Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Romesh Sharma & Ors. on 20 July, 2012
1
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT II
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND
S. C. No. : 55/09
Unique Case ID : 02401R0830112003
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
1. Romesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Satyanarayan
R/o C30, Mayfair Garden,
New Delhi
2. Harish Mishra
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Mishra
R/o 507, Royal Turner Road,
Juhu, Mumbai
3. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia
S/o Late Sh. B S Ahluwalia
R/o Sai Kirpa Behind Sri Krishna Complex,
Vasai Road (W), Distt. Thane
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 1/213
2
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
4. M D Bhowani
S/o Late Sh. D K Bhojwani
R/o 61, Mayfair Apartment
Mayfair Garden, New Delhi
5. Naveen Budhiraja @ Baboo
S/o Sh. Amrit Lal Budhiraja
R/o 1580/13, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
6. Indermani
S/o Sh. D R Mishra
R/o Vill. Ugrasain Pur, Distt. Phulpur,
Allahabad, U.P.
7. Avdesh
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prashad
R/o Vill. Ugrasain Pur, Distt. Phulpur,
Allahabad, U.P.
8. Manoj
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o 69C, Sobatia Bagh,
Allahabad, U.P.
9. Laxman Singh
S/o Sh. Lal Singh
R/o E71, Lok Sabha Rajya Sabha
Govt. Flats, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 2/213
3
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Date of Institution : 18.01.1999
Date of reserving of Judgment/Order : 06.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. The quest in all criminal trials is to arrive at the truth and therefore, the role of the Judge is to cull out the true facts from the evidence led before him and ensure that guilty does not go Scotfree and innocent's life and liberty is not jeopardised. This role of the Judge has been explained in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 345 thus :
A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the cases and its purpose is to arrive at judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact in issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings, the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to meet out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 3/213 4 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not be an isolated scrutiny.
2. In the matter of analysing the evidence on record, the Supreme Court in Inder Singh & Anr. Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) (1998) 4 SCC 161 has observed thus :
Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 4/213 5 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of foolproof concoction. Why fake up? Because the Court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic."
3. This case vide FIR no. 799/98 was registered at the police station Hauz Khas on 20.10.98 on the complaint of H. Suresh Rao. The investigation of this case was transferred to CBI vide order dated 29.08.98. The case was registered in the CBI office vide R.C No. 1/ (S)/98/STF/CBI/ND and the investigation was taken up. On the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Romesh Sharma, Harish Mishra, Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh, Manoj, Vinod Kumar Luthra and Laxman Singh on 18.01.99 for their having been committed offences punishable U/s 120 B read with the Sections 420, 365, 342, 384, 392, 395 and 506 IPC and substantive offences.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 5/213
6
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
4. After compliance under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 22.04.99.
5. The case of the prosecution is that one Helicopter Model Bell 47 G5 VTEAP was owned by Pushpak Aviation Ltd. It was sold by the company to its Director (Commercial) H. Suresh Rao for Rs. 50,000/ vide Memorandum of Agreement (in short MOU) dated 25.06.94. Its ownership was transferred in his name on 19.09.94. To make it airworthiness, H. Suresh Rao purchased spare parts during the period from 21.10.94 to 25.02.95 from Summit Aviation for an amount of Rs. 38,81,954.23. Rs. 18,59,913.23 towards principal amount and Rs. 5,95,172.23 were outstanding to Summit Aviation from H. Suresh Rao. He who was unable to pay the above dues and executed a Memorandum of Agreement on 20.11.95 for the sale of Helicopter to Summit Aviation for an amount of Rs. 40 Lacs.
In February, 1996, H. Suresh Rao came in contact with Romesh Sharma in the office of United India Airways. Sometime in March, 1996, H. Suresh Rao and Mahender Pujara visited Delhi at Romesh Sharma's residence where Romesh Sharma expressed his desire to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 6/213 7 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
hire Helicopter for his Election purpose as he was going to contest election from Phulpur constituency in UP.
6. On 24.03.96 H. Suresh Rao received a call from Romesh Sharma to send his Helicopter immediately to Phulpur for election purpose. H. Suresh Rao told him that he would be sending terms and conditions in this regard which have to be entered into before he would give his consent. Romesh Sharma told him that Rakesh Gupta and his brother Harish Mishra would contact him in this regard. H. Suresh Rao then asked Mahender Pujara to fax the terms of hiring of Helicopter to Romesh Sharma which he faxed as per which the hiring charge of Helicopter was Rs. 80,000/ per day for 15 days and other charges for insurance, transport of his crew members etc. total amounting to Rs. 13 lacs. Romesh Sharma asked H. Suresh Rao to send the terms himself who sent the same vide letter on 25.03.96.
7. On 26.03.96 Romesh Sharma again telephoned H. Suresh Rao and asked him to despatch the Helicopter immediately assuring that his brother Harish Mishra would contact him on 27.03.96 in that regard. He however, expressed his difficulty to H. Suresh Rao that if he R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 7/213 8 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accepted the terms of hiring, he would not be in a position to use the Helicopter for election purposes because the Election Commission would disqualify him for exceeding financial limit. He therefore, requested H. Suresh Rao to execute predated Memorandum of Understanding purporting to show the sale of Helicopter to Reliance Developers and Investors for Rs. 30 Lacs instead of Rs. 70 lacs, the cost of the Helicopter assuring that the said MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over.
8. On 27.03.96, Harish Mishra and Rakesh Gupta contacted H. Suresh Rao in his office. A MOU on the letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors purporting to show that the Helicopter had been sold on 24.02.96 by H. Suresh Rao to the said firm was signed by H. Suresh Rao and Harish Mishra on 27.03.96. H. Suresh Rao signed the MOU believing the assurance given by Romesh Sharma that the said MOU would be destroyed after the election. An amount of Rs. 3.0 lacs was paid by Harish Mishra to H. Suresh Rao on that day as hiring charges.
9. Thereafter, the Helicopter was despatched in two trucks after getting it dismantled. In other truck, Aviation fuel was sent. The carrier R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 8/213 9 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
documents showed Pushpak Aviation as the consignor as well as the Consignee of the goods. Harish Mishra, being representative of Romesh Sharma sent his man who accompanied the trucks from Mumbai to Phulpur. Crew members namely B G Pappara, Capt. A D Bansod and B R Pappara were sent on 28.03.96 to Ugarsen Pur, native place of Romesh Sharma. Other crew members namely H C Demons and Parashuram etc. were also sent to Phulpur. After despatch, H Suresh Rao demanded more money for hiring charges from Romesh Sharma who asked him to come to Delhi.
10. On 30.03.96, H. Suresh Rao contacted Romesh Sharma at Delhi who issued three cheques of Rs. 1.0 lac each and also handed over to H. Suresh Rao a typed MOU on a Stamp Paper purporting to show that Helicopter was sold by H. Suresh Rao to Reliance Developers and Investors on 24.02.96, induced him to sign representing that the previous MOU was not acceptable as a legal document as the same was not on a Stamp Paper. The MOU was signed by H. Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma and it was witnessed by M D Bhojwani and others.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 9/213
10
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
11. The Helicopter was used for election campaigning of Romesh Sharma in Phulpur Constituency till 07.05.96 against the initial agreed time till 12.04.96. Romesh Sharma lost the election. On 11.05.96, on the instructions of H. Suresh Rao, B G Pappara and H. C Demons dismantled the Helicopter since it was to be sent to Kerala via Mumbai in connection with another contract which had been entered into for the use of the Helicopter for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation. They contacted Ashok Shukla to arrange for the trucks. The trucks from SherePunjab roadways were booked for that purpose. One truck carrying fuel was despatched from Phulpur to Mumbai on 09.05.96.
12. On 11.05.96 truck reported at Ugarsen Pur for carrying the Helicopter to Mumbai through its driver Sharafat Ullah Khan. The crew members B G Pappara, H. C Demons, Parshuram, B R Pappara etc. got the Helicopter loaded in the aforesaid truck. However, before the Truck could leave, 1015 persons of Romesh Sharma including Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh and Manoj came there and threatened the crew members on the direction of Romesh Sharma not to take the Helicopter to Mumbai and directed R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 10/213 11 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
to take it to Delhi. The Helicopter was forcibly taken out from the possession of the crew members, unloaded and kept in the field adjacent to the Bungalow of Romesh Sharma under their guard. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia then contacted Abdul Salam to carry the Helicopter from Phulpur to Delhi on his truck and its driver carried it to Delhi as per the documents prepared in the name of Romesh Sharma under the signature of Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. It was unloaded on 12.05.96 at Jai Mata Di Farm House of Romesh Sharma.
13. On 12.05.96 when H. Suresh Rao contacted Romesh Sharma on telephone, he asked him to come to Delhi. On 14.05.96 he met Romesh Sharma at his residence at C30, Mayfair Garden, New Delhi where Romesh Sharma retorted and told him to forget about his Helicopter as the same was not his property and asked him to take more payment for the Helicopter. On the next day i.e. 15.05.96, he reiterated his earlier stand and threatened H. Suresh Rao with dire consequences by referring his connection with Dawood and Abu Salem. H. Suresh Rao was under so much fear that he could not muster courage to lodge complaint with the police. On 15.05.96 payment through draft no. 10249 of Rs. 2.0 lacs was made to H. R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 11/213 12 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Suresh Rao by Romesh Sharma.
14. On return to Mumbai, H. Suresh Rao asked Romesh Sharma to return his Helicopter but he flatly refused and asked him to have some more payment for the cost of Helicopter, if the original documents including registration certificate and affidavit showing the transfer of Helicopter would be handed over to him. On loosing the hope of getting back the Helicopter he thought appropriate to hand over the documents to Romesh Sharma in order to get whatever money he could. He (H Suresh Rao) contacted R A Shah, his Advocate and apprised him about the situation requesting him to go to Delhi with him. He left for Delhi on 04.06.96 and was joined by R. A. Shah on 05.06.96.
15. On 05.06.96, H. Suresh Rao, Rakesh Gupta, R.A. Shah went to the house of Romesh Sharma. Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh Sharma also reached there. Mahesh Mehta had a talk with Romesh Sharma and made some correction in the proposed agreement of sale produced by Romesh Sharma. Romesh Sharma then asked H. Suresh Rao to handover the documents. When R A Shah advised H. Suresh Rao not to handover the documents to Romesh Sharma till the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 12/213 13 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
entire payment was made, Romesh Sharma got annoyed, snatched the documents from H. Suresh Rao and threatened him. Romesh Sharma then handed over the documents to his associate V K Luthra. When V K Luthra put the papers on the table, Romesh Sharma got furious and started beating Luthra. An atmosphere of terror was created by him. Romesh Sharma physically lifted the complainant from his seat and took him to his office chamber where he asked him to sign all the papers in order to enable him to get the Helicopter transferred in his name. He threatened that in case he did not sign the same, he (H. Suresh Rao) would not be alive reminding his connection with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates. H. Suresh Rao then signed the documents under fear of injury to his body. Romesh Sharma then brought out the corrected agreement to sell dated 14.05.96 which H. Suresh Rao also signed. H. Suresh Rao was also forced to sign the affidavit showing that he has received full payment from Romesh Sharma against the Helicopter. Since, the original certificate of registration of the Helicopter was with Summit Aviation which was pledged as Collateral Security by H. Suresh Rao for payment of dues, Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation was also called at the house of Romesh Sharma where he was told that H. Suresh Rao had entered R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 13/213 14 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
into an agreement to sell the Helicopter on which Neeraj Bhatia told him that such an agreement had already been entered into between him and H. Suresh Rao but the same could not materialise as Summit Aviation could not make the residue payment. Romesh Sharma then asked Neeraj Bhatia to deliver the original certificate promising that he would make the payment of Rs. 18 Lacs to Neeraj Bhatia provided the Helicopter is transferred in his name and made airworthy. Consequently, on his inducement, the original certificate of registration was handed over to Romesh Sharma by Neeraj Bhatia. The affidavit of H. Suresh Rao was presented before K L Vachhar, Notary Public for notarising by V K Luthra in the absence of H. Suresh Rao only on his identification. Romesh Sharma on the basis of the said affidavit, and registration certificate etc. moved an application on 06.06.96 to Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) for transfer of Helicopter in his name. It was transferred in his name on 08.06.96 on the basis of the aforesaid documents. A sum of Rs. 1.0 lac in cash was paid by Romesh Sharma to H. Suresh Rao on 17.06.96 and another amount of Rs. 1.0 lac was paid to G. Krishnan, representative of H. Suresh Rao on 05.07.96. Another sum of Rs. 1.0 lac was withdrawn from Harish Mishra from his account no. 3442 and was paid in cash to H. Suresh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 14/213 15 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Rao. H. Suresh Rao in all received Rs. 12 lacs from Romesh Sharma.
16. Whenever, H. Suresh Rao demanded his money, he was threatened by Romesh Sharma. H Suresh Rao also received threatening calls from Irfan Goga. He lodged a complaint with the police on 22.04.98 at Mumbai. With a view to retrieve his legitimate dues, he alongwith Rakesh Gupta contacted Romesh Sharma on 20.10.98 at his residence at C30, Mayfair Garden where H. Suresh Rao was manhandled by Romesh Sharma. They thereafter were abducted by Romesh Sharma and his muscle man / security man Laxman Singh who kept pointing his licensed pistol on them in the Mercedes car no. DL 1CC 2272 and were taken to 16, Mahadev Road, New Delhi. Someone informed the police. The police rescued them from the clutches of Romesh Sharma at 16, Mahadev Road and thereafter, H. Suresh Rao lodged the report at the Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Accused persons were arrested. At the instance of accused Romesh Sharma, the Helicopter was recovered and seized. The relevant documents were seized.
17. An application was moved by H. Suresh Rao for release of Helicopter on Superdari. Vide order dated 27.11.98, the Helicopter was directed to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 15/213 16 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
be released to H. Suresh Rao on certain terms and conditions.
18. Vide detailed order on Charge dated 19.12.2000, accused Vinod Luthra was discharged of the offences. Accused Romesh Sharma was charged of the offences punishable U/s 420, 392, 386, 365, 506, 323 and 412 IPC for his dishonestly inducing H. Suresh Rao after hatching a conspiracy with the coaccused to sign / deliver an MOU purporting to show that the Helicopter was sold to him though given on hire, forcibly snatching the documents relating to the Helicopter etc. from H. Suresh Rao by creating an atmosphere of terror, extorting H. Suresh Rao by putting him in fear of death forcing him to sign the documents/affidavit showing the sale of the said Helicopter and receipt of its sale proceeds, abducting H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta in the car from May Fair Garden to 16 Mahadev Road, confining them there intimidating H. Suresh Rao to cause his death beating H. Suresh Rao causing simple injuries on his person, detaining the aforesaid Helicopter belonging to H. Suresh Rao fully knowing that possession had been transferred by the commission of the offence of dacoity.
19. Accused Harish Mishra was charged U/s 420 IPC for dishonestly R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 16/213 17 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
inducing H Suresh Rao for entering into the MOU. Accused Laxman Singh was charged U/s 365 and 506 IPC for abducting and criminally intimidating H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta on the point of pistol. Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh and Manoj were charged U/s 395 IPC for their having been committed dacoity in respect of the said Helicopter which was in possession and ownership of H. Suresh Rao by creating an atmosphere of terror using the force against his employees and bringing it to Delhi. Besides, all the accused were also charged U/s 120 B IPC read with Section 420, 395, 412, 386, 365, 323 and 506 IPC for their entering into a criminal conspiracy with a common intention to dishonestly / fraudulently use the Helicopter depriving H. Suresh Rao of his legitimate dues putting him and his family in the fear of death by confining/assaulting him.
20. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
21. To substantiate its case against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 94 witnesses.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 17/213
18
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
22. PW1 Sh. P Pathak was a airworthiness officer with the Directorate of Civil Aviation. He stated that every flying machine is required to be registered with DGCA (India) for controlling the safety of Aviation. Log books of every aircraft are also maintained. In order to ensure that aircraft is airworthy, a physical inspection of aircraft is done and only then certificate of airworthiness is issued. At the time of change of ownership, original certificate of registration duly endorsed on its reverse by the previous owner alongwith an affidavit duly attested by the Notary Public by the previous owner mentioning his ownership and the averments that he has received the consideration in full and sold to the person or the company from whom the sale proceeds/consideration has so been received alongwith an application in Form CA28 from the new owner requesting for transfer/change of ownership is required. He proved the airworthy certificate in respect to Helicopter in question Ex.PW1/1 and the procedure Ex.PW1/2.
23. PW2 Sh. Charan Das was the Dy. Director Airworthiness, Civil Aviation, DGCA. He also proved the certificate Ex.PW1/1 in respect of the Helicopter Bell 47 G5 aircraft S. No. 25015 having registration no. VTEAP. He stated that it was issued on 27.12.95 and was valid upto R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 18/213 19 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
27.01.97. He stated that Sh. N. Ramesh, Dy. Director General had given three files Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C including the file Ex.PW2/B containing the application for registration of Helicopter of which Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. was the owner. He stated that on the basis of the application, the Helicopter was registered in its name vide certificate Ex.PW2/B1. On an application moved by H. Suresh Rao on 15.07.94, the certificate was transferred in his name vide Ex.PW2/C2 vide dated 19.09.94. He stated that Romesh Sharma, Prop. of Reliance Developers and Investors had moved an application on 06.06.96 for transfer of certificate of registration and change of category in certificate of airworthiness of above Helicopter in his favour being maintained by M/s Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. alongwith an application form CA28 duly filled in, affidavit duly notarised by the seller in original, certificate of registration in original duly endorsed, copy of agreement and pay order Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A5. It was processed in file Ex.PW2/A and the registration certificate was transferred in the name of Romesh Sharma vide certificate 2040/3 Ex.PW2/D. He stated that Romesh Sharma had also requested to issue change of first page of journey note book vide dated 26.06.96 Ex.PW2/A13 which request was allowed and the first page was issued R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 19/213 20 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
on 02.07.96 in the name of Romesh Sharma vide letter Ex.PW2/A16. He stated that although the sale deed of the said Helicopter was furnished by Romesh Sharma but the same was not required. He stated that no complaint in respect of the Helicopter was received after registration and issuance of airworthiness certificate till 1998. A complaint Ex.PW2/DA was received in his office on 31.08.98 which was replied to H. Suresh Rao vide Ex.PW2/DC.
24. PW3 Sh. L H Farooqui was the Secretary in Election Commission of India. He stated that for holding an election for Lok Sabha, Election Commission issues a press note. The limit of expenses to be incurred in Parliamentary election in a Constituency in the state of UP was fixed at Rs. 4,50,000/ during the year 1996. From the date, the candidate is nominated till the election is complete, the candidate has to maintain the account in a performa prescribed by the commission and he has to file all the documents to the District Election Officer within one month from the declaration of the result of the Constituency. He proved the press release in respect of the General Election Ex.PW3/A1, Gazette Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of Election Ex.PW3/A3 and the original receipt regarding expenditure Ex.PW3/A4 R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 20/213 21 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
in respect of the candidate Romesh Sharma. He stated that Romesh Sharma had also given an affidavit of expenditure Ex.PW3/B2 and the expenditure details Ex.PW3/B1 who had contested the election from 55 Phulpur, Allahabad in 1996 held on 07.05.96 of which the result was declared on 11.05.96 in which Romesh Sharma got defeat.
25. PW4 Sh. Nageshwar Parsad was the Senior Assistant in District Election Office, Allahabad. He stated that candidate maintains record in respect to the expenses incurred during the elections through its agent. He files a register alongwith an affidavit giving itemwise details. He proved the register Ex.PW4/A containing the details of the expenses incurred by Romesh Sharma in the Election and the Affidavit Ex.PW4/B given by Romesh Sharma in respect of the expenses. He stated that in the event of purchase of car / Helicopter etc. during the period of election, price of the said vehicle is not included in the expenses, however, the amount spent on diesel/fuel/salary of driver is included in the expenses.
26. PW5 Sh. Mehboob Khan was the Asstt. District Election Officer. He handed over the documents to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 21/213 22 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
27. PW6 Sh. H. Suresh Rao was the complainant. He in his evidence on oath has materially supported the case of the prosecution both made in the complaint as well as the statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During his evidence, he proved the documents which have direct bearing on the prosecution case i.e. registration certificate Ex.PW2/C1 in the name of Pushpak Aviation, Application moved to the Director General Civil Aviation for transfer of ownership in his name Ex.PW2/B2, Form CA28 and the MOU regarding the same Ex.PW6/23, transfer of registration in his name vide certificate Ex.PW2/A5, Memorandum of Agreement between him and Summit Aviation Ex.PW6/5, Airworthiness Certificate Ex.PW1/1, Fax sent by Mahender Pujara to the accused Romesh Sharma regarding the terms and conditions of hire Ex.PW6/6, letter sent by him to the accused Romesh Sharma on 25.03.96 reiterating the terms of the fax Ex.PW6/7, Transit Insurance Policy Ex.PW6/8, receipts Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 with respect to hiring of trucks for transportation of helicopter and fuel from Mumbai to Phulpur, vide GRs/LRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 whereby Pushpak Aviation was shown consignor and the consignee, the MOU Ex.PW6/14 entered into between Harish Mishra and PW6 on 27.03.96 on the letter head of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 22/213 23 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Reliance Developers and Investors, letters sent to the Director, Airworthiness on 26.03.96 and 27.03.96 with respect to sending of helicopter on contract basis, receipt of cheques from Romesh Sharma on 30.03.96 Ex.PW6/17 to Ex.PW6/19, entering into another MOU Ex.PW6/20 on a Stamp Paper with the accused Romesh Sharma, air tickets in respect of his visit on 30.03.96 Ex.PW6/22 and Ex.PW6/23, Agreement with rubber plantation company Ex.PW6/24B and the correspondence with them Ex.PW6/24B4 and B5, Air tickets with respect to his visit on 14.05.96 Ex.PW6/25, demand draft of Rs. 2.0 lacs Ex.PW6/26 given by the accused on 15.05.96, Log books Ex.PW6/30 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 as to the receipt of full and final consideration given on 05.06.96 with respect to transfer of ownership in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma and the agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 bearing the date 14.05.96, air tickets of the date of 04/05.06.96, draft of the payment received on 15.05.96 Ex.PW6/26, another payment on 17.06.96 Ex.PW6/36, receipt Ex.PW6/38 as to the payment made on 05.07.96, another receipt of 16.07.96 as to the payment made by Harish Mishra Ex.PW6/39 and the accounts of Garuda Aviation Ex.PW6/40 and Ex.PW6/41, the complaint given to the SHO Police Station Greater KailashI Ex.PW6/43 and the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 23/213 24 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
DCP (Crime) Ex.PW6/44 prior to the incident of 20.10.98, complaint Ex.PW6/46 given to the police station Hauz Khas on the basis of which the present case was registered, seizure memo of Pajero car and Mercedes car Ex.PW6/47 and Ex.PW6/48, seizure memo of Helicopter Ex.PW6/49 and identification of accused Laxman from the photographs Ex.PW6/57. He also identified the pistol Ex.P1, Pajero Jeep Ex.P2 and Mercedes car Ex.PW3.
The material portion of his evidence will be discussed when I will specifically deal with the chain of events leading to its applicability or otherwise of the offences with which the accused have been charged.
On being crossexamined, he stated that helicopter is flown under the guidance and control of Aviation Department, Govt. of India. He stated that after he was informed by his employees that the helicopter was detained in UP, he did not inform the Aviation Department nor informed the Authority when it was taken to Delhi. He denied that he did not inform because he had entered into an agreement for sale of helicopter with Romesh Sharma. He stated that he did not inform Romesh Sharma while agreeing to his proposal of selling the helicopter to him that he has already entered into an R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 24/213 25 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
agreement of sale with two more companies. He stated that he had made complaint to Civil Aviation that helicopter was forcibly taken by him but did not inform the authority that he was forced to enter into the agreement on false promises and assurance. He denied that he had preserved the air ticket jackets intentionally with a view to create evidence against the accused. He stated that he did not ask his employee to lodge report at the police station when the henchmen of Romesh Sharma snatched the helicopter. He explained that they were advised by STD Operator Mr. Shukla not to report against Romesh Sharma and if they reported, he would get them eliminated. He admitted that when a flying machine is given to the pilot, its physical possession is given to him. He admitted that movements of flying machine are recorded in the Log Book.
He stated that for the first time, he received threatening call from underworld Don about this case in 1998 and prior to that he did not receive any call. He denied that he was negotiating with Romesh Sharma in respect of sale of helicopter prior to receipt of alleged threat or that he was not afraid of Romesh Sharma prior to 1998. He admitted that, at present, the certificate of registration is in the name of Romesh Sharma and it was transferred in 1996. He denied that he R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 25/213 26 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
desired to sell the helicopter. He denied that he accepted the payment from Romesh Sharma in furtherance of MOU. He stated that he did not issue receipt incorporating that the amount has been charged towards hire, however, he has stated that he had mentioned so in his books of accounts. He admitted that he did not know Harish Mishra previously. He met him for the first time on 25.03.96. He denied that in the meeting held in March, 1996 with Romesh Sharma, he had suggested Romesh Sharma that he was interested in selling the helicopter. He denied that Harish Mishra was introduced to him by Rakesh Gupta whom he knew from before. He stated that Harish Mishra also met him in July, 1996 in Mumbai where he came to make payment. He stated that Harish Mishra had given him Rs. 6.0 lacs approx. in all. He stated that he did not owe any money to Rakesh Gupta. He stated that he knew Lalit Bagla Chairman of United India Airways. He stated that the police had showed him the photograph of Laxman Singh after the accused refused to participate in TIP. He stated that he had filed a petition in the High Court in respect of the Helicopter. He denied that he in deliberate connivance with the police filed a false case against Romesh Sharma or that Romesh Sharma had purchased the helicopter and made substantial payment either R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 26/213 27 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
towards cheque or cash.
28. PW7 Sh. Rakesh Gupta was the Managing Director of United India Airways. He stated that Ashok Gulati was the Director in his company. Ashok Gulati had introduced him to Romesh Sharma in February 1996. Thereafter, there were frequent meetings with him and Romesh Sharma at his house at C30, Mayfair Garden and office at S41, Panchsheel Park. He also knew H. Suresh Rao since February 1996. He stated that H. Suresh Rao had met him in the house of Lalit Bagla where he came with Mr. Pujara. He stated that PW6 was doing the business of hiring and chartering Helicopter in the name of Pushpak Aviation at Mumbai.
