Delhi District Court
Harish Gupta (Aged About 75 Years) vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (P C ACT) CBI-20 :
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 01/2022
CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022
Harish Gupta (Aged about 75 years)
S/o Late Geeta Ram Gupta
R/o 24, Flat Staff Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. .... Appellant
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation
Plot No. 5 (b), 1st Floor, A & B Wing,
Anti-Corruption Branch-1,
CGO Complex, New Delhi-3
Service to be effected through
Its Standing Counsel/Panel Lawyer .... Respondent
RC No. 9/S/96-DLI
U/S 120-B r/w 420/468/471 R/w 511 IPC
Date of filing of appeal : 04.01.2022
Date of receiving in this court : 05.01.2022
Arguments concluded on : 18.01.2022
Date of judgment : 22.01.2022
Appeal u/s 374 (2) CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated
22.12.2021 & order on sentence dated 23.12.2021 passed by Ld. CMM,
Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi in FIR/RC NO. 9/S/96- DLI, PS:
CBI/SCB-1/DLI, (C.C. NO. CBI 366/2019), Case Titled "C.B.I. VS. Harish
Gupta" convicting and sentencing appellant u/s 468 of Indian Penal Code.
JUDGEMENT
Facts
1. A letter dt. 26.04.1996 bearing No. P.49 No. 919 Ex PW1/D sent by Embassy of Belgium and addressed to Sh. Vimal Satyarthi (PW1), the Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 1 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 then SQN Commander, Dte Gen National Security Guard, was received by him requesting him to issue fresh/new End User Certificate purportedly issued by Dte Gen National Security Guard Communication purportedly issued under his signature for importing/supply of 2 systems T 1285CA including Key Generation Program CGP 2002 and Crypto Fill Device CED 2001, from M/s SIEMENS, Germany. The letter was accompanied with End User Certificate (Ex PW1/A) bearing No. Comn. (Eqpt.)/NSG/504/(12(1)/95-2071 dt. 18.12.1995. Finding that said certificate had neither been issued by him nor by his department he took up the issue with his higher authorities and consequently after necessary internal enquiry, the then Director General of NSG Sh. A. K. Tandon wrote letter dt 09.05.1996 bearing No. DO Comn.
(Eqpt)/NSG/504/12(3)/95 to Ministry of Home Affairs. Vide D.O. letter No. 17017/12/96-Prov.I dated 28.05.96, Sh. U. K. Sinha, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs enclosing the copy of letter of Sh. A. K. Tandon and that of Embassy of Belgium with End User Certificate, requested Director of CBI to undertake thorough enquiry in view of its seriousness and damaging ramification.
2. Based on the letter of Sh. U. K. Sinha, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, a preliminary enquiry bearing No. PE.1(S)/95-Delhi was registered on 02.08.1996 and was marked to Inspector Sh. Akhil Kaushik (PW11). It is stated that the preliminary enquiry disclosed commission of offense under Section 120-B read with Section 420/511, 468 and 471 by Sh. Harish Gupta of M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and accordingly a formal FIR bearing No. RC. 9(S)/96-Delhi (Ex PW11/1) was registered on 12.10.1996. It is important to note that proceedings of preliminary enquiry has not been placed on Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 2 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 record and thus, it is obscure as to how preliminary investigation pointed out the involvement of the accused Harish Gupta of M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Vihar, New Delhi.
Investigation
3. After registration of the FIR investigation was undertaken. Investigation revealed that Harish Gupta, Director of M/s Secure Telecom Private Ltd. 8B, Deep Enclave, Ashok Vihar, Phae-II New Delhi-52 used to deal in surveillance and counter surveillance equipments. His business activities involved importing of equipments from foreign countries and selling them in the country. His lists of clients included Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, National Security Guards etc. Harish Gupta was working on Cryptography which is the science of deciphering the messages into coded language and later on decoding them. M/s SIEMENS NV of Germany was a pioneer in this field and had developed certain hardware systems. Harish Gupta wanted to import two systems T- 1285 CA including Key Generation Program CGP 2002 and Crypto Fill Device CED 2001, from M/s SIEMENS Germany during the year 1995- 96 for which End User Certificate was necessary. He prepared a forged End User Certificate No. Comn.(Eqpt.)/NSG/504/12(I)/95-2071 dt 18.12.1995 purported to have been issued by Sh. Vimal Satyarthi, Sqn., Cdr. Communication Directorate, National Security Guards, New Delhi. This certificate was submitted to the firm M/s SIEMEN NV of Germany to procure the said systems. This certificate was sent back to NSG for modification by Sh. Guillaume Metten, Ambassador of Belgium in India who had received it from M/s SIEMENS for onward transmission to India and this letter of Embassy of Belgium caused the NSG to get Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 3 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 initiated an enquiry following which present FIR was lodged in the manner already stated above. Hence, charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court in September 1998 against Harish Gupta for offenses punishable under Section 420 r/w 511, 468 & 471 Indian Penal Code.
