Delhi District Court
Cbi vs R.C.Mishra Etc.3 on 25 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NISHANT GARG,
ACJM-2 CUM ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. R.C. MISHRA & Ors.
Case No. : CBI No. 150/2019
FIR No. : RC-EOU-I/2006/E0013
U/s : 120-B r/w Section
406/420/468/471 IPC and
substantive offences u/s
406/420/468/471 IPC
Name of Branch : EOU-I/CBI/New Delhi
dated 26.07.2006.
a) Unique Case ID No. : 02402R0608612007
b) The date of commission : From 1997 to 2005
of the offences
c) Name of the Complainant : The case was registered on
the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi vide order dated
03.10.2005 in Civil Writ
Petition No. 10066/2004.
d) Name, parentage & address : (i)Sh. R.K. Purushotha-
man, S/o Late Sh. K.A.
Kurup, C/o Smt. Jyoti
Purushothaman,
(proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 07.10.2013).
(ii) K.V. Velayudhan
S/o late Sh. M.S. Nair
CC No/CBI/150/2019
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 1 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.07.24
22:08:26 +0530
(proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 12.01.2015).
(iii) Sh. R.C. Mishra, S/o
Late Sh. Ram Abhilakh
Mishra, R/o C-343, New
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-
110096
Permanent address:
Village and Post Nigoh,
Police Station Barsathi,
District Jaunpur (UP).
(iv) Sh. Rajesh Sharma,
S/o Sh. Dhiraj Singh,
R/o D-208, Karampura,
New Delhi-110015
e) Offences complained of : 120-B r/w Section 406/
420/468/471 IPC and
substantive offences u/s
406/420/468/471 IPC
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal
h) Date of institution of case : 29.08.2007
i) Date of Judgment : 25.07.2024
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Arjun Anand, Ld. APP for the CBI.
Sh. Yogesh Verma and Sh. Bhavtosh Sharma, Ld. Counsels for
accused R.C. Mishra.
Sh. M.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh Sharma via
VC.
CC No/CBI/150/2019
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 2 of 29
by NISHANT
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.07.24
22:08:34 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-
2), R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) have been sent by CBI, EOW-I, New Delhi to face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and for substantive offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that vide order dated 03.10.2005, in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004 titled 'The Yogi Raj Krishna Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.', the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed CBI to verify the genuineness and eligibility of members of several Group Housing Societies which were earlier wound up by Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) but were later on revived in connivance with builders' lobby of Delhi.
3. Accordingly, a Preliminary Enquiry no. EOU-I-2005-A-
0007 dated 14.11.2005 was registered against office bearers of 7 Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS) (including Malanad CGHS) and officials of Office of RCS and other unknown persons. The allegations in the 'Registration Report' were that these societies were declared defunct by the RCS u/s 63(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies (DCS) Act, 1972 and were subsequently got revived by some private persons in CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 3 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:08:43 +0530 connivance with unknown officials of RCS, New Delhi on the basis of forged/fake documents with the fraudulent intention of obtaining land from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on concessional rate and on priority.
4. During the enquiry, it was found that Malanad CGHS (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") was registered on 28.12.1983 with 80 promoter members. 25 members were enrolled in the year 1984. Despite repeated reminders, the Society could not submit requisite records to the RCS for approval of final list of members till 1993. In 1997, R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), a promoter member, claiming to be the Secretary of Malanad CGHS, informed the RCS about election of the Society held on 20.07.1997. He also communicated the change in address of the Society i.e. 1/486, Ganesh Cold Storage Complex, GT Karnal Road, Delhi to RCS. He also produced records of the Society (including applications for enrollment and fresh affidavits of members) in the office of RCS along with final list of 105 members. He also gave an affidavit as Secretary of Malanad CGHS stating that all the members of the Society were genuine. The RCS officials approved the final list of 105 members and forwarded it to the DDA for allotment of land.