He stated that on 26.03.96 at 4.00 PM Romesh Sharma rang him up and called at his house. At about 7.00 PM he met him. Romesh Sharma told him that his brother Harish Mishra would see him at the Airport at Mumbai on 27.03.96. He was hiring a Helicopter from Suresh Rao and probably he has despatched the Helicopter on 26.03.96. He asked asked him to go with his brother Harish Mishra to the office of H Suresh Rao to prepare a hiring agreement of the Helicopter. He handed over an envelope containing blank letter head R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 27/213 28 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
of Reliance Developers and Investors on which MOU of hiring was to be prepared. On 27.03.96 he was received at Mumbai Airport by Harish Mishra. From there they went to the office of H. Suresh Rao at Juhu Airport, Mumbai where Romesh Sharma talked to Suresh Rao on telephone. He stated that from their telephonic conversation, he gathered that Romesh Sharma was insisting and requesting Suresh Rao to draw MOU of sale of Helicopter instead of hiring, so that the hiring charges might not be mentioned in the election expenses stating that MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over. He stated that initially H. Suresh Rao was reluctant but he ultimately acceded to his request and agreed to draw MOU. He stated that Suresh Rao had told him that he has no option as he has already despatched the Helicopter. He stated that Romesh Sharma had asked PW6 to draw predated MOU showing it to be executed on 24.02.96. He stated that an MOU on the letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors Ex.PW6/14 was drawn up in duplicate on 27.03.96 as pre dated purporting to have been executed on 24.02.96 which was signed by H. Suresh Rao and Harish Mishra.
He stated that on 12.05.96 he received a call from Suresh Rao from Mumbai at Delhi that his Helicopter was ready for despatch from R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 28/213 29 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Phulpur to Mumbai but it was forcibly taken away by the persons of Romesh Sharma. He sought his help to get back the Helicopter and the money.
He stated that on 05.06.06 he received a call from Suresh Rao that he has come at Delhi with his lawyer and was going to the House of Romesh Sharma to sort out the matter and also requested him to come there. He went to his house. Romesh Sharma and Suresh Rao were with their lawyers. He stated that Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh Sharma was having a draft of agreement which he showed to Romesh Sharma. They after discussion suggested some changes which were incorporated by Mr. Mehta in his writing on the agreement. Suresh Rao gave the documents to Romesh Sharma which he kept on the table. Sh. R A Shah, Advocate of Mr. Rao intervened and told that he should have received the payment first from Romesh Sharma before handing over the documents. When H. Suresh Rao lifted the documents from the table, Romesh Sharma got annoyed and told Mr. Rao not to listen to his lawyer. He took back the documents from Mr. Rao and handed over to V K Luthra who again put the documents on the table. On this, Romesh Sharma got very annoyed with Mr. Luthra, beat him mercilessly and the whole atmosphere became tense and R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 29/213 30 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
they felt scared. Romesh Sharma then took the documents and Mr. Rao to his cabin for obtaining his signatures. After 510 minutes, they came out. Suresh Rao was in a very bad shape when he came out of the cabin. Romesh Sharma then forced Suresh Rao to sign the document/agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 which he signed. Romesh Sharma also signed the said agreement. He stated that an affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 was also signed by Suresh Rao where Mr. Shah was forced to sign as witness.
He stated that on enquiry by Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao told that the certificate of registration was with Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation. Romesh Sharma then asked H. Suresh Rao to call Neeraj Bhatia and request him to bring the certificate at his house. He stated that after sometime Neeraj Bhatia and Major Gaonkar came alongwith the certificate. Romesh Sharma asked Neeraj Bhatia to give the certificate but Neeraj told that H. Suresh Rao owed a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and has also entered an agreement to sell in respect of Helicopter with him. On this, Romesh Sharma told Neeraj Bhatia that he would pay 18 lacs to him. He also showed the agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33. He stated that no amount was paid by Romesh Sharma, however, Neeraj Bhatia handed over the certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 30/213 31 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Romesh Sharma on which H. Suresh Rao signed on its back.
He stated that he received call from Mr. Rao that he has not received the payment from Romesh Sharma and he was in financial difficulty. He stated that on 22.06.96 Suresh Rao telephoned him that Romesh Sharma had told him that he would make the payment provided he facilitates the assembly of Helicopter at his Farm and make it functional. He stated that on 23.06.96 he went to the house of Romesh Sharma at Mayfair Garden where he found him sitting with Major Gaonkar, Girish Rao and Pappara and discussing about the assembly of the Helicopter at the Farm House. Mr. Pappara was expressing some procedural difficulty that permission was required from DGCA. On this, Romesh Sharma got angry and started hitting Pappara. Mr. Girish Rao came to his help but he was pushed aside. Mr. Pappara started bleeding from his mouth. In the meantime, Mr. Gaonkar ranged someone at DGCA Office in Mumbai and made Pappara talked to him. Thereafter, Mr. Pappara and Girish Rao went to the Farm.
He stated that Suresh Rao telephoned him number of times that he did not receive any payment from Romesh Sharma and everytime when he ranged Romesh Sharma, he was threatened that he would be R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 31/213 32 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
eliminated if he insisted for payment. Romesh Sharma asserted that he was very well known to Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai. He stated that Suresh Rao also told him that he was scared of Romesh Sharma to lodge report. He stated that on one or two occasion he had heard Romesh Sharma talking to someone on telephone telling him that he was talking to Bhai i.e. Dawood.
He stated that on 20.10.98 Suresh Rao came to his house at about 10/10.30 AM and requested him to accompany to the house of Romesh Sharma to request him to make the payment as he was in very bad shape. On his request, he went to the house of Romesh Sharma at C30, Mayfair Garden at 11.30 AM where they waited for two hours as Romesh Sharma was upstairs. Romesh Sharma came down and took them to his cabin. He (PW7) then requested Romesh Sharma to settle the account of Mr. Rao as much time has passed and also told that if it is not settled, Suresh Rao would unnecessarily go and make complaint to the police. On this, Romesh Sharma got very much annoyed, gave beatings to H. Suresh Rao, lifted a chair to hit him but he caught hold of his hand and persuaded him to settle the matter amicably. Romesh Sharma then went to a room at first floor. He also followed him. When he came down, he did not find H. Suresh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 32/213 33 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Rao sitting there. Romesh Sharma asked him as to where H. Suresh Rao was. They came out in the corridor where Romesh Sharma enquired from his man about Suresh Rao. He shouted them to bring him back. He immediately sat down in his Pajero Jeep and also asked him to sit down next to him. As soon as they came out on the road they saw Rao walking. Romesh Sharma asked him to sit down in the Jeep. He brought him back to his house. He then enquired from Rao where he was going. Rao told him that he was going to get cigarette. Romesh Sharma frisked Rao and found a packet of cigarette. On this, he became annoyed and asked him why he was telling a lie as the cigarette was already with him. He then slapped and punched him. He called his bodyguard and asked him to keep a watch and not to allow them to leave. He then called Mercedes Car parked in his house and asked them to sit in it. Romesh Sharma sat on the driver seat and on the front seat one South Indian gentleman was sitting. On the rear seat he, Suresh Rao and the bodyguard of Romesh Sharma were sitting. Romesh Sharma called one of his driver and asked him (PW7) to give the key of his car to him and to bring the car at Mahadev Road. He stated that the Security Guard was sitting with a pistol in his hand pointing out towards them. He drove the car to Mahadev Road which R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 33/213 34 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
was the party office of Romesh Sharma. He then asked Laxman Singh and his persons not to allow them to leave from there.
He stated that after 2025 minutes 34 policemen came there, got them released. He also identified the pistol Ex.P1 which Laxman Singh was carrying.
On being crossexamined he stated that as soon as they reached the house of Romesh Sharma on 20.10.98 other agencies such as DRI, Customs, Income Tax, Wildlife, Excise also started coming and making search of the house of the accused Romesh Sharma. However, they did not make enquiry from him but discussed with the police officers of Police Station Hauz Khas. He admitted that PW6 owed him Rs. 10 lacs which he has not returned however, he denied that he helped him out in this case so that he might return his money. He stated that he had paid Rs. 10 lacs as PW6 had agreed to lease out a helicopter to him. He admitted that he had helped PW6 in drafting the complaint. He denied that he had asked the accused Romesh Sharma to arrange some loan from Lalit Bagla. He denied that he was not forcibly taken to Mahadev Road or that at no occasion the accused Romesh Sharma had mentioned about Dawood. He denied that the accused Laxman Singh did not threaten them or that R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 34/213 35 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
he was not present in the car. He stated that the search in the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden continued till 21.10.98 morning and during the search, documents such as Agreement to Sell, Helicopter height map and other documents were seized.
29. PW8 Sh. Mahender Pujara knew PW6 since 1995. He stated that H Suresh Rao used to give his Helicopter on hire in the name of Pushpak Aviation. He (PW8) used to charge commission on this work. He stated that on 19.02.96 he came with Suresh Rao to Delhi and went to the residence of Bagla, Director of United Airways of which Rakesh Gupta PW7 was the Managing Director. He met Romesh Sharma in the office of Bagla. In March, 1996 he again went to Delhi with H. Suresh Rao. Some talk about hiring of Helicopter between H Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma took place for the purpose of campaigning in election which fact he came to know from Suresh Rao. He stated that Suresh Rao asked him to send a fax message Ex.PW6/6 on 24.03.96 about hiring the Helicopter by Romesh Sharma which he sent mentioning the terms and conditions as stated by Suresh Rao.
On being crossexamined he stated that confirmation receipt of fax message Ex.PW6/6 and original fax message were given by him to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 35/213 36 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
PW6. No suggestions were given to this witness that no fax message Ex.PW6/6 was received by the accused.
30. PW9 Sh. B G Pappara was a qualified Aircraft Maintenance Engineer/Chief Maintenance Engineer with Pushpak Aviation. He stated that Pushpak Aviation owned a Helicopter Bell47 G5 VT EAP being used for pesticide spraying, generally for passengers hiring / film shooting etc. His job was to maintain the helicopter on the ground. He stated that when the Helicopter was to be sent out of Mumbai it used to be dismantled, packed and transported in a truck and reassembled. He used to go for this purpose and remain there till the operation was complete. For transportation, company issues a letter for exemption of Sales Tax certifying that Helicopter is for its own use and not for sale. Goods receipt is also issued by the Transport company. Maintenance manual, log books, inspection schedule etc. are maintained when the Helicopter is despatched from one place to other. He proved the Journey log book Ex.PW6/29, Engine log book Ex.PW6/30, Aircraft log book Ex.PW6/31 and aircraft station apparatus log books Ex.PW6/34 of the period upto 07.05.96 including a file Ex.PW6/55 in respect of daily prefly inspection from 26.03.96 to 09.05.96.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 36/213
37
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
He stated that in the month of March, 1996 he proceeded to Phulpur where the Helicopter was to be sent for election flying for Romesh Sharma. It was dismantled, packed, loaded and sent to Phulpur in a truck on 26.03.96. Three technicians B R Pappara, Parshuram, Tukaram and Mr. Verma accompanied the Helicopter. They reached Phulpur on 28.03.96. The machines were unloaded on 29.03.96 and assembled on the same day on a ground near the Bungalow of Romesh Sharma. Information was sent to Director Airworthiness vide Ex.PW6/15. He stated that Suresh Rao had told him that the Helicopter was to fly upto 12.04.96 and thereafter it had to proceed for Kerala for undertaking an aerial spraying contract on rubber plantation and the rates for election flying was Rs. 80000/ per day which were to be borne by Romesh Sharma. He stated that Romesh Sharma used to give them daily programme. The contract expired on 12.04.96, however, they remained in Phulpur even after 12.04.96 since Romesh Sharma asked them to continue as the contract between them had extended. He stated that during the election speeches, Romesh Sharma had spoken to the public at large that the Helicopter was purchased by him and would remain in the village for their local use. When he enquired from Rao on telephone, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 37/213 38 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
he denied this claim of Romesh Sharma telling that he did not sell the Helicopter to him. On 09.05.96 he sent the fuel and spare parts in a truck from Phulpur to Mumbai through SherePunjab Transport services vide GR no. Ex.PW9/1. He requested Mr. Girish Rao to arrange the transit insurance vide fax Ex.PW9/2. He stated that Captain Bansode was the pilot on the helicopter upto 12.04.96 and thereafter Captain Demose was the pilot. They used to stay in Hotel Yatrik at Allahabad from where they used to go to Phulpur.
He proved the entries made in the books from 30.03.96 to 07.05.96 Ex.PW6/30. He proved the entry regarding dismantling of the helicopter to Mumbai vide memo Ex.PW9/8 and other entries Ex.PW9/3 to Ex.PW9/9.
He stated that on 11.05.96, the Helicopter was dismantled in the morning and in this respect an entry Ex.PW9/8 was made. The parts were loaded in the truck, when the machine and the parts were being tied, they were surrounded by the persons who were in two vehicles about 15 in numbers. They were carrying guns/lathis. Those persons shouted and threatened them saying that Helicopter cannot be taken to Mumbai and it has to be taken to Delhi as per the orders of Romesh Sharma and they have to accompany with the truck to Delhi. They R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 38/213 39 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
started pulling down the parts loaded in the truck. He stated that the driver of the truck refused to go to Delhi because he was not having permit for Delhi. He named the persons in the mob as Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani and identified them stating that he knew them as they were working as a team with them for election purposes. They then decided to leave Allahabad for safety reasons. They cancelled their tickets, booked new tickets for Mumbai. He stated that he did not report the matter to the police as they were more concerned about their safety because they knew that Romesh Sharma had lot of influence locally and reporting the matter could trouble them. From Lucknow, on 11.05.96, they informed Suresh Rao on telephone about what had happened at Phulpur and reached Mumbai on 12.05.96. He met Suresh Rao and informed him the incident.
He stated that on 24.06.96 he came to Delhi with Girish Rao to assemble the helicopter and met Romesh Sharma. He stated that since the Helicopter was not maintained from 11.05.96 to 26.06.96, he had to take clarifications from the Director, Airworthiness, Mumbai. Mr. Gaonkar contacted the Director and sought clarification. He stated that when the information was being passed on, Romesh Sharma got R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 39/213 40 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
annoyed, caught hold of his collar, hit him on his face due to which he sustained injuries on his upper lip. He stated that Romesh Sharma threatened him saying that if he did not cooperate, he would cut his legs. When Girish Rao requested Romesh Sharma not to hit him, he got annoyed and also punched him. He stated that after getting permission, they went to Farm House, reassembled the Helicopter and made an entry Ex.PW9/9.
On being crossexamined, he stated that he had sent a fax message Ex.PW9/2 in response to the directions of Suresh Rao that the Helicopter was to be taken to Kerala, however, he did not get any response. He stated that he did not participate in TIP, however, denied that he being an associate of Suresh Rao has given the statement on to the dictates of CBI in connivance with Suresh Rao. He stated that he did not see the hiring agreement between Romesh Sharma and Suresh Rao regarding the Helicopter, however, denied that no threat or intimidation was given by any member or staff of Romesh Sharma or by the accused persons named in his statement. He admitted that he did not report to the police at Lucknow/Mumbai of the incident.
31. PW10 R A Shah was the Family lawyer of Suresh Rao. He had gone R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 40/213 41 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
with Suresh Rao to the house of Romesh Sharma on 05.06.96 as Suresh Rao had revealed him that he had given his helicopter on hire to Romesh Sharma for election campaign which he was not returning. He stated that he advised Suresh Rao to take legal action but Suresh Rao told that he was scared of Romesh Sharma and he would do whatever Romesh Sharma has asked him to do finally. He stated that Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh Sharma and one Mr. Gupta also came there. Romesh Sharma gave Mahesh Mehta a document who made certain corrections. Suresh Rao was having the original documents of the Helicopter in his hand. When Romesh Sharma demanded the documents from him, he intervened and asked Mr. Rao not to handover the documents till the payment was made to him. Romesh Sharma got annoyed insulted him and asked Suresh Rao not to pay heed on his advice. He then snatched the documents from the hands of Suresh Rao, handed over to his employee who kept in on the table. Romesh Sharma got up and took up the documents and kept them inside. He slapped and gave beatings to his employee. He became terrified. Romesh Sharma then asked Suresh Rao to sign the document. He (PW10) again told Suresh Rao not to sign the document. Romesh Sharma got annoyed, took Suresh Rao to another R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 41/213 42 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
room. When they came out, the condition of Suresh Rao was scared and pale. Suresh Rao told him that he would sign the documents despite his advice. He signed the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 on which he also signed as witness at the instance of Romesh Sharma. He stated that neither of them went to Notary Public for attestation of affidavit. He stated that Romesh Sharma then asked Suresh Rao to produce the original registration certificate. He told that it was with Neeraj Bhatia. On the asking of Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao called Neeraj Bhatia who brought the certificate and gave it to Romesh Sharma. He stated that no payment was made to Neeraj Bhatia by Romesh Sharma on that day.
On being crossexamined, he stated that Suresh Rao did not show any other agreement of hiring of helicopter nor any hiring agreement in respect of the helicopter was prepared by him at the instance of Suresh Rao nor he was aware of any cash transaction between Romesh Sharma and Suresh Rao. He stated that he did not make any complaint to Bar Council or the Police qua the insult meted to him by Romesh Sharma. He denied that Suresh Rao had sold/transferred the Helicopter to Romesh Sharma in a proper deal.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 42/213
43
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
32. PW11 Captain A D Bansod was the Pilot on the Helicopter. He
stated that on 29.03.96, the helicopter was assembled. He took
permission from Airport Station Allahabad and flew the helicopter there from 02.04.96 to 13.04.96. He handed over to Captain Demose on 13.04.96. He stated that at Ugarsen Pur Sh. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia had made arrangement for their lodging and boarding. He denied that his payment was made by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he received the charges for flying the Helicopter from Suresh Rao amounting to Rs. 60,000/.
33. PW12 Sh. K L Vachher was the Notary Public at Patiala House Courts. He stated that on 05.06.96 V K Luthra produced/presented an affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 for attestation, executant of which was H. Suresh Rao witnessed by Mr. Shah, however, they were not present at the time of attestation. Mr. Luthra identified the signatures of Mr. Shah and Suresh Rao. He put his seal and handed over the document to Mr. Luthra.
34. PW13 Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj was the Stamp Vendor at Delhi. As per record, he had sold the stamp papers bearing S. No. 148281 to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 43/213 44 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
148284 to Suresh Rao. On his behalf Ajay Kumar made the entries Ex.PW13/B. He stated that Stamp Paper Ex.PW6/20 of Rs. 2/ was sold on 29.03.96 to Suresh Rao and it also carried the stamp of the date.
35. PW14 Wing Commander H C Demose was engaged by H. Suresh Rao for flying the Helicopter at Phulpur. He stated that it was agreed between him and Suresh Rao that he was to get 12.5% of daily charges, being charged by the company from the hirer besides other expenses which were to be paid by Romesh Sharma at Phulpur and hiring charges were Rs. 80000/ per day. He flew the Helicopter on the places on the instructions of Romesh Sharma from 14.04.96 to 07.05.96. He stated that helicopter was to be removed to Kerala via Mumbai. They arranged two trucks from SherePunjab Allahabad for transportation of fuel and helicopter after dismantling. The fuel was sent to Mumbai. On 11.05.96 another truck came. The technicians after dismantling loaded the parts of the helicopter. When they were in the process of tying its parts, two vehicles carrying 1015 persons arrived there. They got down from the vehicles and shouted loudly not to take or carry the helicopter to Kerala and asked to take it to Delhi.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 44/213
45
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Some of them were armed with Lathis and some of them were having some weapons in their pocket as their pockets were swallowing. The truck driver refused to go to Delhi as he was not having permit for Delhi. He stated that those persons were very unruly. He apprehended physical assault from them and therefore rendered guidance to those persons and helped them to unload the helicopter. He identified Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Avdesh, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja and Indermani. He stated that accused Avtar Singh asked them to stay in the Bungalow telling that he was going to arrange another truck and they were not to leave without his permission. They felt threatened, went in a room and discussed. They decided to leave one by one. He went to STD booth where Mr. Shukla owner of the booth advised him to write a complaint. When he was writing the complaint, Mrs. Shukla intervened and advised not to do so. It could create trouble for him as he was in the territory of Romesh Sharma. She also reminded him of the incident in which armed clash had taken place between the supporters of Romesh Sharma and another party. He dropped the idea and went to the Hotel. He went to Mumbai on 12.05.96 and narrated the whole incident to Suresh Rao. On being crossexamined, he stated that Suresh Rao did not ask him to report R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 45/213 46 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the matter to the police at Lucknow nor Suresh Rao called the police. He stated that he did not see any of the accused persons carrying fire arms or physically assaulting them. He stated that Suresh Rao never told him that he had agreed to sell the helicopter to Romesh Sharma nor Suresh Rao showed him any hiring agreement.
36. PW15 Parsuram was technician on the Helicopter. He also deposed on the lines of PW9 and PW14. He identified M Bhojwani and Ahluwalia. He stated that they were looked after well however, he denied that no such incident took place on 11.05.96. He stated M D Bhojwani used to arrange their catering.
37. PW16 Sh. Heera Chand was the Transporter at Mumbai. In March 1996 on the asking of Suresh Rao he hired the trucks for transportation of helicopter from Mumbai to Phulpur for Rs. 30000/, issued the bill in the name of Pushpak Aviation Ex.PW6/13, lorry receipts Ex.PW6/11 and 12, writing consignor and consignee on the receipts as Pushpak Aviation, Mumbai and Pushpak Aviation, Allahabad respectively. He however, admitted that the consignor and consignee names were mentioned on the directions of the sender.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 46/213
47
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
38. PW17 Sh. Mahesh Mehta was the Advocate of Romesh Sharma. He identified the agreement Ex.PW6/e3 prepared and drafted by him on 14.05.96 at the instance of Romesh Sharma after getting the copy of MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20. He stated that he received a call from Romesh Sharma that Advocate of Suresh Rao and Suresh Rao have come and want to discuss something about the agreement as they have some reservations. He went to his house where Suresh Rao, his lawyer Mr. Shah, Rakesh Gupta and some few persons were present. After discussions, he made some corrections in the agreement at the instance of both the parties as well as the Advocate of Suresh Rao. He stated that signatures of the parties were not appearing on the agreement at the time when the corrections were made.
39. PW18 Sh. Neeraj Bhatia was the Managing Director of Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd. which used to supply spare parts of Aircraft for maintenance/operation of Helicopter. He stated that during the year 199495 Pushpak Aviation had purchased spare parts of Helicopter from his firm of the value of Rs. 35 lacs. Pushpak Aviation paid some advance to his firm. An amount of Rs. 18.5 lacs remained unpaid after R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 47/213 48 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
adjustment of payment. After adding the interest, the due amount was about Rs. 2223 lacs. He stated that an MOU Ex.PW6/5 was entered into on 20.11.95 between him and Suresh Rao for securing the aforesaid amount. The value of the Helicopter was determined as Rs. 40 lacs. He stated that the MOU was executed as a collateral security as he wanted to secure his money. He also obtained original certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 from Suresh Rao. He stated that in the first week of June, 1996 / 05.06.96 he was called by Suresh Rao at the house of Romesh Sharma at Mayfair Garden alongwith the certificate of registration. He alongwith Mr. Gaonkar reached there at about 1.00 PM, met Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao, his lawyer and Rakesh Gupta. There it was decided that Romesh Sharma would pay him a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and he would handover the certificate of registration of the Helicopter to him. He then asked Major Gaonkar to handover the certificate Ex.PW2/A5 to Romesh Sharma on getting the assurance from him that he would pay him Rs. 18 lacs. He stated that till date, he did not get the amount of Rs. 18 lacs from Romesh Sharma.
On being crossexamined he stated that he had met Romesh Sharma 23 times during the period from 05.06.96 till he was arrested.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 48/213
49
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
He however, did not ask him to pay the said amount during that period but Major Gaonkar had regularly asked him to pay the said amount. He stated that Major Gaonkar was the Director of the company. He stated that he did not serve any notice to Romesh Sharma to make the payment. However, he stated that at the time of agreement, it was agreed that Suresh Rao would make the Helicopter airworthy and Romesh Sharma would make the payment. He stated that the Helicopter was made airworthy and it was checked by Major Gaonkar at the Farmhouse of Romesh Sharma.
40. PW19 Sh. Prem Narain Puri was the Munshi with Azad Forwarding Agency, Allahabad which arranged the trucks on hire. He stated that every goods receipt is prepared in triplicate, one for the driver, second for the consignor and third for record. He proved the receipt book Ex.PW19/A issued to the parties during the period from 19.04.96 to 22.05.96. He stated that dismantled helicopter was booked for carriage in the truck no. UP 70 9771 vide receipt Ex.PW19/A1 on behalf of Romesh Sharma from Ugarsen Pur Allahabad to C30, Mayfair Garden. The truck belonged to Abdul Salam and Shehnawaz was its driver. Its fare was Rs. 6200/. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, had R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 49/213 50 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
booked the truck and signed the receipt Ex.PW19/A1.
41. PW20 Ms. Geeta Kashyap was the licensed Stamp Vendor. She stated that the judicial stamp paper Ex.PW6/33 of Rs. 2/ was sold by her brother Shankar on 13.05.96 in the name of Romesh Sharma, S41, Panchsheel Park.
42. PW21 Hayatullah Khan was the son of the Proprietor of Azad Golden Roadlines, Allahabad. He stated that his company had provided a truck bearing no. MH 04 C 5336 to Jagdeep Singh, Prop. of Shere Punjab on 11.05.96 on commission basis for transportation of Helicopter from Ugarsen Pur to Mumbai. They sent the truck at 8.30 AM. At about 7.00 PM he received a call from his driver that the helicopter was loaded on the truck but the truck was not being allowed to proceed by the men of Netaji means Sharma Ji. He asked him to stop the vehicle there and talked to SherePunjab. It was sent back empty. He stated that his driver had told him that loaded helicopter was removed/unloaded from the truck.
43. PW22 Sh. Shahnawaz was the truck driver on the truck no. UP 70 R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 50/213 51 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
9771 of which Abdul Salam was the owner. It was attached with M/s Azad Transport Company, Allahabad. He stated that on 11.05.96 at about 11/12 noon his father handed over two GRs. He was accompanied by two persons. Out of them one was Avtar Singh. He went to Ugarsen Pur in the truck. One car was ahead of them in which 23 persons were sitting. The car stopped near a Kothi at Ugarsen Pur where he stopped his truck. A truck had already been parked there on which helicopter had been loaded. The helicopter was then removed from the truck and loaded on his truck. 810 persons present there helped him in removing the helicopter from other truck to his truck. He first took the truck to Delhi. His truck was followed by 34 vehicles. They came at Delhi on 12.05.96 at about 6/7 PM. He parked his truck near a bungalow and then took it to a Farmhouse. He admitted that he did not participate in TIP but denied that he identified Avtar Singh at the instance of CBI.