Proceedings before Trial Court
4. Charges for offenses under Section 420 r/w 511, under Section 468 and under Section 46 r/w 471 IPC were framed by the Trial Court on 02.01.2002 against the appellant/accused Harish Gupta to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution had cited 13 witnesses but had examined only 11 witnesses at trial to prove its case against appellant/accused. Defense/appellant examined two witnesses in his defense after recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC denying all the evidence against him and stating that he had been falsely implicated.
6. After completion of trial, Ld Trial Court vide its judgement dt.
22.12.2021 acquitted the appellant/accused of offense punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC and under Section 468 r/w 471 IPC but convicted the appellant/accused of offense punishable under Section 468 IPC and vide. order of sentence dt. 23.12.2021 Ld. Trial Court sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 03 years as punishment for offense punishable u/s 468 IPC with fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
Present Appeal
7. Present appeal lays challenge to the judgment dated 22.12.2021 to the extent it has convicted the appellant for offense punishable under Section Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 4 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 468 IPC and order of sentence dated 23.12.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court thereby sentencing the appellant as aforesaid.
Contention of Appellant
8. It has been contended by Sh. Harsh Kumar Sharma. Ld. Counsel for the appellant that impugned judgement and consequent sentencing order is not sustainable in law as same is based on no evidence at all. It has been contended that neither is there any direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove that it was the accused/appellant who forged the End User Certificate Ex PW1/A and that too for the purpose of cheating. It has been contended that finding of conviction has been returned solely on the basis of expert opinion on handwriting to be specific not on signature but on figures mentioned within portion stamped and marked as Q1 on End User Certificate Ex PW11/A. He has contended that even reliance on hand writing expert opinion is not free from substantive error. He has submitted that in order to rely upon report of a handwriting expert it has got to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that specimen signature/handwriting with which disputed signature/writing is to be compared belong to accused. He has contended that in the present case both alleged eye witnesses before whom allegedly the specimen signature/handwritings of the accused was taken have not identified the accused person in the court. One of the witness namely PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi was not produced for completion of his remaining cross examination. Besides, no permission of the court was taken before taking the specimen signature/writing of the accused. He has further contended that in any case conviction cannot be returned only on the basis of handwriting expert opinion as science of identification of handwriting is Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 5 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 not as perfect as the science of identification of finger prints and the opinion of the handwriting has to be used for corroboration and not as substantive piece of evidence. He has further contended, for arguments sake only, that even if conviction can be based on expert opinion then also there was absolutely no evidence that it was intended to cheat anyone, hence, conviction could not have been returned for offense u/s 468 IPC of which intention to cheat is a necessary ingredient. Hence, he has prayed that appeal be accepted and both impugned judgement and order on sentence be set aside.
Contention of Respondent
9. Per Contra, Sh. Darshan Singh, Ld. SPP for CBI/respondent has supported the impugned judgment submitting that report of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) have got to be placed on better footing as they examined documents without any partiality and therefore conviction returned on the basis of report of such handwriting expert opinion is sustainable in law. Ld. Trial Court, it has been contended, has taken into account the evidence of PW1 Vimal Satyarthi who categorically deposed that End User Certificate was neither issued by his department nor by him and was clearly a forged and handwriting expert opinion confirmed that figures in Q1 on Ex PW1/A matched with specimen writings given by the accused. Hence, it is clear that Ex PW1/A was forged by accused/appellant and thus Ld. Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. On specific submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant that there is no law or case which call for conviction solely on the basis of handwriting report, Ld. SPP for CBI did not come out with specific case laws permitting conviction only on the basis of handwriting Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 6 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 expert opinion, nevertheless, dismissal of appeal has been prayed for thereby confirming the conviction and sentencing of the appellant.
Analysis
10. After having gone through the Trial Court Record, impugned judgement, grounds of appeal, reply and the respective contentions of Counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the fate of the present appeal lies in the answer to the questions - if there is any other evidence to sustain conviction of the accused for the offense under Section 468 IPC besides opinion of the handwriting expert from GEQD and whether conviction can be based solely on the opinion of the handwriting expert? Answer to above questions calls for evaluation in brief of what 11 witnesses of the prosecution have to say in their respective testimonies.
Evidence before Trial Court
11. PW1 Sh. Vimal Satyarthi, Commandant sought to prove that he had not signed or issued the End User Certificate Ex PW1/A when he was posted as Sq. Commander (Communication Equipment) in National Security Guard Directorate at New Delhi in the year 1995; he further sought to prove how he received letter Ex PW1/D from Embassy of Belgium along with said certificate requesting him to issue fresh such certificate with modification as indicated in the said letter and he also sought to prove the other deficiency in the said certificate reflecting that the certificate was forged.
12. PW2 Sh. Rajat Mankad sought to prove handing over documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex PW2/A. Vide this seizure memo Ex PW2/A five official documents containing signature of Sh. Vimal Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 7 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 Satyarthi (PW1) were handed over. These letters were collected by IO only for the purpose of collecting admitted signature of Vimal Satyarthi on official documents so that signature on the End User Certificate can be compared by a handwriting expert.