5. It was found during the preliminary enquiry that the address of the Society was fake and enrollment forms and affidavits of three members were forged. The Society was CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 4 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:08:51
+0530
offered land by DDA in 2001 but since it could not deposit 35% amount in advance, the offer was canceled by DDA. Enquiry further revealed that RK Purushothaman (A-1) and KV Velayudhan (A-2), both promoter members of the Society, took active part in enrollment of fake members. They both communicated with the office of RCS and were custodians of original documents since beginning. Accordingly, the present FIR No. RC-EOW-I-E0013-2006 dated 26.07.2006 was registered against R.K. Purushothaman (A-1). K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) and other unknown persons.
6. During investigation, it was found that Malanad CGHS was initially registered on 28.12.1983 having its office at H. No. 30, North Avenue, New Delhi with 80 promoter members. R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) and MM Lawrence were its promoter Secretary, Treasurer and President, respectively. Vide resolution dated 12.03.1984, 25 new members were enrolled and the strength of the society was enhanced to 105 members. R.K. Purushothaman, Secretary (A-1), vide his letter dated 27.03.1984 addressed to the RCS, New Delhi requested the RCS to forward the list of 105 members to DDA for allotment of land. The list of 105 members was submitted under the signatures of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), M.M. Lawrence and A.V. Balaji Aiyer.
7. The office of RCS wrote several letters to the CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 5 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:09:06 +0530 President/Secretary of the society asking them to furnish original records of the society for approval of list of members, but it was not furnished.
8. Investigation further disclosed that a letter dated 03.10.1997 under the purported signatures of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) was received by the Assistant Registrar(NE) intimating change in the address of the society to 1/486, Ganesh Storage Complex, New Delhi. On 10.10.1997, H.K. Meena, AR (NE) wrote to the AR (Central) requesting the transfer of file of Malanad CGHS to him due to jurisdictional reasons. On that very day, the file was transferred to H.K. Meena, AR (NE). This letter was brought to the Dealing Assistant (Central Zone), H.M. Kanoon by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3). It was pointed out by the Dealing Assistant Dinesh Pandey (office of AR-NE) that the election of the society was due since 20.02.1994 and that the freeze list was not approved.
9. Subsequently, a letter dated 13.10.1997 was submitted in the RCS office under the purported signatures of accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) giving details of election/proceedings held on 20.07.1997. On 14.10.1997, accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) submitted the list of 105 members of the Society to dealing assistant Dinesh Pandey along with the affidavit under the purported signatures of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1). He also furnished list of members under the signatures of Unni Krishnan, K.V. CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 6 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:09:13 +0530 Velayudhan (A-2) and R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), photocopies of proceedings, enrollment forms of various members and their affidavits. On the basis of these documents, H.K. Meena, AR recommended approval of freeze list. However, certain objections/queries were raised by the Deputy Registrar T.P. Joseph. The said queries were addressed by the Society vide its reply/letter dated 25.03.1998 under the purported signatures of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1). Along with the reply/letter, photocopies of certain documents and a certificate dated 25.03.1998 was also annexed to show that signatures of members who have resigned had been verified with the membership register. The freeze list was ultimately approved by the RCS on 03.06.1998.
10. During investigation, it was found that in fact, no election/proceedings had taken place on 20.07.1997 and the fake proceedings of AGM purportedly held on 20.07.1997 were written by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3). 12 members examined during investigation denied to have submitted any affidavit/enrollment form. GEQD opinion established that 14 affidavits and 7 enrollment forms were forged by R.C. Mishra (A-3). It was also found that accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) had submitted fake refund vouchers in the RCS office.
11. A letter dated 07.03.2002 was submitted in the RCS office by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) under the purported CC No/CBI/150/2019 CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 7 of 29 by NISHANT RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:09:19 +0530 signatures of accused Rajesh Sharma (A-4), the alleged President of the Society. Vide this letter, request was made to reduce the strength of the members from 105 to 60. It was also informed through this letter that vide MoM dated 11.04.1999, 12 members had resigned and vide MoM dated 28.10.2001, 6 persons were enrolled. In fact, members NK Sethi, Gurvinder Kumar, Nishtha and Seema Gupta were falsely shown to have enrolled as members.
