they were a part of the criminal conspiracy,and for the same, the record of the society maintained with the RCS office as well as CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 135 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the manner in which the application for revival of the society was processed in the RCS office.
29. Pursuant to the order dated 25.11.1999 passed by this Court remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Registrar, the society, after a lapse of nearly one year, filed an application before the Registrar on 10.10.2000 through its counsel.
30. The learned Trial Court observed that the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Accused No.
5), being a quasi-judicial authority, ought not to have entertained the society's application in view of the delay in filing the same. Nevertheless, he proceeded to conclude the proceedings and, within six months from the order of this Court dated 25.11.1999, disposed of the matter by cancelling the winding-up order, without seeking any explanation for such a huge delay.
31. After the first hearing, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had prepared the order dated 24.11.2000 noting the history of the winding up of the subject society, whereafter he issued CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 136 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 directions to the society to produce all original record to the Zonal Assistant Registrar. The file was later marked to the Dealing Assistant/Head Clerk, that is Respondent No. 2 who a prepared a detailed note dated 27.12.2000, wherein he has pointed out certain shortcomings in the membership register.
32. The file was then put up before the Assistant Registrar, that is, Respondent No. 2, who, on the same day, sent it to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for further action in the matter. The then Registrar, vide his order dated 01.01.2001 cancelled the winding up order dated 20.04.1992, subject to certain conditions as mentioned hereunder:
(i) That the President and Secretary of the Society shall file individual affidavits to abide by the statutory liabilities cast upon the Society vide Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.
(ii) The fresh affidavits from all the members will CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 137 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 be obtained and placed on record.
(iii) That the Society will produce original records for verification of list of members before the AR (North) within 30 days, who will submit his report thereafter in 30 days.
(iv). The pending audit shall be got conducted within two months time.
(v) That the elections to the Managing Committee may be held within next three months by calling a special general body meeting for the purpose and I hereby appoint Sh. S.S. Chhabra, Gr. IV Inspectors of the department as Election Officer to hold the election to the Managing Committee by convening the Special General Body Meeting in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.
33. The gravamen of the allegation against Respondent No. 1 is that she endorsed the note relating to the revival of the subject society without identifying deficiencies in the process and raising any objections thereof. It is alleged that she also failed to verify compliance with the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 138 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 conditions of the revival order dated 01.01.2001, before recommending the membership list for allotment of land, to the DDA, without disclosing that the elections to the Managing Committee had not been duly conducted, thereby favouring the beneficiaries.
34. Respondent No. 1 had forwarded the note dated 27.12.2000 prepared by Respondent No. 2, to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on the same day, requesting him to refer to the contents thereof, "for taking further view in the matter". The said note was placed before the Registrar of Cooperative unknown Societies, however, notwithstanding its contents, the Registrar proceeded to pass the revival order dated 01.01.2001.
35. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that Respondent No. I was not required to record anything further, as the note dated 27.12.2000, already containing the shortcomings in the records of the society, had been duly forwarded by her to the Registrar with a request to consider the same CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 139 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 for taking an appropriate view in the matter.
36. As noted in the note dated 01.01.2001, no direction was issued to Respondent No. 1 to take any further action pursuant to the revival order apart from the condition that the original records or verification of the membership list was to be produced before Respondent No. 1, and in the absence of any subsequent instruction or mandate, no omission can be attributed to her.
37. The membership list was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 29.03.2001, whereafter it was put up before Respondent No. 1 on 08.03.2001, pursuant to which it was sent to the DDA, for allotment of land. Respondent No. 1 made the following indorsement:
"May kindly see the note from Page 8/N to 11/M. As per order of worthy RCS on Page 6/N the relevant record submitted by the Society (placed alongside and duly flagged) has been verified by the dealing assistant. The report of pending & the report of election officer are still awaited. Submitted for further orders on "X" at prepage pl."
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 140 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
38. A perusal of the endorsement made by Respondent No. 1 reveals that she duly disclosed the fact that the audit report and the report of the election officer were still awaited and accordingly submitted the matter for further orders. There is no material to suggest that Respondent No. 1 was involved in any conspiracy to favour the accused persons or that she exhibited any criminal intent.
39. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court that Respondent No. 1 did not conduct any proceedings herself and was merely a concerned employee for receiving the note from the Dealing Assistant and forwarding the same to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. She neither checked the record of the subject society nor proposed any action to be taken. She merely perused the note prepared by Respondent No. 2 and forwarded the same to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for further action. There is no evidence to suggest that she favoured the accused persons or was in agreement with the criminal conspiracy hatched by them and acted in CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 141 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 furtherance of the same. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against Respondent No. 1 in connection with the alleged fraudulent revival of the society.
40. The role assigned to Respondent No. 2 is that he did not check the records of the subject society in a thorough manner and wilfully ignored the fact that the society had not produced the record pertaining to the resignation/ enrolment of the Promotor Members. Further, that in his report, he wrongly stated that the original record of the society had been verified, turning a blind eye to the fact that no resignation letters were produced before him, which, indicates that his final conclusion of verification of documents was based on suppression of material facts.
41. It is observed that Respondent No. 2, who was the Dealing Assistant, prepared two notes being note dated 27.12.2000 and 01.03.2001. The original records of the society were produced before Respondent No. 2, on the basis of which he prepared a detailed note dated 27.12.2000. In his CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 142 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 note dated 27.12.2000, which was forwarded to the Registrar before the passing of the revival order, Respondent No. 2 pointed out the defects in the records of the subject society. Certain lapses were noted in the membership register as it was not signed by certain members and few of its columns had been left blank. He noted that approval of the RCS had not been obtained in respect of fresh enrolments, after the registration of the subject society. Despite the said detailed note prepared by him, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies went ahead with the cancellation of the winding up order dated 20.04.1992.