13. PW3 Sh. Mahender Singh, Deputy Government Examination of Questioned Documents. He proved his opinion and that of his Senior M. L. Sharma vide their report Ex PW3/D wherein it was opined that "1. The figures in the enclosed portion stamped and marked Q1, S-1 to S-15 and S-26 to S-48 have all been written by one and the same person" ; "2. The signatures in the enclosed portion stamped and marked Q2, A1 to A5 and S-16 to S-25 have all been written by one and the same person" and "3. It has not been possible to express any definite opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of material supplied". The signatures stamped and marked as A1 to A5 are the signature of Vimal Satyarthi on the five official documents seized vide seizure memo Ex PW2/A and S-16 to S- 25 are the specimen signature of Vimal Satyarthi with dates (though no one was examined except PW11 to prove the specimen signature of Vimal Satyarthi). S-1 to S-15 and S-16 to S-48 are specimen signature with dates of Vimal Satyarthi allegedly obtained from Harish Gupta (that is to say that Harish Gupta was allegedly made to sign the way Vimal Satyarthi used to sign), specimen writings and dates in the handwriting of Harish Gupta.
14. PW4 Sh. Raghubir Singh, the then Head Constable in CBI. He was Malkhana in-charge in CBI on the relevant date. He sought to prove handing over of documents to IO Akhil Kaushik vide seizure memo Ex PW4/A. Vide PW4/A 6 documents i.e. (i) Envelope (Ex PW1/C) marked Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 8 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 P-45, No. 919 Ambassage de Belgium addressed to Shri Vimal Satyarthi,
(ii) Letter dt 26.04.96 (Ex PW1/D) signed by Guillaume Metten, Ambassador, Belgium, (iii) End User Certificate Ex PW1/A dt. 18.12.1995 Mark No. Comn.(Eqpt.)/NSG/504/12(1)/95-2071, (iv) Letter No. Comn.(Eqpt.)/NSG/501/121/94-957 dated 13.10.94 (Ex PW3/A) addressed to Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. B-158, Priaydarshini Vihar, Delhi- 92, (v) letter No. Comn.(Estt)/Nsg/501/51-2071 dt. 25.07.1995 (Ex PW9/1) signed by Capt. P. K. Nanda and (vi) photocopy of letter dt. 02.08.1996 (Ex PW10/A-1) signed by Sh. E. S. L. Narsimahan, Joint Secretary (Pers.) addressed to Sh. Rattan Sehgal, Additional Director Intelligence Bureau bearing No. Q/BS-III/815-47/96-775.
15. PW5 Sh. U. K. Sinha, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Hom Affairs.
He sought to prove his letter dt 28.05.1996 Ex PW5/B to CBI for initiating enquiry into the matter of issuance of forged End User Certificate Ex PW1/A. He also sought to prove that vide his aforesaid letter he had also forwarded the letter dt 09.05.1995 Ex PW5/B of A.K.Tandon, the then Director General of NSG along with letter dt. 25.04.1996 Ex PW1/C from Embassy of Belgium and End User Certificate Ex PW1/A.
16. PW6 Sh. K.S.Negi the then Inspector in CBI sought to prove taking of specimen handwriting S-26 to S-48 of Harish Gupta.
17. PW-7 Padam Singh, a common public and resident of Village Pinjokrha, PO. Kangra District Mujafarnagar, UP. He sought to prove taking of signing of some person and he had also signed at Point A on those sheet already Ex PW3/B-1 to 5 i.e. S-1 to S-5. In the court, he, however, could not identify the said person whose signature was taken in his presence.
Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 9 of 28(CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022
18. PW-8 Retd. Brig. Peter Lopes was DIG Communication in NSG in August 1996. He sought to prove letter Ex PW8/1 (also exhibited as PW10/A-1) of E.S.L. Narsimhan received from Ministry of External Affairs addressed to DG Sh A. K. Tandon who had marked this letter to him (PW8). He also sought to prove the letter dt 09.05.1996 Mark A addressed to Sh. B. K. Jain, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
19. PW-9 Praphul Kumar Nanda on 25.7.1995 was posted as Team Commander (Cipher) in NSG. He identified his signatures on letter Ex.PW9/1 addressed to PAO(OR) CORPS of Signals, Jabalpur, M.P. The letter Ex PW9/1 mentions, "1. Please ref our letter No. Comn. (Estt.)/NSG/501/51-1534 dated 07 Jun 95" and "2. Progress on observation raised vide our letter under ref may please be intimated to this office for info of the indl concerned". Relevancy of this document to the case has not been explained by anyone not even by Ld. SPP. Probably attempt was to show that reference No. of this letter was same as that of the forged End User Certificate Ex PW1/A. But this is not correct as End User Certificate contains reference No. Comn.(Eqpt.)/NSG/504/12()/95- 2071 and this letter contains reference No. Comn.(Estt.)/NSG/501/51- 2071. Use of "Eqpt." and "Estt." after "Comn." shows that both has reference to different department/purpose of NSG. "Eqpt." may stand for "equipment" and "Estt." may stand for "establishment". Besides, both has different middle numbers. So this letter does not serve any purpose.
20. PW-10 Sh. E.S.L. Narasimhan at the time of recording of evidence was the Governor for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. He was examined on commission commensurate with his designation. At relevant time he was posted as Joint Secretary (Personal) in the Ministry Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 10 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 of External Affairs. He sought to prove his letter dt. 02.08.1996 Ex PW10/-1 contents of which has been discussed herein below at relevant place and circumstances leading to writing of his letter.