Similarly, members Anil Kutty and Rukmani Devi denied to have resigned or to have got their refunds. They also denied their signatures on the minutes of proceedings. During investigation, GEQD opinion confirmed that these fake proceedings were written by accused R.C. Mishra (A-
3) and signatures on it were put by accused K.V. Velayudhan (A-2).
12. A letter dated 08.03.2001 under the signatures of K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) was submitted in the RCS office as per which request was made to authorize Manju Kapoor to operate the bank account of Malanad CGHS. The letter enclosed MOM dated 23.07.2000 as per which, accused Rajesh Sharma (A-4) and Sadhna Mehta were shown to have become President and Vice President respectively of the society. GEQD opinion established that these fake proceedings were written by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) and he had forged signatures of accused Rajesh Sharma (A-4) and others.
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 8 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.07.24
22:09:28 +0530
13. Another letter dated 25.10.2001 under the purported signatures of accused K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) was received in the RCS office as per which, vide MOM dated 19.08.2001 several persons were shown to have been elected as office bearers of the Society. During investigation, it was found that Sadhna Mehta and Subhash Chadha neither became members of the Society nor attended any meeting. GEQD opinion confirmed that accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) forged signatures of Manju Kapoor on these fake minutes and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) signed fake proceedings showing himself elected President of the Society.
14. The Society was offered land by DDA vide its letter dated 02.11.2001. Vide authorization letter dated 12.11.2002 under the signatures of Manju Kapoor, K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4), accused R.C. Mishra (A-
3) was authorized to collect the said allotment order. Letters dated 14.03.2002, 15.05.2002 and 28.06.2002 were written by the Society to DDA seeking extension of time to deposit land premium. Since the Society was not able to deposit requisite amount, the allotment of land was canceled by DDA vide letter dated 11.07.2002. GEQD opinion established that signatures of Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were forged on letters dated 14.03.2002, 15.05.2002 and 28.06.2002 by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3).
15. It is further alleged that a total sum of Rs. 6,25,854/-
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. GARG Page No. 9 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:09:35
+0530
(inclusive of interest) was lying in the bank account of the Society with Delhi State Cooperative Ltd, Darya Ganj Branch, New Delhi. This amount was fraudulently withdrawn and misappropriated by accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and accused K.V. Velyudhan (A-2) through self/bearers cheques.
16. Investigation further disclosed that several fake minutes of proceedings of the Society for the meetings held on 09.08.1985, 24.03.1986, 01.04.1986, 03.05.1986, 30.09.1986, 31.03.1987, 15.08.1987, 16.01.1988, 10.02.1988, 09.10.1988, 19.05.1990, 08.07.1990, 03.01.1991, 25.02.1991, 20.03.1991, 05.09.1991, 03.11.1991, 24.12.1991, 20.04.1992, 10.06.1992, 27.09.1992, 10.01.1993, 02.03.1993, 25.07.1993, 12.08.1993, 26.09.1993, 28.02.1994, 10.06.1994, 04.09.1994 and 08.08.1996 were written by R.C. Mishra (A-3) and signed by R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K. V. Velyudhan (A-2). N. Ashokan, Rukmani Devi, K. Sudhakaran were falsely shown to have attended several of these meetings. Their signatures on the meetings were found forged. The address of the Society i.e. C-1/1622, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was found fake and this premises were owned by one Suresh Kumar Prithani.
17. Investigation further disclosed that fake refund vouchers were submitted by accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) in the RCS office for approval of final list of members. The refund CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 10 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:09:43 +0530 vouchers were certified by accused K.V. Velayudhan (A-
2). Vide these refund vouchers, it was falsely claimed that refunds were issued to the members who have resigned.
GEQD opinion further confirmed that accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) forged signatures of several members of the Society, several proceedings of the Society, affidavits of several members and used them as genuine in the office of RCS.
