Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Chottu Ram Hooda on 18 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG,
ACJM-2 CUM ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. CHOTTU RAM HOODA
Case No. : CBI No. 131/2019
FIR No. : RC-89A/1996
U/s : 120-B r/w 420 and Sec.
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Name of Branch : CBI, ACB, New Delhi
dated 20.12.1996
a) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0021872000
b) The date of commission : During the year 1991
of the offences
c) Name of the Complainant : The FIR was registered on
source information.
d) Name, parentage & address : (i)Sh. Chottu Ram Hooda,
S/o late Sh. Sriram Hooda,
(proceedings abated vide
order dated 13.03.2016).
(ii) Sh. Anand Kumar
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
(convicted and sentenced
in plea bargaining
proceedings dated
26.02.2018)
(iii) Sh. Braham Vrat
Kaushik
S/o Sh. Tek Chand
R/o H. No. 2142, Bawana
Road, Narela, Delhi-40
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 1 of 30
by NISHANT
CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:53:42
+0530
(iv) Sh. Chand Prakash
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
(convicted and sentenced
in plea bargaining
proceedings dated
26.02.2018)
e) Offences complained of : 120-B r/w 420 and Sec.
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
f) The plea of the accused : Not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal
h) Date of institution of case : 02.08.2000
i) Date of Judgment : 18.09.2024
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Arjun Anand, Ld. APP for the CBI.
Sh. Sushil Bajaj and Sh. Mohd. Shahrukh, Ld. counsels for the
accused Braham Vrat Kaushik.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1), Anand Kumar (A-2), Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and Chand Prakash (A-4) were sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 and Sec. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the present FIR RC 89(A)/1996-DLI dated 20.12.1996, came to be registered on source information that (i) VK Gupta, UDC, (ii) OP Chalia, Head CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 2 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:53:49
+0530
Clerk and (iii) Tarun Kapoor, Assistant Secretary, STA, Department of Transport, Govt. of NCT of Delhi entered into a criminal conspiracy with Raju Lal Meena and Vishram Meena and issued permits under the scheme 'Private Bus Service in Delhi under Stage Carrier Permits' on the basis of forged and incomplete documents. The above-mentioned officials of STA processed the case of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena on the basis of forged and incomplete documents without checking their residential proofs. It is further alleged that the caste certificates of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena were used by some other persons to obtain permits under ST category.
3. During investigation, it was found that in December 1991, applications were invited for the scheme in the name of 'Private Bus Service in Delhi under Stage Carrier Permits'. The last date for applying was 31.01.1992 which was extended up to 10.02.1992. The applicants were required to furnish their residential proof in Delhi, financial status, caste certificate and ex-servicemen proof. After scrutiny of the applications, candidates were selected through draw of lots. A Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to successful candidates and they were given 90 days' time to produce the bus. Under the Scheduled Tribe category, since the number of applicants were less than the number of permits, it was decided to re-advertise the remaining vacancies.
4. The applications of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena were received in July 1992 and LOI was issued to them on 18.01.1993. However, they neither produced their buses within Digitally CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 signed by Page No. 3 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:53:56 +0530 90 days nor sought extension of time.
5. On 26.04.1994, Vishram Meena submitted an application before the STA for issuance of a duplicate Letter of Intent stating that he had not received the LOI. This application was processed by Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3), the dealing assistant in STA and duplicate LOI was issued to Vishram Meena on 28.04.1994. The period for production of bus was given up to 30.06.1994.
Similarly, on the application of Raju Lal Meena, a duplicate LOI was issued and time was extended up to 30.06.1994. The LOI holder was required to physically produce the bus in his name along with an affidavit and character certificate of driver and conductor. The LOI holder was also required to submit an affidavit to get final permit from STA authority.
6. During investigation, it was found that permit no. SC/3000/ST/0117/94 was issued in the name of Vishram Singh Meena for Bus No. DL-1P-5934. Vishram Singh Meena had submitted only a photocopy of a ration card which did not bear any number, date of issue, names of issuing office. From the photocopy of the ration card, it appeared that name of Vishram Meena was added later on. The file of Vishram Singh Meena was processed by VK Gupta, OP Chalia and Tarun Kapoor on the basis of unsigned affidavit of Ram Kumar and affidavit of Kanwal Singh. VK Gupta was warned in this respect. The other documents such as ration card, inspection report, RC, permit, residence proof, caste certificate etc., were certified to be in order without verifying the genuineness of these documents. Signatures of Ram Kumar and Kanwal Singh on the affidavits were also CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 4 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:54:03 +0530 found to be forged as per CFSL report.