44. PW23 Sh. Sarafatullah Khan was the employer of Mobin Khan, driver on truck no. MH 04 C 5333 with its cleaner Kallu Khan. He stated that he was contacted by the transporter Hayatullah of Azad Golden Transport in May, 1996, if he could carry a Helicopter from R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 51/213 52 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Phulpur to Mumbai which he agreed. He went to village Ugarsen Pur with the truck, parked it in front of the house of Netaji where helicopter was loaded. He stated that 2025 persons came there, raised a noise and asked him to take the helicopter to Delhi and not to Mumbai. He told them that he cannot carry the truck to Delhi since he was not having the permit for Delhi. He stated that those 2025 persons threatened the persons who had loaded the helicopter on the truck. He informed Hayatullah, who asked him to unload the helicopter and come to Azad Golden Transport. He stated that the helicopter was unloaded from his truck and he went to Azad Transport. In cross examination he stated that he was not made to identify the persons who had threatened him to take the helicopter to Delhi in his truck nor he lodged report.
45. PW24 Kallu Khan was the cleaner on the truck. He deposed on the lines of PW23. He stated that when the helicopter was loaded no builty/ GR was prepared. He stated that the helicopter was loaded at about 11.00 AM. 2025 persons came there and told that the helicopter would be taken to Delhi and not to Mumbai. They also threatened them. He stated that they told them that they did not have permit for R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 52/213 53 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Delhi so the helicopter was unloaded by 2025 persons. He stated that he was not made to identify those persons by the police.
46. PW25 Jagdeep Singh was partner in SherePunjab, Allahabad. He produced the GR receipt no. 3854 Ex.PW/25 A1 whereby the fuel was sent to Mumbai in truck no. UP 72 9705 to the consignor Pushpak Aviation on 09.05.96.
47. PW25 Sh. B Bala Krishnan was the General Manager with M/s Erry Sons Maliyalam Ltd., a plantation company. He stated that in May/June prior to the advent of monsoon, spraying of chemical is done on rubber plantation to prevent growth of bacteria for which they take the services of helicopter from Pushpak Aviation and Gardua Aviation. He handed over a file to CBI Ex.PW26/A containing the correspondence of Pushpak Aviation and Garuda Avitation with his company. He stated that Ibrahim Associates was the local agent of Pushpak Aviations. In 1996 they contacted the aviation company whether it could place their helicopter for spraying around the rubber plantation. The company responded vide letter Ex.PW26/B1. They wrote a letter Ex.PW26/B2 dated 22.01.96 confirming the proposal of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 53/213 54 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
aerial spray and the terms and conditions. On 25.03.96 they sent a letter to Ibrahim Associates Ex.PW26/B4 giving the details of the area to be sprayed for the period from 22.04.96 to 17.05.96. An advance of Rs. 2.0 lacs was sent. He stated that they received a letter from Garuda Aviation that the helicopter would be positioned from 30.04.96. He stated that vide letter dated 16.05.96 addressed to Ibrahim Associates Ex.PW26/B10 by Pushpak Aviation, it was informed that the helicopter was impounded by the hirer/politician and unauthorisedly removed to Delhi regretting its placement for spraying purposes. He stated that a fax message was sent on 23.05.96 for refund of advance, various correspondence took place and legal notice was sent. On 25.01.97 a letter was received from Garuda Aviation for adjustment of the amount and the matter was settled. In crossexamination he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the helicopter being forcibly taken by someone nor he visited that place.
48. PW27 Mrs. K Bhargava was the Secretary of Romesh Sharma. She identified the MOU Ex.PW6/20 which also bears the signatures of Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao and M D Bhojwani. She stated that the agreement was typed by her on the basis of draft given by Mr. Mehta.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 54/213
55
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
49. PW28 Sh. Philip Ibrahim was the Prop. of Ibrahim Associates, the subagent of various aviation company which leases helicopter for aerial spray. He deposed on the lines of PW26. He stated that a letter was sent to him by Suresh Rao that helicopter was taken by hirer/politician to Delhi vide Ex.PW6/24B (4). Consequently, he sent a letter dated 30.05.96 Ex.PW24/B (11) to refund the advance. He however, stated that he was not aware of any deal entered into by Suresh Rao with any person in respect of the helicopter.
50. PW29 Sh. Ashok Kumar Shukla owned a STD/PCO booth at Allahabad. He turned hostile. He was confronted with the statement recorded during the investigation Ex.PW29/A but he denied having narrated the facts containing in the statement. He denied having arranged the trucks for transportation from M/s SherePunjab.
51. PW30 Sh. Sansar Chand Dubey used to do political work of Romesh Sharma and stay at S41, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. He stated that accused Romesh Sharma contested an election from Parliamentary seat from phul Pur constituency, Allahabad which he lost. In 1998 Romesh Sharma floated a party under the name of All India Bhartiya R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 55/213 56 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Congress Party to contest election in Delhi State. A premises bearing no. 16, Mahadev Road, Delhi was allotted to Shiv Charan, a former MP who had retired few months before Romesh Sharma floated the party. He stated that Romesh Sharma started using the said premises for official purposes with the permission of Shiv Charan. He stated that Romesh Sharma used to live at C30, Mayfair Garden and he never used that premises as office. He stated that Vinod Luthra, Arvind Bali, Indermani, Avdesh used to come there. He stated that when Romesh Sharma was removed from All India Congress Committee, he took the letter of protest given by Romesh Sharma to the office of Congress Party.
He stated that in March, 1996 helicopter and fuel were brought to Ugarsen Pur in two trucks. The accommodation was provided to the staff members of helicopter by Romesh Sharma initially in the Bungalow at Ugarsen Pur and later in Hotel Yatrik. Arvind Bali, Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Naveen Budhiraja, M D Bhojwani, Avdesh, Indermani, Manoj had gone to Ugarsen Pur for the election of Romesh Sharma. Avtar Singh was the old friend of Romesh Sharma. He had worked for Romesh Sharma in his election. Avdesh and Indermani are the nephews of Romesh Sharma and all of them used to stay in the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 56/213 57 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
bungalow of Romesh Sharma at Ugarsen Pur.
He stated that Ex.PW6/20 was executed between H Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma on 30.03.96 on which he, M D Bhojwani and Kashmira Bhargava signed as witnesses. He was declared hostile. He denied that Suresh Rao had not actually sold his helicopter to Romesh Sharma and had given it on hire or that in order to hoodwink the Election Commission, the purchase of this helicopter was shown in this agreement or that the MOU was got prepared to camouflage and cover expenditure of election/hiring charges or that Romesh Sharma had assured H Suresh Rao that he would destroy the same after election was over. He admitted that he did not notice any man of Suresh Rao when the helicopter was being loaded in the truck. However, he admitted that he had seen the helicopter parked in the farmhouse of Romesh Sharma. He denied that Romesh Sharma used to allure the people and obtain their properties without making payment. He was also confronted with the statement Ex.PW30/B recorded during the investigation. On being crossexamined, he stated that the MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed with the consent of the parties in friendly atmosphere and after 1996 on many occasions he had seen Suresh Rao staying in the house of Romesh Sharma at C30, Mayfair R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 57/213 58 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Garden whenever he came to Delhi.
52. PW31 Sh. M Johnson stated that the Pajero bearing no. DL 1C C 3501 is registered in the name of Romesh Sharma. Mercedes Benz bearing no. DL 1CC 2272 is registered in the name of Ganpati Commerce Ltd. Both the vehicles were registered in the year 1992 vide Ex.PW31/A and B.
53. PW32 Sh. G S Krishnan was the Manager Administration with Pushpak Aviation in 1996. He stated that one helicopter was leased to Romesh Sharma for election purposes. He proved the receipts of the amount received from Harish Mishra Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW6/37 and Ex.PW6/38. He admitted that none of the receipts find mention as to on what account money was paid.
54. PW33 Sh. P L Meena was DSP, CBI. He recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the documents i.e. goods receipt, bills/record of Hotel Yatrik, air tickets etc.
55. PW34 SI Sameer Kumar was posted at the police station Hauz Khas R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 58/213 59 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
in October 1998. In his presence, Inspector Anand Parkash had taken the specimen signature of accused Romesh Sharma vide Ex.PW34/1 to Ex.PW34/3.
56. PW35 Sh. S S Khanna was the Senior Manager (Deposits) in Bank of Tokyo Mishi Bishi where Reliance Developers & Investors with its Proprietor Romesh Sharma had an account vide no. 012206 Ex.PW35/A. He proved the cheque no. 511860 dated 30.03.96 for Rs. 1.0 lakh Ex.PW6/19. He stated that after debiting the amount of aforesaid cheque, the balance in the account on 30.04.96 was Rs. 79/. He however, admitted that in the account, name of the Proprietor Romesh Sharma is not mentioned.
57. PW36 Sh. Gurcharan Singh was the Clerk in the Bank of Tokyo Mishi Bishi. He also deposed on the lines of PW35.
58. PW37 Sh. Kamal Bhushan was the Senior Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce at Hauz Khas branch where Reliance Developers and Investors had an account vide no. 377. He proved the statement of accounts for the period from 12.01.95 to 07.02.97 Ex.PW37/A. He R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 59/213 60 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
stated that cheque Ex.PW6/17 dated 30.03.96 of Rs. 1.0 lac in favour of H. Suresh Rao, cheque 223695 dated 15.05.96 of Rs. 2.0 lac Ex. PW37/B in favour of yourself / bank for bank draft Ex.PW37/C were debited and the bank draft in favour of H. Suresh Rao Ex.PW6/26 of Rs. 2.0 lac was issued by the bank.
59. PW38 Sh. R K Meena, was the ACP (Lajpat Nagar). He on the information received from ACP (South), went to the house of V Balasubramaniam at New Friends Colony on 20.10.98, obtained the documents regarding the helicopter. He stated that Balasubramanium had told him that some of the documents were with Wing Commander Manchanda at his office at Le Meridian. He with Mr. Manchanda went to the office and thereafter to the house of Balasubramanium where Manchanda handed over those documents to him which were seized vide memo Ex.PW30/A which he later handed over to I.O Inspector Anand Prakash.
60. PW39 ASI Neena Devi was the Duty Officer at PS Hauz Khas. She on receipt of complaint Ex.PW6/46 at about 4.00 PM on 20.10.98 from H. Suresh Rao recorded the FIR Ex.PW39/A and made the DD entry R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 60/213 61 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Ex.PW39/B. She stated that further the investigation was conducted by Inspector Anand Prakash. She stated that on 20.10.98 at about 2.00 PM an information was received from the Control Room that Romesh Sharma was beating two persons at C30 Mayfair Garden. She entered the information vide DD no. 30B Ex.PW39/D and sent it to SI Jaswinder Singh through Ct. Kabal Singh. She also brought the information to the notice of the SHO who alongwith his staff left the police station at 2.06 PM and in that respect DD no. 32 B Ex.PW39/E was recorded. She stated that Inspector Anand Prakash alongwith SHO and staff returned at the police station on 21.10.98 and to that effect DD no. 24 Ex.PW39/F was recorded. She stated that till she remained on duty, she had received the information about the beatings only and not about the proceedings by CBI, Customs, Wild Life, Excise and Foreign Exchange Department etc. She denied that the entries in the DD and FIR were made to gain time to make out cases against Romesh Sharma to falsely implicate him and his employees.
61. PW40 Sh. Parshant Kumar Chattopadhyay was the Director Airworthiness, Civil Aviation, Mumbai. He handed over the document / letter no. PAPLOW 96 D2/240 dated 26.03.96 mark X/Ex.PW40 R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 61/213 62 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
bearing the signature of B G Pappara to the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/A. He stated that the fact recorded in the letter was about the transportation of helicopter and the site where it was to be transported. On being crossexamined, he stated that the possession remains with the company which transports it and in this case it was Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
62. PW41 Ct. Leela was posted at PCR. She received the telephone call at 100 number from the telephone no. 6960219 at 1357 hrs. "Romesh Sharma do admiyon ke sath maar peet kar raha hai". She recorded the information vide Ex.PW41/A.
63. PW42 Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik was the SHO at the police station Kalka Ji. He stated that, on 20.10.98, he received a message on wireless that he should reach C30 Mayfair Garden and report to SHO Hauz Khas. At about 2.30 PM he with SI Ravinder Gill and H. C. Suraj Bhan went there in his Govt. vehicle where he met Mr. Bakshi, SHO Police Station Hauz Khas who asked him to go to 16, Mahadev Road telling that Romesh Sharma has picked up two persons forcibly and taken them there. He instructed him to rescue them namely R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 62/213 63 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta saying that he has already discussed the matter with the senior officers. He went there and saw two persons in the captivity of Romesh Sharma and his men. He enquired who Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta were. They stood up however, they were very disturbed and terribly shattered. They rescued them and took them to the Police Station Hauz Khas. He then took Romesh Sharma to Mayfair Garden and handed over him to SHO Hauz Khas. On being crossexamined, he stated that SHO Hauz Khas did not give him any instruction in writing nor showed him any case diary / FIR. He was not directed by DCP (South) to go to SHO Hauz Khas but someone from the Control Room had instructed him. He admitted that Hauz Khas and Mahadev Road area do not fall within his jurisdiction and the DCP is over all incharge. He admitted that he did not contact DCP after getting information from PCR nor got recorded this fact to the Duty Officer, Kalka Ji. He reached the police station Kalkaji at about 4.45 AM however, he did not make entry that he had apprehended Romesh Sharma and handed over to SHO Hauz Khas or that he had rescued Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta from Mahadev Road. He stated that there were 56 persons at Mahadev road. He denied that on the instructions of his officers, he manipulated the case R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 63/213 64 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
against Romesh Sharma. He stated that he does not remember if any person was pointed out by Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta that he was one who had put Pistol on their persons threatening them to kill during the process of abduction.
64. PW43 Sh. T R Walia was the Manager in Citibank New Delhi where Reliance Developers and Investors had account no. 0037569003. He handed over a cheque dated 30.03.96 of Rs. 1.0 lac in favour of H. Suresh Rao issued from the above account Ex.PW6/18.
65. PW44 Sh. Girish Rao was the Director of Pushpak Aviation alongwith his brother H. Suresh Rao. He stated that the helicopter was earlier owned by Pushpak Aviation and thereafter transferred in the name of H. Suresh Rao. However, it remained available with Pushpak Aviation for services which included film shooting, charter, election and spray on plantation.
He stated that in 1996 the helicopter was given on hire/lease to Romesh Sharma for election purposes. It was sent to Phulpur UP with few crew members on 26.03.96. It was never sold to Romesh Sharma at any time. He stated that Suresh Rao had shown him the MOU R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 64/213 65 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Ex.PW6/14. He came to Delhi with Mr. Pappara on 23.06.96 and assembled the helicopter in the farmhouse of Romesh Sharma. He stated that he was told by his brother that Romesh Sharma would make the payment regarding the remaining hire charges. He stated that Mr. Pappara had some reservation as to the assembling of the helicopter. He was beaten by Romesh Sharma. When he intervened, he was also assaulted. He stated that for flying, helicopter is required to be insured. After the helicopter was snatched by Romesh Sharma, he did not pay the premium and wrote a letter to the insurance company Ex.PW6/DA on 26.07.96. He stated that the helicopter was not sold and the word 'sold' was written in the letter since the certification of registration had been transferred in the name of Romesh Sharma and was in his possession so that the premium towards insurance could be paid by Romesh Sharma. On being cross examined, he stated that premium is paid by the registered owner. He stated that when he and his Engineer were beaten in Delhi in June 1996, he did not make any complaint in Delhi or Mumbai. He denied that they had sold the helicopter to Romesh Sharma.
66. PW45 Wing Commander Vinod Manchanda was the Manager Co R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 65/213 66 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
ordination with Reliance Industries. He was looking after all the aspects of aviations of Reliance Group and wireless communication. He stated that in 1997, his Group President Mr. Balasubramanium called him that one of his acquaintance, a politician has got a helicopter which he proposes to sell. He gave the documents of helicopter for checking its authenticity and to assess whether it would be of any use for the company. He checked the records from the office of Director, Airworthiness and found the documents correct. He advised the company that the helicopter was of an old make and lot of expenditure has to be incurred to make it fully airworthy. Balasubramanium then asked him to keep the documents with him. On the directions of Balasubramanium, he handed over the documents to the police i.e. the journey log book Ex.PW6/29, engine log book Ex.PW6/30, aircraft log book Ex.PW6/31, aircraft radio apparatus log book Ex.PW6/34, certificate of registration Ex.PW2/D, certificate of airworthiness Ex.PW1/1 and a letter addressed to Romesh Sharma by DGCA Ex.PW2/E. He stated that the helicopter was in the name of Romesh Sharma.
67. PW46 Captain Ashok Kumar was a Free Lancer Pilot. He joined R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 66/213 67 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Pushpak Aviation in 1995. He proved the entries in the log book. He stated that in June 1996, he never visited Delhi nor assembled the helicopter nor gave the certificate in the log book to the effect that it was inspected and O.K. after reassembling.
68. PW47 Sh. Suresh Kumar Tribhuwan Mishra knew the accused Romesh Sharma since 1980 and also knew Suresh Rao. He stated that Suresh Rao had told him in the month of April, 1996 that he has sent his helicopter to Phulpur Constituency for election purposes and it was hired by Romesh Sharma who was contesting the election from there. He then told Suresh Rao that Romesh Sharma "Ek Number ka cheater hai Aur na to tumhare helicopter ka bhara dega aur na hi helicopter dega". He stated that after 1 ½ - 2 months Suresh Rao told him that he had told him correctly about Romesh Sharma. He had infact neither paid the hire charges nor returned the helicopter and beaten him and brought him on to the road (Itna mara hai or sarak pe laa diya hai). He asked Suresh Rao as to why he was not reporting to the police. He replied that if he did so, Romesh Sharma would finish off his family. Thereafter, Suresh Rao met him and sought his help saying that he was receiving threatening calls from Romesh Sharma.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 67/213
68
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
He then told Suresh Rao to ring up Romesh Sharma and he would talk to him. Suresh Rao telephoned Romesh Sharma. He (PW47) talked to him and told that he was a good leader/person but he has cheated an innocent person by not paying the hire charges nor returning his helicopter and that he forcibly got some documents signed from him. On this, Romesh Sharma asked him not to interfere in this matter threatening that he would get him cut into pieces by the evening and his parts of the body would be thrown in Juhu Dariya i.e. sea. Romesh Sharma then told him to wait for the next evening when he would come to know who would ring him up from Dubai. Next day, he received a telephone call who disclosed his name Irfan Goga claiming himself to be a man of Dawood Ibrahim giving his telephone number asking him not to intervene in the matter telling that Romesh Sharma was his friend and if he intervened, he would be shot dead right in front of his building. He stated that in many police station of Mumbai, there were cases against Irfan Goga for extortion, threats etc. He stated that on the next day, he received a telephone from Dubai from Abu Salem that he was right hand man of Dawood Ibrahim and asked him to get away from the matter of Suresh Rao. When he asked his connection with Romesh Sharma, he replied that Romesh Sharma was his agent in R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 68/213 69 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
India. He stated that on 20/30.04.98 Suresh Rao again came to him. He was very frightened. He was crying. He asked his help as he was continuously receiving threats. He advised him to report the matter to the police. He, Suresh Rao and his brother Girish Rao went to Santa Cruz Police Station Mumbai where Suresh Rao made a complaint.
On being crossexamined, he stated that prior to registration of this case, as per his knowledge, there were other cases registered against Romesh Sharma. He stated that he does not know the names of the persons who were cheated by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he did not lodge report with the police regarding the threats given by Romesh Sharma or by Abu Salem or Irfan Goga. However, he had told the police of Santa Cruz that he had also received threatening calls. He denied that no such meetings ever took place between him and Suresh Rao.
69. PW48 Sh. G K Behl was the Stamp Auditor at Tis Hazari Courts. He handed over the stamp paper sale register to the police maintained by Pankaj Bhardwaj for the period from 14.03.96 to 06.04.96 and by Rita Kashyap for the period from 10.05.96 to 22.06.96 which were seized vide memo Ex.PW48/1.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 69/213
70
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
70. PW49 Indermani Tiwari was the Assistant Manager in SAS Travels, Allahabad. He proved the air tickets issued in the name of Demons for his journey from Lucknow to Mumbai by Sahara Airlines on 12.05.96.
71. PW50 Sh. H P S Shergill had flown the helicopter of Pushpak Aviation from 08.03.96 to 14.03.96 and made entries in the log book Ex.PW6/29.
72. PW51 Sh. Rajiv Jain was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hauz Khas where Reliance Developers & Investors had a current account no. 370 being operated by Romesh Sharma, its Proprietor. He produced the statement of accounts for the period from 01.01.94 to 07.09.98 Ex.PW27/A and stated that a cheque no. 223691 dated 30.03.96 was issued by Romesh Sharma in favour of H. Suresh Rao for Rs. 1.0 lac. A draft of Rs. 2.0 lac was prepared in favour of H. Suresh Rao and the amount which was debited on the strength of cheque no. 223695 dated 15.05.96.
73. PW52 Ms. Neelam Verma was Manager in Hotel Yatrik, Allahabad.
She brought the record regarding arrival of passengers etc./bills of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 70/213 71 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
lodging / boarding of the crew members of Pushpak Aviation who stayed in the hotel which used to be paid by Romesh Sharma.
74. PW53 Sh. N T Shettigar was the Manager, Canara Bank. In his presence, on 19.01.99 the specimen signature of Harish Mishra Ex.PW53/A to Ex.PW53/10 were taken.
75. PW54 Sh. Ajit Patil was in Uco Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai. He was also present when the specimen signatures of Harish Mishra were taken.
76. PW55 Ravi Karan was the front office Manager in Hotel Yatrik Allahabad. He proved the bills, vouchers etc. which used to be paid by Romesh Sharma.
77. PW56 Sh. K F Wilfred was the Under Secretary in Election Commission, India. He proved the letter Ex.PW56/1 dated 23.12.98 sent with the order dated 29.10.98 Ex.PW56/2 passed by the Commission on the issue of merger of All India Indira Congress with Indian National Congress as well as the letter from Romesh Sharma, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 71/213 72 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
President of All India Indira Congress Secular received in the office on 17.10.98 requesting for the change of office of All India Indira Congress Secular from Churiwalan, Sita Ram Bazar to Mahadev Road. He stated that the essence of the order Ex.PW56/2 was that the party seeking merger was not permitted as per the Election Commission guidelines.
78. PW56 Sh. Ravinder Shanker Shukla was the Estate Officer in the Directorate of Estate, Nirman Bhawan. He handed over the file in respect of the flat at Mahadev Road to CBI vide receipt Ex.PW57/1. He stated that the premises was allotted to Shiv Charan Singh, MP Rajya Sabha. A letter was received on 20.08.98 from the Liasion Officer for eviction of Shiv Charan Singh from the public premises and also from the Under Secretary Rajya Sabha regarding cancellation of allotment. He issued the notice Ex.PW57/6 on 25.08.98 and on 09.09.98 Eviction order Ex.PW57/7 was passed. He stated that when the premises was not vacated, warrant of eviction was obtained and it was got vacated on 11.11.98 vide Eviction Report Ex.PW57/10.
79. PW58 Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patsani was the MP Lok Sabha. He was R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 72/213 73 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
allotted accommodation at 11, Mahadev Road. He stated that he does not know how he was introduced to Romesh Sharma by Shiv Charan. He denied that he had met Romesh Sharma many times.
80. PW59 Vijay Chatrabhuj Bhatia was the Assistant Divisional Manager in National Insurance Company. He stated that the policy in respect of helicopter was issued in the name of Suresh Rao vide Ex.PW39/11 for a period of one year and the company was to pay the premium in installment. He stated that in response to the demand made by them for the second installment, M/s Pushpak Aviation informed vide letter Ex.PW6/DA that the helicopter in question has been sold to Romesh Sharma. He stated that there was no transit insurance of helicopter from Allahabad to Delhi.
81. PW60 Sh. Dharam Pal got evicted the premises 16, Mahadev Road on 10.11.98 after getting warrant Ex.PW57/9. He stated that there was a Board of All India Bhartiya Congress on the premises.
82. PW61 Sh. Manoj Kumar J Shah was posted in State Bank of Hyderabad at Mumbai. He brought the statement of account of Harish R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 73/213 74 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Mishra bearing no. 3442 being operated at Juhu branch at Mumbai Ex.PW61/1 to Ex.PW61/21. He also brought the account of Romesh Sharma in respect of account no. 4954 Ex.PW61/23 to Ex.PW61/25.
83. Examination of PW62 Sh. G L Sood, Vigilance Officer, MTNL was given up by CBI.
84. PW63 Sh. Ajay Kumar was serving with Pankaj Bhardwaj Stamp Vendor. He deposed on the lines of PW13.
85. PW64 Sh. V Balasubramanium was the Group President, Reliance Industries. He stated that he knew Romesh Sharma for about 78 years. He had also attended a party at Jai Mata Di Farm which belongs to Romesh Sharma. He had given the documents of Helicopter to the police. He stated that the documents were sent to him by Romesh Sharma, the owner of the helicopter with the request whether the said company could use or hire the said helicopter. He handed over the documents to Wing Commander Manchanda to check. He after checking found the helicopter in the name of Romesh Sharma but opined that the helicopter cannot be used by their R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 74/213 75 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
company. He then asked Mr. Manchanda to keep the documents in safe custody and conveyed this fact to Romesh Sharma. He deposed on the lines of Mr. Manchanda. In crossexamination he stated that once, Birthday party of his grand daughter was organised by him on this Farm with the permission of Romesh Sharma where he had seen the Helicopter parked.
86. PW65 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia was present when the specimen signature of Romesh Sharma Ex.PW65/1 to 4 were taken by CBI.
87. PW66 Sh. Ravi Prakash Saxena proved the signature of D D Bannett and Hema Oberoi of Taj Hotel, Lucknow on the documents.
88. PW67 ASI Surya Bhan had accompanied Jasbir Malik to Mayfair Garden and Mahadev Road. He stated that they stayed at Mahadev Road for 20 minutes and in his presence, statement of any of the person was not recorded. He denied that he was introduced as a false witness in this case.
89. PW68 Sh. R N Singh was the Office Assistant, Air Mail Sorting R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 75/213 76 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Division, Chankya Puri. He knew the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia from before. He identified his signatures on the sheets Ex.PW68/1 to Ex.PW68/3.
90. Examination of PW69 Sh. B D Sharma, Sorting Assistant Air Mail was given up.
91. PW70 Sh. Prakash Bhaskar Majumdar was the Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Latur branch, Maharashtra. He was present when one pistol and seven live cartridges were seized by the CBI from the accused Laxman Singh on 28.12.98 vide memo Ex.PW70/1. He proved the pistol Ex.P1 and the cartridges Ex.PW70/2 to Ex.PW70/8, the license seized from Laxman Ex.PW70/9 and the cash memo of the pistol Ex.PW70/10.