18. Thus, it was concluded that accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-2), R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) hatched a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which they got freeze list of 105 members of the Society approved from the office of RCS on the basis of fake enrollments and resignations. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
19. Finding a prima facie case, vide order dated 29.05.2012, charges were ordered to be framed against all the accused persons for commission of offences under Section 120B r/w 406/420/468/471 IPC and for commission of offences under Section 420/468/471 IPC. Accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) were additionally charged for the commission of offence under Section 406 IPC.
20. During the course of proceedings, accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) expired and proceedings qua them stood abated vide orders dated 07.10.2013 and 12.01.2015 respectively.
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 11 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.07.24
22:09:51 +0530
21. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
22. PW-1 Rajesh Dimri, PW-3 Raman Sadasivam Pillai, PW-4 Mahavir Prasad Goyal, PW-8 Subhash Chadha, PW-10 Om Prakash Wadhwa, PW-11 Sadhna Mehta, PW-13 Mayank Goswami, PW-14 Rohit Narang, PW-16 Sunil Kumar Gupta, PW-18 Seema Gupta, PW-19 Krishan Lal, PW-20 Anil Kumar Sharma and PW-42 Sachinder Mohan Mehta - these witnesses deposed that they never became members of Malanad CGHS. They denied their signatures on the application forms, affidavits, membership register and Minutes of Meetings.
23. PW-2 Dinesh Pandey (Dealing Assistant), PW-7 Harikesh Meena (Assistant Registrar, NE), PW-22 Laxmi Kant Sharma (Joint Registrar), PW-33 Gajender Singh (AR, NE), PW-34 H.M. Kanoo (Dealing Assistant) and PW-37 M.S. Sharma (Assistant Registrar, NE) -these witnesses are the officials/officers of RCS. They proved various documents pertaining to Malanad CGHS and the proceedings which took place in RCS office.
24. PW5 Ajay Aggarwal - he is the owner of cold storage in the name of Ganesh Cold Storage and Ice Mills situated at 1/486, G.T. Road, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He deposed that no office of any society ever functioned from this address, CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed by NISHANT CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. GARG Page No. 12 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:10
+0530
though some notices in the name of Malanad CGHS used to be received on this address.
25. PW6 N. Ashokan - He deposed that he became a member of the Malanad CGHS but had resigned. He identified his signatures on the list of office bearers and affidavit. However, he denied his signatures on Form-E2 and copies of several minutes of meetings.
26. PW9 Suresh Kumar Prithani - he deposed that he is the owner of C-1/1622, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and had been residing at this address from 1993 to 2000. He deposed that no office of any society functioned from this address.
27. PW12 Rukmani Devi - deposed that she became a member of Malanad CGHS and had deposited Rs. 10,000/- in cash. She denied her signatures on the application form Mark X1 and affidavit Ex. PW12/1. She also denied having attended meetings of the society. She also denied to have resigned from the membership of the society.
28. PW15 Surender Kumar and PW-21 Shyam Sunder Bhandari - officials of Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Badarpur Branch, where SB account of the Society was being maintained. They proved production-cum-seizure memo through which requisite documents were provided to the CBI.
CC No/CBI/150/2019
Digitally signed
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 13 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:19
+0530
29. PW17 S. Narayanan Nair - deposed that he became member of Malanad CGHS in 1984 but had resigned in 1985. He identified his signatures on the affidavit Ex. PW17/1 but denied his signatures on the resignation letter Mark X1. He denied having received the refund from the society.
30. PW-23 Hoshiar Singh, PW-24 Satvir Singh, PW-25 Ashok Kumar, PW-26 Raj Singh Malik, PW-27 Manish Bhardwaj and PW-28 Mukul Mathur - These witnesses are the officials of various Govt. organizations who were witnesses to the proceedings whereby specimen signatures/handwriting of accused R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-2), R.C. Mishra (A-3), and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were taken by the IO.