42. After the revival of the subject society, on 01.03.2001, Respondent No. 2 put up a note mentioning that the society had produced the original records which have been verified, and the copies of the documents were placed alongside the note. In that note, Respondent No. 2 duly noted the previous history of the subject society, its enrolments and resignations of its members. He mentioned that members from Sr. No. 154 to 160 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 143 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 were inducted during the period when the subject society was under liquidation. He has also mentioned that the audit report and the report of the Election Officer is awaited.
43. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, at the time, there was no mechanism for Respondent No. 2 to ascertain that most of the records produced before him were fictitious. It was observed that no mala fides or evil intention can be attributed to Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the notes prepared by him. He not only verified the records of the subject society but also pointed out the shortcomings in the same and left it for final approval by the higher authorities. The resignation letters of the past members of the subject society were never produced before him, and therefore, he cannot be held liable for not commenting on the records that were not produced before him.
44. The order dated 01.01.2001 imposing conditions for the revival of the subject society included several directions such as the filing of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 144 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
individual affidavits by the President and
Secretary to abide by the statutory liabilities under the DCS Act and Rules, obtaining fresh affidavits from all members for record purposes, production of original records for verification of the list of members, completion of a pending audit within two months, and conducting elections to the Managing Committee within three months, through a special general body meeting with an appointed Election Officer. Notably, these directions were explicitly addressed to the society and designated officials involved in the revival process.
45. Respondent No. 3 was appointed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as the Election Officer for conducting elections to the Managing Committee. It has been alleged against him that he falsely reported that he conducted the elections on 19.05.2001, through special general body meeting, whereas no meeting had actually been convened by him.
46. A perusal of the record reveals that the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 145 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 membership list was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 29.03.2001 and was thereafter forwarded to the DDA. The notes and endorsements made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 indicate that the report of the Election Officer was still awaited.
Notwithstanding such fact being within the knowledge of the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the list was forwarded to the DDA. This Court concurs with the finding of the learned Trial Court that, in these circumstances, the conduct of the election stood rendered a redundant exercise, inasmuch as the report of Respondent No. 3 was never taken into consideration in the entire process.
47. Lastly, it has been alleged against Respondent No. 4 (Senior Auditor) that he falsified the report, as he never visited the registered address of the subject society, nor did he ever visit the Bank. It is alleged that had the report been genuinely prepared by him, the falsification of the records of the subject society would necessarily have come CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 146 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
to light.
48. The audit report dated 28.02.2001 prepared by Respondent No. 4, was placed on record, however the same pertained to the year 1998 to 1999, and was neither given consideration at the time of revival of the subject society nor at the time of approval of its membership list. Even in the said report, he has pointed out material objections regarding the cash books and other records maintained by the subject society. He also pointed out that the objections raised by the previous auditors have also not been complied with.
49. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, concluded that there was nothing to suggest that Respondent No. 4 had submitted the report in favour of the subject society or that he was acting at its instance. Consequently, the charge of conspiracy cannot be said to be attracted against him.
50. The prosecution has sought to invoke Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which, prior to its CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 147 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 amendment, provided as under.
"Section 13(1)(d)-A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he- (1) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abuse of position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."
51. However, with the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, clause (iii) has been repealed. The offence, as it now stands, requires that the public servant intentionally enrich himself illicitly during the period of office. In the instant case, even under the unamended provision, none of the clauses are attracted in the absence of any allegation of corrupt means, abuse of position, or enrichment of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 148 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 any party with the respondents' involvement.
52. This Court in Runu Ghosh v. C.B.I.: 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5501, held that for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, mens rea is not required to be proved, but the conduct must demonstrate flouting of norms and disregard for public interest. A public servant's act amounts to misconduct only if it results in pecuniary advantage by disregarding the safeguards that public interest required them to observe.
53. In the present case, on a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that there is no allegation that the respondents derived nor is there any any financial benefit or pecuniary advantage. assertion that gratification of any kind was either offered or received. At best, the allegations against the respondents, if assumed to be correct, may indicate a lapse or dereliction of duty, which by itself does not attract criminal liability under the provisions sought to be invoked by CBI.
54. The Hon'ble Apex Court in subsequent decision in C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (CBI):
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 149 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 (2013) 1 SCC 700, clarified that dishonest intention or mens rea is the sine qua non of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and mere procedural irregularities or lapses in judgment, absent a corrupt intent, do not constitute criminal misconduct. It was observed that not only is the act of the accused supposed to be barred by law but he must also hold mala fide to attract the charge. It was held as under:
"17. It has already been noticed that the appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the head of the two public sector undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. It is difficult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 150 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons. If the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC show that the aforesaid four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however insignificant such tasks may have been, no question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illepal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister it was for the appellant in decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his official duties while in London. If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 151 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used Le. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [AIR 1963 SC 1116: (1963) 2 Cri LJ 186: 1963 Supp (2) SCR 724] while considering the provisions of Section 5 of the 1947 Act. (emphasis supplied)
55. This Court in Mahmood Asad Madani v. CBI:
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11809, quashed the FIR and all related proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any criminal conspiracy or dishonest intention on the part of the accused.