92. PW71 Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta, DSP CBI partly investigated the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained the specimen signature of Girish Rao Ex.PW70/1 to Ex.PW70/6.
93. PW72 Sh. Jaswinder Singh was present with Inspector Anand R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 76/213 77 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Prakash when the search of the house of Romesh Sharma at C30 Mayfair Garden was taken on the night of 20/21.10.98 in presence of Romesh Sharma. He stated that a video cassette Ex.PW72/1 was recovered and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW72/2. However, it was not sealed.
94. PW73 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, was the Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari. He did the TIP of the accused Laxman Singh where he refused to participate vide proceedings Ex.PW73/11.
95. PW74 Sh. I Hassan was the Inspector STF CBI. He seized the documents and recorded the statement of witnesses. He collected the copy of FIR and the charge sheet of the cases FIR 849/98 and FIR 849/98 and FIR 858/98 registered at the police station Hauz Khas Ex.PW70/1 and PW71/2. He also obtained the copy of transcript of the conversation Ex.PW74/A having been taken place between Romesh Sharma and Abu Salem running into 71 pages from the Inspector Ishwar Singh.
96. Examination of PW75 Sh. Ram Singh was given up by CBI.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 77/213
78
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
97. PW76 Anoop Singh Kumar was the Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax, Mumbai. He furnished the copy of the income tax returns of H. Suresh Rao as individual and of Garuda Aviation of the financial year 199495 and 199596 Ex.PW76/1 to Ex.PW76/4 to CBI.
98. PW77 Sh. S S Dagar was the Inspector STF, CBI. He seized the file of the car from the MLO. He also collected the original cheque Ex.PW6/18 from Citibank, Parliament Street, cheque Ex.PW6/19 from Bank of Tokyo, Parliament Street, copy of DDs and recorded the statement of witnesses.
99. PW78 Sh. K S Nayar was in STF, CBI as DSP. He arrested the accused Naveen Budhiraja on 18.01.99 from his house.
100.PW79 Sh. A M Thakur was Inspector CBI, STF Mumbai. He collected the statement of accounts in the name of Garuda Aviation from September 1993 to December, 1997 running into 27 pages Ex.PW19/2 and the account of Suresh Rao Ex.PW79/3 from the Chief Manager, SBI. He also collected cheque no. 948400 of Rs.1.0 lac Ex.PW60/27 issued from the account of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 78/213 79 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Harish Chand Mishra Ex.PW79/4.
101.PW80 Sh. H C Samuel was the Lockup Incharge Tis Hazari. He was handed over the custody of accused Laxman by CBI officer in muffled face.
102.PW81 Inspector Anand Prakash was the Addl. SHO in the Police Station Hauz Khas. He on receipt of information at about 2.00 PM on 20.10.98 vide DD no. 30B Ex.PW39/D went to Mayfair Garden alongwith the SHO and police force to rescue the persons. He stated that no one met them and from the residents of the locality, they came to know that the persons confined there were taken away by Romesh Sharma to his Party office at Mahadev Road. He stated that Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik also reached there alongwith his staff whom Inspector Bakshi, SHO PS Hauz Khas asked to go to Mahadev Road to rescue the persons. He stated that two persons namely H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta met him in the police station at about 4.15 / 4.30 PM. One lady officer Neena Devi recorded the FIR. At about 5.00/5.15 PM the FIR was assigned to him alongwith the complaint. He interrogated H Suresh Rao, went to Mayfair Garden with H Suresh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 79/213 80 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Rao and Rakesh Gupta where he met Inspector Malik who was with Romesh Sharma. He seized the Pajero Jeep and Mercedes car vide memo Ex.PW6/47 and Ex.PW6/48, searched the premises and recovered three bullet proof jackets, one bag, 28 files of different properties kept in the bed and 18 video cassettes including that of Helicopter Ex.PW72/1. He stated that he had viewed the cassette on which registration number was written. Four registers were also recovered from the Almirah of the garage including some documents and 45 rubber stamps which were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He stated that Suresh Rao remained with them till 9.30 / 9.45 PM. Since he had complained of body pain, he was sent for medical examination. He also seized the registers relating to Helicopter and original MOU Ex.PW6/20. He also went to Jai Mata Di Farm, Chattarpur, Mehrauli with Romesh Sharma and on the identification of Suresh Rao, he seized the helicopter vide memo Ex.PW6/56. He also arrested the accused Vinod Luthra on the night of 23/24.10.98, took Romesh Sharma to Allahabad on 25.10.98 on remand, obtained his specimen signatures Ex.PW34/1 to 3 and did the investigation till 06.11.98 i.e. till the time it was handed over to CBI. He handed over the documents to CBI vide memo Ex.PW81/2. On being crossexamined he stated that R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 80/213 81 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
one Ram Kumar Gupta resident of Yusuf Sarai had joined the investigation. He stated that he did not see the senior officials i.e. ACP/DCP on the spot to monitor the investigation nor saw the officials of Wild Life Protection, Income Tax, FERA, Revenue Intelligence, Excise during the course of investigation at night. He denied that he got the video cassette Ex.PW72/2 prepared in respect of helicopter on the directions of senior officers. He stated that no photographer was called to take the photographs of helicopter at Jai Mata Di Farm.
He stated that he was the witness in three cases registered against Romesh Sharma, one on the complaint of Charles Dinkey Mechrshenas, record on the complaint of Malik and the third one under Wild Life Protection Act. He also seized the documents concerning the above case. He denied that he obtained false complaint against the accused Romesh Sharma. He stated that the documents connected with the case of complainant Sanjay Sabharwal were also recovered from there relating to the premises C30 Mayfair Garden and Jai Mata Di Farm. He denied that he pressurised the complainants to lodge false complaints against Romesh Sharma.
103.Examination of PW82 H.C. Kishan Pal was given up by CBI.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 81/213
82
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
104.PW83 Sh. Pramod Mud Bhatkal was DSP STF CBI in Mumbai. He seized the documents from Harish Mishra on 14.11.98.
105.Examination of PW84 Satender Sanghwan, SI Special Cell was also given up by CBI.
106.PW85 Inspector Ishwar Singh was the Inspector in AntiExtortion Cell, Crime Branch. He used to process information concerning the commission of extortion in the office of Crime Branch. He stated that in the last week of September 1998, an informer gave a tip that men of Dawood Ibrahim are frequent in Delhi and one of his gangmen known with the name of Romesh Sharma was using a mobile phone no. 9811197600 with which he used to talk to someone in Dubai and Pakistan. He had also given two numbers one being operated in Dubai and other in Pakistan. He stated that in those days, Dawood Ibrahim used to operate from Dubai and Pakistan. Abu Salem was his trusted man and used to operate from Dubai. He passed on the information to senior officers and obtained permission from the competent authority. He started tapping the aforesaid phone from 01.10.98 to 20.10.98 and recorded its transcript Ex.PW74/3. He then R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 82/213 83 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
got registered two cases vide FIR no. 849/98 and 850/98 at the police station Hauz Khas Ex.PW74/1 and Ex.PW74/2 which were investigated by the Crime Branch of which charge sheets were filed. He stated that during the course of investigation, he came to know that mostly the accused Romesh Sharma had talked to Abu Salem.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he had taken the voice sample of Romesh Sharma, however, could not obtain the voice sample of Abu Salem, so he could not compare the voice of Abu Salem recorded during taping of the phone with any other voice. He stated that one Ramesh Malik of Lajpat Nagar had complained that he was criminally intimidated by Abu Salem.
107.PW87 Inspector G.P. Singh, was present when the accused Naveen Budhiraja was arrested on 18.01.99 vide arrest memo Ex. PW86/1.
108.PW88 Dr. R. Kalanjiam was associated with Shiv Sena, a political party. In 1998, he was the president of All India Thevar Service Society, Chennai supported by AI.D.M.K. He stated that he knew Romesh Sharma since he had floated All India Bhartiya Congress Party. He had met him through his friend Najimuddin. He wanted to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 83/213 84 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
join his party. He stated that one day before Diwali, in 1998, he had met Romesh Sharma in Delhi. He went to his party office from his residence and came back in his car. He stated that there were many persons in his house. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. He admitted that in the case FIR802/98, Police Station Hauz Khas, he had testified in favour of Romesh Sharma as defence witness that he had stayed in the house of Romesh Sharma at May Fair Garden on the night of 19/20.10.1998. and the office of his party was at 16, Mahadev Road. He denied that on 20.10.1998 two persons were taken away by Romesh Sharma with the help of his gunman Laxman from his residence to the party office. He admitted that he had given a statement before the Ld. MM. He admitted that when he reached the residence of Romesh Sharma from his party office, he found the police and Romesh Sharma in the custody of police. He was also confronted with the statement Ex. PW88/1. He was read over the statement Ex. PW91/1 given to Ld. MM. He stated that at that time the questions put to him were in Hindi which he could not follow and it was not read over to him when he signed it nor he was allowed to read. His further examination was deferred and there after he did not appear in the witness box.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 84/213
85
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
109.PW89 SI Atul Kumar was posted at the Police Station Lajpat Nagar.
He did the investigation of the Case FIR No.756/98 registered at the Police Station Lajpat Nagar Ex. PW89/1 and filed the chargesheet against Romesh Sharma and Ashok Malik placing Abu Salem in column no.2 as proclaimed offender.
110.PW90 Dr. Prashant Kulshrestha was the Sr. Forensic Doctor in AIIMS, he proved the MLC of Suresh Rao Ex. PW90/1 prepared by Dr. Monika Gupta. He admitted that name of the assailant is not mentioned in the MLC.
111.PW91 brought the statement of Dr. R. Kalinjam, PW88 recorded in the court of Sh. S.S. Rathi in the case FIR802/98 registered at the Police Station Hauz Khas Ex. PW91/1.
112.PW92 was the DSP, CBI. On the transfer of investigation to CBI vide orders Ex. PW92/1 he reregistered the case vide FIR92/2 and did the investigation. He collected the documents, recorded the statement of witnesses, viewed the video cassette of helicopter, arrested the accused Laxman, seized the pistol and cartridges, got conducted his R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 85/213 86 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
T.I.P. and filed the chargesheet. He also obtained the specimen signatures of H. Suresh Rao Ex.PW65/1 to Ex.PW65/4 on 06.01.1999. On being crossexamined he admitted that on the day the investigation was assigned to him, the helicopter was registered in the name of Romesh Sharma in the record of Director General Civil Aviation.
113.PW93 Sh. M.P. Sharma was DSP S.P. Branch, CBI. He had assisted PW92 in the investigation.
114.PW94 Sh. R.K. Jain was the Government Examiner posted at Hyderabad. He examined the questioned documents with the specimen signatures and gave the report Ex. PW94/8 giving the detailed reasons stating that the writings on the questioned documents tally with the specimen writings.
115.Accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the incriminating evidence against them and pleaded their innocence.
116.Accused Romesh Sharma admitted that Shiv Charan had permitted R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 86/213 87 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
All India Bhartiya Congress Committee to use the premises 16, Mahadev Road, Delhi as its office and that he had been residing at C30, Mayfair Garden and that he had floated All India Bhartiya Congress Party in the year 1997 and that Avdesh and Indermani are his nephews and Avtar Singh is his well wisher. He also admitted that he had contested election from Phulpur parliamentary constituency held on 07.05.96 and lost the election. He also admitted that in the event of purchase of car/helicopter, by a candidate during election period, its price is not included in the expenses incurred during the election and in case candidate hires car / helicopter for election purpose, the hire charges are included in the expenses and that the candidate was required to maintain account of expenses incurred in connection with the election and that after the election, he had filed the accounts of expenses to the District Election Office.
He stated that he had purchased the helicopter with an idea that it may not reflect in its hire charges in his election expense since the expense was not to exceed Rs. 4,50,000/. Some of the questions, he answered that he is not aware. He stated that Lalit Bagla might have introduced him with H. Suresh Rao in February, 1996 as politician and Property Dealer. He also admitted that S41, Panchsheel Park is R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 87/213 88 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
his office as well as Guest House. He stated that in March, 1996 Suresh Rao had come to his house of his own, stayed there and proposed that he wanted to sell the above helicopter since he was in need of money urgently for making payment to some party in Delhi and during his visits, he had told H. Suresh Rao that he was going to contest election from Phulpur Parliament constituency and for that purposes services of helicopter were required. Earlier he quoted the price as Rs. 60 lacs but after the enquiry he quoted the price as Rs. 30 lacs. He admitted that on 24.03.96 he gave a call to H. Suresh Rao to send the helicopter to Phulpur. He stated that since he had purchased the helicopter so there was no necessity to agree that he would pay Rs. 80,000/ per day as hiring charges for the said helicopter and other miscellaneous expenses. He denied having received the fax message either from H. Suresh Rao or Mahender Pujara. He stated that since the terms for purchase of the helicopter were already finalised by him and accepted by H. Suresh Rao, there was no occasion for him to tell H. Suresh Rao that his brother Harish Mishra and Rakesh Gupta would meet him at Bombay office for finalisation of terms and conditions. He denied having given any understanding to H. Suresh Rao that pre dated MOU would be destroyed after the elections were over nor gave R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 88/213 89 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
an assurance that helicopter would be returned. He stated that he did not know whether Suresh Rao had paid Rs. 30,020/ to Central Carrier Corporation, Mumbai for transportation of helicopter and fuel from Mumbai to Phulpur or Parsuram and other staff were deputed by H. Suresh Rao with the truck. He denied having given an envelope containing blank letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors on which MOU of hiring of helicopter was to be prepared. He stated that he had paid full amount to H. Suresh Rao in respect of the sale of helicopter. He stated that all the papers in respect of the sale of helicopter were prepared by H. Suresh Rao and the MOU Ex.PW6/20 on 30.03.96 was signed with the mutual consent of his Advocate and the Advocate of H. Suresh Rao. He stated that after the election it was to be transported to Delhi. He stated that his men were well behaved and they had good relations with H. Suresh Rao and his men. They had arranged their boarding and lodging and were given VIP treatment. He stated that his men were aware that he had purchased the helicopter so there was no question of their damaging the helicopter. He stated that it was agreed that the log book was to be handed over to him by the technician of Suresh Rao. He stated that it was the responsibility of H. Suresh Rao to send the helicopter to Delhi.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 89/213
90
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
His relations with Suresh Rao were cordial He stated that Suresh Rao did not ask him to pay hire charges or return the helicopter however, had demanded the sale consideration. He denied having links with underworld Don. He stated that he had relations with politicians and upper strata of society. He stated that at the time of delivery of helicopter, H. Suresh Rao had handed over him the necessary documents. He stated that some of the documents were not given by him, however, he had assured that they would be given later since they were mortgaged to someone. He stated that Rakesh Gupta had visiting terms with him. He had arranged a finance of Rs. 40 lacs for Rakesh Gupta for his airlines through one of his friend and Rs. 10 lacs from some person for H. Suresh Rao. He admitted that Suresh Rao had brought an Advocate at his residence however, denied that R A Shah had objected the manner as to signing of documents or that he abused R A Shah or snatched the documents from him. He stated that H. Suresh Rao had given the documents to him willingly. He denied that agreement to sell and affidavits had been signed by H. Suresh Rao out of fear. He stated that it was H. Suresh Rao who got the affidavit notarised. He stated that he had made the payment to H. Suresh Rao and did not call Neeraj Bhatia to bring registration R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 90/213 91 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
certificate at his residence. He stated that when certificate of registration was handed over to him by H. Suresh Rao, he introduced a person Neeraj Bhatia to him and told that he had entered into an Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5 with Neeraj Bhatia to sell the helicopter for Rs. 40 lacs and that some amount was owed by him to Neeraj Bhatia. He denied that he assured Neeraj Bhatia to pay Rs. 18 lacs. He stated that he had made it clear that when certificate of airworthiness of helicopter would be given to him, he would make the balance payment to H. Suresh Rao. He stated that he had made the entire payment of Rs. 30 Lacs towards the sale consideration of the helicopter. He stated that H. Suresh Rao had assured him as and when his engineers would be free he would send them to his Farm House to reassemble the helicopter. He denied having beaten / threatened Pappara. He stated that he does not know any person by the name of Suresh Mishra. He denied that on 20.10.98 Rakesh Gupta or Suresh Rao had come to his house or such incident took place. He stated that police had forced him to sign some blank documents. He denied having snatched the helicopter from Suresh Rao. He stated that the premises S41 was taken by him on rent and the vehicles were registered in his name. He stated that he used to make the payment in R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 91/213 92 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
installments. He stated that he had given the documents of the helicopter to Reliance Industries with an understanding that Reliance Industries may use the said helicopter on hire. He stated that Reliance company after checking had told him that the helicopter was not useful for them. He stated that Suresh Rao had informed the insurance company that the helicopter has been sold to him. He denied having talked to any person namely Abu Salem or having connection with the mobile no. 9811197600 or that Laxman Singh was his associate. He stated that there was no cassette on which the word helicopter was written. He stated that on 20.10.98, the police officials and other agencies had raided his house.
He stated that H. Suresh Rao had an intention to get the helicopter back from him. With that motive, he fabricated the story and lodged this case. The police officials have testified against him under the influence of NDA Government as he was having video clips/cassettes regarding involvement of Ministers of NDA Government and senior police officers of Crime Investigation Agency. He had also formed a new party and was in process of exposing corrupt officers and ministers. He was National General Secretary of Indian Socialist Party and Lok Dal Party. He remained in Congress from 1984 to 1987, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 92/213 93 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
held several important post and created a new political party in 1987 under the name of All India Bhartiya Congress Party. He had a political clean image. He had bought the properties lawfully. The idea to purchase the helicopter was suggested by Suresh Rao in one of the meetings. He stated that the helicopter was two seater which Suresh Rao had bought for Rs. 50,000/. He has paid Rs. 30 lacs to Suresh Rao in installments and he after receiving the entire amount of Rs. 30 lacs got the helicopter registered in his name and handed over the documents. He stated that it was Suresh Rao who enjoyed a bad reputation in the circle as he had cheated number of persons. He stated that it was a blatant conspiracy against him.
117.Accused Harish Mishra stated that he was framed in this case since he happened to be the brother of Romesh Sharma. CBI wanted him to become witness against Romesh Sharma and when he refused, he was framed in this case. He denied having visited to the office of Suresh Rao. Most of the questions, he answered he does not know. He stated that payment was made towards the sale of helicopter and not for the hire charges.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 93/213
94
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
118.He examined Sh. Lalit Kumar Bagla as DW1. He stated that he knew Romesh Sharma. He deals in sale and purchase of imported cars. Romesh Sharma had purchased an imported car from him. He also knew Rakesh Gupta of United India Airways, who knew H. Suresh Rao of Pushpak Aviation. He stated that Rakesh Gupta had taken Rs. 30 lacs from him. He issued him a cheque which on presentation was dishonoured. He filed a case and got the money back. He stated that he never purchased any helicopter nor dealt with H. Suresh Rao. He stated that two FERA cases are pending against him regarding Hawala transaction of purchase of a Mercedes car.
119.Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia in his statement admitted his signatures on the GRs. He stated that he had gone to Phulpur for campaigning in the election of Romesh Sharma. Since the Engineers received instruction not to bring the helicopter to Mumbai from Ugarsen Pur, he and his technicians themselves unloaded the helicopter from the truck and loaded on a truck for Delhi. There, the atmosphere was cordial. Other questions he answered, he does not know. He stated that Romesh Sharma had told him that he has purchased the helicopter. He had also seen the MOU Ex.PW6/20 at Phulpur, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 94/213 95 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Allahabad. He stated that the helicopter was dismantled on 11.05.96. He denied having accompanied with the truck. He stated that CBI wanted him to be an approver which he refused, so he was falsely implicated in the case.
120.Accused Laxman Singh stated that CBI wanted to make a strong case against Romesh Sharma, so included his name. He stated that he did not participate in the TIP since he was shown to the witnesses prior to his identification. He stated that police had seized the pistol and cartridges from him but he was having a license for the same. He denied having threatened H. Suresh Rao or Rakesh Gupta with the pistol or accompanied them to Mahadev Road in the car of the accused Romesh Sharma.
121.Accused Manoj stated that he was engaged as a cook by Romesh Sharma. He used to remain in his bungalow and cook meals for the employees of H. Suresh Rao and his persons who were campaigning for Romesh Sharma.
122.Accused Avdesh stated that he was engaged in canvassing in favour R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 95/213 96 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
of Romesh Sharma in the election. Romesh Sharma is his uncle. During canvassing it was conveyed to him that helicopter was purchased by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he was not present at the site of transportation of helicopter but his name was included maliciously by CBI under the influence of H. Suresh Rao. He stated when CBI came to know that he was nephew of Romesh Sharma, it falsely included his name and the names of other relatives and friends. He came to know during canvassing that Romesh Sharma was his uncle since he had left the village even prior to his birth. He stated that Romesh Sharma was making speeches in the area during election that he has purchased the helicopter which Pilots and technicians were also listening and never objected.
123.Accused Naveen Budhiraja stated that he was not present at the spot when the helicopter was unloaded. He was in Delhi.
124.Accused Indermani stated that the witnesses who have named him were the employees of H. Suresh Rao. They have deposed under the influence of H. Suresh Rao. He stated that he had been canvassing in the election for Romesh Sharma, therefore, he was named and might R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 96/213 97 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
have been known by name however, he was not present when the helicopter was transported to Delhi. He stated that after canvassing, he used to return to his village and never stayed at Ugrasenpur. He stated that the CBI has falsely implicated him being the nephew of Romesh Sharma. CBI wanted to implicate all the relations of Romesh Sharma including himself so that no person is left out to do pairvi of Romesh Sharma.
125.Accused M D Bhojwani stated that he was not present at the spot.
He had gone to Allahabad Railway Station for reservation for Delhi. He stated that he had signed the MOU as witness. He had remained at Phulpur for two days in connection with the election of Romesh Sharma.
126.It is to be mentioned that H. Suresh Rao had filed a suit for Declaration and Injunction before Hon'ble High Court against Romesh Sharma and Others in the year 1999 Ex.DX2 praying for cancelling the MOU dated 14.05.96 and other documents used for the transfer of said helicopter by declaring that he is the owner of the helicopter and directing the Director General of Civil Aviation to transfer the helicopter R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 97/213 98 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
in his name and also directing the Income Tax Department to remove the attachment orders in respect of the helicopter.
127.Romesh Sharma contested the suit and denied the averments made in the plaint vide written statement Ex.DX3. Replication was also filed by H. Suresh Rao wherein he reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint vide Ex.DX4. In that suit, following issues were framed vide order dated 12.01.06 :
1. Whether the suit against defendant no. 3 is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act? OPD
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
3. Whether defendant no.1 had purchased the helicopter bearing registration no. VTEAP Model No. Bell47, G5? OPD
4. Whether the MOU dated 14.05.96 and other documents used for transfer of the helicopter in question were got executed from the plaintiff under pressure or coercion? OPP R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 98/213 99 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.2 to transfer the helicopter in his name? OPP
6. Relief.
128.Matter was thereafter listed for plaintiff evidence. H. Suresh Rao did not file evidence despite number of opportunities including last and final opportunity and therefore, his suit was dismissed for want of evidence vide order dated 11.01.08 by the Hon'ble High Court. The accused Romesh Sharma placed on record the order sheets of the proceedings of the civil suit which were exhibited as DX5/1 to DX5/35 (colly.) vide order dated 22.12.11.
129.I have heard the arguments advanced by Learned Special Public Prosecutor (P.P.) Sh. S K Saxena for CBI, Learned Counsels Sh. Prem Kumar alongwith Sh. Jaswinder Singh for the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra and Sh. S P Kaushal for the other accused persons.
130.Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused Romesh Sharma and the accused Harish Mishra conspired and cheated the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 99/213 100 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
complainant Suresh Rao, PW6 of his helicopter by practicing deception upon him initially inducing him to give on hire his helicopter and then by forcibly dispossessing him and then detaining it by force with the help of the coaccused. They not only deprived him of the helicopter but also did not pay him his legitimate dues or its price. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that vide certificate of registration Ex.PW2/B1, the helicopter bearing registration no. VTEAP was initially owned by Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. It was transferred in the name of H. Suresh Rao and consequent thereto, the certificate Ex.PW2/C2 was issued in his name. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that H. Suresh Rao had purchased the spare parts of Rs. 38,81,964/ from Summit Aviation and also spent Rs. 6,21,659/ for its assembly out of which he paid Rs. 23,42,310/ and pledged the helicopter with Summit Aviation as a collateral security. Ld. Public Prosecutor referred the testimony of PW85 stating that accused used to make calls at Dubai and Pakistan. He also placed on record the transcript of the talks which took place between Romesh Sharma and Abu Salem Ex.PW74/3. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that the accused had contested the election from Phulpur, Allahabad for which the maximum expenditure limit was Rs. 4,50,000/. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that the helicopter was given R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 100/213 101 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
on hire at Rs. 80000/ per day and to that effect a fax Ex.PW6/6 was sent. The GR receipts show Pushpak Aviation as consignor and consignee. The MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed on a stamp paper purchased on 29.03.96 showing to have been executed on 24.02.96. Two more MOU/agreements were prepared and the signatures of PW6 were taken by deception / use of force / coercion. No sale deed about the sale of helicopter was executed. Only an agreement to sell was prepared. The affidavit from PW6 regarding full and final payment on 05.06.96 was obtained by inducing threat. Ld. PP stated that PW6 had already entered into an agreement with a company at Kerala for aerial spraying of pesticides and received Rs. 2.0 lacs in advance but since the helicopter was forcibly retained by the accused, PW6 could not execute the agreement and also faced the legal proceedings. Ld. PP stated that initially the helicopter was given on hire upto 12.04.96 but the period was unilaterally extended by the accused Romesh Sharma till 09.05.96. The fuel was sent to Mumbai on 09.05.96, however, when the helicopter was being loaded in a truck on 11.05.96 for Mumbai, it was off loaded by the accused persons who arrived there and threatened the crew members with dire consequences. Ld. PP stated that it was loaded on a truck for Delhi, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 101/213 102 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
which was arranged by the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. Ld. PP stated that before 11.05.96, the physical possession of helicopter was PW6 and it was never transferred to Romesh Sharma. Ld. PP stated that PW7 has corroborated the testimony of PW6 on all material aspects. Ld. PP stated that when Romesh Sharma had made full and final payment to PW6 before the transfer of helicopter and if it was true, there was no reason for him to make part payment of the amount on 24.06.96 and 16.07.96.