31. PW29 Mariamma Thomas- deposed that she became a member of Malanad CGHS. She identified her signatures on the affidavit Ex. PW29/1, production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW29/3, share certificate Ex. PW29/4 and receipts Ex. PW29/5 to 29/9. However, she denied her signatures on the membership register Mark PW/29XW1.
32. PW30 A.K. Kutty - deposed that he had become a member of Malanad CGHS. He identified his signatures on the receipts Ex. PW30/1 and PW30/A issued by Malanad CGHS. He denied having attended AGM held on CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 14 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:33
+0530
22.09.1991, Mark X20. He denied his signatures on Form P-2/Ex. PW30/2, application form Ex. PW30/3 and affidavit Ex. PW30/4.
33. PW31 Chandrabhan Arya - A practicing advocate and Notary Public. He denied his signatures on the affidavit Ex. PW31/1 of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1)) and stated that the seal affixed on it was fake. He also denied to have attested affidavit Ex. PW31/2 of one Anil Kheda.
34. PW32 A. Balasami - Government Examiner of Questioned Documents in the office of CFSL, MHA, Hyderabad. Proved his reports Ex. PW32/1A and Ex. PW32/A (colly).
35. PW35 Parasnath - Official of DDA. He deposed that he never dealt with the file of Malanad CGHS. He proved letters with respect for allotment of land to Malanad CGHS.
36. PW36 Shiv Shankar - Official from Syndicate Bank. He handed over documents Ex. PW36/1 and Ex. PW36/2 i.e. account opening form and bank statement pertaining to accused K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) to the CBI.
37. PW38 R.A. Yadav - the Investigating Officer.
38. PW39 Ashwani Kumar Vazirani - deposed that he became a member of Malanad CGHS but had resigned later on. He identified his signatures on the membership register, affidavit Ex. PW39/1. However, he denied his signatures CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 15 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:41
+0530
on the letter dated 10.01.1997 and receipt dated 03.02.1997.
39. PW40 Vijay Kumar - Officer of CBI who had conducted the preliminary inquiry.
40. PW41 K. Sudhakaran - deposed that he had become a member of Malanad CGHS. He identified his signatures on the application, attendance at General Body Meeting, affidavit and membership register.
41. PW42 Sachinder Mohan Mehta - he denied that his daughter Nishtha Mehta became a member of Malanad CGHS. He denied the signatures of his daughter Nishtha Mehta on the affidavit Ex. PW11/A.
42. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. APP on 08.11.2023. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they denied to have been associated with Malanad CGHS in any manner. Both of them denied to have become member of this society or its office bearer. Accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) denied having given his specimen signatures to CBI at any point of time. Both the accused persons disputed the GEQD report. No defence evidence was led.
43. I have heard Ld. APP for CBI and the Ld. defence counsel and have gone through the case file.
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 16 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:48
+0530
44. Ld. APP, Sh. Arjun Anand, urged that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the prosecution has led the best evidence available to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons, firstly in the form of negative evidence i.e. evidence of various witnesses who have denied having become members of Malanad CGHS and have categorically denied their signatures on application forms, affidavits, resignations and Minutes of Meetings. Ld. APP further submitted that the opinion of GEQD categorically states that the handwritings on the forged documents are that of accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-
4). Hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Reliance has been placed on Baljor Singh vs. State of UP & Anr., AIR OnLine 2018 ALL 711.
45. The ld. defence counsel, on the other, argued that the entire prosecution case primarily rests on GEQD report which is not admissible in evidence, since no permission of the court was taken before allegedly obtaining specimen signatures of the accused persons. It is further submitted that it has come on record that reasons for opinion of GEQD were brought on record subsequently and its copy was not supplied to the accused persons. The opinion was given by GEQD only on the basis of photocopies of the documents, on which no reliance can be placed. Reliance has been placed on:
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 17 of 29 GARG RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:10:57
+0530
a) Sapan Haldar & Anr vs. State, 2012: DHC: 3629-DB
b) T. Lakshmi Theresamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No. 24159 of 2016 decided on 12.11.2021 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)
c) Bheri Nageshwara Rao vs. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors. AIR 2006 AP 314
d) Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, AIR OnLine 1994 SC 545
e) Sandeep Dixit vs. State, Crl. Rev. 260/2011 decided on 27.04.2022 (High Court of Delhi)
f) S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 (4) SCC 596
46. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the judgments relied upon.