21. PW-11 Akhil Kaushik had sought to prove his investigation, FIR and Preliminary Enquiry by deposing how letter was received from Joint Secretary Sh. U.K.Sinha, about registration of preliminary enquiry, about registration of FIR, about collection of documents vide various seizure memos, recording of statements of witnesses, taking of specimen signature/handwriting and about sending of the question signature and specimen and admitted signatures/handwriting of the concerned person to GEQD etc. End User Certificate being forged
22. In the present appeal there is no serious dispute as to the document End User Certificate Ex PW1/A being a forged one. Even otherwise PW-1 Sh. Vimal Satyarthi whose purported signature is available on Ex PW1/A, appeared in the witness box and categorically denied his signature on Ex PW1/A and that it was issued by Dte Gen NSG Communication. He also pointed out other deficiency in the document showing that document was not issued by Dte Gen NSG Communication. His testimony to an extent is corroborated by the opinion of handwriting experts (of GEQD, Shimla) Sh. Mahender Singh (PW3) and Sh. M. L. Sharma vide their report Ex PW3/D, though experts were unable to give any opinion on the signature on Ex PW1/A. As there is no serious dispute about the document Ex PW1/A being a forged one, this Court is not going into detail appreciation of evidence in this regard and even otherwise it is not the case of the appellant/defense that it was a genuine document and was Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 11 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 issued to him or to Secure Telecom Private Ltd.
Direction of Evidence of Prosecution
23. Testimonies of PW1 Sh. Vimal Satyarthi, PW2 Sh. Rajat Mankad, PW4 Sh. Raghubir SIngh, PW5 Sh. U. K. Sinha, PW8 Sh. Peter Lopes, PW9 Sh. P. K. Nanda are even distantly not directed towards proving forgery of End User Certificate by the appellant/accused Harish Gupta. Their testimonies are mainly directed towards proving that End User Certificate Ex PW1/A was forged by proving necessary information and documents and that following discovery of forged certificate necessary action/decision taken at the level of higher authorities to get the matter enquired/investigated by CBI. So the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW9 are not at all relevant for proving the forgery and that too for cheating by the appellant/accused Harish Gupta.
24. For better appreciation of testimony of PW10 Sh. E. S. L. Narsimhan qua the content of is letter Ex PW10/A-1, his entire testimony is quoted hereunder:-
"Presently I am serving as the Governor for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In the year 1996, I worked as Joint Secretary (Personnel) in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India , New Delhi.
I have seen the letter dated. 2-8-1996 marked as Exhibit through the PW.8 as Ex.PW.8/1. The Embassy of Belgium in India vide letter dated 26-4-1996 addressed to Shri Vimal Satyarthi the National Security Guards and requested him to issue a modified End User Certificate in respect of import of two systems. The National Security Guards vide their response indicated that the Certificate enclosed in the communication received from the Belgium Embassy in India was a fraudulent certificate and not issued by the National Security Guards and that formed the basis for this letter, which he wrote to the Intelligence Bureau and Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Director General, National Security Guards. Ex.PW.8/1 bears my signature and I Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 12 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 identify the same and it is marked as Ex.PW10/1/A. CROSS EXAMINATION FOR THE ACCUSED By Shri. M. P. Singh:
It is true that the Belgium Embassy has addressed a letter to Shri Vimal Satyarthi seeking a modified End User Certificate in respect of import of two systems. It might be correct that I have been orally told by the Counselor of Belgium Embassy, and on that basis, the said letter was addressed. Witness adds that, he could not remember the things exactly. The investigating agency in this case has not recorded my statement in the present case. The facts in the present case are not within my personal knowledge, but whatever facts were brought to my notice by the officials of Belgium Embassy, the same were communicated in the form of letter in Ex PW.8/1."
25. Perusal of Letter dt. 02.08.1996 Ex PW10/A-1 (also exhibited as PW8/1) shows that matter (of forged End User Certificate) was taken up with Belgium Embassy and they were requested to stop supply of the equipments as NSG had not indented for the same. Request (to Embassy of Belgium) was also made to investigate the matter further. In the said letter it is further mentioned that Counselor in the Belgium Embassy, Delhi had met him (PW10) on 02.08.1996 and indicated that the equipment mentioned appeared to have been indented for by Mr. Harish Gupta, Secure Telecom Private Ltd. who, in a meeting with one Josef Van Troy, a Commission Agent of Hercules Ltd., U.K. Kingston, had sought that equipment and given that certificate purportedly from NSG. The equipment was thereafter to be indented for Hercules NV Belgium, a non existent company with only a P. O. Box.