7. During investigation, it was found that the permit granted to Vishram Meena was renewed without obtaining fresh sanction; the route of the bus was changed without taking any documents in support of change of address of Vishram Meena. The caste certificate of Vishram Meena was issued from Rajasthan whereas, he had shown himself to be a resident of Delhi. Vishram Meena could not produce the original ration card to prove his residence in Delhi. He stated that he neither purchased bus number DL-1P-3954 nor obtained the permit, though he had applied for a permit in 1992 but did not pursue his application for permit after 1992. He informed that his brother Ramesh Kumar Meena, a Constable in Delhi Police, had been pursuing this application. He denied to have signed any document on records of STA and MLO. He, however, confirmed that he had given a power of attorney with respect to bus number DL-1P-5934 and its permit in favor of Anand Kumar, brother of Chand Prakash, who was also a Constable in Delhi Police and posted with Ramesh Kumar Meena. Report of CFSL confirmed that signatures of Vishram Meena, on the initial application as well as on all other documents, were forged by Chand Prakash. CFSL report further confirmed that Chand Prakash forged signatures of Vishram Meena in the loan file of Bus No. DL-1P- 5934.
8. Permit number SC/3000/ST/0124/94 for bus number DL- 1P-1917 was issued in the name of Raju Lal at the address of 519, Panna Udain, Narala, Delhi. The application for this permit CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Page No. 5 of 30 Digitally signed CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:54:12
+0530
was submitted by Raju Lal mentioning his address as Village Jonti, Delhi along with copy of a ration card, caste certificate issued by office of Tehsildar, Kishangarh, Rajasthan and copy of a certificate showing financial status issued by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ), Sonepat branch, Haryana. CFSL report opined that the application form was neither filled nor signed by Raju Lal. During investigation, it was found that name of wife of Raju Lal appearing on the ration card was wrong and Raju Lal was not having any child in the year 1991-92, as mentioned on the ration card. So far as the financial status certificate issued by SBBJ, Sonepat was concerned, it was recorded that account in the name of Raju Lal Meena was introduced by Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1). Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1) had deposited and withdrawn money from the said bank account. The handwriting on the account opening form of Raju Lal was found to be that of accused Chottu Ram Hooda. The signatures on the account opening form, as per opinion of CFSL, was also not of Raju Lal. Raju Lal denied to have ever resided at Sonepat, Haryana or to have opened any account in SBBJ, Sonepat. Thus, the financial status certificate was obtained by accused Chottu Ram Hooda from SBBJ, Sonepat on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
9. CFSL report confirmed that the original application form for permit was not signed by Raju Lal Meena. The caste certificate in the name of Raju Lal mentioned his address of Rajasthan and not of Delhi. Raju Lal denied to have ever resided at Village Jonti, Delhi. The ration card, copy of which was filed for obtaining the permit was found to be forged.
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 6 of 30
by NISHANT
CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:54:19
+0530
10. The permit in the name of Raju Lal was applied by showing his residence at Village Jonti, Delhi. However, the permit was issued at the address of House No. 519, Panna Udaian, Naraila. No document could be found in the STA records as to how this change of address took place and what documents were submitted for effecting the change. The address of 519, Panna Udaian, Naraila was found to be that of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
11. Bus number DL-1P-1917 was purchased by Chottu Ram Hooda from Chhedimal Jain. Driver Ishwar Singh confirmed that the bus was purchased by Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1) and Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Anil Chitkara, the official who issued duplicate LOI, and Prakash Chand, official of MLO confirmed that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had been visiting them for completion of formalities with respect to transfer of ownership of the bus. Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) also gave his address at the time of transfer of ownership of the bus and in the permit in the name of Raju Lal Meena. Thus, investigation revealed that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was instrumental in obtaining permit no. SC/3000/ST/0124/94 in the name of Raju Lal Meena by pursuing the case with MLO and STA.
12. Accordingly, it was concluded that forged applications were filed and permits were obtained in the name of Raju Lal Meena and Vishram Singh Meena for plying Bus No. DL-1P- 1917 and DL-1P-5934. Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1) and Anand CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 7 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:54:27 +0530 Kumar (A-2) were the beneficiaries of the permits obtained on forged and fabricated documents. Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) entered into a criminal conspiracy with Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1), Anand Kumar (A-2) and Chand Prakash (A-4) and facilitated obtaining of permits. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
13. Copies of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents were supplied to the accused free of cost as reflected vide order dated 24.03.2003. During the course of proceedings, accused Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1) expired and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 30.03.2016. Further, accused Anand Kumar (A-2) and Chand Prakash (A-4) preferred Plea Bargaining and they were convicted vide order dated 26.02.2018. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420/471/120-B IPC was framed against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) on 11.05.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
14. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
(a) PW-1 Prawin W. Desai - He was the MLO in the year 1997. He deposed that bus number DL-1P-1917 was sold by Nihali Devi to Raju Lal, from Raju Lal to BL Guru and thereafter, by BL Guru to Raju Lal. The address of Raju Lal was mentioned as 519, Panna Udaian, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that there is no document on record, including any residential proof, which is necessary for transfer of a vehicle or issuance of a duplicate RC.