47. At the outset, it may be mentioned that R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) who were charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 406,420,468,471 IPC as well as 420/468/471 and 406 IPC have since expired and proceedings against them stood abated on 07.10.2013 and 12.01.2015, respectively. Main allegations were against R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2). PW38 Ram Avtar Yadav, Investigating Officer stated that RC 13(E) 2006 CBI EOU - I was registered on 26.07.2006 only against R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) by name. R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 18 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:11:04
+0530
Sharma (A-4) were not named in the FIR. It has also been informed that R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) were the office bearers of Malanad CGHS. Since R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) have expired, allegations against R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) to have conspired with them for commission of above stated offence have not been substantiated. The prosecution has failed to establish if R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-2), R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) hatched conspiracy on any particular day and place. None of the prosecution witnesses has testified about hatching of conspiracy by R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) with R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-
2). No circumstantial evidence has been brought on record to infer conspiracy among the accused persons.
48. Accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) and accused Rajesh Sharma (A-4) have been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC on the allegations that in conspiracy with R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2), they dishonestly and fraudulently withdrew and misappropriated Rs. 6, 05, 000/- entrusted to them, for their own use. Since R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) have expired, no credible evidence has emerged to establish commission of offence punishable under Section 406IPC. The offence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC against R.C. Mishra CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 19 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:11:12 +0530 A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW38 R.A. Yadav IO admitted that no money was transferred by any member of the Society in the accounts of R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4). None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has implicated R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) for commission of any such offence. The witnesses were not acquainted with R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) and no money transaction had taken place among them. None of the witnesses deposed if any money was ever demanded by R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) or it was paid to them. PW38 has further admitted that R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were not the members or office bearers of the Society. So, there was no possibility of any member/witness to have paid or entrusted any amount to R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4). PW38 IO has admitted in the cross-examination that no incriminating document was recovered from the possession of R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4). No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the prosecution to establish if R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were beneficiaries or had misappropriated any amount belonging to the Society or the members fraudulently. No such money was recovered from R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4). There is not an iota of evidence if any money belonging to the Society or the members was ever shared by R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-
CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 20 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:11:21
+0530
4) along with R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2). Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish commission of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
49. R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) have been further charged for omission of offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC. Again, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution either from the public or from the office of RCS or DDA has testified if at any time, any fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement was made by R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) for enrollment of the members in the Society or in the preparation of list of 105 members or in getting the list freezed in the office of RCS. None of the witnesses has attributed any overt act to R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) whereby they ever induced the Office of RCS, Delhi to approve the freezed list of members of the Society on the basis of forged/fake enrollment documents, affidavits and resignation letters of various members of the Society. No 'property' of any kind whatsoever was delivered to R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) pursuant to the alleged dishonest inducement. R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were not capable to make any inducement to the officers of RCS as none of them was the office bearer of the Society. They themselves were even not the members of the Society. The prosecution did not reveal the name of any officer of RCS to whom CC No/CBI/150/2019 CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 21 of 29 by NISHANT RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:11:30 +0530 fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement was made. PW33 Gajender Singh from RCS office who had dealt with the file of the society did not implicate R.C. Mishra (A-3) or Rajesh Sharma (A-4). He was declared hostile by Ld. APP. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied that accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) was the person who used to visit the office of RCS which led to revival of the society. PW 34 H.M. Kanoo categorically deposed that he did not know R.C. Mishra (A-3).
50. In the Preliminary Enquiry conducted by PW Vijay Kumar, no allegations against R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) emerged and for that reason, on the basis of the Preliminary Enquiry ,an FIR was lodged only against R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) and K.V. Velayudhan (A-2) by name.
51. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has testified if they were acquainted with R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) or any of them had allured them to become members in the Society. No witness has deposed if R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) ever forged and fabricated any document in their presence. PW38 RA Yadav, IO, in the cross-examination admitted that no witness had informed him about preparation of fake proceedings by R.C. Mishra (A-3) during investigation. He admitted that R.C. Mishra (A-3) used to perform clerical jobs for different societies. He further disclosed that during CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 22 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:11:39 +0530 investigation, it revealed that R.C. Mishra (A-3) was working for various societies including Malanad CGHS and was liasioning in RCS office as representative of such societies. None of the witnesses from RCS office have uttered a word to corroborate the testimony of PW38 RA Yadav in this regard. None of the witnesses from RCS office deposed if R.C. Mishra (A-3) or Rajesh Sharma (A-
4) had ever introduced themselves to be the representative of the Society. There is no evidence if R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) ever deposited the forged and fake documents of the members of the society in the Office of RCS. PW38 has admitted in the cross-examination that during investigation, he had found gross misconduct on the part of RCS officials and departmental action for major/minor penalty was recommended by CBI against them. It has, however, not been brought on record if any departmental action was taken against any specific individual or any major/minor penalty was imposed on the recommendation of CBI.
52. The only evidence emphasized by the prosecution against R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) is the report of PW32 A. Balsami, the handwriting expert, who in his testimony has deposed that report Ex.32/A was prepared by him and as per his report, the individuals R.K. Purushothaman (A-1), K.V. Velayudhan (A-2), R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) who gave specimen signatures also wrote questioned documents.
CC No/CBI/150/2019
Digitally
CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. signed by Page No. 23 of 29
RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2024.07.24
22:11:47
+0530
There is, however, material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness regarding the 'reasons' in Ex.32/A given by the expert for his opinion. Ld. Counsel for R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) urged that they were not supplied copy of the document Ex. 32/A and no reliance can be placed on 'reasons' given by the expert at a later stage. The investigating officer informed that the reasons for the opinion were taken along with the report of the expert and were deposited in the malkhana. However, PW32 A. Balsami, the expert, informed that he had brought with him the reasons for the opinion and had not handed over it to the Investigating Officer while submitting the report. R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) have denied their specimen handwritings compared by the expert with the questioned signatures.
53. A lacuna pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons to dent the report of the expert is that only photocopies of the questioned documents were sent for comparison to CFSL. PW-38 IO Ram Avtar Yadav has admitted that most of the documents sent for comparison were photocopies and not the original ones. It was categorically admitted by PW-38 Ram Avtar Yadav in the cross-examination that some of the documents sent for opinion of expert were in the form of photocopies available with the RCS office. He could not send the originals of the documents whose photocopies were sent because the originals were not made available to him. He CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 24 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:11:56
+0530
further admitted that he could not trace out the original documents of the photocopies from RCS office and the society despite efforts being made. PW32 A Balasami, the handwriting expert admitted in the cross-examination "it is correct that exact/correct opinion regarding the documents can be given only on the basis of original documents after comparing the same with the specimen/admitted signatures" He volunteered to add that if the photo-state reproductions are clear, he could give opinion regarding them with a condition that they represented the originals truly. He admitted that he had not gone through all the respective originals of the photostate reproductions at the time of the examination of the documents and at the time of presenting his report, as the original were not sent to him. Apparently, the report of the handwriting expert becomes suspect if the opinion is based on the handwriting and signatures on the photocopies of the documents. The IO has not given any valid explanation for not recovering the original documents and sending the same to FSL for comparison of questioned documents with the specimen signatures.
54. In Behri Nageshwara Rao (Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that a handwriting expert would be in a position to render his opinion only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. It has been further observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that there CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 25 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:12:03
+0530
can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, only if another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that it is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature on a xerox copy.