56. Coming to the charge under Section 120B of the IPC which has been read with Section 419/420/468/471 of the IPC in the chargesheet. It is well settled that conspiracy cannot be presumed on the basis of vague or unsubstantiated allegations. For an offence of criminal conspiracy CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 152 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 to stand, the prosecution must demonstrate a prior meeting of minds and a concerted design to commit the unlawful act. Mere knowledge, association, or presence, without clear evidence of agreement or participation dity-unknownin furtherance of such agreement, would not suffice to attract the ingredients of Section 120B of the IPC.
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao: (2012) 9 SCC 512, held that for criminal conspiracy, there must be cogent evidence of a prior meeting of minds and a concerted action to commit an unlawful act. Mere negligence or failure to exercise proper care while discharging official duties does not amount to criminal conspiracy or corruption unless accompanied by mens rea or evidence of dishonest intention.
58. Once it is held that the allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is not made out, the foundation for invoking the connected offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 153 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 and 471 of the IPC also plummets. In the absence of any meeting of minds or concerted action attributable to the respondents, the said provisions cannot independently be attracted against them, as no material has been placed on record to show their involvement in any act of cheating or forgery."
305. In the backdrop of propounded law as discussed above. I will give my observations on the admissibility of the report of handwriting expert as well as whether sanction has been accorded as per law, while discussing the case of each accused separately.
Finding qua accused Narayan Diwakar.
306. The allegations against accused Narayan Diwakar are that while working as Registrar in the Office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS), New Delhi during the year 2003 at Delhi, he has passed order dated 02.01.2003 for revival of Lords CGHS Ltd, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and approved the freeze list of 115 fake members of the said society without verifying CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 154 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the genuineness of the said members in order to cause pecuniary gain to private persons by assisting them in obtaining the land from DDA in the name of the said society on priority and at subsidized rates.
307. Ld Counsel for Narayan Diwakar has vehemently argued that, firstly there is no sanction U/S 197 Cr P.C against accused Narayan Diwakar and consequent upon that the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
308. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that since the act done by accused Narayan Diwakar was not a part of his official duty rather he was indulged in conspiracy to revive of the said society with other public servants and private persons who have been charged in the present case. In that way, no sanction is required against accused Narayan Diwakar U/S 197 of Cr.P.C.
309. After considering the arguments of Ld Counsel for the Narayan Diwakar and Ld Senior PP for CBI. As accused Narayan Diwakar has been charged CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 155 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 for the offence Under section 120 B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and substantive offences Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. It has to be firstly considered whether sanction U/S 197 Cr. P.C is required or not for prosecuting accused Narayan Diwakar.
310. On perusal, it is admitted position of the prosecution that there is no sanction being obtained U/S 197 of Cr.P.C to prosecute accused Narayan Diwakar and same is also not there on record.
311. Before adverting to the facts of the case and whether sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is required or not, I would like to reproduce Section 197 Cr. P.C.
312. Section 197 of the CrPC reads as under:
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 156 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 157 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein,the expression "State Government" were substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 158 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."
313. On perusal of Section 197 of the Cr PC, it provides that when any person who is or was a public servant, not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or State Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. The law pertaining to CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 159 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the grant of sanction under Section 197 is no longer res integra. The essential requirements of Section 197 Cr. P.C. is that an accused should be alleged of having committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.
314. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Rakesh Bhatnagar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7440 has held that :-
"62. According to the ratio laid down in A. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a 'Public Servant' whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. and not to every public servant. In the present case, undoubtedly, the petitioner is a DANICS officer and his appointing authority is the Central/State Government. There is equally no doubt in the mind of this Court that the allegations against the petitioner are of offences in the discharge CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 160 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 of his official duties and as such the rigors of N.K Ganguly (supra) shall apply on all fours and it would be imperative for the prosecution to have obtained the sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. As such, it is apparent that the prosecution of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences in the absence of the appropriate sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. would be untenable.
63. Mr. Goel did not dispute the fact that there is no sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. obtained from the Competent Authority against the petitioner. Having regard to the said admission, and also considering the ratio laid down by the aforesaid authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court quashes the charges framed against the petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 120B IPC."
315. In the case of A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"41. Sub-section (1) of Section 197CrPC shows that sanction for prosecution is required where any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Article 311 of the Constitution lays down that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or State or holds a civil post CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 161 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 under the Union or State, shall be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It, therefore, follows that protection of sub-section (1) of Section 197Cr PC is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government and not to every public servant.
59. From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only pre- requisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the public servant is expected to be put on trial include the offences other than those punishable under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e. IPC), the court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and also, if necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case progresses) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr P.C There is a material difference between the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on one hand, and Section 197 of the Cr P.C, on the other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr P.C depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the "nexus" between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 162 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr PC on such reasoning. The "safe and sure test", is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted "in excess of his duty", but if there is a "reasonable connection" between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Cr PC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts."
316. On perusal of above referred judgments of Hon'ble Superior Courts, it is clear that to commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr PC on such reasoning. The safe and sure test is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 163 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
317. Here in the present case, the allegations against accused Narayan Diwakar are that he had revived the said society on the basis of forged documents. The act of revival of the said society is official duty and if he could have not done act to revive the said Society then it could have been considered as dereliction of his official duty. So in the given circumstances, the sanction U/S 197 Cr P C is essential for his prosecution for the offences under IPC charge against him.
318. Admittedly accused Narayan Diwakar was an I.A.S and his appointing authority was either Central Government or State Government, therefore, the protection as available U/S 197 Cr P C is to be granted to him for the prosecution U/S Under section 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC.