26. Testimony of PW10 Sh E. S. L. Narsimhan only proves that he wrote letter dt 02.08.1996 Ex PW10/A-1 to Sh. Rattan Sehgal, Additional Director, Intelligence Bureau with copy marked to Sh. V. S. Mathur, Special Secretary, MHA and to Sh. A. K. Tandon, Director General, NSG. He cannot be said to have proved the otherwise hearsay Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 13 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 incriminating material against appellant/accused Harish Gupta. He in his cross examination categorically deposed that whatever facts were brought to his notice by the officials of the Embassy of Belgium same were communicated in the letter. The alleged facts as allegedly told by the officials of the Embassy of Belgium and got mentioned in his letter, being hearsay cannot be taken into consideration. There is nothing in the testimony of PW10 either alone or in association with testimonies of other witness, which can be helpful to prosecution to prove that certificate Ex PW1/A was forged by appellant/accused for the purpose of cheating. Thus, like testimony of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW9, even the testimony of PW10 is of no help to prosecution to prove not only the charge of forgery under Section 468 IPC but for any of the offense accused was charged with at the trial.
27. PW11 Sh. Akhil Kaushik was the investigating officer, his testimony proves/shows in general terms what he did during investigation. His testimony by any stretch of imagination cannot prove forgery by appellant/accused Harish Gupta as he was not witness to any facts from the commission of crime till the discovery of crime. His testimony would have been relevant if during investigation he had collected or recovered any incriminating materials from the possession or from the premise of appellant/accused Harish Gupta or collected/recovered any materials from other source showing any connection of the appellant/accused with the forged Certificate. He has not done any investigation at all except for collecting documents which proves nothing except that (i) End User Certificate was forged and offense was discovered leading to initiation of investigation, (ii) recording of statement u/s 151 CrPC of one witness Vimal Satyarthi, (iii) taking specimen signature/writing Vimal Satyarthi Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 14 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 and of accused Harish Gupta, (iv) getting opinion of handwriting expert and (v) filling of charge-sheet. In all, testimony of PW11 Akhil Kaushik is also not at all helpful in proving the offense under Section 468 having been committed by appellant/accused Harish Gupta.
Expert Opinion, Law and Guilt of Appellant
28. Thus, prosecution was left with the testimonies of PW3 Sh Mahender Singh, PW6 Sh. K.S. Negi and PW7 Sh. Padam Singh to prove that appellant/accused Harish Gupta forged the End User Certificate Ex PW1/A for the purpose of cheating. PW3 Sh Mahender Singh was Asst. GEQD, Shimla who with his senior Sh. M. L. Sharma, Deputy GEQD, Shimla gave their common opinion noted above vide their report Ex PW3/D. PW6 Sh. K.S. Negi is stated to have witnessed the taking of specimen writings mark S-26 to S-48 in the hand of appellant/accused Harish Gupta. PW7 Sh Padam Singh is also stated to have witnessed specimen signatures marked as S-1 to S-5 Ex PW3/B-1 to B-5.
29. In the present case handwriting experts vide their report Ex PW3/D duly proved by PW3 have opined that figures in portion stamped and marked as Q1 on Ex PW1/A, specimen S-1 to S-15 and S-26 to S-48 had all been written by one and the same person. PW7 Padam Singh was not able to identify in the court the person whose signing was taken in his presence. Thus, the alleged specimen Ex PW3/B-1 to 5 (S-1 to S-5) in the form of signature with dates of Vimal Satyarthi allegedly taken in the hand of appellant/accused Harish Gupta could not be proved. S-6 to S-15, the specimen signature with dates of Vimal Satyarthi allegedly taken in the hands of appellant/accused Harish Gupta could not be proved as the independent witness before whom the specimen were obtained was not Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 15 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 examined in the court.
30. Specimen writings S-26 to S-48 were taken from appellant/accused Harish Gupta on 26.12.1997 before the witness PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi. It was contended on behalf of the appellant/accused that testimony of PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi could not be read in evidence as he was not produced by prosecution for completion of his cross examination. But this submission of Ld Counsel for the appellant/accused is against the record. Trial Court record shows that cross examination of PW6 was deferred on 8.10.2007 as presence of accused was considered necessary. After 8.10.2007 PW6 Sh. K.S. Negi did appear before the court on many dates of hearing but for one reason or the other he was discharged unexamined and then finally on 25.05.2012 PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi appeared for his remaining cross examination but Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that he did not wish to further cross examine PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi. In the light of submission of Ld. Counsel for accused before the Trial Court on 25.05.2012, now it is not fair on the part of the appellant to argue that prosecution failed to produce PW6 Sh. K. S. Negi for his remaining cross examination and hence his testimony could not be read.
31. Further, perusal of the Trial Court order dt. 25.05.2012 shows that issue of identification of accused qua the specimen handwriting S-26 to S-48 taken in the presence of PW6 was also settled and accused did not prefer to challenge the said order, hence now appellant/accused cannot agitate the said identity issue again that specimen writings S-26 to S-48 belonged to appellant/accused was not proved. Furthermore, in the order dt. 08.10.2007 itself it has been recorded that "Ld. defense counsel has stated that he has no objection if the witnesses are examined in the Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 16 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 absence of the accused as identity of the accused is not in dispute". Appellant/accused is bound by the submission of his counsel. If defense intended to dispute the identity of the accused qua the testimony of PW6 K. S. Negi in whose presence specimen handwritings S-26 to S-48 were obtained from accused then defense should have insisted for deferring of the examination-in-chief of PW6 who was needed to identify the accused. Besides, when cross examination of PW6 was got deferred for want of presence of accused, then on 25.05.2012 when PW6 was present for his remaining cross examination, defense should not have closed the cross examination by submitting that it did not wish to further cross examine the witness and should not have gone on to oppose the attempt of the prosecution to re-examine PW6 on the point of identification. In any case both prosecution and defense/appellant is bound by the order dt 25.05.2012 which settled the issue of identity of accused qua the specimen handwritings S-26 to S-48.