Ld. PP stated that the accused Harish Mishra was party to the conspiracy with Romesh Sharma in acquiring the helicopter by illegal means. He had signed the first MOU and made part payment from his account. If the helicopter was scheduled to be sent to Delhi as claimed by the accused, then why B G Pappara would hire a truck from Shere Punjab for sending the helicopter to Mumbai. Ld. PP stated that facts and circumstances show that the helicopter was taken on hire and the agreement to sell was executed by the accused persons to limit the election expenses, otherwise, Election Commission could have disqualified him for exceeding the financial limit.
Ld. PP stated that in the election speeches, the accused had spoken that he has purchased the helicopter and it would be used for R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 102/213 103 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the people of Phulpur, then there was no purpose in taking the helicopter to Delhi. Ld. P.P stated that statement of accounts of the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra show that there was negligible balance in their accounts. In these circumstances, there could be no bonafide basis to enter into such an agreement for purchase of helicopter. Ld. PP stated that his intention was dishonest to grab the helicopter by illegal means. He threatened PW6 and others with dire consequences to forget about the helicopter claiming that it was his property. Even otherwise, he did not pay Rs. 18 lacs to Neeraj Bhatia when he got the registration certificate from him who had estimated the cost of helicopter as Rs. 40 lacs when he got the registration certificate as a collateral security. Ld. Counsel stated that whenever PW6 tried to contact the accused with regard to return the helicopter or make payment of his dues, he was threatened by Romesh Sharma through Irfan Goga and others for which he lodged the report at the police station Santa Cruz with PW47 Suresh Mishra. Ld. PP stated that when the helicopter was taken to Delhi after unloading and then loading in another truck hired for transporting it to Delhi, no intimation was sent to the Director Aviation. Ld. PP stated that when PW6 alongwith PW7 came at the house of the accused at R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 103/213 104 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Mayfair Garden, they were threatened and were taken to 16, Mahadev Road at the point of pistol in the possession of Laxman Singh, his muscle man. The car and the jeep were recovered from the possession of accused alongwith the cassette of helicopter. Ld. PP stated that the accused had contacted Reliance Industries and given papers showing his intention to sell the helicopter. Facts and circumstances show that he had illegally taken the possession of the helicopter without paying full and final consideration. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that the accused did not dispute their signatures on the documents. Ld. PP stated that intention of the accused from the beginning was to grab the helicopter and not to purchase which fact is evident from the documents Ex.PW6/6 i.e. the fax message, Ex.PW6/18 insurance dated 26.03.96, Ex.PW6/9 regarding purchase of fuel, Ex.PW6/14 MOU, GRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 on which consignor and consignee were mentioned as Pushpak Aviation not Romesh Sharma, letter of B G Pappara Ex.PW6/16 informing Civil Aviation that helicopter was given on contract and the agreement with Ibrahim for spraying pesticides in Kerala. Ld. PP stated that Harish Mishra, Bhojwani and other accused persons were party to the criminal conspiracy with the accused Romesh Sharma.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 104/213
105
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
131.On the other hand, Ld. counsel Sh. Prem Kumar for the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra has contended that the controversy in this case between the accused and the complainant is of civil nature as is indicative from the facts that accused Romesh Sharma had purchased the helicopter from the complainant for the value of Rs.30.00 lacs and has even paid Rs.12.0 lacs towards the sale price on different occasions; that the present case has been concocted to coerce the accused and to accelerate the remaining payment; that the other coaccused persons have been falsely implicated in this case; that there is no evidence to show that the accused Romesh Sharma and the coaccused persons had entered into conspiracy to forcibly take the possession of the helicopter in order to deprive the complainant of its legitimate dues; that the incident of snatching the helicopter forcibly is concocted; that the helicopter was in possession of the accused Romesh Sharma as he had purchased it; that there is no evidence regarding the terms of hire agreement and even the alleged fax message vide which the terms were sent and settled has not been procured and produced; Ld. Counsel submitted that the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence is that there should be reasonable certainty to connect the accused with the crime. Ld. Counsel stated R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 105/213 106 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
that the accused had a political career of about 35 years. He remained in custody for about 13 years although it is a case of unfair investigation by CBI. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Ran Bahadur Vs. State of UP AIR 2000 SC 1209 and State of West Bengal Vs. Shew Mangal Singh AIR 1981 SC 1917 to contend that the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt which it failed.
Ld. counsel contended that there is delay of about 900 days in registration of the case as the alleged incident of snatching happened on 11.05.96, while the FIR in this case has been registered in the month of October, 1998. No explanation was given for delay. He placed reliance on the case State of AP Vs. Madhu Sudan (2008) 15 SCC 582, Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709 (i), Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal AIR 2010 SC 3624 to contend that delay must be sufficiently explained. Ld. Counsel stated that the complainant belongs to an upper strata of society. His father was in the business of aviation. He used to move in High Society. He had contacts with influential persons. The helicopter was registered in the name of the accused in the record of Director of Civil Aviation in 1996 but challenge to that effect was made by the complainant in a civil suit filed in 1999 which also failed when the complainant did not lead evidence. Ld. R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 106/213 107 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Counsel stated that the Civil Court decides the civil rights in respect of movable / immovable property and it brings finality in regard to the right of the parties. Ld. Counsel stated that the helicopter is still with the accused. Ld. Counsel stated that the case was registered at the police station Hauz Khas on 20.10.98 and it was transferred to CBI to end the political career of the accused. There was no written contract of hire. The MOU was for the sale of helicopter. Part consideration was paid on 27.03.96. The complainant had purchased the helicopter in 1994 i.e. after 24 years for Rs. 50,000/ in accidental condition. He made it airworthy by spending Rs. 38 lacs. Before entering into MOU with the accused, he had entered into agreement with two more persons, thus concealed the vital information from the accused. He had pledged the certificate of registration with Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation as a collateral security.
Ld. counsel stated that the hiring expenses were allegedly Rs. 13 lacs and its cost was Rs. 30 lacs. No sensible person would pay the hire charges of Rs. 13 lacs for hiring a helicopter for 30 days when its cost was Rs. 30 lacs. There is nothing to indicate that there was threat from the side of the accused when the MOU was entered into nor there was anything in writing that the MOU would not be acted R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 107/213 108 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
upon after the election. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act and submitted that the complainant himself was guilty of cheating the Authorities by showing that it was sold out and not given on hire.
Ld. counsel stated that when there is documentary evidence on record i.e. Agreement to sell, Affidavit as to the sale of helicopter by PW6 and receipt of full and final consideration from the accused and a letter written by Girish Rao to the insurance company as to the sale of helicopter, the oral testimony does not have any meaning. The prosecution did not file any proof as to the receipt of fax message sent by PW8 to the accused Romesh Sharma giving the terms and condition of hiring of helicopter, nor any safeguard was taken by the complainant to ensure that the MOU shall not be acted upon. The complainant did not mention the fact in the MOU that the helicopter was pledged as collateral security with Summit Aviation. Ld. Counsel stated that when the maximum limit prescribed for incurring the expenditure on election was Rs. 4.5 lacs why a person would take the helicopter on hire. The prosecution did not file any document to show that the value of the helicopter was Rs.70 lacs although in the MOU Ex.PW6/5 with Summit Aviation the value of the helicopter was shown R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 108/213 109 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
as Rs.40 lacs. That being the position, the figure of Rs. 30 lacs as appearing in the MOU appeared to be reasonable.
Ld. counsel stated that on 20.10.98, more than 350 policemen came in the house of the accused. It was a preplanned move. The accused was floating a party at Mahadev Road and he was implicated for scoring a political vendetta. It assumes importance as earlier a report was lodged by the complainant in the police station Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi but no action was taken by the police on the report. There was no threat from Dawood Ibrahim at the time of MOU. Irfan Goga had allegedly threatened the complainant over telephone in 1998 for which report was lodged at the police station Santa Cruz in April, 1998 so why Irfan Goga / Dawood Ibrahim were not made accused in the present case.
Ld. counsel stated that the accused persons have been charged for criminal conspiracy for the period from March, 1996 to October, 1998. The question arises who were the conspirators in 1996 when the helicopter was allegedly taken on hire. In this case, no confession of the coaccused was recorded nor there was any recovery from them or at their instance. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Kali Ram Vs. State 2010 VI AD (Delhi) 45 to contend that there should be evidence of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 109/213 110 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
conspiracy and some object behind that conspiracy. Ld. Counsel stated that when the agreement was entered into on 30.03.96, there was no fraudulent/dishonest intention/undue influence. It was genuinely executed. Harish Mishra had taken the MOU since he was already in Mumbai. He paid Rs. 3.0 lacs. The signatures of PW6 on the MOU were not obtained by threat, so he was not a party to the conspiracy. He was not involved in any other incident so, how conspiracy/cheating was done by him as alleged in the Charge. He was not the party of second MOU dated 30.03.96.
As to the incident dated 05.06.96 that there was an atmosphere of terror, Ld. Counsel contended that all the documents i.e. log book, insurance etc. were given by PW6. PW18 did not say that the registration certificate was taken from him by threats. PW6 had come alongwith his counsel in Delhi with the affidavit on a Stamp Paper which he got prepared in Mumbai. So no case U/s 386 IPC is made out. The helicopter came at the farm house on 14.05.96 and its possession with the accused was lawful. No case U/s 365/506 IPC is made out as there was no abduction or wrongful confinement of PW6 or danger to the life of PW6. Ld. Counsel also referred the allegations levelled in the FIR and the Civil Suit filed in the High Court. Ld. R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 110/213 111 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Counsel submitted that the registration of helicopter clinches the issue that Romesh Sharma was the owner of the helicopter. The story of hiring was imaginary and after thought. Ld. Counsel contended that any contract entered voluntarily is a primary evidence. If the amount is not received as per contract, it would be a case of civil liability as any breach of contract entails civil action. Ld. Counsel stated that facts and circumstances and the documents placed on record go to show that Romesh Sharma wanted to purchase the helicopter and not to take on hire. As provided under Aircraft Rules, there should be pure and clear sale of helicopter which was there in the present case. The accused in election speeches had openly spoken that he has purchased the helicopter and would use for the people. Ld. Counsel stated that Resjudicata U/s 11 CPC is applicable in the present case. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Daya Sapra Vs. Vishnu Dutt Sharma 2008 II AD (Delhi) 84 to contend that the judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court. Ld. Counsel stated that the Civil Court has dismissed the suit containing similar allegations, so no cause of action lies before the Criminal Court. Reliance was also placed of the case K G Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002 SC 3372 and Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. H P Sharma ILR (1974) I Delhi 190. Ld. R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 111/213 112 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Counsel referred the Sections 40, 43 and 13 of the Evidence Act to contend that once a finding has come from the Civil Court, the matter cannot be reagitated. DGCA has already declined the request of Suresh Rao to change its ownership. Ld. Counsel stated that the information was to the extent that Romesh Sharma was beating two persons, why DRI, Wild Life, Income Tax Officers and Police from the Police Station Kalka Ji came in the house of the accused and searched his house for the whole night. Ld. Counsel stated that CBI had already ceased of the matter as it was enquiring about the helicopter even prior to the alleged incident. Ld. Counsel stated that Suresh Rao was made puppet by the Government to score its political vendetta and it was a larger conspiracy of the Government to end the political career of the accused Romesh Sharma. Ld. Counsel stated that after the MOU, any entry in the GR showing consignor and consignee as Pushpak Aviation becomes irrelevant. Reliance was also placed on the case Gulab Chand sharma Vs. H P Sharma ILR (1974) I Delhi 190, Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Vs. Syed Jalauddin Sha AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 54, Abdul Majid Khan Vs. Tukaram & Another AIR 1927, Nagpur 359, Lakshman Govind and Another Vs. Amrit Gopal & Others ILR 24 Bombay 691, Maroli Laxman Koshi Vs. Jagannathdas R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 112/213 113 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Lachmandas Gadewal AIR 1939 Nagpur 12 and Dilavar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709 (1).
132.Learned Counsel then summed up his arguments with the following submissions :
i) There is no proof whatsoever that there was any contract for hiring of the helicopter between Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma.
ii) MOU for sale of the helicopter was entered into between Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma twice i.e. on 27.03.1996 and 30.03.1996. The complainant Suresh Rao has not given any reason whatsoever to show how he got persuaded by simple or empty assurance.
iii) Complainant Suresh Rao did not obtain any safe guard in the form of any writing from the accused Romesh Sharma to ensure that MOUs entered into between Suresh Rao and accused Romesh Sharma are not acted upon.
iv) Suresh Rao had already entered into MOU with Summit Aviation for sale of the helicopter and did not disclose this fact to the accused Romesh Sharma.
v) Complainant Suresh Rao had kept the registration certificate of the helicopter with Summit Aviation as a collateral security apart from entering into the MOU. This fact was also not disclosed by R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 113/213 114 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Suresh Rao to the accused Romesh Sharma.
vi) The fact that he had to pay about Rs.18,00,000/ to Summit Aviation was also not disclosed by Suresh Rao to Romesh Sharma.
vii) If it was a hiring contract then it was cheating the election commission because the expenses far exceed the limit of the election expenses. If it is sale of helicopter then it is not at all cheating the election commission. Hence sale through MOU is a genuine sale of the helicopter.
viii) Complainant Suresh Rao is making a false assertion that the value of the helicopter was Rs.70,00,000/. Nothing has been brought on record that the value of the helicopter could be Rs. 70,00,000/ particularly when it was an old helicopter purchased in 1970 and the helicopter even met with an accident. The helicopter was purchased by Suresh Rao only for Rs.50,000/. Moreover the MOU entered by complainant Suresh Rao with Summit Aviation shows its value to be Rs.40,00,000/. Thus its value could be anywhere between Rs.30,00,000/ to Rs. 35,00,000/ and hence the description of the sale price of Rs. 30,00,000/ in the two MOUs executed with Romesh Sharma show that the said price was the genuine price and not Rs. 70,00.000/ as is sought to be made out by the complainant in his oral deposition.
ix) The complainant has not brought anything on record to show that so called fax message was actually received by Romesh Sharma hence Suresh Rao has made a false statement that the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 114/213 115 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
terms of hiring were faxed to Romesh Sharma.
x) Suresh Rao did not talk of his own complicity in the matter. Such a character cannot be believed. Suresh Rao cannot be believed for the reason that action is highly belated for having filed the complaint after 947 days of the alleged incident.
xi) PW6 is an expert in aviation line and preparing documents of transfer. How he could have executed documents of sale not once but twice and doing everything for making it legally executable but not getting executed a document of hiring in his favour.
xii) Suresh Rao was not getting anything in writing as per his statement in his own favour but executing everything against him. He was not apprehending anything what will happen if Romesh Sharma decides to act upon the alleged MOU.
133.Ld. counsel Sh. S P Kaushal contended that the accused M. D. Bhojwani did not enter into criminal conspiracy with the accused Romesh Sharma; no overt act can be attributed to him with regard to the incident of 11.05.1996 as he has not been named in the FIR; his signature on the MOU as witness does not suggest any complicity with the accused in this case; the act of the accused persons Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja, Avdesh and Indermani and others as to the incident of 11.05.1996 was bonafide and exempted R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 115/213 116 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
under the General Exception under section 79 IPC as they believed bonafide and in good faith the statement of accused Romesh Sharma made during his election campaign that he has purchased the helicopter for the services of the people of his constituency; there is no deception and no knowledge can be attributed to them; that the accused persons have been named out of memory as they used to be present with the accused in the election campaign; that the accused were not named in the complaint Ex.PW6/46; No TIP of the accused persons was got conducted, nor their photographs were shown for identification; Ld. Counsel argued that it was a case of political rivalry. A raid was conducted in the house of the accused Romesh Sharma on 20.10.98. His entire house was ransacked and number of cases were registered involving him and his relations. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no evidence of conspiracy in Mumbai and other parts of the country as stated in the Charge. Ld. Counsel contended that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to the presence of persons on the spot on 11.05.96 or whether they were armed with weapons or not. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no evidence of conspiracy against them prior to 11.05.96. Documents placed on record show that the helicopter was sold to Romesh Sharma R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 116/213 117 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
and its ownership was also transferred in his name. Ld. Counsel stated that when the helicopter was loaded, there was no threat to any of the crew members. Everyone was free to move. No report was lodged by any of the crew members when the helicopter was allegedly detained. Name of Abu Salem or Dawood came later. There was a delay of 863 days in lodging the FIR. Ld. Counsel stated that the witnesses were the employees of PW6 and were the interested witnesses. There was no confinement or extortion or fear on 11.05.96. As per the agreement with the plantation company, the helicopter was to be taken to Kerala, so why it was being taken to Mumbai. No lathi/danda/weapon was recovered from the possession of accused persons. Police met the accused persons for the first time on or after 16.11.98. PW14 has stated that he had informed Suresh Rao about the incident but no report was lodged. This itself shows that helicopter was not given on hire but it was sold to Romesh Sharma.
For accused Laxman, it was contended that the accused was only a guard at Mayfair Garden. None of the witnesses i.e. PW6, PW7, PW42 and PW67 said about the presence of accused Laxman at Mayfair Garden. The prosecution did not examine SI Ravinder Gill. PW42 was posted as SHO at Police Station Kalkaji and not at Hauz R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 117/213 118 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Khas or Cannaught Place. So what made him conduct the raid at Hauz Khas or Mahadev Road. There were no instructions from the senior police officials. The accused had simply done his duty and provided protection to his master accused Romesh Sharma; that he was having a licensed pistol; however, no intention can be attributed to him that he has committed any offence in this case punishable under section 120B or 365 or 506 IPC. He was not arrested from the place of incident. He was arrested on 29.12.98. Ld. Counsel argued that accused Romesh Sharma was in valid possession of helicopter. The crew members had advance programme to leave the station.
Ld. Counsel stated that the accused Manoj and Naveen Budhiraja have been falsely implicated in this case, they had no knowledge or intention which can be imputed for commission of offence of conspiracy.
134.Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in rebuttal argued that the accused Romesh Sharma was contesting the election and did not want the hire charges to be included in the election expenses, so to circumvent the same, he induced PW6 to enter into the MOU, so that he might not be disqualified from the election. His intention was to grab the helicopter.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 118/213
119
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
The intention is to be seen from the circumstances. PW6 could have not sold the helicopter to Romesh Sharma, even if he had intended because he had pledged the helicopter as collateral security with Summit Aviation. Even otherwise, the statement of account of Romesh Sharma shows that he did not have sufficient funds to purchase the helicopter. He had given a bald statement that he had made the entire payment to PW6. His intention was not to purchase but to deprive its possession from PW6. No findings have come from the Civil Court that the helicopter in question belonged to Romesh Sharma, so principle of resjudiceta is not applicable. PW6 had a constructive possession of the helicopter but the accused by use of force and threats took away the helicopter. There was no act of due care and caution by the accused persons. As to holding of TIP, Ld. PP stated that the accused and the witnesses remained at Phulpur for about 40 days and very well knew one another. The links of the accused with Dawood Ibrahim are established as two more cases were registered against him by the police. The transcript of accused Romesh Sharma with Abu Salem also corroborates this fact. Ld. PP stated that the delay was due to the fact that the complainant was under fear. Ld. PP stated that the delay in FIR does not give immunity R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 119/213 120 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
to the offender, if the facts appeal to judicial conscience. Reliance was placed on the case Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar 2000 Cri.L.J. 2983, V. Y. Jose & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat I (2009) CCR 246 (SC) where the distinction between the pure contractual dispute of civil nature and offence of cheating was discussed.
135.I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration on the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides and have gone through the statements of witnesses and the documents on record. In order to appreciate the evidence, it will be convenient to split the events in sequence as under :
Ownership of the Helicopter and its use :
136.It emerges from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely PW1, PW2, PW40, PW6 and PW44 and the documents that PW6 was in the business of Aviation in the name and style of Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for a long time. Pushpak Aviation owned a helicopter Bell 47 G5 in the year 1970 vide registration no. Ex. PW2/C1. PW6 and PW44 were inducted as Directors in the company on or about R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 120/213 121 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
199394. In 1988, it met with an accident and was severely damaged. PW6 purchased the helicopter from Pushpak Aviation in the year 1994 for Rs. 50,000/. He then moved an application to DGCA for transfer of its ownership in his name and the ownership was transferred in his name vide registration certificate Ex.PW2/A5 on 19.09.94.
137.To make it airworthy, PW6 purchased spare parts worth Rs. 40 lacs from PW18. He made part payment to PW18 and for a balance payment of Rs. 18 lacs, he entered into a Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5 on 20.11.95 with Summit Aviation of which PW18 was the Managing Director. He pledged his original certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 with it. When the MOU was entered into, the value of the helicopter was determined as Rs. 40 lacs and it was executed for securing the due amount as a collateral security.
138.The helicopter became airworthiness in 1995 and to that effect PW6 obtained the airworthiness certificate Ex.PW1/1 on 27.12.95 which was valid till 27.01.97. Since PW6 was not having a nonschedule operator's permit for leasing the helicopter and the company Pushpak Aviation was having the same, he entered into an agreement with R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 121/213 122 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Pushpak Aviation for leasing out the said helicopter. The company used to engage freelance pilots on commission basis for a particular job. It also had permanent technical staff which included PW9 Sh. B R Pappara Senior Technician, PW15 Sh. Tukaram Technician, Sh. Verma and Sh. Dutta, helpers. According to PW44, the helicopter remained available with Pushpak Aviation for services which included film shooting, charter, electioneering and aerial spraying on plantation. PW26 was the General Manager of Erry Sons Maliyalam Ltd. a plantation company. He has stated that in May/June prior to advent of Monsoon, they take the services of helicopter from Pushpak Aviation and Garuda Aviation for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation to prevent growth of bacterias. He placed on record the correspondence Ex.PW26/A in this regard and stated that Ibrahim Associates PW28 was the local agent of Pushpak Aviation. In 1996 his company had contacted the aviation company to take the services of helicopter for spraying chemicals on the rubber plantation to which the company responded vide letter Ex.PW26/B1 and also wrote a letter Ex.PW26/B2 dated 22.01.96 confirming the proposal and the terms and conditions. On 25.03.96 PW26 sent a letter to PW28 Ex.PW26/B4 giving the schedule and the area for aerial spraying from 22.04.96 to 17.05.96 R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 122/213 123 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
and paid an advance. An agreement was also entered into vide Ex.PW6/24B2. PW9 had also contacted PW28 showing his intention to visit the places at Kerala vide letter dated 12.02.96 Ex.PW28/B. The correspondence between Pushpak Aviation and Ibrahim Associates shows that the spraying work was to be completed by the last week of April or the first half week of May 1996. PW6 could not honour his commitment and vide letter dated 11.05.96 it was communicated to the company by PW44 that the helicopter was being despatched on 11.05.96 from Phulpur to Mumbai and it would be immediately transported to Kerala en route Mumbai and would reach by 17.05.96. Pushpak Aviation could not execute the agreement and wrote a letter dated 16.05.96 Ex.PW6/24B to PW28 that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control that after electioneering in UP, the helicopter was impounded by the High Politician and unauthorisedly removed to Delhi and that the helicopter has also suffered damages due to mishandling by unauthorised persons during transportation and unloading at Delhi, they would not be in a position to make the helicopter available for this season. The company then initiated a legal action against Pushpak Aviation for recovery of dues. PW26 sent a fax on 23.05.96 for refund of advance and also sent a legal notice.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 123/213
124
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
PW28 sent a letter dated 30.05.96 Ex.PW6/24 B(4) to refund the advance. On 25.01.97 he received a letter from Garuda Aviation as to the adjustment of advance. The aforesaid amount was adjusted and the matter was settled.
Election of Romesh Sharma and matters relating to helicopter :
139.Testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW5 show that the accused Romesh Sharma contested the election in 1996 from 55 Phulpur constituency, Allahabad as an independent candidate. The general elections to Lok Sabha were announced on 19.03.96 but the actual notification was issued on 27.03.96. As per the letter Ex.PW3/B, the maximum limit of election expenditure for a contesting candidate at that time was Rs.
4,50,000/. According to PW3, from the date, the election was notified till it was complete, the candidate had to maintain an account in a proforma prescribed by the Commission and file all the documents to the District Election Office within one month from the date of declaration of result. He proved the press release Ex.PW3/A1, Gazette Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of election Ex.PW3/A3. According to PW3, Romesh Sharma had given an R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 124/213 125 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
affidavit of expenditure Ex.PW3/B2 on 09.06.96 and the details Ex.PW3/B1. Perusal of it reveals that he had used the helicopter in the election and paid the charges for fuel etc. According to PW4, in the event of purchase of car/helicopter during the period of election, the price of the vehicle is not included in the expenses and only the amount spent on diesel/salary of driver is included in the expenses. The accused has admitted to have knowledge of this fact. PW3 has stated that the election was held on 07.05.96 and the result was declared on 11.05.96 in which the accused Romesh Sharma got defeat.
140.It has come in the testimony of PW6 that he was introduced to the accused Romesh Sharma as politician/property dealer by Lalit Bagla DW1 and PW7 Rakesh Gupta of United India Airways during his visit in Delhi in February, 1996 at their office at S41, Panchsheel Park. He was accompanied by his Marketing Executive Mahender Pujara PW8. PW7, the Managing Director of United India Airways has corroborated his testimony as to the meeting of PW6 and PW8 with the accused Romesh Sharma. Their testimony do not reveal that any talk as to the purchase/hiring of helicopter took place between PW6 and the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 125/213 126 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accused Romesh Sharma in February, 1996.