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 8 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:54:33
+0530
(b) PW-2 Bhagwan Singh - He was the LDC in Food & Supply Office in 1997. He handed over the requisite documents Ex. PW2/B (D-35) and Ex. PW2/C (D-36) (original master registers of Food & Supply Office, Circle-22) vide production- cum-seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that as per the Master Register of Circle No. 22 relating to fair price shop no.3616 at Village Jonti, Delhi, there is no entry of ration card no. 485711 in the name of Babu Lal Meena. Ration card no. 485711 was surrendered on 14.07.1994 vide surrender certificate no. 15688. He also handed over documents Ex. PW2/E (D-23) and Ex. PW2/F (D-24) (original ration card and application for surrendering food card in the name of Raju Lal Meena) to the IO through production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW2/D.
(c) PW-3 K.N. Sharma - Head Clerk in STA branch during the relevant time. He handed over the requisite documents pertaining to permit number SC/3000/ST/0117 in the name of Vishram Meena and permit number SC/3000/ST/0124/94 in the name of Raju Lal vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He proved the procedure followed for grant of permit and the documents required to be furnished. He described in detail the documents filed at the time of applying for permit in the name of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena. On the basis of record, he deposed that both the files were processed on the basis of incomplete, false and forged documents.
(d) PW-4 Raju Lal Meena - He deposed that he has been residing at Kishangargh, Ajmer, Rajasthan since his birth and had never applied for a red-line permit; he denied his signatures on the application form Ex. PW4/A, application Ex. PW4/B, acknowledgment Ex. PW4/C and various other applications CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 9 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:54:39 +0530 addressed to Secretary, STA. He denied to have applied for the permit. He also denied his signatures on the affidavit Ex. PW4/F. He admitted his signatures on his caste certificate Ex. PW4/H. He informed that a copy of his caste certificate was taken by Bholu Ram but it was never returned. He denied that he was issued a ration card no.485711.
He further deposed that he had come to Delhi with Krishan Chaudhary to earn his livelihood. After 3-4 days, Krishan Chaudhary had taken him to Transport Office where he had met a person namely 'Braham Dutt Kaushik'. Krishan Chaudhary got his signatures on several documents and took him to Mr. Kaushik who informed him that a case in CBI was going on and he should hand over documents to Mr. Azad in CBI. He went to the CBI office and handed over the documents to Mr. Azad, CBI.
The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. APP whereby he deposed that the statement u/s 161 CrPC given by him to the CBI was correct. He deposed that in 1992, one Bholu Ram had taken a photocopy of his caste certificate and had handed it over to Chottu Ram. He admitted that in December 1996, he had met Krishan Kunwar with whom he came to Delhi. He further admitted that Krishan Kunwar had introduced him to Braham Dutt and had shown his house and he was informed that the permit would be issued at the address of 519, Panna Udian, Narela, Delhi. He admitted having told the IO that he was informed by Krishan and Pandit Braham that his ration card of the above-address was prepared besides his birth certificate and Power of Attorney.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had never come to Delhi before he came with Krishan. At the CBI office, CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Page No. 10 of 30 Digitally signed CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:54:46
+0530
his signatures were taken on 20-25 blank pages. He was called to the CBI office several times. None of the documents which he had signed at the instance of Krishan formed part of the record.
(e) PW-5 Ishwer Singh Joshi - He was the driver of bus no. DL-1P-1917. He denied his signatures on the affidavit from the file of bus no. DL-1P-1917. He also denied the photocopy of his DL on record, though, he admitted the particulars on it. He stated that he has given a copy of his driving license to Chottu Ram Hooda. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. APP.
In the cross-examination, he stated that his signatures were obtained 100-200 times; his statement was not recorded; he was not called to the CBI office. He denied that he had told the IO that Braham Dutt was on duty at the authority at the relevant time. He denied that the bus no. DL-1P-1917 used to be parked outside the house of Braham Dutt Kaushik. He also denied having told the IO that Braham Dutt Kaushik was working in STA and used to run the bus according to time table of his choice.
(f) PW-6 Shiv Dayal Sharma - Counter clerk in Rajgarh Tehsil, Alwar, Rajasthan. He produced and proved application form and caste certificate of Vishram Meena.
(g) PW-7 Sudhir Kumar Jain - Motor Vehicle Inspector - proved the ownership of vehicle no. DL-1P-1917 and deposed that the relevant documents for transfer of file i.e. form no. 29 and 30 having residential proof are not available in the file. He deposed that he was not aware as to how the file was signed by him in the absence of these documents. He admitted that it was his carelessness that he did not check the documents before issuing the duplicate RC.
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 11 of 30
CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT
GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:54:53
+0530
(h) PW-8 Anil Chitkara - Motor Vehicle Inspector - On seeing the permits in favor of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena, he identified his signatures on the first page of the file Ex. PW3/C (D-4). He deposed that though the permit was applied at the address of Jonti but it was granted at the address of 519, Panna Udian, Narela. He admitted that the address was changed without any address proof. With respect to the permit of Vishram Meena, he admitted that the permit was renewed from time to time without approval of the competent authority.