319. So far as the allegations of conspiracy against accused Narayan Diwakar in reviving of the society is concerned. There is no direct or indirect evidence being brought on record by the investigating agency. There is also no evidence that he was hand in glove with any of the accused CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 164 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 persons either public servant or private person . There is no evidence at all that he has got any monetary benefit from any of the co-accused or otherwise in the process of revival of the said society.
320. Moreover accused Narayan Diwakar has passed the order of revival of the said society on 02.01.2003 with the condition that pending Audit shall be got completed within two months and to conduct the election of the Management committed within two months. And also appointed Sh N.S Khatri, as Election Officer.
321. Accused Narayan Diwakar has passed the order on the basis of material being produced before him. There was no objection from any corner against the revival of the said society. The proceedings were conducted under DCS Act. Accused Narayan Diwakar has acted upon the notings being recorded by the concerned public servants those who were entrusted the work under the DCS Act. It shows his bonafide while passing the revival order. So the evidence produced on CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 165 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 record by the prosecution is not of such magnitude which can be considered as sufficient to hold Narayan Diwakar guilty for the conspiracy. So the prosecution has failed to prove charges against accused Narayan Diwakar for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding qua accused Gopal Singh Bisht.
322. The Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that notings dated 31.12.2002 were made by accused Gopal Singh Bisht which was based on the forged documents. It is argued that Vinay Kumar dealing hand had made a noting that file of the Lord CGHS was not traceable. Thereafter, V.P. Singh the then A.R has proposed for tracing out of the file of Lords CGHS. Meanwhile Vijay Kumar transferred and V.P. Singh retired. The accused Gopal Singh Bisht has taken charge as Dealing Assistant and he had made false noting qua recommending the revival of the society in connivance with accused J.S Sharma and Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
323. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld Counsel for CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 166 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 accused Gopal Singh Bisht that there was no connivance of accused Gopal Singh Bisht in forging the alleged documents. It is submitted that he has carry forward the proceedings from the point Vinay Kumar and V.P.Singh had left the proceedings. But if accused Gopal Singh Bisht is made accused but then why Vinay Kumar and V.P.Singh had been left being not made as accused persons. It shows that the IO of the case deliberately has not conducted the investigation fairly.
324. Since accused Gopal Singh Bisht is protected from prosecution U/S 19 of P.C Act. Now it has to be seen whether prosecution has able to prove on record that the prosecution U/S 19 of P.C Act Ld Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act 1988 being accorded by the sanctioning authority by applying its mind.
325. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the sanction order against the Gopal CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 167 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Singh Bisht by leading cogent evidence as deposed by PW 13.
326. Argument considered. Record also considered. In order to prove sanction for prosecution against Gopal Singh Bisht the prosecution has examined PW 13 Sh R.K. Srivastave. He has deposed that he received a report from CBI and after going through the report of CBI and documents he accorded sanction vide Ex PW13/A for prosecution of Gopal Singh Bisht.
327. However, the cross examination of PW 13, is to be considered whether the sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal of material before it. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as follows:
"The noting file maintained by the office of RCS pertaining to the present society was not sent to me by the CBI.
I do not remember the date on which I had received the requisition from the CBI. I do not remember as to how much time was taken by me in granting the sanction after receipt of the requisition from the CBI. It is correct that my sanction order is silent about the actual date of receipt of the requisition from the CBI. It is also correct that I have not specifically referred to the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 168 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 nature of the documents/materials including the names of the witnesses, if any, in my sanction order."
328. On perusal, of cross examination of PW13 it is clear that noting file maintained by the office of RCS,Delhi pertaining to the present society was not sent to the sanctioning authority. Once the noting containing in the noting file, on which basis Gopal Singh Bisht has been made an accused in the present case, has not been sent to the sanctioning authority. It proves that the alleged incriminating material was not sent to the sanctioning authority then it can be said that sanctioning authority has not applied its mind while granting sanction for prosecution of accused Gopal Singh Bisht. That noting was the incriminating material against accused Gopal Singh Bisht as per the assertions of prosecuting agency. So, I hold that sanction U/S 19 of PC Act against accused Gopal Singh Bisht is bad under law.
329. So far as allegations of conspiracy and other IPC offences charged with against accused Gopal Singh Bisht are concerned. There is not ocular CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 169 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 direct evidence which proves on record that accused Gopal Singh Bisht was part of any conspiracy with any accused persons. None of the witness has deposed against accused Gopal Singh Bisht. There is no evidence that accused Gopal Singh Bisht has forged any document himself or have obtained any pecuniary benefit from the said society or from any other accused person. There is no evidence on record that any family member of accused Gopal Singh Bisht obtained any monetary benefit from the revival of the said society. As per document Ex PW26/A it reveals that file of the said society was not traceable and order for reconstruction of file of said society was made. The noting was of dated 13.12.2002. The prosecution has not able to brought on record that accused Gopal Singh Bisht was having any knowledge that file of the Lords CGHS was available in the RCS office or file of Lords CGHS was traced out. If that evidence is not on record then how accused Gopal Singh Bisht is held guilty of any conspiracy. So the evidence on CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 170 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 record are short of holding accused Gopal Singh Bisht as guilty. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Finding qua accused Mahesh Kumar.
330. It is argued by the Ld Senior PP for CBI that accused Mahesh Kumar is the main accused who has hatched the conspiracy. It is submitted that he is primary beneficiary and active participant and played pivotal role in commission of offence.
331. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused Mahesh Kumar has argued that IO of the case has not investigated the case fairly and withheld so many evidence which were collected by the earlier IO of the case. The IO has not made Smt Anuradha Goel and Devender Kumar as accused while they were also functionary of Lords CGHS. It is submitted that accused has not committed any offence.