141.Testimony of PW6 further reveals that in March, 1996 during his visit at the house of the accused, the accused expressed his desire to contest the election and take the services of his helicopter for that purpose and also enquired about its cost which was Rs. 70 lacs. On 24.03.96 evening, he received a telephone call from the accused asking him to send the helicopter to Phulpur whom he asked to enter into an agreement of hiring with him on the terms and conditions mutually agreeable. PW6 has stated that after the negotiations, rates were settled as Rs. 80,000/ per day as hiring charges and other miscellaneous expenses. PW6 then asked PW8 to send the hiring terms by fax. PW8 has stated that on the asking of PW6, he sent a fax message Ex.PW6/6 on 24.03.96 to Romesh Sharma mentioning the terms and conditions as stated by PW6. Perusal of it reveals that it was sent at about 10.15 PM on the fax no. 6852828 from the fax no. 91228073440 mentioning the hire charges, insurance charges, transportation charges and air tickets for their staff total amounting to Rs. 13 lacs. Crossexamination of these witnesses on this aspect is conspicuous by its absence. Although the accused denied having R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 126/213 127 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
received the fax message but it was held in the case of Bal Kishan (Supra) that if there is no crossexamination on this aspect, the evidence shall be deemed to have been admitted. It has further come in the testimony of PW6 that the accused had told him on telephone that his brother accused Harish Mishra and PW7 would contact him at his Mumbai office for finalisation of hiring terms confirming the receipt of fax message and asked him to despatch the helicopter. PW6 vide letter Ex.PW6/7 dated 25.03.96 making reference to his telephonic conversation regarding charter/hire of helicopter also reiterated the terms as stated in the fax and informed that it would be positioned on 28.03.96 and would be available for operation from 29.03.96 to 12.04.96. PW6 has stated that on 25.03.96 accused Harish Mishra came to his office and enquired as to whether the helicopter was despatched to Phulpur. He told the accused that the transport was being arranged. DGCA was informed regarding despatch of helicopter to Phulpur and transit insurance was got done. PW9 corroborated this fact and proved the Journey log book Ex.PW6/29, Engine log book Ex.PW6/30, Aircraft log book Ex.PW6/31 and the Aircraft station apparatus log book Ex.PW6/34. He has stated that the helicopter was dismantled, packed and loaded in a truck on 26.03.96. The Machines R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 127/213 128 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
were unloaded at Phulpur on 29.03.96 and assembled on the same day near the bungalow of Romesh Sharma and information to that effect was sent to the Director Airworthiness vide Ex.PW6/15 and Ex.PW6/16. PW6 has stated that the accused Harish Mishra had also sent his man who accompanied with the truck to Phulpur. PW9 has stated that Suresh Rao had told him that helicopter would fly there upto 12.04.96 and thereafter, it would proceed to Kerala for undertaking an aerial spray contract on rubber plantation. Perusal of the information Ex.PW6/16 reveals that the helicopter had gone out on outstation contract for flying at Phulpur Allahabad by road transport and it would remain till 12.04.96. The correspondence placed with Mesco Airlines Ltd. dated 07.08.96 also goes to show that the hire charges at that time were Rs. 72,000/ per day. PW6 has stated that Rs. 17,000/ were incurred towards transit insurance policy Ex.PW6/8, Rs. 50,000/ towards purchase of fuel and two trucks were engaged from Central Courier Corporations for transportation of helicopter and fuel for Rs. 30,030/ vide receipt Ex.PW6/13 and GRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 wherein on the GR Pushpak Aviation was shown as Consignor and the Consignee.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 128/213
129
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
142.It has come in the evidence of PW7 that on 26.03.96 at about 7.00 PM he was called by Romesh Sharma and told that his brother Harish Mishra would see him at the airport at Mumbai on 27.03.96 as he was hiring helicopter from PW6 who probably had despatched it on 26.03.96 and also asked him to go with Harish Mishra to the office of PW6 to prepare a hiring agreement giving an envelope containing blank letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors on which the MOU of hiring was to be prepared. He has stated that on 27.03.96 he was received at the Airport by Harish Mishra. From there they went to the office of PW6 where Romesh Sharma talked to PW6 over phone requiring PW6 to draw an MOU for sale of helicopter instead of hiring so that the hiring charges might not be reflected in the election expenses and also assured that MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over. He stated that initially PW6 was reluctant but then acceded to his request and agreed to draw an MOU telling that he has no option since he has already despatched the helicopter. Testimony of PW6 reveals that on a letter head of Reliance Developers an MOU Ex.PW6/14 was prepared in duplicate on which accused Harish Mishra and he signed. He gave one copy to Harish Mishra and retained the other. Harish Mishra paid him Rs. 1.0 lac in R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 129/213 130 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
cash and handed over Rs. 2.0 lacs to PW32 towards hire charges. Perusal of the agreement would show that it was predated purporting to be executed on 24.02.96. The total consideration was fixed as Rs. 30 lacs. As per the terms, on despatch Rs. 3.0 lacs were paid, Rs.7.0 lacs would be paid on or before 29.03.96 and the balance of Rs. 20 lacs would be paid before the commencement of first flight and the transfer of ownership would be effected only after the payment of full and final amount. The accused Harish Mishra at no stage disputed his signatures on the aforesaid predated agreement. The elections were announced on 19.03.96. It is difficult to visualise from these facts as to what prompted the accused enter into a predated MOU showing the date of execution as 24.02.96.
143.It has further come in the testimony of PW6 that after departure of the helicopter he telephoned Romesh Sharma to make further payment towards the hire charges. Accused Romesh Sharma asked him to come to Delhi on 30.03.96. PW6 went to Delhi. He received three cheques of Rs. 1.0 lac each Ex.PW6/17 to 19. Accused Romesh Sharma produced another MOU Ex.PW6/20 on a stamp paper to sign and when he questioned, he answered that the earlier MOU was not a R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 130/213 131 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
legal document and might be objected by the Election Commission as it was not on a stamp paper. He then signed the agreement in the presence of M D Bhojwani and Sansar Chand and then left for Mumbai on 30.03.96 by air. He proved the air tickets Ex.PW6/22 and Ex.PW6/23. PW30 Sansar Chand who used to do the political work of Romesh Sharma also corroborated this fact that the agreement Ex.PW6/20 was executed on 30.03.96 on which he and M D Bhojwani had signed as witnesses. Perusal of MOU Ex.PW6/20 reveals that the MOU was entered showing the date of its execution as 24.02.96, although the stamp paper was purchased on 29.03.96 from PW13 and the agreement Ex.PW6/20 did not have the reference of earlier MOU Ex.PW6/14 which was executed on the letter head. PW27 who was the Secretary of Romesh Sharma has also admitted to have typed it on that day. Question now arises, as per the earlier MOU Rs. 3.0 lacs were shown to have been paid and the said MOU was shown to be executed on 24.02.96 so why on the same day i.e. 24.02.96 vide MOU Ex.PW6/20, the payment was shown as Rs. 8.0 lacs. The fact of the matter is that no payment was made on 24.02.96 by the accused which date was shown on the above MOUs. The cheques and the statement of accounts produced by PW35, PW36, PW37, PW43, PW51, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 131/213 132 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
PW53, PW54 and PW61 also show that before 27.03.96 no payment was made to PW6 and only Rs. 6.0 lacs were paid till 30.03.96. PW6 has also filed the Ledger accounts duly audited Ex.PW6/41 maintained by Garuda Aviation visavis the transaction with the accused Romesh Sharma showing the aforesaid payment towards the hire charges and not towards the sale consideration. Even the correspondence placed on record and the testimony of PW9 show that the helicopter was given on hire and was not sold to the accused Romesh Sharma. As is apparent from the record that the maximum expenses to be incurred in election by a candidate was limited upto Rs. 4.5 lacs but the charges itself for hire of the helicopter would be around Rs. 13 lacs. Transportation of Helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai which did not happen :
144.Testimony of PW3 shows that the election at Phulpur Constituency was held on 07.05.96 and the result was declared on 11.05.96. PW9 on 10.05.96 sent a fax to PW6 that Romesh Sharma has not reached Allahabad and the arrangements to despatch the machine and to start the work of spraying at Kerala was at stake. PW9 sent a fax to Girish R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 132/213 133 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Rao PW44 on 10.05.96 vide Ex.PW9/2 that he has booked a road carrier to carry the helicopter and requested him to arrange transit insurance. On 11.05.96 a Truck bearing no. MH 04 C 5333 vide GR No. 3862 from SherePunjab Roadways Allahabad reached there.
145.Perusal of the documents would show that in the Log book, last entry of flying the helicopter was shown upto 07.05.96 vide Ex.PW9/14. The flight commenced from 30.03.96 at Ugarsen Pur vide entry Ex.PW11/A. The entry Ex.PW9/8 on the log book of Aircraft reflects that the helicopter was partially dismantled on 11.05.96 for road transportation to Mumbai. The testimony of PW21, the Prop. of Azad Golden Roadlines shows that the truck was provided to PW25, the Proprietor of SherePunjab on 11.05.96 for transportation of helicopter from Ugarsen Pur to Mumbai at 8.33 AM. PW23 was the driver on the said truck with PW24 as Cleaner. The truck was parked in front of house of the accused Romesh Sharma where the helicopter was loaded. Fuel and spare parts had already been sent to Mumbai in another truck on 09.05.96 as is evident from the testimony of PW9 who sent it vide GR Ex.PW9/1.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 133/213
134
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Transportation of helicopter from Phulpur to Delhi :
146.The testimony of the witnesses PW9, PW14, PW15, PW19 PW21, PW22, PW23 and PW24 and the documents and the GR/LR reveal that when the truck was loaded from Mumbai to Phulpur, the consignor and the consignee of the helicopter were Pushpak Aviation. The transit insurance was from Mumbai to Phulpur and not for Delhi. In order to transport the helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai after the election, PW9 had requested PW6 to arrange transit insurance. The helicopter during the election remained in the physical possession of crew members / technicians of PW6 and it was never parted with. They made all the relevant entries in the log book/journey book of the helicopter. On the programme given by PW44, arrangement was made to take the helicopter to Kerala en route Mumbai. PW9 had arranged two trucks from SherePunjab Roadways. On 09.05.96, in one of the truck, fuel and spare parts were sent. On 11.05.96 the other truck of SherePunjab came at Ugarsen Pur in front of the bungalow of Romesh Sharma where the helicopter was parked. PW9 and his crew members dismantled the helicopter and got it loaded for carrying to Mumbai. When it was being loaded, none of the persons objected.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 134/213
135
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
The testimony of the witnesses and the record further show that the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M. D. Bhojwani, Avdesh, Indermani, Manoj and Naveen Budhiraja used to campaign for the accused Romesh Sharma in the election. Avtar Singh was an old friend of Romesh Sharma. M.D. Bhojwani was his neighbour and had arranged the food and lodging for the persons who had campaigned for Romesh Sharma in the election. Avdesh and Indermani were the nephew of Romesh Sharma. The accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also admitted to have campaigned for the accused Romesh Sharma in the election. The testimony of PW9 and other crew members reveal that when they were tying the parts of the helicopter, none of the accused persons objected. After some time, the accused persons alongwith some more persons came in two vehicles armed with lathis and weapons. They got down from the vehicles and threatened that helicopter would not be taken to Mumbai and it would go to Delhi as instructed by Romesh Sharma. They were more in numbers and also climbed on the truck to unload the helicopter. They also threatened them to remain in Bungalow and to accompany them to Delhi with the truck. When the truck driver told them that he did not have the permit to go to Delhi, accused Avtar R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 135/213 136 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Singh Ahluwalia arranged another truck and brought it there. The helicopter was unloaded from the truck and loaded in another truck arranged by Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. It was escorted from Phulpur to Delhi by 34 vehicles. When PW14 went to STD booth at Hotel Yatrik, Allahabad and told the incident to PW29, he advised him to lodge the complaint but his wife intervened and told him that the accused had a great influence at Allahabad as there had already been incident of arm clash in the election. Their testimony show that the accused persons took law in their hands, got unloaded the dismantled helicopter from the truck and took it to Delhi by use of force, though the record indicates that the constructive/physical possession of the truck was with PW6/his men.
Transfer of Ownership in the name of Romesh Sharma and assembly of Helicopter at his Farm House :
147.The testimony of PW6 shows that on 11.05.96 he was informed by PW9 that the henchmen of accused Romesh Sharma off loaded the helicopter from the truck and tried to take captive the Engineers and R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 136/213 137 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
threatened them that they have been instructed by the accused Romesh Sharma to take the helicopter to Delhi. On 12.05.96, he telephoned Romesh Sharma who told him not to worry and asked him to come to Delhi on 14.05.96 stating that by that time the helicopter would also reach Delhi. On 14.05.96 he reached Delhi via air ticket Ex.PW6/25, went to the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden and enquired to which the accused told him that helicopter is his property and it is in his possession. After few hours when he again asked him to return his helicopter and make payment towards the hire charges, the accused told him to forget about the helicopter as the same has become his property now and at the most he would be entitled to the payment relating to the helicopter. On 15.05.96 he again requested the accused to return the helicopter and make payment towards the hire charges but the accused did not budge and threatened that he was connected with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and if he did not follow his instructions, he would face dire consequences and also scared him of his proximity with Abu Salem and Irfan Goga. He was scared and thought to recover whatever money he could get. The accused gave him a demand draft of Rs. 2.0 lacs Ex.PW6/26. He returned to Mumbai on 15.05.96 via air ticket Ex.PW6/27. After some R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 137/213 138 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
time, he again telephoned Romesh Sharma who asked him to bring the original documents of helicopter alongwith an affidavit required for its transfer and told that he would make the payment thereafter. He discussed the matter with his Advocate R A Shah PW10 as to what should be his course of action which should be as per law. He got prepared the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 and came to Delhi on 04.06.96 with the affidavit and the log books. R A Shah came on 05.06.96. Both of them went to Mayfair Garden where they met Rakesh Gupta PW7. Accused Romesh Sharma was also with his Advocate Mahesh Gupta PW17. Mahesh Gupta was writing something on a document who left thereafter. Accused Romesh Sharma then asked him to sign an agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33. PW6 has stated that his Advocate (PW10) had also advised him to take the payment first and then sign the documents but the accused got furious, snatched the documents from PW6, took him in a room and reminded of his connection with Dawood Ibrahim gang. PW6 got scared of him and signed the affidavit on which his Advocate (PW10) also signed.
148.PW7 corroborated the testimony of PW6 on all material aspects. He has stated that on 11.05.96 he received a call from PW6 that the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 138/213 139 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
helicopter was forcibly taken by the men of Romesh Sharma. He was called by Suresh Rao to come at the house of the accused Romesh Sharma on 05.06.96 to sort out the matter. PW17, the Advocate of Romesh Sharma was having a draft of agreement. PW17 discussed it with Romesh Sharma and on the suggestions of Romesh Sharma, he made some changes and thereafter he left. The agreement after corrections remained with the accused Romesh Sharma.
149.PW10 also corroborated the testimony of PW6. He has stated that on knowing from PW6 that the accused was neither returning the helicopter nor paying the hire charges, he advised PW6 to take legal action. He was told by PW6 that the accused had asked him to forget about the helicopter and sign the documents. He again advised him to take action but PW6 told him that he was scared of the accused and would do whatever the accused wanted him to do. He asked him to come to Delhi on 05.06.96 as PW6 wanted to execute some documents, which he wanted to show to him before signing. He came to Delhi via air ticket Ex.PW6/35 and went with PW6 to the house of accused where PW17 also came whom the accused asked to make corrections in the agreement . PW17 left after making corrections in R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 139/213 140 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the agreement. PW17 has stated that the agreement Ex.PW6/33 was drafted by him on 14.05.96 on the instructions of accused Romesh Sharma after seeing the earlier MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20. On receipt of call from Romesh Sharma, he went to his house where PW6 and PW10 were present. They wanted to discuss something about the agreement as they had some reservations. After discussion, he made some corrections in the agreement Ex.PW6/33, however, the said agreement was not signed by the parties in his presence.
150.Testimony of PW6 further shows that the accused wanted to see the documents. When his Advocate PW10 objected and advised that they should part with the agreement only on receiving the payment, the accused got angry and abused PW10, snatched the documents from him (PW6). He then called V K Luthra. When Luthra put the documents on the table, the accused got furious. He scolded and beat Luthra. He (PW6) and PW10 got scared. The accused then lifted him to his office chamber where he reminded him of his connection with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and threatened that in case he would not sign the document, he would kill him. He has stated that from the office chamber, accused brought him to the place where his R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 140/213 141 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Advocate (PW10) was sitting. He asked him to sign the documents and the agreement. In these circumstances, he had no choice but to sign the documents. His Advocate PW10 also signed on the affidavit as witness. PW6 has stated that the certificate of registration was with PW18 which fact has also come in the testimony of PW18 who had taken it as a collateral security against the payment of the spare parts of the helicopter vide Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5. PW6 has stated that when he told this fact to the accused, he told him to ask Neeraj Bhatia PW18 to bring the certificate to his house. PW6 then requested PW18 to bring the certificate of registration, who after some time came with the certificate. The accused then asked him to hand over the certificate of registration stating that he has purchased the helicopter. When PW18 told the accused that Rs. 18 lacs were due to him towards the cost of spare parts and that PW6 has already entered into an agreement with him and showed the accused the agreement Ex.PW6/5, the accused told PW18 that he would make the payment of Rs. 18 lacs. On his assurance, PW18 handed over the certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 to the accused on which he also signed as it was one of the requirement for its transfer. However, no money was paid by the accused to PW18 on that day or thereafter.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 141/213
142
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
PW6 has stated that on the assurance given by him to the accused that they would not lodge any report with the police, they flew out via air ticket Ex.PW6/35. The accused in his statement has also admitted of his entering into the agreement Ex.PW6/33, taking in the affidavit and log books from PW6 and receiving the registration certificate from PW18 on 05.06.96.
151.I have seen the agreement Ex.PW6/33. It is shown to have been executed on 14.05.96 bearing the signature of the accused and PW6 containing some corrections. The handwriting Expert report Ex.PW94/8 also proves the signatures of the accused on the agreement. In para 4 of the said agreement, it has been agreed that the purchaser shall pay to the seller balance sale consideration of Rs. 18 lacs upon execution of documents of transfer. The said agreement was not witnessed by anyone nor was got attested from anyone. The testimony of witnesses show that the said agreement was signed by the parties not on 14.05.96, the day of its execution but on 05.06.96. It also finds a reference of an MOU dated 24.02.96 Ex.PW6/20. The said agreement to sell is contrary to the facts containing in the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 wherein it was written that the helicopter has a clear title R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 142/213 143 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
and PW6 has received the sale proceeds towards the helicopter in full and final. The affidavit also bears the date of 05.06.96 and the signature of PW6. The record shows that the accused had paid Rs. 8 lacs only by that time. The affidavit has an attestation of a Notary Public although PW6 has stated that he did not go to any Advocate or the Notary Public for its attestation. Record shows that V K Luthra had identified PW6 Suresh Rao and it was attested by PW12. PW12 has also admitted this fact in his testimony that the executant PW6 and the witness PW10 were not present when he attested the affidavit.
152.It has come in the testimony of PW1 that for change of ownership, original certificate of registration duly endorsed on its reverse by the previous owner alongwith an affidavit by the previous owner that he has received the consideration in full and an application in Form CA28 from the owner, is required. In this case, the accused with the application had submitted all these documents on the basis of which the ownership was transferred in his name vide certificate Ex.PW2/D. The accused had also requested to issue change of the first page of the Journey log book which request was also allowed and the first page was issued on 02.07.96 vide letter Ex.PW2/A16.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 143/213
144
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
153.Testimony of PW6 and the documents i.e. the cheques and the statement of accounts would show that after the transfer of the helicopter, the accused Romesh Sharma made part payment of Rs. 1.0 Lac on 17.06.96 vide receipt Ex.PW6/36, Rs. 1.0 lac on 24.06.96 through the accused Harish Mishra vide receipt Ex.PW6/37, Rs. 1.0 Lac on 05.07.96 vide receipt Ex.PW6/38 and Rs. 1.0 Lac on 16.07.96 vide receipt Ex.PW6/39.
154.On the manner of execution of documents by PW6, the testimony of PW7 and PW10 is cogent and consistent. Nothing can be inferred from their testimony that they have deposed at the behest of PW6 to falsely implicate the accused. It has also come in the testimony of PW18 that till date he did not get the amount of Rs. 18 lacs, although his Director Major Gaonkar had regularly asked the accused to make the payment.
Assembly of the Helicopter at Jai Mata Di Farm House at Chattarpur, New Delhi :
155.It has come in the evidence of PW6 that the accused Romesh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 144/213 145 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Sharma had asked him to send his Engineers to the Farm House to assemble the helicopters stating that he would make the payment thereafter. His Engineer PW9 and his brother PW44 came to Delhi on 24.06.96, of whose, the air tickets were arranged by Harish Mishra. PW9 also stated that on 24.06.96, he came with PW44 at the instance of PW6 and met the accused. He stated that since the helicopter was not maintained during the period from 11.05.96 to 26.06.96, he had to take some clarifications from the Director, Airworthiness, Mumbai as his permission was required. When he told the accused Romesh Sharma that he was advised by Director Airworthiness to remain in touch, the accused got annoyed, caught hold of his collar and hit on his face. He sustained injuries on his lips and bled. He stated that Romesh Sharma also threatened him that if he did not cooperate, he would get his legs cut. When PW44 requested the accused not to hit PW9, accused Romesh Sharma also punched him. He stated that after obtaining permission, he with the help of two technicians assembled the helicopter and made entry in the log book given by the accused Romesh Sharma. He stated that he did not lodge the report since he was frightened. PW44 also deposed on these lines and stated that he was also assaulted. He stated that R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 145/213 146 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
he did not make further payment of insurance and had written to the insurance company vide letter Ex.PW6/DA that the helicopter was sold to Romesh Sharma, so that the further premium could be paid by the accused.
156.It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the story of hiring the helicopter was concocted by PW6, who was made puppet by CBI which investigated the matter on the directions of the Government which had political vendetta against the accused as the accused wanted to expose the corrupt ministers of the Government. Ld. Counsel stated that the MOUs Ex.PW6/14, Ex.PW6/20 and the agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33, affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 and the payments made by the accused go to show that the helicopter was purchased by the accused and was not taken on hire. It failed to explain as to why the accused would pay Rs. 13 lacs as hire charges to PW6 when the cost of the helicopter was Rs. 30 lacs. Ld. Counsel further argued that PW6 at no stage produced the hire agreement and the entries made in the ledger do not bear the signature of the accused at the point of time. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act to contend that when there are written documents, the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 146/213 147 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
oral testimony does not have any meaning. The aforesaid agreements clearly show that the helicopter was sold to the accused by PW6 and was not given on hire. Ld. Counsel stated that if PW6 had to take any dues from the accused, he would have filed a civil suit for recovery of the said amount. Ld. Counsel stated that the dispute, if any is of civil nature and no criminality can be fastened on the accused persons.
157.Ld. Counsel further contended that the PW6 had filed a suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction before Hon'ble High Court which suit was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court for want of evidence. Ld. Counsel stated that the matter in the Civil Suit and the allegations in the present case directly or substantially are the same. Finding has already come from the Civil Court which is binding on the Criminal Court as to the title. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section 4042 of the Evidence Act and the case titled Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. JT 2007 (10) SC 57, Joseph Zacharia Vs. Joseph Kuriakose AIR 1992 Kerala 103, Bishnudeo Narain Vs. Seogeni Rai AIR (38) 1951, SC 280, Ramadoss Vs. Muniammal AIR 1965 Madras 452, Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2002 decided on 20.07.06 by Hon'ble R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 147/213 148 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Supreme Court, Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thadani AIR 2003 SC 2418, K G Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002 SC 3372, Kishan Singh (D) Vs. Gurpal Singh AIR 2010 SC 3624, Daya Sapra Vs. Vishnu Dutt Sharma 2008 II AD (Delhi) 84 and Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Union of India 2009 (2) JCC 826 to contend that no case of cheating is made out against the accused.
158.In order to appreciate the rival stand, it would be useful to notice the statutory provisions. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. To constitute an offence under section 420 IPC, following ingredients must exist:
i) That the representation made by the accused was false;
ii) That the accused knew that the representation was false at the very time when he made it;
iii) That the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the person to whom it was made; and
iv) That the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 148/213
149
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
159.It was held in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 that in determining the question, it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence.
160.The above observations were reiterated in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (Supra). In the case of Joseph Zacharia (Supra) there were allegations of undue influence and coercion and the party had sufficient time and opportunity to dispute the validity of agreement but did not take any action. It was held that the agreement was not vitiated by undue influence or coercion. In the case of Bishnudeo (Supra), it was held that though pleas of undue influence and coercion may overlap in part in some cases, they are separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. In the case of Ramadoss (Supra), it R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 149/213 150 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
was held that it is only where a fraudulent representation leads to discovery of property, which is dishonestly retained, then the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are established. Otherwise, every debtor who repudiates his civil liability, on some false pretext or the other, would be guilty of cheating and that is not the law. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), it was held that a given set of facts may make out purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or civil wrong as well as criminal offence. The criminal proceedings are not a cut short of other remedies, if the matter is essentially of civil nature. The intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction is paramount.
161.From the above proposition of law, it is clear that it is only where a dishonest misrepresentation or fraudulent representation leads to delivery of property or dishonestly retention of property, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are established. Otherwise, every person who repudiates his civil liability on some false pretext or other would be guilty of cheating and that is not the law. It is the intention of the person who induces the victim by his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would be decisive. The intention of the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 150/213 151 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accused may be inferred from his subsequent conduct also.
162.Section 91 of Evidence Act relates to evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties reduced in the form of document. It merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise then by writing itself. In the case of Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thadani AIR 2003 SC 2418 it was held that when a jural act is embodied in a single memorial, all other utterance of the parties on the topic are legally immaterial for the purpose of determining what are the terms of their act. This rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of written contract to place themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the Courts to defeat this object. It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that wherever written instruments are adopted , either by requirement of law or by contract of parties to be their repositories and memories of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used either in a substitute from such instruments to contradict or alter them.
163.In the case of K G Prem Shankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002 R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 151/213 152 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
SC 3372 it was held that (i) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided U/s 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (ii) in Civil Suits between the same parties principle of resjudicata may apply; (iii) in a criminal case Section 300 Cr.P.C. makes a provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (iv) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of Civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of the sections 40 to 43 are satisfied but it cannot be said that the same amounted to conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides, which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. The Court has to decide to what extent, it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter decided therein. It was held in the case of M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad Vs. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 1244 that it is well established principle of law that the decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts. The converse is not true. The simultaneous proceedings of a civil and criminal case is permissible. In the case of Daya Sapra (Supra), the case of Jaeger Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaeger (1929) 46 RPC 336 was referred where it was held that every judgment is conclusive proof as against R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 152/213 153 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the parties and privies of facts directly in issue in the case actually decided in the Court and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based. The principles laid down in K G Premshankar (Supra) case were also followed in the case of Ramesh Chand (Supra).
164.Here, the question is as to whether the civil suit dismissed simplicitor for want of evidence binds a Criminal Court even if the parties were the same and the matter directly or substantially in the issue was the same. In the Civil Suit filed by PW6, after framing the issues, no evidence was led by PW6 and the suit was dismissed simplicitor for want of evidence. There was no finding on merit from the Civil Court between the parties that the helicopter in question was legally purchased by the accused or the agreement or the MOUs or the documents used for transfer of the helicopter were not got executed from PW6 under undue influence or coercion. That being the position, it cannot be said that the matter directly or substantially has been decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and it has attained its finality. It was simplicitor a dismissal and therefore, would not operate as resjudicata on this Court. Section 41 of the Evidence Act is also R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 153/213 154 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
inapplicable here. The criminal case in the present case was registered in the year 1998 and the Civil Suit was instituted in the year 1999.