(i) PW-9 MS Rao - Witness to the specimen signatures of Vishram Meena and Ramesh Chand.
(j) PW-10 Rampal - Official of DTC, working as Consultant. He deposed that he was engaged by DTC and was asked to do office work. He made the notings as per the directions of other officers. He identified his handwriting on Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW10/B, Ex. PW3/Y, Ex. PW3/2-1, Ex. PW10/C and Ex. PW10/D (Noting w.r.t. grant of permit). However, he could not identify the signatures on these documents. In the cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he denied that he had made the notings at the instance of Braham Vrat Kaushik. He expressed ignorance when asked as to whether the notings have been signed by Braham Vrat Kaushik and others.
(k) PW-11 VS Ranjith - An official of STA branch, Transport Department. He had handed over file Mark PW11/A (STA file of permit in the name of Nihali Devi) to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW 11/A. He stated that he cannot tell about any of the documents in the file as he did not deal with the file.
(l) PW-12 Satyavir - An official of DTC. He had handed over delivery receipt of vehicle No. DL-1P-1917 Ex. PW12/B CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 12 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:55:01
+0530
and sale/purchase agreement between Nihali Devi and Chhedi Mal Jain Ex. PW12/C to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He deposed that the delivery receipt Ex. PW12/B bears signature of his mother Nihali Devi. The bus no. DL-1P-1917 was handed over by his mother Nihali Devi to Dharam Chand Jain. While selling the bus to Dharam Chand Jain, it was decided that in case the bus is sold to anyone else, its permit shall be returned to his mother. Dharam Chand Jain sold the bus to anyone else and started plying a new vehicle on the permit of his mother.
(m) PW-13 Hari Om Aggarwal - An official posted as Junior Accountant in Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. He had furnished the documents with respect to caste certificate of Raju Lal vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW13/1.
(n) PW-14 Dr. M.A. Ali - Govt. examiner of questioned documents (Handwriting Expert). He proved his report Ex. PW44/A (colly) and supplementary report Ex. PW44/B.
(o) PW-15 Ramesh Chand Meena - Elder brother of Vishram Meena. He deposed that Vishram Meena belonged to ST category and he had applied for a bus permit with STA. When Vishram Meena did not receive any letter from the Transport Department, he gave an application to the STA after which permit was granted to him. He had arranged a meeting with Chander Prakash after which a bus was purchased in the name of Vishram Meena which was financed by Chander Prakash. He proved the original caste certificate, ration card and other documents of Vishram Meena.
(p) PW-16 Sanjay Suneja - An official of Motor General Finance Ltd. i.e. the finance company which had financed the bus CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 13 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:55:08 +0530 purchased in the name of Vishram Meena. He proved the production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW16/A vide which requisite documents with respect to the bus were handed over to the IO.
(q) PW-17 Sushil Kumar Chadha - Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL (Fingerprint Expert). He proved his report Ex. PW17/A with respect to thumb impressions of Nihali Devi.
(r) PW-18 Azad Singh - The Investigating Officer.
15. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. APP on 22.08.2024. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and stated that by the time of transfer of the bus in favor of Raju Lal Meena, he had already left STA and was reverted to DTC. He further stated that the investigation conducted by the IO is tainted and he had no role to play in processing of the applications and issuance of permits. No defence evidence was led.
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for CBI and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17. Ld. APP submitted that there are allegations of conspiracy between accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and other accused persons. Accused Anand Kumar (A-2) and Chander Prakash (A-
4) have already admitted their guilt in plea bargaining proceedings whereas proceedings against accused Chottu Ram Hooda have abated due to his demise. Ld. APP submits that the evidence appearing against other accused persons is to be read against accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) as direct evidence of Digitally signed CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 by NISHANT Page No. 14 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:55:14
+0530
criminal conspiracy is not always available. Ld. APP further argued that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). He has been specifically named and implicated by PW-4 Raju Lal Meena and he allowed his residential address to be used while applying for permit and during transfer of the bus.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that charges were framed against accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) vide order 02.05.2018 specifically on the statement u/s 161 CrPC of Prakash Chand and Sudhir Jain. However, Prakash Chand has not been examined as a witness and Sudhir Kumar Jain has not deposed anything against accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). In fact, Sudhir Jain has admitted to his own negligence in processing the file. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to suggest existence of criminal conspiracy between accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and other accused persons; not a single prosecution witness has deposed anything about accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3); the FIR was lodged against 3 persons, however, they have neither been made accused nor have been cited as witnesses and no explanation has been furnished for this; the investigation conducted in this case is tainted which is evident from the fact that Jogender whose handwriting was found to be on the application form has not been made an accused and the FSL report could not connect accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) with the commission of the offence; Bholu Ram, Krishan Kumar and Nihali Devi have not been joined in investigation; nothing has been brought on record to show that the address of CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Page No. 15 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA Digitally signed by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:55:21
+0530
519, Panna Udian, Narela was ever the ancestral house of accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Ld. Counsel for the accused further stated that PW-4 Raju Lal Meena, a star prosecution witness, did not recollect any of the facts of the case and admitted to most of the suggestions given by the Ld. APP as well as by the Defence Counsel and thus, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Reliance has been placed on:
(i) Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137
(ii) Ravinder Singh Alias Kaku vs. State of Punjab, (2022) 7 SCC 581
(iii) Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2010) 12 SCC 254
19. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file.
20. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the prosecution had filed charge-sheet against Chhotu Ram Hooda (A-1), Anand Kumar (A-2), Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and Chander Prakash (A-4). Chhotu Ram Hooda (A-1) has since expired and proceedings against him have abated. Anand Kumar (A-2) and Chander Prakash (A-4) have been convicted on 26.02.2018 on their moving application for plea bargaining.
21. To bring home its case against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3), the prosecution in all has examined 18 witnesses including Azad Singh, the Investigating Officer. PW9 MS Rao is the Digitally CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 signed by Page No. 16 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:55:28 +0530 witness in whose presence specimen signatures of Vishram Meena and Chander Prakash were taken. PW-14 Dr. M.A. Ali and PW-17 Sushil Kumar Chadha (handwriting experts) are not relevant against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Admittedly, during investigation, no specimen handwriting of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was obtained by the Investigating Officer. These expert witnesses have compared the specimen handwriting and questioned handwriting of accused persons who have already been convicted or against whom proceedings have abated. The testimonies of PW-6 Shiv Dayal Sharma and PW-13 Hari Om Aggarwal are also inconsequential as they, in discharge of their official duties, had prepared the caste certificate (ST) of Vishram Singh Meena and Raju Lal Meena. It is not disputed that both Vishram Singh Meena and Raju Meena belong to ST category. There are no allegations against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) for rendering any assistance to Raju Lal Meena in obtaining any ST certificate. PW-16 Sanjay Suneja from MGF Finance Company is also not material as the said finance company had financed the bus in the name of Vishram Meena by an agreement dated 31.03.1994 and the accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) has no concern with that. PW-11 VS Ranjith had merely deposited the file Mark PW11/A (STA file of permit in the name of Nihali Devi) with CBI which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A.
22. PW-1 Pawan W. Desai posted as MLO (HQ) in July, 1994 deposed that the vehicle DL-1P-1917 was registered in the name of Nihali Devi on 21.09.1992. As per Form 29 and 30, she sold the vehicle to Raju Lal, r/o 519 Panna Udiyan, Narela and it was CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 17 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:55:35
+0530
transferred on 09.06.1994. Duplicate RC was issued on 10.06.1994. He further deposed that the vehicle was again sold by Raju Lal to B.L. Guru on 24.06.1994. B.L. Guru sold the vehicle to Raju Lal on 28.06.1994. He further deposed that as per record, document i.e. Form No. 26, copy of FIR/NCR, PUC, Insurance certificate, fee receipts etc. were not available in the record brought by him. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that at the time of various transfers/transactions, he was not posted in the MLO (HQ). This file was not dealt with by him. He named one Prakash Chand, dealing assistant whose signatures appear on noting on 09.06.1994 and 24.06.1994.
23. The testimony of this witness does not implicate Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). This witness has not uttered a word showing involvement of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) in various transfers of the vehicle in different names. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for not producing dealing assistant Prakash Chand.
24. PW-2 Bhagwan Singh, LDC posted in Food & Supply Office, Bawana in January, 1997 deposed that ration card No. 485711 in the name of Raju Lal Meena was issued on 13.07.1992 as per entry at Sr. No. 718 in the register at the address of Village Jonti. The witness also produced application form Ex. PW2/E in the name of Raju Lal Meena. As per Ex. PW2/E, Raju Lal Meena left this address for Narela, New Delhi. On the basis of this application surrender certificate 15688 dated 14.07.1994 was issued to him. Original ration card bearing no. 485711 was deposited by Raju Lal Meena at the time of obtaining the CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 18 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:55:44 +0530 surrender certificate.
25. The testimony of this witness merely reveals that a ration card was prepared in the name of Raju Lal Meena in 1992 at the address at Village Jonti. Subsequently, Raju Lal Meena moved an application for getting prepare fresh ration card at the address at Narela. Raju Lal Meena surrendered the ration card no. 485711 prepared at the address at Jonti village. Again this witness has not whispered any involvement of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) in the preparation of the ration card either at village Jonti or at Narela.