55. Another flaw in the case is that the Investigating Officer had taken specimen signatures of PW-1 Rajesh Dimri, PW-3 Raman Sadasivam Pillai, PW-4 Mahavir Prasad Goyal, PW-8 Subhash Chadha, PW-11 Sadhna Mehta, PW-13 Mayank Goswami, PW-16 Sunil Kumar Gupta, PW-18 Seema Gupta, PW-29 Mariamma Thomas and many more during investigation who were later on examined as prosecution witnesses. The specimen handwriting of these individuals were sent to GEQD for comparison with the questioned documents on which their signatures appeared. During their statements before the court, all these witnesses categorically denied their signatures on the questioned documents and claimed that these were forged. Some of the witnesses even denied if the IO had obtained their specimen handwriting/signatures. Curious enough, the IO did not collect admitted handwriting of these individuals for comparison with the questioned handwriting. PW-32 A. Balasami handwriting expert, though was able to compare the specimen handwriting of R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) to Rajesh CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 26 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2024.07.24
22:12:10
+0530
Sharma (A-4) with the questioned documents which were mostly photocopies was, however, unable to give any expert opinion/report about the signatures of these individual on the questioned original documents. In some of the statements of the witnesses PW-14 Rohit Narang and PW-18 Seema Gupta, it has come on record that voter ID/I-card of these witnesses were also recovered during investigation in the record of the Society. The witnesses admitted that these documents belong to them, but denied to have given it to the office bearers of the Society. It is highly unbelievable that the official/personal documents belonging to these witnesses will be available with the office bearers of the Society, if the same were not provided by them. These circumstances make the report of the handwriting expert suspect as possibility of these witnesses having put their signatures on the questioned documents can't be ruled out.
56. Another defect in the prosecution case is that the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.10066/2014 vide order dated 03.10.2005 had ordered the Investigating Agency to conduct investigation regarding the defunct societies. Admittedly, the Society in question was not a defunct society or it was revived later on. There was some dispute regarding not holding of elections for sufficient duration. It has not been revealed as to how the involvement of the instant Society came into the light of the investigating agency. The Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by Vijay CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 27 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:12:17 +0530 Kumar against several societies including Malanad CGHS. The report of the Preliminary Enquiry has not been placed on record by the investigating agency. PW-38 RA Yadav admitted in the cross-examination that the said Preliminary Enquiry has not been filed on record. He informed that status report was filed before the Hon'ble High Court regarding the preliminary enquiry conducted by Vijay Kumar. No such status report is also on record. It is not clear as to what material was collected by PW Vijay Kumar to implicate R.K. Purushothaman (A-1) to Rajesh Sharma (A-4). It is also not clear as to if any recovery of alleged misappropriated amount was effected from any of the accused persons. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the preliminary enquiry conducted by PW Vijay Kumar.
57. Case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Sharma (A-4) was shown as President of the Society and his signatures on the minutes of meeting were forged. Apparently, Rajesh Sharma (A-4) himself appears to be a victim whereby he was falsely shown as the President of the Society and his signatures were forged.
58. None of the accused persons is beneficiary. Admittedly, the land was allotted to the society by DDA however, the society was unable to deposit the amount with DDA as a result of which the allotment of land was canceled. Since R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) were neither CC No/CBI/150/2019 Digitally signed CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. by NISHANT Page No. 28 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2024.07.24 22:12:25 +0530 the members of the Society nor the office bearers, they were not capable or were in a position to deceive any individual either the prosecution witnesses or the officials of RCS or DDA. The official witnesses from RCS have categorically deposed that physical verification was carried out and nothing amiss was found regarding the list of members numbering 105.
59. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences for which charges were framed against accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4). Hence, accused R.C. Mishra (A-3) and Rajesh Sharma (A-4) are acquitted of the offences punishable under section 120B r/w 406/420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof.
60. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2024.07.24 22:12:36 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NISHANT GARG) on 25th of July, 2024 ACJM-2-CUM-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No/CBI/150/2019 CBI Vs. R.C. Mishra & Ors. Page No. 29 of 29 RC-EOU-I/2016/EOO