165.As regards the applicability of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, it is to be seen under what circumstances the aforesaid MOUs and the affidavit were executed by PW6. After the verbal communication between the parties, the fax message was sent by PW8 to the accused mentioning the terms and conditions of hire of the helicopter. Another letter was written by PW6 to the accused reiterating the terms and conditions of hire. The first MOU i.e. PW6/14 was executed after the helicopter was despatched. The correspondence made by PW9 with the Director Aviation shows that the helicopter was sent to Phulpur on contract upto 15.04.96 which was extended till 07.05.96. PW6 had also entered into an agreement with PW26 and PW28 for sending the helicopter for spraying the chemicals on rubber plantation in Kerala and had received an advance. The MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20 were executed predated. The testimony PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 and the entries in the Account books of Garuda Aviation Ex.PW6/41 show that the helicopter in question was given on R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 154/213 155 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
hire only. PW6 had already an agreement with PW18 where the cost of the helicopter was estimated as Rs. 40 lacs. There appears no basis as to why should PW6 sell the helicopter at the price of Rs. 30 lacs to the accused Romesh Sharma. There were repeated assurances from the accused that after the election, the helicopter would be returned and the hire charges would be paid and that the agreement/MOUs had been executed just as a smoke screen to camouflage the election expenses, for which the limit of expenses was fixed as Rs. 4.5 lacs by the Election Commission. The part payments were made by the accused either by him or through Harish Mishra, his brother even after the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3. The accused had promised PW18 to pay Rs. 18 lacs but did not pay anything. PW18 recovered the amount from PW6 by filing a case.
166.As regards contention, why the accused would pay Rs. 13 lacs towards the hire charges when the cost of the helicopter was Rs. 30 lacs, the record shows that when PW6 entered into an MOU with PW18 and pledged the registration certificate as a collateral security, he had estimated the value of the helicopter as Rs. 40 lacs. The R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 155/213 156 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
helicopter further required recurring maintenance and operation which work in normal circumstances is done by the Aviation company. To avoid recurring expenses of maintenance, operation and other running expenses, generally, it seems reasonable for a person to go for hiring of the aircraft. Facts and circumstances show that PW6 never agreed to sell the helicopter to the accused Romesh Sharma for Rs. 30 lacs.
167.Facts and circumstances further show that there was no transit insurance from Phulpur to Delhi. There were instructions to the crew members and technicians from PW6 that the helicopter after the election was to be taken to Kerala en route Mumbai for undertaking another work. There was no obstruction/resistance from the accused Romesh Sharma when the fuel and spare parts of helicopter were sent to Mumbai on 09.05.96. It was PW9 who arranged the truck for carrying the helicopter to Mumbai and when it was being tied, PW9 and others were obstructed by the accused persons who came in two vehicles armed with lathis. They were threatened with dire consequences. Accused Avtar Singh hired another truck for carrying the helicopter to Delhi which was escorted by 45 vehicles. The accused Romesh Sharma on every occasion had assured PW6 that R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 156/213 157 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the helicopter was taken on hire to hoodwink the election expenses. When the helicopter was finally taken to Delhi, even then the accused did not tell PW6 that it has become his property. When PW6 came at the house of the accused on 14.05.96, the accused made his dishonest intention clear that the helicopter has become his property and threatened him with dire consequences that he was the man of Dawood Ibrahim. He had further threatened that if PW6 would not follow his instructions, he would eliminate him. The accused had further told him to come with the original documents, log books and the affidavit. The accused on 05.06.96 by extending threats to PW6 and PW10, obtained the signatures of PW6 on the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and an affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 interalia that he has received the full consideration from the accused though fact of the matter was that even at that time he had to pay Rs. 22 lacs to PW6. The bank account of the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra showed negligible balance which also cast doubt as to the intention or the capacity of the accused Romesh Sharma to purchase the helicopter.
168.It is no doubt true that PW6 had executed all the documents of sale but the above facts make it abundantly clear that the aforesaid R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 157/213 158 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
documents were not executed voluntarily by PW6 but were obtained by using force, fraud, coercion and imminent threats to PW6.
169.I am of the view that the case of the accused is not covered under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The oral evidence is relevant and has direct bearing on this case and it will also have precedence on the documents / MOUs executed by PW6. A bare look at Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code states the circumstances when consent ceases to be valid consent and is vitiated. Section90 provides: 'A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.'
170.That is to say, that the parties should be ad idem, i.e. must be of the same intention concerning the matter agreed upon. If consent is obtained by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, the very contract is vitiated.
171.Testimony of PW6 clearly shows that his consent to enter into MOU R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 158/213 159 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20 was obtained by dishonest mis representation by the accused. The agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 were obtained by extending threats / coercion by terrorising him by the accused Romesh Sharma by the names of Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and his connection with them.
172.Dishonest intention of accused Romesh Sharma is also clear from the facts that during elections speeches he had allured the people of Phulpur that he has purchased the helicopter for them and it would be used for them. But after the election, he never used it for the people of Phulpur as claimed by him in the election speeches. He immediately directed his men to take the helicopter to Delhi and also contacted PW45 and PW64, the senior persons of Reliance Industries giving the papers of the helicopter for the use of Reliance Industries or for its sale. The testimony of the witnesses show that those papers were handed over by PW45 and PW64 to CBI during the investigation. Facts and circumstances further show that the intention of accused Romesh Sharma was to grab the helicopter by using all illegal means by giving allurement to PW6 and later by extending threats that he was the man of underworld Don and coerced him to execute the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 159/213 160 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
documents purporting to have sold the helicopter, though it was given on hire and agreed PW6 to admit having been received full and final consideration and got the ownership transferred in his name, though he had to pay substantial amount in respect of the helicopter either to PW6 or PW18, the Proprietor of Summit Aviation and also got him threatened from Irfan Goga and Abu Salem not to lodge report with the police.
173.Facts and circumstances further show that it was not a case of civil dispute rather the act and the subsequent conduct of the accused establish that the accused had a dishonest intention to cheat and he succeeded in accomplishing it.
174.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the helicopter was taken on hire but the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra dishonestly induced PW6 to enter into an MOU of sale making him believe that the said MOU was being entered to hoodwink the election expenses as the maximum limit for incurring the expenses by an independent candidate was Rs. 4.5 lacs and the said MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over. Subsequent R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 160/213 161 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
conduct of Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra also go to show that the said MOU Ex.PW6/20 was entered into on 30.03.96 when the helicopter had already left for Phulpur. The testimony of PW6 further goes to show that another agreement Ex.PW6/33 was prepared on 15.05.96 regarding sale when the helicopter instead of sending to Mumbai was brought at Delhi by the men of Romesh Sharma. The correction in the MOU Ex.PW6/33 was made by the Advocate of Romesh Sharma PW17 Sh. Mahesh Gupta when PW6 and his Advocate PW10 were called by the accused Romesh Sharma at his residence at Mayfair Garden on 05.06.96. In the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 given by PW6, it was got written that he has received full and final payment towards the helicopter. Record shows that after the said agreement and affidavit, further payment was made by the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra by cheque, draft or cash. The testimony of PW18 also shows that Rs. 18 lacs were yet to be paid by the accused to him. It is difficult to comprehend as to why a person would sell helicopter for Rs. 30 lacs when in an agreement earlier executed with Summit Aviation Ex.PW6/5 the price of Rs. 40 lacs was offered by Summit Aviation for the said helicopter.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 161/213
162
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
175.On appreciation of the evidences, it is clear that accused had at the very outset dishonest intention to cheat by making into believe his representations which were false to his knowledge with intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
176.It will not be out of place to mention here from the sequence of events that Romesh Sharma was not alone in cheating PW6 but there was a definite conspiracy between him and his brother, Harish Mishra, who from the outset was party in getting the signature of PW6 on the MOU on 27.03.1996 Ex. PW6/14 when he knew that MOU was not for hiring but for sale making deceitfully PW6 believe that it was a sham MOU and also he advanced part consideration towards the charges which at that time PW6 was made to believe was towards hiring of the helicopter. He sent his men to accompany the truck loaded with helicopter from Mumbai to Phulpur to ensure its safe transportation to further the intention of the accused Romesh Sharma to take possession of the helicopter though constructively possession continued with PW6. He paid part consideration to PW6 even after the transfer of registration of helicopter in favour of the accused which registration was done on the basis of the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 which R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 162/213 163 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
PW6 was made to sign and deliver under physical threat by the accused, Romesh Sharma that he has received the entire consideration for sale of the helicopter.
177.From the aforesaid, I am of the view that the accused Romesh Sharma has committed the offence of cheating by playing fraud on the person of PW6 by dishonestly inducing him to enter into the MOU and subsequently retained its possession after obtaining an affidavit from PW6 that he has received full and final payment from the accused, though the helicopter was given on hire and the accused had to make payment for the same. So far as the accused Harish Mishra is concerned, he is also guilty of having cheated PW6 to further the dishonest intention of the accused Romesh Sharma to grab the helicopter by hook or crook. Thus, the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC stand proved against the accused persons namely Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra.
178.Now, coming to the incident of dacoity which allegedly occurred on 11.05.96, Ld. Counsel argued that the accused persons were under the belief that the helicopter was purchased by the accused Romesh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 163/213 164 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Sharma and further the accused during the election speeches had also spoken that he has purchased the helicopter for the people of Phulpur and would use it for them, so, under this bonafide belief, the helicopter was taken to Delhi being the property of the accused Romesh Sharma and thus were justified in law in preventing his helicopter to be taken from Phulpur to Mumbai and their action was covered under the general exception containing in Section 79 IPC. They did not commit robbery and the question of dacoity did not arise.
179.For an offence under section 395 IPC which provides punishment for dacoity, following ingredients must exist:
a) That the robbery was committed or attempted;
b) That five or more persons committed or attempted to commit robbery; or aiding such commission or attempt; or that the whole number of persons committing or attempting to commit robbery was five or more.
c) That such persons were acting conjointly.
d) In robbery, there is either theft or extortion. Theft is robbery if in order to the committing of the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 164/213 165 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. Extortion is robbery if the offencer, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
180.PW9 has stated that on 11.05.96 the helicopter was dismantled and the parts were loaded in the truck. When the machine and the parts were being tied, two vehicles loads of people appeared. They were about 15 persons who surrounded the truck. Some of them were carrying guns and most of them were having lathis. Those persons shouted and threatened them that the helicopter cannot be taken to Mumbai, it has to be taken to Delhi as per the orders of Romesh Sharma and the staff including Engineers and Pilot have to accompany the truck to Delhi. They started pulling down the parts loaded in the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 165/213 166 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
truck. They were aggressive and more in numbers with arms and if resisted they would have been physically harmed. He stated that the driver of the truck refused to go to Delhi because he was not having permit for going to Delhi which fact is also evident from the testimony of PW23. PW9 has stated that he advised those persons that they would help them in unloading the parts and machine safely. He stated that accused Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Budhiraja, Manoj, Advdesh and Indermani were part of the group. He identified them correctly stating that he knew the accused persons since they were working as a team for election purpose with them. He stated that those persons unloaded the parts and machine on to the ground and thereafter, the empty truck left the spot which fact has also come in testimony of PW21 who arranged the truck. PW9 has stated that his brother B P Pappara removed the documents i.e. log books from the truck which they brought to Mumbai. Since they were told not to leave the bungalow, and had apprehension about their safety since they were threatened to be taken to Delhi forcibly, they decided to leave the place one by one. Captain Demose left on the pretext of buying a cigarette. He then left in a car and went to Allahabad where he met Captain Demose at Hotel Yatrik. They decided to leave Allahabad and cancelled their earlier R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 166/213 167 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
tickets. PW9 has stated that they did not report the matter to the police because they were more concerned about their safety given the fact that Romesh Sharma had large clout in the area. From Lucknow they telephoned to H Suresh Rao. They reached Mumbai on 12.05.96. However, the other staff reached Mumbai on 14.05.96. He denied that no threat was given by any of the accused persons. PW14 Wing Commander Demose also deposed on the lines of PW9. He has stated that after dismantling when they were tying the parts and the machine on the truck, two vehicles loaded with 1015 people arrived at the spot. They shouted loudly not to take or carry the helicopter to Kerala but asked them to take it to Delhi. Some were armed with lathis. Some of the persons climbed on the truck and started untying and unloading the helicopter. They were very unruly. They apprehended physical assault from those persons in case they tried to stop them. He stated that accomplishes of the accused unloaded the parts of the helicopter from the truck. He identified the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Avdesh, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja and Indermani and stated that they were amongst those persons. He has stated that they were shouting menacingly. The accused Avtar Singh had asked him to stay in Bungalow as he was going to arrange another R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 167/213 168 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
truck. They required him not to leave the Bungalow without their permission. In these circumstances, he left the place on the pretext of buying cigarette and reached Allahabad. He went to a STD booth where he met PW29, Mr. Shukla who advised him to write a complaint. But Mrs. Shukla intervened and advised him not to do so as it would create trouble for him since he was in the territory of Romesh Sharma. She also feared arms clash between the supporters of Romesh Sharma and the other party. PW15 also deposed on the lines of PW9 and PW14 and stated that there were 1015 persons of Romesh Sharma who came and unloaded the helicopter saying that they have instructions to send the truck to Delhi. PW15 identified the accused Avtar Singh and M.D. Bhojwani amongst those persons stating that the accused M.D. Bhojwani used to arrange their catering.
181.PW23 and 24 who were driver and cleaner on the truck which was hired from SherePunjab have stated that after the helicopter was loaded, 2025 persons came, raised a noise and required them to take the helicopter to Delhi and not to Mumbai. When they said that they were not having permit for Delhi, 2025 persons threatened the persons who had loaded the helicopter in the truck and asked them to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 168/213 169 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
take the truck to Delhi. PW23 has stated that due to fear he telephoned PW21 who asked him to unload the helicopter and come there. PW24 has stated that the helicopter was loaded at about 11.00 AM. 2025 persons came there and told them that the helicopter would be taken to Delhi and not to Mumbai. They also threatened them with dire consequences. He stated that the helicopter was unloaded by those 2025 persons which they took about 10 hours to load.
182.PW19 who was the Munshi of Azad Forwarding Agency has stated that the dismantled helicopter was taken in the truck on behalf of Romesh Sharma from Ugarsen Pur to Delhi at Mayfair Garden, via number UP 70 9771 on which PW22 was the driver. Accused Avtar Singh had booked the truck and paid the fare in advance. PW22 also corroborated his testimony and stated that on 11.05.96, he was handed over the GRs. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia was there. He has stated that a truck was standing there on which helicopter parts and machine had been loaded. Thereafter, the parts and the machine were removed from the truck and loaded in his truck. 810 persons present there helped him to unload the helicopter and load it in his truck. 34 car/jeep escorted their truck. On 12.05.96 they reached Delhi and stopped the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 169/213 170 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
truck in a Farm House where the helicopter was unloaded.
183.In the instant case, PW23 and PW24 did not say that those persons had not threatened them to unload the helicopter or to take it to Delhi. It is not the case that PW23 or PW24 knew the accused persons from before or were interested in their false implication. Had this sort of incident not taken place, PW23 and PW24 would have not deposed about this incident of threat, use of force for taking away the helicopter from Phulpur to Delhi. Although no recovery of any weapon was effected from accused persons but it is also to be seen that the case was registered after about two years of incident, so in these circumstances, it was not practicable for the investigating agency to seize the lathis.
184.Facts and circumstances show that the accused persons were armed with lathis. They were more than five in number. They were present at the place of the commission of the crime with arms/lathies, carried away forcibly the dismantled helicopter, possession of which they obtained by force by putting PW9 and his crew members in fear of hurt or wrongful restrain so as to take the physical possession of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 170/213 171 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
helicopter from the crew members etc. on the directions of the accused Romesh Sharma. The act of the accused persons amounted to dacoity in respect of the said helicopter which was owned and possessed by PW6 by creating terror at the place of occurrence and by using force against the crew members of PW6 who were in charge of the said helicopter at Phulpur and forcibly taking possession thereof for its transportation to Delhi instead of Mumbai.
185.Regarding the applicability or otherwise of Section 79 of Indian Penal Code, the word "good faith" has been defined U/s 52 of IPC as "Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention". PW9 has stated that he had heard the accused Romesh Sharma speaking to the public at large during the election speeches that the helicopter was purchased by him and would remain in the village for the local use of the farmers. When he made enquiry from PW6, he replied in negative regarding the claim of the accused Romesh Sharma. PW6 also telephoned the accused Romesh Sharma and enquired about this fact who told him that it was only an election gimmick to attract the people and after the election he would return the helicopter. There is no evidence and circumstance on R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 171/213 172 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
record except bald and uncorroborated statement of accused persons to substantiate their versions. No prudent person on earth can believe such a bald statement until and unless he makes enqiry and finds it to be correct. It was held in the case of Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1966 Cr.L.J. 82 that simple belief or actual belief by itself is not enough. Appellant mush show that the belief in the impugned statement has rational basis and was not just a bald simple belief.
186.In the present case, the accused Romesh Sharma, whose statement the accused claimed to have believed in good faith, was himself the accused of playing deception upon the complainant (PW6). It has come in the testimony of PW6 that MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed on a stamp paper dated 29.03.96 purporting to be entered predated i.e. on 24.02.96, on the assurance given by the accused Romesh Sharma that it was just a document on paper never agreed to be acted upon just to camouflage the election expenses and it would be destroyed after the election would be over. It was also signed by the accused M.D. Bhojwani. It is also to be noted that earlier an MOU Ex.PW6/14 was written on the letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors which also bears the date 24.02.96 but it does not bear the signatures R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 172/213 173 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
of the accused M D Bhojwani. It goes to show that no MOU as alleged was entered into between Romesh Sharma and PW6 on 24.02.96. It is also significant to note that the accused persons were armed with lathis when the machine and its parts were being loaded by the men of PW6. They threatened PW9 and others to take the helicopter to Delhi and forced them to accompany. They took the law in their hands and never reported the matter to the police, 45 vehicles also escorted with the helicopter. Had they been under bonafide belief, they would not have acted in such a manner and taken law in their hands. The facts and circumstances show that they under the directions of the accused Romesh Sharma illegally and unlawfully took the possession of helicopter from PW9 and others and took it to Delhi. This very act on the part of the accused shows that their action was not in good faith and thus they cannot claim immunity from their criminal liability.
187.During the course of arguments, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that no TIP of the accused persons was held, the accused were not named in the FIR and they were arrested after about 2 ½ years of the incident. I find this contention sans merit since it has come in the testimony of PW9 and other witnesses that the above R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 173/213 174 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accused persons had campaigned for the accused Romesh Sharma in the election and remained with PW9 and his crew members for about 40 days which was the sufficient period when PW9 and his crew members/technicians could know the accused persons well. It is not the case that PW9 and others had a glimpse of the accused persons. They have specifically named the accused persons in their testimony and identified them correctly. Although the accused have stated that they were not present at the time of incident but no such suggestions came in the crossexamination. It was held in the case of Dana Yadav @ Dalhu Vs. State of Bihar 2002 JT (7) page 68 that if the accused is well known to the prosecution witnesses from before, no test identification is called for. It would be meaningless and shall be the waste of public time to hold the same.
Keeping in view the facts of the present case, it can safely be said that not conducting of TIP by the investigating agency is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution.
188.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution witnesses namely PW9, PW14 and PW15 were the employees of PW6 and were the interested witnesses. On going R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 174/213 175 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
through their testimony, I find that they were subjected to anvil of cross examination but their testimony remained intrinsically worth believing. Their testimony stand corroborated from PW23 and PW24. Further, there is no evidence to show that PW9 and others were interested in their false implication or they had enemity with those persons. In the case of Daulat Ram Sadhram Teli Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2009 AIR SCW 6273 it was held that merely because eye witnesses are family members of the deceased, their evidence cannot be perse discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. It would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the Court (See State of Gujarat Vs. Nagin bhai Dhula Bhai Patel AIR 1983 SC 839). In the present case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and cogent.
189.As regards contradictions, some of the witnesses have stated that they were 2025 persons and some said that they were 1015 persons, testimony of PW9 and PW14 would show that there were about 15 persons who came in two vehicles. They were armed with lathis and R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 175/213 176 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
threatened them. They also pressurised them to remain in Bungalow and accompany them to Delhi with the helicopter. There minor contradictions do not appear to be material to have bearing on the outcome of the case. It was held in the case of Siddiqua Vs. NCB 137 (2007) DLT 500 that a small contradiction here and there could not make the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. Minor discrepancies are very natural to occur. The Court has to consider the entire evidence as has been adduced before it and then come to the conclusion. Minute details of incidents with the passage of time go out of memory. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Sometimes the witness cannot anticipate the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. It was held in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 that no value is to be pinned with minor and insignificant contradictions.
190.In the case of Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2002 (2) CC Cases (SC) 58 it was held that : It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff - when chaff can be separated from grain, it could be open to the Court to convict the accused notwithstanding that R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 176/213 177 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
evidence is found difficult to prove guilt of other accused persons - falsehood of particular material witness or material particular would not seclude it from the beginning to end - the maxim Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar".
191.In the light of above facts, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 395 IPC against the accused persons namely Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Naveen Budhiraja, M D Bhojwani, Manoj, Indermani and Avdesh.
192.The other substantive charges against the accused Romesh Sharma are that he had committed offence of extortion against PW6 by putting him under the fear of death/grievous hurt, forcing him to put his signature on the agreement purported to be dated 14.05.1996 to sell the helicopter and on the affidavit dated 05.06.1996 as deponent showing the sale of the said helicopter to him and receiving of payment/sale proceeds in full and final from him and dishonestly inducing him to deliver the aforesaid documents being the property and the valuable security to him.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 177/213
178
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
193.Section 383 defines extortion for which punishment is prescribed under section 384 and the aggravated form of extortion is punishable under sections 385 and 386.
194.To constitute an aggravated offence of extortion punishable under section 386 IPC, the following ingredients must exist :
a) The extortioner put the complainant or any other person in fear of death or of grievous hurt;
b) The extortioner did so intentionally.
195.The offence of extortion u/s 383 consists in intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; or dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person, property or valuable security.
196.Testimony of PW6 shows that when he was informed by his crew members PW9 and PW14 that the helicopter was taken away to Delhi from Phulpur by use of force by the men of the accused Romesh Sharma, he contacted the accused Romesh Sharma on phone who asked him to come to Delhi saying that by the time the helicopter would R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 178/213 179 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
also reach Delhi. On 14.05.1996 he reached Delhi and contacted the accused and enquired to which the accused told him that the helicopter is his property and it is in his possession. When he asked him to return his helicopter and make payment towards the hire charges, the accused told him to forget about the helicopter as the same has become his property now and at the most he would be entitled to the payment relating to the helicopter. On 15.05.1996, when PW6 again requested the accused to return his helicopter, he threatened of his connection with Dawoud Ibrahim gang and to follow his instructions otherwise he would face dire consequences. He also revealed his proximity with Abu Salem and Irfan Goga. Thereafter, he asked PW6 to bring the original documents of the helicopter alongwith an affidavit required for its transfer and told that he would make the payment thereafter. The testimony of PW6 further reveals that he came with his advocate, PW10 on 05.06.1996, also called PW7 where the accused asked him to sign an agreement to sell Ex. PW6/33 purported to be of dated 14.05.1996. When PW10 advised PW6 to take the payment first and then sign the documents, the accused became furious, snatched the documents from PW6 and also threatened his connection with Dawood Ibriham Gang. Being scared of R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 179/213 180 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the threats given by the accused Romesh Sharma, he signed on the agreement and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A5 and also handed over him the log books of the helicopter which was the requirement for transfer of ownership of the helicopter in the name of the accused. The accused had also directed PW6 to call PW18 with whom he had pledged the registration of the helicopter as a collateral security for payment of dues of Rs.18 lacs which were outstanding against PW6 towards the cost of the spare parts of the helicopter. On the request of PW6, PW18 came at the house of the accused who also reiterated the fact but on the assurance given by the accused Romesh Sharma that he would pay him Rs.18 lacs, he handed over the registration certificate of the helicopter Ex.PW2/A3. The accused on the basis of the aforesaid documents got transferred the ownership in his name. PW10 and PW7 have duly corroborated this fact and nothing material came in their crossexamination to draw an inference that they have deposed at the instance of PW6.
197.The affidavit is itself a property, which was delivered and later on came into the possession of the accused Romesh Sharma as the ownership of the helicopter could not have been transferred in the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 180/213 181 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
name of accused Romesh Sharma without the production of the same as is evident from the statement of PW1 and PW2. The Supreme Court in Abhayan and Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 1961(2)Crl.L.J. 822 has held that it is not necessary that a property (document) should have any pecuniary value and thus held that admission card to sit in examination is a property as defined in the Indian Penal Code. In the case the affidavit Ex. PW2/A3 and the log books, both in original are the property as contemplated u/s 22 of the IPC.
198.From the above facts, it is established that on 05.06.1996, the accused Romesh Sharma committed the extortion by putting PW6 in the fear of death, forced him to put his signature on the agreement Ex.PW6/33 purported to be dated 14.05.1996 to sell the helicopter and also forced him to put his signature on the affidavit dated 05.06.1996 Ex.PW2/A3 showing the receipt of the sale proceeds of the helicopter in full and final from the accused Romesh Sharma which was being carried by PW6 and dishonestly induced him to part with the possession of the said documents and deliver the affidavit and log books being the property and the valuable security to the accused and thereby he committed the offence punishable under section 386 IPC.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 181/213
182
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
199.Now, coming to the charge under section 412 IPC against the accused Romesh Sharma, the allegations are that on 14.05.1996 the accused Romesh Sharma received the stolen property i.e. the helicopter belonging to H. Suresh Rao at his residence and Jai Mata Di Farm, Chattarpur, Delhi knowing fully well that the possession thereof has been transferred on commission of the offence of dacoity by his accomplices.
200.The important elements of section 412 IPC are :
a) The property is stolen property;
b) The said property was concerned with dacoity;
c) The accused dishonestly received it;
d) The accused knew or had reason to believe that the said property was stolen in dacoity.
e) A property will be designated as stolen if possession of such property has been transferred by theft or extortion, or robbery or the property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed.
201.The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly establish that the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 182/213 183 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accused persons Avtar Singh and coaccused on 11.05.1996, after the machine and the dismantled parts of the helicopter which had been loaded for Mumbai, reloaded the same in another truck arranged by Avtar Singh to hand over the stolen property to the accused Romesh Sharma. The accused persons were more than five in number, armed with weapons and lathis. They forcibly unloaded the helicopter from the truck and got it loaded in other truck and took it to Delhi. All they did was on the directions of accused Romesh Sharma. They took the helicopter to the farm of Romesh Sharma at Chatter Pur, Delhi where on 24.06.1996 the accused got reassembled the helicopter from PW9 and PW44. He also got the documents executed from PW6 as to the receipt of full consideration towards the helicopter for its transfer by extending threats as to his connection with Dawood Ibrahim Gang, got the ownership of the helicopter transferred in his name and retained its possession unlawfully and further contacted PW45 and PW64 for its use by the Reliance Industries.