26. PW-3 KM Sharma Head Clerk in STA branch of Transport Department in 1994-95 testified that the permit for Bus No. DL-1P-5937 in the name of Vishram Meena Ex. PW3/B and permit for bus no. DL-1P-1917 in the name of Raju Lal Meena Ex. PW3/C were prepared. He further deposed that at per Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C, Raju Lal Meena and Vishram Meena both applied for permits in July, 1992 as per advertisement. They were selected for permit and Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued in their names at the addresses given in the application. They however did not turn up or produce the vehicles within the stipulated time of 90 days. In April, 1994 both Raju Lal and Vishram Meena contacted STA stating that they should be issued duplicate LOIs as they had not received the previous LOI. Duplicate LOI was issued and 2 months' time was given to them to produce the buses. He was categorical to inform that the notings on the files were made by VK Gupta, UDC; OP Chalia, Head Clerk and Tarun Kapoor, Asst. Secretary. He was fair to CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 19 of 30 signed by CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:55:51 +0530 testify that all these officials were required to check the original documents and compare with photocopies, but the documents were accepted without comparison and without following the procedure. Unsigned affidavits of the driver and conductor were accepted and the dealing staff processed the case of Vishram Meena. The proof of residence in Delhi was also vague as it did not contain any ration card number, date of issuance, name or code of issuing officer. Similarly, file of Raju Lal Meena was dealt with by these officials. They showed favour to Raju Lal in granting STA permit on the basis of incomplete, false and forged documents. The documents submitted by Raju Lal showed him to be resident of Jonti at the time of filing application. However, at the time of issuance of the permit, his address was shown at Narela.
27. From the testimony of this witness, it transpires that he has raised an accusing finger against V.K. Gupta, O.P. Chalia and Tarun Kapoor, officials at the STA who had processed the files of Vishram Meena and Raju Lal Meena at the time of issuance of the permits. This witness did not attribute any role to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). He even did not state if Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was posted at the relevant seat in STA office or was assigned any duty of issuance of permits. It has come on record in the testimony of PW-18 Azad Singh, the Investigating Officer that all these officials were named in the FIR. However, at the time of filing charge-sheet, all these officials were neither cited as accused nor as witnesses. The IO did not furnish any plausible explanation as to how these officials named in the FIR were exonerated or why they were not cited as witness. In the CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 20 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:55:59 +0530 charge-sheet, no role was assigned to these officials. The testimony of this witness does not at all implicate Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
28. PW-4 is Raju Lal Meena whose name was used in obtaining permit allegedly by the accused persons in conspiracy with Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). This witness was not acquainted with Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). In the examination- in-chief, he testified that he had come to Delhi with one Kishan Chaudhary to earn livelihood. Kishan Chaudhary had taken him to the transport office where he met one "Brahm Dutt Kaushik". There Kishan Chaudhary got his signatures on various documents including GPA and SPA. He also took his photographs. Thereafter, Kishan Chaudhary took him to Mr. Kaushik who asked as to why he was making those documents as a case was going on in CBI in that regard. PW4 further deposed that Mr.Kaushik provided documents to hand over to Mr. Azad in CBI. He along with Kishan Chaudhary and some other people went to CBI office and handed over the documents along with original caste certificate to Inspector Azad, CBI. He did not remember any other conversation with Mr. Kaushik. This witness was got declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI as he was resiling from his previous statement under Section 161 CrPC. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted to have made statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex. PW4/N) to Inspector Azad Singh, IO. He admitted that he had informed Inspector Azad Singh that in the year 1992, one Bholu Ram had taken photocopy of his caste certificate and he had handed over the same to Mr. Chhotu Ram. He did not know Chhotu Ram personally. He further CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 21 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:56:05
+0530
admitted that in the last week of December, 1996, he had met Kishan Kumar in his village who informed him that a red-line bus permit was issued in his name. Kishan Kumar asked him to come to Delhi. He along with Kishan Kumar came to Delhi. He further admitted that Kishan Kumar brought him to Narela and introduced to Brahm Dutt and showed his house. He also told him that the permit was issued at 519, Panna Udiyan, Narela, Delhi. The witness further stated that he had stated to Inspector Azad Singh that Krishan and Pandit Brahm had informed him that they had also got his ration card made at the above address i.e. 519, Panna Udiyan, Narela. He further admitted that Krishan, Brahm Dutta and Chhotu Ram had made his birth certificate on stamp paper and also power of attorney in the name of Krishan for vehicle no. DL-1P-1917. He further admitted that he had stated to Inspector Azad Singh that they took him to Transport Authority and made him to submit an application for renewal of the permit for vehicle no. DL-1P-1917. Thereafter, he came to know that the permit had already been issued. This witness identified several documents Ex. PW4/O to Ex. PW4/U.
29. In the cross-examination by the ld. Defence counsel, the witness informed that he did not know the name of the advocate who had accompanied him to CBI office. At CBI office, his signatures were taken on 20-25 blank pages. He admitted that he had never come to Delhi prior to that. He did not know Krishan but his uncle knew him and asked him to go to Delhi with him. He further admitted that Krishan had not taken him anywhere and he was kept in a room for 3-4 days before taking to the authority.