332. On consideration. The Ld Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the document D-102 ie application form, received from Vijay Kumar Aggarwal through seizure memo D-105, which shows that CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 171 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Mahesh Kumar applied for as member of Lord CGHS on 10.01.1984 and document D-69 are the evidences against the accused prior to revival of said society. One document D-85 ( Ex PW18/D) has also been relied upon by the Ld Senior PP for CBI and same is purported to be forged before revival of the said society. On perusal of record D-101 and D-102 shows that an application form by the name of Mahesh Kumar is there on record but that document has not been exhibited by the prosecution. So the recovery of that document D-102 has not been proved on record. The mark PW17/A (Colly) (D-69) is the list of 75 promoter members of Lords CGHS and it does not find name of Mahesh Kumar and that list was sent to the DDA on 03.10.1983. So after 03.10.1983 no document has been brought to the notice of this Court that Lord CGHS had not enrolled any new member. Even otherwise, the application of accused Mahesh Kumar was of dt. 10.01.1994 which is subsequent to 03.10.1983. The IO has admitted in his cross examination that it is the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 172 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 prerogative of the society to add its members. The Mahesh Kumar may have been made member of said society.
333. The next document relied upon by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI is document D-85 Ex PW18/D. It is argued that document Ex PW18/D shows that Mahesh Kumar has become President of the said Society on 20.10.2002 ie prior to 02.01.2003 date of revival of the said society. The prosecution has got exhibited that document through Anuradha Goel PW18. Now question arises whether the testimony of PW18 is reliable or it cast doubt about the fairness of investigation by the investigating officer. PW18, Anuradha Goel and PW20, Arvind Kumar has been shown as member of the Management Committee of Lords CGHS. But PW18 has denied her signatures on document Ex PW 18/D and this document has not been put to PW 20. The PW 18 and PW 20 have admitted their signatures on so many subsequent proceedings of the said society. The witnesses have not disclosed under which capacity they CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 173 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 have signed on the proceedings/business of said society. It cast the grave suspicion upon the trustworthiness of PW18. She might have deposed to safe herself that document Ex PW18/D does not bears her signatures. It also cast doubt of fairness of the investigation being conducted by the IO. In this regard cross examination of IO is very much relevant. IO has admitted in his cross examination that he has not placed on record the document and statement being recorded by the previous IO Shamsher Singh. Even IO has not placed on record the memos vide which the previous IOs have seized the documents. He has placed on record only the memos vide which he has received the record from previous I.Os. The authenticity of the source of seizure of seized documents by IO have been shaken.
334. The record shows that PW18 and PW20 are on the same footing as of accused Mahesh Kumar in the management of the said society. The society used to take decision through its management and any single member of the management committee CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 174 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 cannot take decision about the functioning of the society by its own. In that way PW 18 and PW20 are equally responsible for the decision of management committee to manage the functioning of the said society and for which accused Mahesh Kumar cannot be hold guilty.
335. So far as deposit of 35% of costs of land by accused Mahesh Kumar being taken as loan from M/s MDR Foods is concerned that amount was refunded by the said society. The remaining amount of cost of land was deposited by obtaining a loan by the said society. It is not on record that any pecuniary benefit has been obtained by accused Mahesh Kumar or his family member from the said society. No member of the said society have come forward to alleged any adverse act by accused Mahesh Kumar against rights of the member of the said society. There is no evidence that the land allotted to the society by DDA has been cancelled. The members to whom flats are being allotted are enjoying their rights in the property. The members of defunct society CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 175 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 may switch over to functional society. Probability cannot be ruled out that some member of the defunct societies may have joined the said society in the hope of getting a flat. It is a fact that a member cannot be member of two CGHS simultaneously. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are unable to produce on record any document showing their membership to the particular society. So it makes their testimony not relevant to the accused persons of present case. The relevance GEQD expert is dealt separately while discussing its fairness which is also applicable against accused Mahesh Kumar. So the evidence adduced against accused Mahesh Kumar are not sufficient to hold him guilty of offence charge with.
FINDING QUA ACCUSED ASHWANI
SHARMA, ASHUTOSH PANT AND NAVEEN
KAUSHIK.
336. The allegations against three accused persons are that they have made forgery in the documents like Affidavits, resignation letters, balance sheets, CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 176 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 proceeding register and other documents being used for revival of the said society.
337. It is alleged against three accused persons that all these forgeries were made by the accused person in consequence of conspiracy being hatched between the Gokul Chand Aggarwal and other accused persons.
338. To prove these allegations against these three accused persons, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW 27 R.S. Rana, GEQD as well as PW 30 Narender Mehto, ( IO of the case). It is fairly admitted by the Senior PP for CBI that there is no ocular direct evidence against these three accused persons. The prosecution is solely relied upon the testimony of PW 27 and PW 30 and substantially on the evidence of PW 27 ie R.S. Rana, GEQD and GEQD report Ex PW27/D.
339. It is argued by the Ld Counsel for the accused persons that though the prosecution has asserted in the charge sheet that specimen signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma were obtained in the presence of witnesses. PW 30 IO of the case CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 177 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 deposed that specimen signatures of accused Ashwani Sharma ( S-1 to S-136 and S-259 to S-276 Ex. PW30/26(colly) ) were taken in the presence of probably namely Ram Niwas, Asst. Superintendent, Central Jail. But that witness has not been examined in the Court. On perusal of PW 30/26 (Colly) it reveals that specimen signatures were obtained by the IO in the presence of two witnesses but neither the address nor name of those witnesses has been mentioned on specimen signatures sheet.