32. Now coming to report/opinion of handwriting experts duly proved by PW3 Mahender Singh (whose name in the report is mentioned as Mohinder Singh) who in the report Ex PW3/D had reported that figures in portion stamped and marked as Q1 in Ex PW1/A and specimen S-1 to S-15 and S-26 to S-48 had been written by one and the same person. He in his cross examination admitted that initially writings S-1 to S-15 were sent for expert opinion but the same had been returned by GEQD as no definite opinion was possible basing the aforesaid sample. Specimen S-1 to S-15 also contains figures i.e. dates in numerals mostly "15.12.95"
besides signature, though the relevant date was "18.12.95". Specimen S- 26 to S-35 contains various dates in numerals and S-37 to S-48 contains writings with date in numerals.Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 17 of 28
(CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022
33. When it was not possible to give any opinion on the basis of sample S-1 to S-15 which contained dates in numerals well separated from specimen signature then how it became possible to give opinion on the basis of sample S-26 to S-48. What was lacking in those samples? Whether they needed more volume of such samples or whether they needed variety of more samples? Whether samples were not clear or writings/numbers were not clear? Report Ex PW3/D is silent about these. Once handwriting experts have returned the samples with remarks that opinion was not possible on such sample then it was the duty of the prosecution to make it known to the court that what deficiency in the samples were pointed out by GEQD, what was asked for by the GEQD for being able to give its opinion and that entire such asked for material was thereafter made available to GQED for its opinion. At least handwriting report Ex PW3/D should have shed light on this to make appear its report more acceptable because opinion is based on S-1 to S-15 as well. In the absence of explanation as to what prevented GEQD to give its opinion basing on samples S-1 to S-15 and then how sample S-26 to S-48 enabled GEQD to give its opinion basing on samples S-1 to S-15 also, it was not safe to accept the report Ex PW3/D so far as its opinion qua figures in portion stamped and marked Q1 in Ex PW1/A is concerned, particularly when it has not been proved that specimen S-1 to S-15 were in the hand of appellant/accused Harish Kumar. Having said that, this court would not like to replace the view of the Ld. Trial Court with its own view so far as acceptance of the opinion is concerned.
34. What is the evidentiary value of the opinion of a handwriting expert?
Law regarding evidentiary value of the opinion of handwriting expert or to what extent reliance be placed on the opinion of handwriting expert Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 18 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 has been laid down in many judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and one such judgement was rendered in the case titled as Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 wherein it was held as under:-
"7. In the first place, .................... It is indeed difficult to see how the appellant, who was a small employee in the Railway Administration, could have possibly come into possession of the blank Railway Receipt from Banmore Station which was not within his jurisdiction at any time. It is true that B. Lal, the handwriting expert, deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt Ex. PW 10/A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwritings Ex. 27/37 to 27/57, that is the appellant, but we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precendential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State (1) that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items o[ internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa (2) that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar (3) where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by Circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State (4) and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands (5) and Matter of Alfred (1) AIR 1957 SC 381. (2) AIR 1963 SC 1728 (3) AIR 1964 SC 529 (4) AIR1967 SC 1326 (5) 1822, 5B & Qld 330 Fogter's Will(1). The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case:
"Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship--Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil."Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 19 of 28
(CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offense." [underlining done by this Court]
35. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratappa Reddy & Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 220 held as under:-
"10. By now, it is well settled that the Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596.
11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra), where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
12. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704, this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Evidence Act") expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21, without referring to Section 46 Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 20 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in Murari Lal (supra) and stressed that the Court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence.
13. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal (supra) and Alamgir (supra) strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the Court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the Court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. Clearly, these observations in Murari Lal (supra) and Alamgir (supra) do not go against the proposition stated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra) that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence.
[Underlining done by this Court]
36. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basheera Begum v. Md. Ibrahim & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 174 relying upon its own judgement in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. has said following about the opinion of a handwriting expert:-
"184. The appellants have relied on the evidence of PW-34, a handwriting expert, to prove that the accused had taken part in a conspiracy at the Malar Lodge Hotel on 21.6.1990. Evidence of experts is not always conclusive. As observed by this Court in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (5) there is hazard in accepting the opinion of an expert, not because an expert is not reliable as a witness, but because human judgement is fallible. While the science of identification of finger-prints has attained perfection, with practically no risk of an incorrect opinion, the science of identification of handwriting is not so perfect. In this case the evidence of PW-40, manager of Malar Lodge Hotel contradicts the evidence of PW-34." [Underlining done by this Court]
37. Thus, opinion evidence by its very nature has been considered weak and infirm evidence and cannot of itself form basis for conviction. Basing conviction solely on the opinion of handwriting expert without corroboration from other evidence, direct or circumstantial, is hazardous not because an expert is not reliable as a witness, but because human judgment is fallible and while the science of identification of finger- prints has attained perfection, with practically no risk of an incorrect Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 21 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 opinion, the science of identification of handwriting is not so perfect.