Digitally
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 signed by Page No. 22 of 30
NISHANT
CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.09.18
15:56:12
+0530
30. On scrutinizing the entire testimony of this witness, it transpires that the role attributed to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) has not been established with certainty. This witness had come to Delhi along with Krishan Kumar in 1996. He has not acquainted with Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) prior to his visit to Delhi. He did not implicate Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) in preparation of any document. As per his testimony, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had informed him that a CBI case was already going on and why he was making documents at the instance of Krishan Chaudhary. He further stated that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had provided him the documents to hand over to CBI. Apparently, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was not instrumental in the preparation of any forged or false documents on the basis of which the permit was issued in the name of Raju Lal Meena. No suggestion was put by the Ld. APP if Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) owned house 519, Panna Udiyan, Narela or at the time of his alleged visit along with Krishan Kumar Chaudhary, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was found residing there. The Investigating Officer Azad Singh admitted in the cross-examination that he did not remember the address of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) mentioned in the chargesheet. When chargesheet was shown, PW-18 Azad Singh admitted that address of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) mentioned therein was 2142, Bawana Road, Narela. He expressed ignorance if he had examined or recorded statement of any person residing in or near house No. 519, Panna Udiyan, Narela. He also expressed ignorance if he had recorded the statement of Krishan Chaudhary during investigation or that Krishan Chaudhary was present along with Raju Lal Meena at CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 23 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:56:19
+0530
the time of recording his 161 statement. PW-18 admitted that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was an employee of DTC and was on deputation in STA. He did not remember if Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) joined STA in February, 1992 and was repatriated in May, 1994. Since Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had already been repatriated in 1994, there is no question of PW4 Raju Lal Meena to have met Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) in STA office in 1996. The investigating officer did not collect any credible document to show if house no. 519, Panna Udiyan belonged to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) or that he had any nexus with it. Throughout, the case of the prosecution is that the permit file of Raju Lal Meena was not processed or dealt with by Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). For that reason, no specimen signatures of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) were obtained during investigation.
31. From the testimony of PW-4 Raju Lal Meena, no involvement of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) in the commission of any offence emerges. The evidence if PW-4 is wavering as in the examination in chief, he did not utter a word against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Only in the cross-examination by Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3), the witness admitted to have made statement u/s 161 CrPC to the IO. The facts stated in his statement u/s 161 CrPC are primarily hearsay evidence and can't be considered sufficient to establish the guilt of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
32. PW-5 Ishwar Singh Joshi, driver in DTC did not implicate Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) for the commission of any offence. This witness was got declared hostile by the Ld. APP. In the cross-examination also, no incriminating fact was elicited against CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 24 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:56:29 +0530 Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) for his involvement in the crime. PW-5 denied the suggestion that in his 161 CrPC statement, he had told the CBI officials that in 1994, Chottu Ram Hooda (A-1) and Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) who used to live in Narela had jointly acquired a vehicle bearing DL-1P-1917. He further denied the suggestion if he had told the IO that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was on duty at the authority at that time. He further denied if he had told the IO that after buying vehicle no. DL-1P-1917, it used to be parked opposite Braham Vrat Kaushik's (A-3) house at Anaj Mandi, Narela. He further denied that he had informed the IO that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was working in STA and as such used to run the bus according to the time table of his own choice. He further denied to have informed the IO that after 5-6 months, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had taken his share back. He further denied if he had informed the IO that he along with Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and his family had gone to Haridwar. The testimony of this witness, thus, is of no assistance to the prosecution.
33. PW-7 Sudhir Kumar Jain working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the office of MLO HQ Rajpur Road in June, 1994 merely deposed that the registration of the vehicle DL-1P-1917 was in the name of Nihali Devi in 1992. The said bus was transferred in the name of Raju Lal Meena on 09.06.1994. A duplicate RC was issued on 10.06.1994 which bears his signatures at Point A (Ex. PW1/A). He explained that the relevant documents required for transfer of vehicle and issuance of duplicate RC i.e. Form No. 29 and 30 etc. were not available in the file. The original RC or police report required for issuance CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 25 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:56:36 +0530 of duplicate RC were also not available in the file. He fairly admitted that he did not know how the file was signed by him in the absence of these documents. He elaborated that the file was dealt with by Prakash Chand, the then dealing assistance and on his assurance that he had checked the documents himself, the signatures were put by him. This witness did not raise any accusing finger against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Nothing was suggested by the Ld. Public Prosecutor if the file was ever dealt with by Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
34. PW-8 Anil Chitkara identified his signatures on the first page of the file Ex.PW3/C. It was mentioned that Raju Lal had applied for permit at his address at village Jonti in 1992. However, the permit was granted to him in 1994 at his address 519, Panna Udiyan, Narela without any correspondence for change of address. He named VK Gupta, OP Chalia and Tarun Kapoor to be the officials who used to deal with permits. Again, this witness did not utter a word against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
35. PW-10 Ram Pal did not support the prosecution on material aspects. He merely deposed that he had gone to the Transport Department to make enquiry about some scheme for appointment of Consultants. There, he was asked to write some documents on behalf of an injured man. He signed several documents as per his dictation on humanitarian grounds. He identified his handwriting on the documents Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW10/B, Ex. PW3/Y and Ex. PW3/2-1. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. APP after declaring him hostile. In the CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Page No. 26 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA Digitally signed by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:56:43
+0530
cross-examination by the Ld. APP, he informed that he was not aware that the name of the injured was Brahm Vrat Kaushik (A-3). He denied the suggestion that he made noting on the files at the instance of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). He expressed ignorance to inform if the notings were signed by Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3), VK Gupta, ML Arora, OP Chalia, Malik Sahab and Tarun Kapoor. Apparently, the testimony of this witness does not connect Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) with the commission of the offence. No evidence has been collected by the IO if on the day PW10 wrote certain documents, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had come to the office in an injured condition. No material is on record to show as to how Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had suffered injuries. In the absence of any acquaintance with Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3), the witness who had casually gone to the make enquires to ascertain regarding scheme for appointment of consultants is not expected to prepare any document at the instance of some one not known to him.