340. The specimen signature i.e. Ex. PW30/27 (colly) S-137 to S-258, placed at D-125/B of accused Naveen Kaushik had been taken. And but IO has deposed that the same were obtained in the presence of independent witness Balbir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. But the prosecution has not examined any of the witness in whose presence the specimen signatures/handwriting of these accused persons were obtained. Even on perusal of document Ex PW30/27, it reveals that only initial of a witenss is there on this document.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 178 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Neither the name nor address of the witness is mentioned on this document.
341. The specimen signatures handwriting of accused Ashutosh Pant has been obtained vide Ex PW30/30 (Colly) starting from S-290 to S-296, S-298 to S-310 and S-312 to S-317. These specimen signatures were obtained in the presence of Assistant Superintendent Sh Rampal. But on perusal of document Ex PW30/30 (Colly) it reveals that though one Rampal described as Assistant Superintendent had witnessed the Ex PW30/30(Colly) but that witness has not been examined in the Court. Even the document PW30/30 (Colly) has not been stamped of Jail Authority. The IO has not placed on record any document on record that he has visited the Jail on 30.03.2007. So obtaining of specimen signatures of accused Ashutosh Pant is doubtful.
342. It is further submitted that even IO has admitted in his cross examination that Naveen Kaushik and Ashutosh Pant were in judicial custody but there is no authentication of jail authorities to the CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 179 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 specimen signatures of these two accused persons being sent for comparison to the GEQD. All these evidence has shaken the first step qua admissibility of report of handwriting expert because the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that specimen of these three accused persons were obtained fairly.
343. It is further argued by Ld Counsel for accused persons that the GEQD report is not being prepared as per SOP. And there are so many lacunae in that report Ex PW27/C and Ex PW27/D. So the GEQD report sole cannot be considered to arrive at any conclusion that accused persons have committed any forgery.
344. To the contrary, the Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that the GEQD report can be relied upon in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531 and GEQD report can be taken into consideration to ascertain the guilt of the accused person.
345. On consideration of arguments of Ld Counsel for CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 180 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the accused and Ld Senior PP for CBI qua three accused person. It is fairly admitted by the Ld Senior PP for CBI that the witness in whose presence the specimen signatures of two accused persons were obtained have not been examined. The non examination of witnesses who has witnessed the taking of specimen signatures of these two accused persons goes into the root of the GEQD report. Because if obtaining of specimen signatures of the accused persons have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have been taken fairly, it shaken the GEQD report. Because the first stage to consider the GEQD report cannot be sole ground to hold the accused person guilty, particularly where the contemporary handwriting of accused persons were not obtained by the I.O.
346. Moreover, the preparation of GEQD report by PW 27 is having lacuna. As PW 27 admitted in his cross examination that it is one of the principle of handwriting examination that like is to be compared with like. PW27 has admitted in his CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 181 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 cross examination that he has not taken enlarge photographs of the documents at the time of examination of documents. PW 27 has admitted in his cross examination that he has not mentioned the specific nature of instrument used for examination of documents. PW 27 has also admitted in his cross examination that he has not opined in the reasons about overall general writing characteristics like nature of slant, the alignment is horizontal or ascending/descending etc., line quality depicts how the pen was moved, when pen was paused or stopped, deviation from the intended path, presence or absence of tremors or hesitation, writing speed or the fluency and the rhythm etc. The witness has admitted that he has not prepared the comparison chart of the documents. The PW27 has deposed that name of the society was erased chemical on the bye laws and certificate. The PW27 is a handwriting expert it is doubtful how he can give opinion about the opinion which has to be analysis by a Chemical expert.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 182 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019
347. He has admitted that he has not received the admitted hand writing /signatures of any of the accused persons. He has further admitted that it was not possible to compare the individual specimen document with individual question document. He has admitted that he has given opinion upon the collective examination of specimen signature/ hand writing with questioned document and not individually.
348. The question arises how he can give this observation while he has admitted that it cannot be possible to compare the individual specimen document with individual question document. It contradict the SOP ie like is to be compare with like.
349. The IO in his cross examination has admitted that annotation mark of N. Kumar in D-84 page number 1 and 8 and D-87 at Page number 1,3,7,9,11,15,37,39,41and 45. And that of accused Ashwani Sharma on document D-84 at page number 12 are there. These annotation marks are also on some other document and IO has admitted CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 183 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
that these were written by him during
investigation and these were before sending the same to GEQD. These facts shows that the IO indicated on the specimen sheet that these specimen signatures are pertaining to a particular person which creates doubt about the report of GEQD qua it fairness.
350. So the obtaining of the specimen signatures/initial/handwriting of these three accused namely Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant and Naveen Kaushik is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. In the given circumstances, the opinion/report of handwriting expert cannot be considered against above named three accused persons. So the prosecution has failed to connect the above named three accused person with the offence they are charged with. Finding qua accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal
351. The allegations against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal are that he has impersonated himself as Ajay Kumar, Secretary of the said society and filed the revival application dated 28.11.2002 Ex CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 184 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 PW22/C before the office of Registrar of Co- operative Society as well as forged some documents such as bye law of the society Ex PW6/G and application form of Registration Ex PW24/D.