38. In the present case besides the opinion of handwriting expert there is not a single witness who directly or indirectly testified to about the forgery having been committed by appellant/accused Harish Gupta. It is true that there can rarely be direct evidence or witness to the forgery as it is also committed in secrecy like the offense of conspiracy. Nevertheless, it does not mean that one can be convicted for offense of forgery without an iota of evidence. If direct evidence is not forthcoming, which is rare, circumstantial evidence duly corroborated by opinion of handwriting expert must be laid and the chain of proved circumstantial events must be so complete as to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
39. Perusal of charge-sheet shows that Investigating agency has not collected any circumstantial evidence such as that appellant was the director of M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. or that M/s Secure had placed order for supply of equipment in question to M/s SIEMEN NV Germany or that for importing such equipments an End User Certificate from Dte Gen NSG Communication was mandatory or that forged End User Certificate was sent to M/s SIEMENS along with order for supply by Harish Gupta or by M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. or that only Harish Gupta/M/s Secure Telecom were dealing with such equipment in India. Investigating agency has also not collected/recovered any tainted articles used in forgery from the appellant/accused. In the absence of such materials obviously prosecution did not lead any evidence in this regard.
40. Thus, there is no evidence on record to suggest that Harish Gupta was/is director or promoter of M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd., that he or the Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 22 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 company used to deal in surveillance and counter surveillance equipments or that its clients included NCB, ED or NSG etc. or that Harish Gupta was working on Cryptography. There is no evidence on record to suggest that he or the company placed the order for the supply of above named two equipments nor is there any evidence on record to suggest that questioned End User Certificate was sent by Harish Gupta or by Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. to the supplier. In the absence of these foundational facts, it is difficult to satiate the conscience of the court as to why appellant/accused Harish Gupta would forge such certificate when there is neither need nor occasion for such forgery, even if opinion of handwriting expert opining that figures in portion marked and stamped as Q1 on Ex PW1/A were written by the person who wrote S-1 to S-15 and S-26 to S-48, is accepted.
41. Thus, Ld Trial Court committed gross error in acting only on the opinion of handwriting expert for returning finding of conviction for offense under Section 468 IPC without corroboration from other evidence, direct or circumstantial, not only qua the forgery but also qua the intent to cheat. Consequently, impugned judgement of conviction dt 22.12.2021 and impugned subsequent sentencing order dt 23.12.2021 are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside.
Botched up Investigation
42. Before parting with the judgement, it is relevant to highlight the quality of investigation in the matter involving serious threat to the safety and security of the nation as in the letter dt. 02.08.1996 Ex PW10/1/A addressed to the then Additional Director, Intelligence Bureau it was mentioned that "Belgium Embassy has indicated that the equipment Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 23 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 sought for is not normally available for public use and is a classified type intended for use only by National Security Agencies of Governments and not private parties and the whole issue has serious security implication in that the said Harish Gupta Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd appears to have forged a communication purportedly from NSG to import a sensitive equipment". Letter further mentions "as per information available Secure Telecom Ashok Vihar is at 8-B, Pocket 'D', Deep Enclave, 7118830 and the said company has advertised for an exhibition of surveillance products for law enforcement groups etc. on August 2, 1996". Thus, the letter flagged seriousness of the issue.
43. Investigating Officer PW11 Sh. Akhil Kaushik categorically admitted in his cross examination that he had not made any investigation either from Embassy of Belgium or from M/s SIEMEN NV, Germany to which allegedly the forged certificate was sent for supply of above named equipments. He did not meet and record even statement of Sh. E.S.L. Narsimhan whose letter PW10/A-1 had hearsay reference about the involvement of Harish Gupta, Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Except hearsay reference in the letter dt 02.08.1996 Ex PW10/A-1 (also exhibited as PW8/1) from PW10, there is no material on record which would show how name of accused Harish Gupta of M/s Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. cropped up or how IO suspected commission of offense by Harish Gupta. Besides hearsay reference in the letter Ex PW10/A-1, there is nothing on record showing how IO based his conclusion that it was Harish Gupta who attempted to import the above two systems and in the process forged End User Certificate and sent them to M/s Siemens NV Germany.
44. Further IO has not recorded statement u/s 161 of CrPC of any witnesses Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 24 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 except of Vimal Satyarthi. Vimal Satyarthi in his statement u/s 161 CrPC before the IO had interalia stated that a letter from E.S.L. Narsimhan (PW10) was received informing that one Sh. Harish Gupta of Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. had in fact tried to import the equipments using a forged End User Certificate and this equipment may be used by the National Security Agencies of different Governments.