202.I am of the considered view that prosecution has established its case against the accused Romesh Sharma of his having committed the offence punishable under section 412 IPC.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 183/213
184
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
203.Now coming to the charges U/s 365, 506 and 323 IPC against the accused persons namely Romesh Sharma and Laxman Singh, the allegations are that on 20.10.98, from C30 Mayfair Garden they abducted H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta in his Mercedes car and forcibly brought them to the office at 16, Mahadev Road with intent to cause them to be secretly and wrongfully confined and also committed criminal intimidation by pointing a licensed pistol towards H. Suresh Rao to cause injury to H. Suresh Rao with intent to keep him forcibly sitting in the car and voluntarily caused hurt on to the person of H. Suresh Rao.
204.Section 365 provides punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. Abduction in common language means the carrying away of a person by force or fraud.
205.Section 323 provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. To constitute an offence under this section, following ingredients must exist :
(i) The accused by his act caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant;
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 184/213
185
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
(ii) He did such act intentionally or with knowledge that it would
cause hurt, etc.
206.Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. This section has the following essentials:
1) Threatening a person with any injury:
a) To his person, reputation, or property, or
b) To the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that
person is interested;
2) Threat must be with intent:
a) To cause alarm to that person, or,
b) To cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
c) To cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
207.Testimony of PW6 reveals that on 20.10.98 he came to Delhi, met PW7 and requested for his help in retrieving his legitimate dues. They R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 185/213 186 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
went to the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden at 11.30 AM where they were made to wait for two hours. Accused then called them in the cabin where PW7 requested the accused to settle the account of Mr. Rao (PW6) stating that PW6 was in great difficulty. PW6 has stated that the accused then told them that the helicopter has become his property. When PW7 requested the accused to settle the account of Mr. Rao as much time has passed and told that if it is not settled, PW6 may unnecessarily go and make complaint to the police, the accused got angry and told that he was telling a lie. He knew that PW6 has already filed a complaint. Accused then started beating him giving punches and kicks. He also lifted a chair and tried to hit him which PW7 prevented. Accused then told them to sit and not to move. It has further come in the testimony of PW6 that he thought to run away. He told the personnel of accused Romesh Sharma in the house that he was going to buy a cigarette. He came out and started running. He then saw someone following him. When he was trying to take a taxi, he saw the accused in Pajero jeep, driving it himself, PW7 sitting by his side and another person sitting on his back. PW6 has stated that accused shouted at him and asked him to sit in the car. The accused enquired from him if he was going to the police station. When he told R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 186/213 187 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
him that he was going to purchase cigarette, accused frisked his pocket and found the cigarette in his pocket. He stated that the accused became annoyed and started beating him. He called his security man, accused Laxman Singh and a South Indian man and asked them to sit in his Mercedes Car. The accused Laxman Singh had a pistol with him who pointed it out towards him in the car. PW6 has also stated that accused had told Laxman to shoot if he (PW6) tried to run away. The accused then took them to 16, Mahadev Road, his party office from where they were not allowed to leave. They remained confined there for some time and were rescued by the police. He identified the pistol Ex. P1. He stated that on the same day he gave the complaint Ex.PW6/46 in the police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. In his presence Pajero jeep and Mercedes Car were seized. Testimony of PW6 shows that he was examined on the same day of incident at AIIMS where his MLC Ex.PW90/1 was prepared. The testimony of PW6 H. Suresh Rao is corroborated by the statement of PW7 Rakesh Gupta who has stated that Romesh Sharma when found cigarettes in the pocket of of H. Suresh Rao slapped and punched him (H. Suresh Rao). Someone informed the control room at Tel. No. 100 regarding his beating.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 187/213
188
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
The said information was received by PW41 lady constable Reena. PW41 has stated that she had received a call at 100 No. at 1357 hrs. that Romesh Sharma was beating two persons. She recorded the information vide Ex.PW41/A. No suggestions were given to PW41 that no such information was received or she recorded the false information. She has stated that the information was passed on through the communication set. PW39 has stated that she recorded the information in the Rojnamcha vide DD Ex.PW39/D. PW42 the SHO of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi has stated that he had received the message on wireless that he should reach at Mayfair Garden and report to the SHO Police Station Hauz Khas. He went there and met the SHO Hauz Khas who asked him to go to 16, Mahadev Road saying that accused has picked up two persons forcibly and taken them there. He went there and found PW6 and PW7 in the captivity of Romesh Sharma. He rescued them. They at that time were very disturbed and terribly shattered. He took them alongwith the accused to the police station Hauz Khas. He then took the accused Romesh Sharma to Mayfair Garden and handed over his custody to the SHO Hauz Khas.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 188/213
189
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
208.It has also come in evidence that 16, Mahadev Road was allotted to Shiv Charan Singh against whom an eviction order Ex.PW57/7 was passed after the allotment was cancelled. Since the premises was not vacated by Shiv Charan, so it was got vacated on 11.11.98 vide Eviction Report Ex.PW57/10. It has come in the evidence of PW56 that the accused had given an application requesting for change of his office from Churiwalan, Sita Ram Bazar to Mahadev Road. PW10 has stated that there was board of All India Bhartiya Congress on the premises. From the testimony of above witnesses, it is clear that the accused was operating from the premises at 16, Mahadev Road at the time of incident which was his party office.
209.PW6 also identified the accused Laxman from the photograph Ex.PW6/57, after the accused Laxman refused to participate in TIP. PW7 also deposed on the lines of PW6. No material contradictions came in the testimony of PW7 as to the incident which happened on 20.10.98.
210.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused Laxman Singh that the accused was simply a security guard of the accused Romesh R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 189/213 190 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Sharma and has nothing to do with the alleged incident.
211.It is true that the accused was a security personnel of accused Romesh Sharma for his security, but, he did not have a license to threaten or kidnap any person that too at the point of pistol on the instructions of his master. There is nothing to indicate that the accused Romesh Sharma had threat from them. Testimony of PW6 and PW7 go to show that he had accompanied the accused Romesh Sharma in his car and had put pistol on to PW6 and confined them in a room at 16, Mahadev Road. This shows his complicity with the accused Romesh Sharma in abducting and wrongfully confining PW6 and PW7 at Mahadev Road.
Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, it is proved that the accused Romesh Sharma abducted PW6 and PW7 with intent to wrongfully restrain them at 16, Mahadev Road at the point of pistol with the help of coaccused Laxman Singh and also gave beatings to PW6 when PW6 tried to retrieve the helicopter or his legitimate dues from the accused thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 365/506 and 323 IPC.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 190/213
191
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Criminal Conspiracy :
212.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there is no material on record to show that the accused Romesh Sharma had hatched criminal conspiracy with the coaccused or they agreed to commit such offences as alleged.
213.The essential ingredient for an offence of conspiracy U/s 120A is that there should be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. The agreement to commit an offence or an illegal act between two persons or more is the essence of conspiracy. Such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. It is relevant to quote the relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883 (known as Indira Gandhi murder case) which are as follows :
Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution often relies on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 191/213 192 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can undoubtedly be proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.
It is unnecessary to prove that the parties "actually came together and agreed in terms" to pursue the unalwful object; their need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was a "tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be done."
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 192/213
193
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
214.From perusal of the above, it comes out that in order to prove the conspiracy, prosecution is not required to prove the agreement and to adduce the direct evidence/agreement of conspiracy or that the parties should come together actually to agree to pursuit the unlawful object, there may be, it is not necessary that there was an express verbal agreement but what is necessary to show is that there was some sort of tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be done. It will also be appropriate to refer to observations made in para no. 276 wherein it is stated that "the relative acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict." In the case of E. G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195 it was held that the gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. In a case of Eran Eliav Vs. State 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 98 it was held that both abetment and criminal conspiracy are fiendishly difficult to establish by virtue of direct evidence, it can be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence which is of an impeccable nature.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 193/213
194
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
215.In the decision reported as State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Somnath Thapa & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659 the Supreme Court observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the conspirators wanted to achieve and thereafter having the intend to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve end or facilitate its accomplishment.
216.The evidence and the circumstances of the present case clearly show that the accused Romesh Sharma had dishonest intention to grab the helicopter from the first day to the last day. In order to accomplish it, he took various illegal steps. He with dishonest intention made PW6 to believe that helicopter was required for election purposes on hire, so that it could reach Phulpur, his place of constituency from where it could be safely transported to Delhi at his farm house. The accused Romesh Sharma despite having received the fax message regarding the terms and conditions of hiring did not commit anything in writing and dishonestly persuaded PW6 to sign an MOU regarding the agreement of sale purported to have taken place on 24.02.96 vide Ex.PW6/14 which was subsequently converted into an MOU on a stamp paper on 30.03.96 vide Ex.PW6/20. He roped in Harish Mishra, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 194/213 195 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
his brother in the conspiracy who entered into the first MOU Ex.PW6/14 with PW6. He was also made to pay the part of the amount. Harish Mishra sent his man with the helicopter on the truck from Mumbai to Phulpur. He also arranged tickets for PW44 and PW8 when they came to Delhi on 24.06.96 to assemble the helicopter.
217.The accused Romesh Sharma made PW6 to believe that the said MOUs were only meant for election purposes and would be destroyed after the election was over since the hire charge expenses could not be shown in the Election expenses, limit of which was Rs.4.5 lacs and it could disqualify him. He dishonestly induced PW6 to part with the possession of the helicopter. The aforesaid MOUs were recovered from the accused which clearly show that accused never destroyed the MOUs and his intention from the beginning was sinister to the knowledge of his brother Harish Mishra who can safely be said to be the party to the said conspiracy by his conduct. The record and affidavit as discussed above also show, under what circumstances the helicopter was transferred in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma in June, 1996. Other accused persons were his colleagues R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 195/213 196 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
and had gone to Phulpur Allahabad to help him in his electioneering. They even not only obstructed the employees of PW6 from carrying the helicopter to Mumbai but also retained its possession and forcefully loaded the same in another truck and brought it to Delhi. Accused Avtar Singh got unloaded the dismantled helicopter and loaded in the truck arranged by him. The accused persons namely Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani created an atmosphere of terror in the mind of crew members of helicopter, thus, they deprived PW6 of his helicopter which was the common intention behind the conspiracy. PW6 was called by Romesh Sharma at Delhi. There he was threatened with dire consequences. In June, 1996 he got the documents executed from him by extending threats claiming his connection with the underworld dons. In all Rs. 12 lacs were paid but the affidavit was got executed from PW6 to the effect that full and final payment towards the helicopter has been received by him. The accused obtained the registration certificate from PW18 on false assurance that he would make the payment as it was one of the precondition for getting the helicopter transferred in the name of the accused. He made false promise to PW18 to pay Rs. 18 lacs which payment PW6 had to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 196/213 197 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
make towards the cost of spare parts. He forced PW9 and PW44 to assemble the helicopter to make it airworthy. In the accounts of accused Romesh Sharma, there was no sufficient balance to purchase the helicopter. All these facts and circumstances show his complicity with the coaccused to grab the helicopter by unlawful means.
218.He threatened and abducted PW6 and PW7 in his car forcibly with the help of his muscle man Avdesh who put pistol on PW6 when they came at the house of accused to retrieve the helicopter or the dues. He beat PW6 and took them to Mahadev Road and wrongfully confined them there. They were rescued by the police subsequently. The services rendered by the accused Laxman Singh in abducting PW6 and PW7 can not in anyway be said to be the security given to the accused Romesh Sharma.
219.Facts and circumstances show that all the accused were party to the criminal conspiracy which the accused Romesh Sharma hatched with them with the common intention to grab the helicopter by illegal means from PW6. The conspiracy was at two stages, first with his brother Harish Mishra to cheat and the second with the other accused when the election was over to take forcible possession of the helicopter from R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 197/213 198 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the employees of PW6 with intention to grab it.
220.The facts of the case also make it abundantly clear that it is not a case of civil nature at all as criminal offences in question have been committed at various stages, starting with the conspiracy to cheat and thereafter by committing various other offences referred to above. The same continued at various stages upto 20.10.98. Hence, the version of the defence that it is a case of civil nature is not at all tenable keeping in view the number of features of the case and the offences which took place at various stages under criminal conspiracy. Delay in FIR :
221.It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there was delay in recording the FIR. The helicopter was alleged to have been taken, as per prosecution case, snatched and forcibly taken away from the possession of PW6 / complainant in the month of May, 1996 but the FIR in this case was registered only on 20.10.98 after delay of more than two years. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1972 Cr.L.J. 1296 SC to contend that first information report in a criminal case is extremely vital and valuable R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 198/213 199 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of lodging report to the police in respect of commission of offence is to get early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the name of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the name of the witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging of first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought.
222.Ld. Public Prosecutor on the contrary submitted that the complainant / PW6 in his statement has given explanation of the reasons as to why he did not complain in 1996 or immediately thereafter.
223.Perusal of the testimony of PW6 reveals that after the incident of 11.05.96, he immediately contacted the accused. He went to the house of accused at Delhi on 14.05.96 to retrieve the helicopter and the hire charges. Part payment was also made by the accused on 15.05.96. After the incident of 05.06.96, he discussed the matter with his parents that the accused has threatened to eliminate him and his family members through his connections such as Dawood Ibrahim and R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 199/213 200 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Abu Salem. His parents got worried and advised him not to file any complaint against the accused as Abu Salem and Irfan Goga at Dubai were dreaded criminals and they could eliminate them. He was very much scared and afraid of the accused Romesh Sharma who in clear terms had revealed his connections with the underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. PW6 then sought the help of Suresh Mishra PW47, an influential person having political connection in Mumbai to speak to Romesh Sharma for retrieving his legitimate dues. Suresh Mishra telephoned Romesh Sharma but the accused flatly refused and asked him not to interfere and if he ventured to interfere, he would suffer elimination in no time. PW47 also corroborated this fact in his testimony. He has stated that he also got threatening calls from Dubai from the person of Irfan Goga, asking him not to intervene in the matter of Helicopter between H. Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma. He also received threatening calls from Abu Salem who asked him to get away from this matter. PW6 also lodged report at the police station Santa Cruz, Mumbai on 24.04.98 of which a DD entry was recorded.
224.Testimony of PW6 & PW7 further reveal that PW6 had made every effort to retrieve the helicopter and his legitimate dues. Even after the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 200/213 201 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
incident of 05.06.96, time and again he telephoned the accused to make payment. He also lodged report with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Ex.PW6/43 and a complaint with the SHO Police Station Greater Kailash, New Delhi on 04.05.98 vide Ex.PW6/44. It has also come in the testimony of PW6 that after the aforesaid complaints, he received threatening calls from Irfan Goga who instructed him not to pursue the complaints filed against Romesh Sharma with the police. On 20.10.98 PW6 went to the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden with PW7 and requested him to settle his dues. PW7 who had accompanied PW6 had also persuaded the accused to make payment to PW6 failing which he may be constrained to file a complaint with the police. On that, the accused got annoyed. He gave him fist and kicks, lifted the chair to hit PW6 and threatened him with dire consequences stating that he knew that PW6 has already lodged a report against him with the police. It is not the case that PW6 after the incident of 11.05.96 and 05.06.96 slept over the matter.
225.Facts and circumstances further show that PW6 had also written to the Director Aviation to cancel the ownership in favour of the accused.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 201/213
202
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Even otherwise on the day of alleged incident i.e. on 20.10.98 he came at the house of the accused to retrieve his helicopter or his legitimate dues. When the incident of his abduction came to the notice of police through someone, and the police rescued him, he then gave the complaint to the police on the basis of which the present case was registered. I do not find anything to infer that PW6 roped the accused persons in this incident or he manipulated the story. I am of the view that the prosecution has sufficiently explained the reasons as to why PW6 did not lodge the complaint in May/June 1996 or thereafter.
226.As regards the contention that CBI had already investigating the matter before the registration of the case, a perusal of record would show that the CBI on a source information had enquired about the helicopter even prior to the registration of the case but at that time it did not have any clue whether the helicopter was acquired legally or illegally by the accused.
227.It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was falsely implicated to score political vendetta. Ld. Counsel made reference to the proceedings of the Election Commission stating that the accused had floated a party and many great leaders/politicians R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 202/213 203 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
were planning to join his party and he was also going to expose the criminals / corrupt politicians.
228.On going through the Election Commission proceedings, I find that the accused was the President of All India Indira Congress Secular. He had written a letter to the Election Commission regarding change of its office from Churiwalan Sitaram Bazar to 16, Mahadev Road, New Delhi. There was also an issue as to the merger of his party with Indian National Congress. The Election Commission had considered the matter and passed an order Ex.PW6/52. The essence of the order dated 29.10.98 Ex.PW56/2 for which a hearing was given on 23.10.98 was that the President and the Office Bearers were not accepted as the representatives of All India Indira Congress Secular in accordance with the constitution. The election proceedings in no way show that the aforesaid action was taken by the CBI on the directions of the Government to score political vendetta as no evidence of this sort was brought by the accused in his defence. Nothing can be inferred from the proceedings and the testimony of PW6 that he was targeted by the Government to implicate the accused in false cases. Record rather shows that accused was found involved in number of cases relating to R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 203/213 204 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
grabbing of properties of number of persons by using the influence of Dawood Ibrahim and his associates. It has also come in the testimony of PW85 that he on an intelligence had tapped the mobile phone bearing no. 9811197600 on which phone accused Romesh Sharma used to talk to someone in Dubai and Pakistan. The transcript version Ex. PW74/3 revealed his talks with Abu Salem.
229.Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that it was a simple call that the accused was giving beatings, so why so much police force went to the house of the accused and why SHO Police Station Kalkaji with his staff went there when the Mayfair Garden Area and Mahadev Road Area did not fall within his jurisdiction.
230.From the testimony of PW42, it is clear that he had received the message on wireless to reach Mayfair Garden with his staff. It is no body's case that he went there on his own. Since, the police had information and the transcript / record of the links of the accused with underworld Don even prior to the incident, which fact made the police to act swiftly on receiving the call and to ensure presence of sufficient police force. PW67 who had accompanied PW42 also corroborated R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 204/213 205 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
the testimony of PW42 as to how PW6 and PW7 were rescued from the captivity of the accused persons. Testimony of PW31 shows that the Pajero Jeep was in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma and the Mercedes Car was in the name of Ganpati Commerce Ltd. He proved their registration certificate Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B.
231.In the present case, prosecution has examined all the link witnesses i.e. PW34 and PW81 who had joined the investigation and PW39 who had recorded the FIR after getting the complaint from PW6. The Prosecution has also examined PW89 who did the investigation of the case FIR 758/98 registered at the police station Lajpat Nagar in which Romesh Sharma and one Ashok Malik were accused of giving threats to the owner of the property at Lajpat Nagar boosting their proximity with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and in that very case, Abu Salem was also made an accused.
To Sum up :
232.The charge of criminal conspiracy for the commission of offence for which the accused persons have been charged, spreads in two stages, R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 205/213 206 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
i.e. from March, 1996 to October, 1998. Firstly, with respect to the offence of cheating and secondly, with respect to the other offences as discussed above. The initial conspiracy was hatched between Romesh Sharma and his brother Harish Mishra sometime in March, 1996. Thereafter at a later stage accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M.D. Bhojwani, Naveen Budhraja, Indermani, Avdesh Kumar, Manoj and Laxman Singh joined the conspiracy to commit dacoity etc.
233.The existence of the criminal conspiracy between Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra can be inferred firstly from the fact that as per evidence of PW6, accused Harish Mishra, brother of accused Romesh Sharma, contacted PW6, H. Suresh Rao, in his office and enquired as to whether the helicopter has been dispatched or not and also informed that one of the person of Romesh Sharma would accompany the machine to Phulpur. Secondly, from the circumstances that Harish Mishra at the behest of Romesh Sharma agreed to execute MOU Ex. PW6/14 on 27.03.1996 purporting to show as if the same has been executed on 24.02.1996. The blank letter head of Reliance Investors and Developers of which Romesh Sharma was the proprietor, was given by the accused Romesh Sharma. The MOU purporting to be an R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 206/213 207 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Agreement to Sell was typed on the said letterhead as required by the accused Romesh Sharma. It was signed by H. Suresh Rao and the accused Harish Mishra. H. Suresh Rao was induced to sign the said MOU on the assurance of Romesh Sharma that the said document was only meant for the purpose of Election Commission's office and would be destroyed after election is over. One of the signed copy of the said MOU was thus delivered to the accused Harish Mishra. Another copy Ex.PW94/6 on which the signature of Harish Mishra exists was recovered from the possession of accused Romesh Sharma. If such inducement and false representation would have not been made by the accused persons to PW6 H. Suresh Rao, he would not have signed this predated MOU. The offence of cheating punishable U/s 420 IPC is further established from the fact that PW6 was called by the accused at Delhi on 30.03.96 where another typed MOU on a stamp paper was given to PW6 to sign. He signed the MOU on his inducement that the previous MOU was not acceptable as the same was not a stamp paper. Neeraj Bhatia was induced to part with the possession of the original Certificate of Registration of the helicopter to Romesh Sharma on the assurance that Rs. 18 lacs wold be paid by Romesh Sharma in respect of which the said certificate was R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 207/213 208 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
kept by Neeraj Bhatia as a collateral security from PW6 (H. Suresh Rao).
234.Facts and circumstances show that the helicopter VTEAP had been in the constructive possession of PW6 H. Suresh Rao through his crew members who had carried it to Phulpur and were looking after its operation and maintenance etc. When the election was over, crew members wanted its transportation. They loaded the helicopter in the truck hired by them and when they were in the process of finalising its transportation to Mumbai, the accused persons came in two vehicles. They were carrying the lathis. They at the behest of accused Romesh Sharma threatened the crew members, offloaded the helicopter from that truck and loaded in another truck which was arranged by the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. They took the forcible possession of the helicopter and transported it to Delhi. The identity of the aforesaid persons among those 10 to 15 persons who had snatched the helicopter VTEAP and forcibly unloaded the dismantled parts from the truck has been established from the evidence of PW9 B.G. Pappara, PW14 Capt. H.C. Demose and PW15 Parshu Ram. The accused persons were very well known to aforesaid witnesses who had seen R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 208/213 209 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
them during the entire election campaign being carried out by the accused Romesh Sharma. Thus, they knew the aforesaid accused persons by name and face.
235.Testimony of PW6 shows that on 05.06.1996, the affidavit and the Log books of the helicopter were forcibly snatched by the accused Romesh Sharma from him. He (H. Suresh Rao) was put in the fear of instant hurt as Romesh Sharma started beating his employee Vinod Kumar Luthra when he put the documents on table. At the same time the accused Romesh Sharma also abused PW10 R.A. Shah, who was present there. Accused Romesh Sharma, thereafter, carried PW6 H. Suresh Rao to his chamber and threatened him with dire consequences and thereafter got his signatures on various documents like Ex. PW6/33 and obtained the affidavit and the Log books which were required for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the helicopter in his name (Romesh Sharma). Accused Romesh Sharma also asked PW6 H. Suresh Rao to call PW18 Neeraj Bhatia to come along with the original certificate of registration. He came at the residence of Romesh Sharma with the certificate as required. PW6 H. Suresh Rao signed all those papers as aforesaid and asked Neeraj R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 209/213 210 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
Bhatia (PW18) to hand over the said certificate to the accused Romesh Sharma in pursuance of fear of imminent threat of instant hurt.
236.Facts and circumstances show that the helicopter was forcibly brought by the coaccused persons at Delhi by committing the offence of dacoity at the instance of the accused Romesh Sharma. The helicopter was taken at the farm house of Romesh Sharma at Chattarpur. On 24.06.96 he got the helicopter reassembled from PW9 and PW44. He got the documents executed from PW6 as to the receipt of full and final consideration towards the helicopter for its transfer by extending threats. He got the ownership of the helicopter transferred in his name and retained its possession unlawfully. He further contacted PW64, Group President of Reliance Industries giving the papers of the helicopter for the use of Reliance Industries or for its sale.
237.The testimony of PW6 H. Suresh Rao and of PW7 Rakesh Gupta establish that they were kidnapped by the accused Romesh Sharma from C30 Mayfair Garden on 20.10.1998 and were brought by the R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 210/213 211 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
accused Romesh Sharma in his Mercedes Car and kept confined at 16 Mahadev Road. Accused Laxman Singh who was the bodyguard of the accused Romesh Sharma kept a watch over them and was a party to such abduction. The accused Laxman Singh kept on pointing his licensed pistol on PW6 H. Suresh Rao throughout the way at 16 Mahadev Road and kept PW6 and PW7 captive in the said bungalow. The rescue of the aforesaid persons from their captivity has been established from the testimony of PW42 Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik.
238.Testimony of PW6 and PW7 show that when on 20.10.98, they tried to retrieve the legitimate dues from the accused and told that PW6 may file a complaint in the Police Station, the accused got angry and told, 'he knew that PW6 has already filed a complaint'. He started beating PW6 giving punches and kicks. He also made him sit. When PW6 on the pretext of taking cigarette came out, the accused got him sit in the car, frisked his pocket and found the cigarette. He again got angry and beat him. He abducted them to Mahadev Road. They were rescued by PW42. PW6 was then taken to AIIMS where he was examined by the Doctor vide MLC Ex.PW90/1.
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 211/213
212
CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
CONCLUSION :
239.The net result of the proceedings before me based on oral and documentary evidence and also the rival contentions of the parties are that :
The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Romesh Sharma of the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 IPC, extortion by putting PW6 in fear of death or grievous hurt under section 386 IPC, dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of offence of the dacoity under section 412 IPC, abduction with intention to wrongfully confine under section 365 IPC, criminal intimidation under section 506 IPC, voluntarily causing simple hurt under section 323 IPC, and hatching the criminal conspiracy under section 120B (1) read with sections 420, 395, 365 and 506 IPC.
240.The prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M.D. Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani for their having been committed the offence punishable under section 395 IPC and under R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 212/213 213 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
section 120B (1) read with section 395 IPC.
241.The prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Harish Mishra under section 420 and under section 120B (1) read with section 420 IPC.
242.The prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Laxman Singh under sections 365 and 506 IPC and under section 120B (1) read with section 365 and 506 IPC.
243.I hold all the accused persons guilty of the above offences and convict them thereunder.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 20th JULY, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN)
Presiding Officer MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 20.07.2012
R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 213/213