352. It is argued by Ld Senior PP for CBI that the evidence brought on record has proved the charges framed against accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
353. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal that there is no direct ocular evidence against accused who has identified the accused before the Court. It is further submitted that GEQD report against accused cannot be relied upon as the handwriting opinion is just a corroborative evidence and it cannot take place the substantial piece of evidence. On consideration PW16 Subhash Gupta deposed in his examination in chief that he knows Gokul Chand Aggarwal. But on perusal of his evidence it shows that PW16 has not identified the accused before the Court. There is no witness being CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 185 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 examined by the prosecution who has identified accused Gokul Chand Aggawal before the Court. So on the strength of oral evidence the identity of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal has not been proved on record. None of the witness from RCS office has proved the fact that it was accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal present in person was the same Gokul Chand Aggarwal who has allegedly impersonated as Ajay Kumar, Secretary of the said society. So the evidence which remained to be considered to arrive at a conclusion that Gokul Chand Aggarwal has made forgery and impersonated is evidence of PW 27 ie GEQD and PW 30 IO of the case.
354. As per prosecution story, the specimen signatures of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal were obtained in the presence of independent witness Ram Kumar but no such witness has been examined by the prosecution. On perusal of specimen sheet S-318 to S-337 and S-337/1, S-338 to S-351, S-382 to S-386, S-415 to S-461, Ex. PW30/31, it reveals that the same were find signature of CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 186 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 witness Ram Kumar but these specimen sheet does not contain the complete address of independent witness which creates doubt qua obtaining of specimen signature/handwriting of accused in a fair manner. If prosecution has failed to obtained the specimen signatures/handwriting of a person in fair manner it cast a doubt about its genuineness. In that circumstances, the first ingredients to rely upon the handwriting expert i.e "taking over of specimen signatures/handwriting pertaining to the accused persons" has not been satisfied by the prosecution. The GEQD report lost its evidencary value against the person whose purported hand writing has been examined by the expert. Finding qua accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal
355. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal had taken the charge of the said society and of forged documents from Mahesh Kumar via charge report D-121. And as well he has submitted documents to the CBI including Audit file of Lord CGHS. It is further CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 187 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 argued by Ld Senior PP that the documents of the society were sold out to accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal without any authority, causing wrongful loss to actual member of Lord CGHS.
356. On the other hand, It is argued by the Counsel for accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal that accused has not involved in any criminal conspiracy or forgery of the documents. He has became member of the said society much later on from its revival. He has become member of the society in good faith. He has also became President of the said society under DCS Rules.
357. Having considered the the arguments of Ld Senior P.P. for CBI as well as Ld Counsel for accused. It is admitted fact that the said society was revived on 01.02.2003 and accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was enrolled as a member on 02.04.2003. There is no allegations against accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal that he has forged any document for revival of the said society. There is no evidence on record that he has gained any pecuniary benefit for himself in CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 188 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 the said society. Evidence is also not on record that any of his family member have became member of the said society or gained any monetary benefit. Merely handing over of the record of the said society to the investigating agency is not sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence charged with. Though there are allegation that he has got resignation of some of the members of the said society but Ld Senior PP has not brought to the notice of the Court particularly who were those members of the said society. Even otherwise, on perusal of record it reveals that there is no specific identification mark like photograph of the said society. So that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal or else, on the applications for membership could not have identify those persons and able to distinguish them with any asserted genuine member of the said society. Moreover, one fact is there that a Co operative Society work through its Management Committee. Accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal has became President of the said society only after CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 189 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 revival of the said society. He alone is not competent to take working qua the decision of the society. Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer are also involved in decision making body. Sometime GBM of the said society is also required to be conducted for taking major decisions. If other Management members are not made as an accused in the present case and investigating agency has not distinguished their role or brought on record that other Management members not involved in decision making. Then how accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal can be held liable. It is also a fact that act being done under the President-ship of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal has been made legalized. No membership of any person has been cancelled being made member of the said society during the Management headed by accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. There is no evidence on record which can substantiate that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was involved in any conspiracy with any of the accused or having knowledge the manner in which said society was CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 190 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 revived. Even there is no evidence at all on record during the period that accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal remained in Management of the said society that he allotted/ sold any flat to the person who were not the member of the said society. So the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold accused Vijay Kumar Aggarwal guilty of the offence charged with.
CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 191 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Finding qua accused P.K. Thirwani
358. The allegations against accused P.K. Thirwani is that he has conducted a false audit of the said society for the year 1983-1984 to 2000-2001 on 07.01.2003 and filed the report
359. So far as the allegation against accused P.K.Thirwani for the offence U/S Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act,1988 is concerned. In this regard Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988 prescribes that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. The issue of cognizance can be raised at any stage. And if the cognizance is against the law then to built up a case against the accused for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act also not triable.
360. Ld Counsel for P.K. Thirwani has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act 1988 being accorded with application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
361. On the other hand, Ld Senior PP for CBI has CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 192 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the sanction order against the P.K. Thiwani by leading cogent evidence.
362. On perusal. In order to prove sanction for prosecution U/S 19 of P.C Act against P.K. Thirwani, the prosecution has examined PW 14 Sh Rakesh Mehta. He has deposed that he received a report from CBI and after going through the report of CBI and documents he accorded sanction vide Ex PW14/A for prosecution of P.K. Thirwani.
363. However, the cross examination of PW 14, is to be considered whether the sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority on perusal of material before it or not. The relevant portion of his cross examination is as follows:
"I do not remember as to on which date I had received the requisition from the CBI for granting the sanction to prosecute Sh. P.K. Thirwani. I am also not able to recollect as to how much time was taken by me for granting the sanction after receipt of the requisition from the CBI.
It is correct that the sanction order does not having any date. I do not remember as to on which date I had signed the sanction order. It is correct that I have not CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 193 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 specifically referred to the name of the witnesses, the nature of documents etc. as received by me from the CBI.