45. Perusal of Letter dt. 2.08.1996 Ex PW10/A-1 (also exhibited as PW8/1) written by E. S. L. Narsimhan (PW10) and addressed to Additional Director, Intelligence Bureau with copy marked to Sh. V. S. Mathur, Special Secretary, MHA and Sh A. K. Tandon, Director General, NSG, shows that matter was taken up with Belgium Embassy and they were requested to stop supply of this item as NSG had not indented for the same. Request (to Embassy of Belgium) was also made to investigate the matter further. In the said letter it is further mentioned that Counselor in the Belgium Embassy, Delhi had met him (PW10) on 2.08.1996 and indicated that the equipment mentioned appeared to have been indented for by Mr. Harish Gupta, Secure Telecom Private Ltd. who, in a meeting with one Josef Van Troy, a Commission Agent of Hercules Ltd. U.K. Kingston, had sought this equipment and given this certificate purportedly from NSG. The equipment was thereafter be indented for Hercules NV Belgium, a non existent company with only a P. O. Box.
46. Despite this information having been made available, IO for reason best known to him, did not feel the need to examine either E.S.L. Narsimhan nor the so called counselor or any officer from the Embassy of Belgium nor Josef Van Troy the Commission Agent of Hercules Ltd. or M/s Siemens N.V. Germany.
Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 25 of 28(CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022
47. From this letter a significant contradiction also appears as the forged End User Certificate reflects that above named equipment was ordered from SIEMENS AG. Munich Germany and to be delivered from SIEMENS B.V. Siemenslaan 2, B8020 OOSTKAMP, Belgium but letter dt 2.0.1996 Ex PW10-A-1 shows that above named equipments had been sought by Harish Gupta in his meeting with one Josef Van Troy and handed over the forged certificate to him and the equipment thereafter was to be indented for by Hercules NV Belgium a non-existent Company with only a P.O. Box. On what basis the counselor informed that equipments indented for from SIEMENS AG. Munich Germany and to be delivered from SIEMENS B.V. Siemenslaan 2, B8020 OOSTKAMP, Belgium was to be indented for by Hercules NV Belgium.
48. All theses needed deeper investigation but IO did not make even shallow investigation on these. It appears that IO has purposefully not made investigation either on his own or at the behest of some higher up and thus, possibility cannot be ruled out that all these were done to save the skin of real culprit or may be of the present accused, if at all he was involved. It will not be an exaggeration to term the present investigation a botched up investigation. Even a novice Investigating Officer would start his investigation from the supplier with which order for supplying the above named system with forged End User Certificate was placed so as to know who sent the said forged certificate.
49. Besides above this court fail to understand on what material IO concluded in the charge-sheet that "Harish Gupta, Director of M/s Secure Telecom Private Ltd. 8B, Deep Enclave, Ashok Vihar, Phae-II New Delhi-52 used to deal in surveillance and counter surveillance Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 26 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022 equipments. His business activities involved importing of equipments from foreign countries and selling them in the country. His lists of clients included Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, National Security Guards etc. Harish Gupta was working on Cryptography which is the science of deciphering the messages into coded language and later on decoding them. M/s SIEMENS NV of Germany was a pioneer in this field and had developed certain hardware systems. Harish Gupta wanted to import two systems T-1285 CA including Key Generation Program CGP 2002 and Crypto Fill Device CED 2001, from M/s SIEMENS Germany during the year 1995-96 for which End User Certificate was necessary. He prepared a forged End User Certificate No. Comn. (Eqpt.)/NSG/504/12(I)/95-2071 dt 18.12.1995 purported to have been issued by Sh. Vimal Satyarthi, Sqn., Cdr. Communication Directorate, National Security Guards, New Delhi. This certificate was submitted to the firm M/s SIEMEN NV of Germany to procure the said systems" when he has neither collected any documents to this effect nor recorded the statement of any witness to this effect.
Direction
50. Hence, copy of this judgement be sent to the Director, CBI for appropriate action as per rules if he in his wisdom consider necessary, not only against the erring Investigating officer but also against the then forwarding officer who forwarded the charge-sheet, if both or any of them is still in service; and also for taking steps to improve the quality of investigation by CBI's official if needed by imparting adequate training.
Conclusion Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 27 of 28 (CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022
51. Hence, in view of the above discussion and reasoning, appeal of the appellant/accused Harish Gupta is hereby accepted and allowed and the impugned judgement dt 22.12.2021 and sentencing order dt 23.12.2021 passed by Ld. CMM, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi in FIR/RC No. 9/S/96- DLI, PS: CBI/SCB-1/DLI, (C.C. No. CBI 366/2019), Case Titled "C.B.I. v. Harish Gupta", are hereby set aside and appellant/convict/accused is hereby acquitted of the offense punishable under Section 468 IPC. Fine, if already deposited, be returned to appellant as per rules.
52. Bail bond of the appellant/accused and surety bond of the surety is hereby discharged. Original document, if any, of the surety be returned to him as per rules.
53. In terms of section 437A Cr.P.C. appellant is hereby required to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount. Such bond and surety shall remain valid for a period of six months from the date of furnishing.
54. TCR be sent back with copy of judgement placed on it.
55. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
HARISH Digitally signed by
HARISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2022.01.22
11:24:03 +05'30'
(Harish Kumar)
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-20
(Announced in Virtual Court) Rouse Avenue District Court
(Judgement contains 28 pages) New Delhi/22.01.2022
Crl. Appl No. 01/2022 Harish Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation Page 28 of 28
(CNR No. DLCT11-000005-2022) Date of Decision 22.01.2022