36. PW-12 Satya Vir is son of Nihali Devi registered owner of vehicle DL-1P-1917. He deposed that her mother had handed over the bus to Dharam Chand Jain who as per agreement had agreed that the vehicle would not be sold to any other person and in case of sale, the permit in the name of her mother would be returned. The witness further deposed that Dharam Chand Jain sold the vehicle and purchased another vehicle bearing registration number DL-1P-3864. He started plying the same on the permit of her mother. When Dharam Chand Jain failed to pay the loan, the vehicle DL-1P-3864 along with permit was taken away by them. He was not aware to whom Dharam Chand Jain CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 27 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:56:50
+0530
had sold the vehicle having registration number DL-1P-1917. The witness did not assign any role to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). The testimony of this witness is not at all helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
37. PW-15 Ramesh Chand Meena is relevant against accused Chander Prakash, who has since expired. He has deposed nothing against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) or regarding bus number DL-1P-1917.
38. PW-18 is Azad Singh, Investigating Officer to whom the investigation of case RC No. 89A/1996 was assigned. He testified that during investigation, it transpired that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had been instrumental in getting ownership of the vehicle no. DL-1P-1917 changed from one owner to another. He further deposed that during investigation it came to notice that permit no. SC/3000/ST/012/94 in the name of Raju Lal Meena indicated the address of the ancestral property of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) at Narela. He, however, admitted that the MLO file and STA file did not have the required documents for change of address from village Jonti to the ancestral property of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) at Narela. In the cross-examination, he admitted that OP Chalia, VK Gupta and Tarun Kapoor were named in the FIR. However, in the chargesheet, they were neither cited as accused or witnesses. Raju Lal Meena had moved an application in STA for permit in 1992. Duplicate LOI was issued to him in 1994. He admitted that the documents required to be furnished for permit were to be vetted by a dealing assistant V.K. CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Digitally Page No. 28 of 30 signed by CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:56:58 +0530 Gupta. After vetting, the file was to be put up before head clerk OP Chalia. Thereafter, the file was to be produced before Tarun Kapoor, Asst. Secretary. The file was to be put up before Commissioner to get his approval. The witness avoided to answer several questions about the involvement of VK Gupta, Tarun Kapoor in issuance of the permits.
39. On scanning the testimony of PW-18 Azad Singh, Investigating Officer, several flaws have surfaced. Though PW- 18 deposed that Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was instrumental in getting the ownership of the bus changed but he did not elaborate as to how and in what manner Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) had assisted the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. No incriminating document was recovered from the possession of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). Nothing is on record to infer if Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was capable to be instrumental in the change of ownership. The duties assigned to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) at his work place have not been disclosed. None of the witnesses has implicated Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) for any role in the crime. The Investigating Officer also did not record the statement of any witness to show if the house at Narela belonged to Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) or it was in his occupation. No bank details of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) have been filed to infer if he had jointly purchased the bus DL-1P- 1917 as alleged. There is not an iota of evidence to infer if Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) was beneficiary in any transaction. Mere suspicion is not enough to take place of proof. There is no credible evidence collected and proved by the Investigating Agency to establish the guilt of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3). In Digitally CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 signed by Page No. 29 of 30 CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.09.18 15:57:05 +0530 313 CrPC statement, Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) categorically denied his involvement in the crime.
40. Since there is no evidence worth the name to connect Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) with the commission of the offence and nothing has been brought on record to show criminal conspiracy between Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) and other accused persons, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
41. In view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3).
Accused Braham Vrat Kaushik (A-3) is accordingly acquitted of all charges.
Digitally signed by NISHANT GARGNISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.09.18
15:57:13
+0530
Announced in Open Court (NISHANT GARG)
on 18.09.2024 ACJM-2 cum ACJ
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. CBI/ 131/2019 Page No. 30 of 30
CBI v. CHOTTU RAM HOODA