I had not inquired from Sh. P.K. Thirwani before granting the sanction. I do not remember whether I had received the draft order from the CBI or not. I had not received the audit file pertaining to the present society maintained by the office of RCS."
364. The cross examination of PW14 reveals that the alleged false audit report was not sent to the sanctioning authority by the investigating agency. The allegations against accused P.K Thirwani that he has filed a false audit report. If that audit file was not sent to the sanctioning authority then there is question mark that the sanctioning authority has perused the alleged incriminating material before according sanction. I hold that sanction has been accorded without perusing the material audit report against accused P.K. Thirwani.
365. There is no allegations against accused P.K. Thirwani that he has manipulated in the accounts of the society to hide the irregularities. There is no evidence at all on record that any demand for pecuniary gain was made by accused P.K. Thirwani or he has got any pecuniary benefit by CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 194 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 conducting the audit of the said society. The mens rea is one of the essential ingredient for proving the guilty of a person. Here in the present case mens rea is also missing. Moreover, the audit report filed by accused P.K. Thirwani had never been challenged before any authority by any subsisting members of the said society. The audit report was having no bearing upon the revival of the said society. Conducting of audit of the said society for numbers of years do not rendered the audit report as defunct. There no evidence on record that accused P.K. Thirwani has forged any document or having knowledge of forgery of any document.
366. So the evidence adduced by the prosecution against accused P.K. Thirwani on record is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offences charged with. Finding qua accused N.S Khatri
367. The allegations against accused N.S Khatri is that he has got conducted election of the society vide proceedings dated 17.02.2003 without even CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 195 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 calling the members for election and declared Mahesh Kumar (A-4) as President. While Mahesh Kumar was already President of the said society before its revival.
368. Since accused N.S Khatri is public servant hence prosecution sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act is required to be obtained against against accused N.S Khatri for prosecuting him for the offences alleged against him under P.C Act.
369. The prosecution has examined PW 15 to prove sanction U/S 19 of P.C Act against accused N.S Khatri. Straightway I am referring the cross examination of PW 15 Sh D.M. Shukla which is essential to arrival at a conclusion whether the prosecution has been according after applying its mind by the sanctioning authority or not. In the cross examination this witness has deposed that he do not remember whether he had been given the opinion of handwriting expert or not. It goes into the root of the sanction being accorded by him. The case of the prosecution solely based upon the report of hand writing expert. If handwriting CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 196 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 expert's opinion was not with the sanctioning authority it may make him incapable to opinion that the proceedings dated 16.02.2003 ( vide which the election of the said society was got conducted) were genuine or not. So it diminishes the value of sanction for prosecution being accorded by the sanctioning authority after applying its mind.
370. Moreover, the election proceedings dated 16.02.2003 has not been exhibited on record. The entire proceedings register has been marked as PW 13/M by I.O. IO is not a competent person to prove the proceedings date 16.02.2003 vide alleged election was got conducted by accused N.S, Khatri. Even otherwise, the election was got conducted by accused on 16.02.2003 and it was after the revival of said society which was revived on 2.01.2003. Moreover, election of the society being got conducted by N.S Khatri on 16.02.2003 have no bearing upon the revival of the said society. There was no such condition that election of the said society may render the revival as CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 197 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019
defunct.
371. There is no evidence on record that accused N.S Khatri was having hand in glove with any other accused person or having any meeting of mind at any stage. There is no evidence on record that he has got any pecuniary benefit for getting conducting election of the said society or due to revival of the said society. Same is the situation regarding his family member as no his family have got any monetary benefit from the revival of the said society. The 18 members of the said society have participated in the election dated 16.02.2003 but probably the prosecution has not examined any one of them as a witness. It is not on record that their membership has ever been cancelled by any competent authority. So the prosecution has unable the prove the charges against accused N.S Khatri.
CONCLUSION:
372. The evidence brought on record is minus to prove the conspiracy among the accused charge with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 198 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 as Bhagat Ram Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 SC 1502 has observed that if there are charge against two persons for criminal conspiracy and one of accused acquitted from the charges. Then charge against second accused also resulted into acquittal. Moreover, the evidence as brought on record against accused persons namely Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, P.K. Thirwani and N.S Khatri, are not sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to hold them guilty of offences charge with. The prosecution has also failed to prove on record the sanction against accused Gopal Singh Bisht, P.K. Thirwani, and N.S Khatri. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled as CBI Vs Shakuntla Joshi & Ors (Supra) is applicable to roles of public servants. So in view of the above discussion, accused persons namely Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ashwani CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 199 of 200) CBI No. 116/2019 Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, P.K. Thirwani and N.S Khatri are acquitted. Bail bonds of accused Narayan Diwakar, Gopal Singh Bisht, Mahesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ashwani Sharma, Ashutosh Pant, Naveen Kaushik, P.K. Thirwani and N.S Khatri stand cancelled and their sureties also stands discharged.
373. Let digitally signed copy of the judgment be uploaded on the Court's official website, Digitally signed accordingly. by JAGDISH JAGDISH KUMAR (Jagdish KumarDate:
KUMAR )
2025.10.30
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
12:50:38 +0530
COURT )-01. NORTH, ROHINI,DELHI
Announced in the Open Court
today :30.10.2025
( This judgment has been passed by me in pursuance of posting transfer order No.40/D-3/GAZ.IA/DHC/2025 of dated 17.10.2025 of Hon'ble High Court) CBI Vs.Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Lords CGHS) (Page 200 of 200)
CBI No. 116/2019