Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ramesh Chandra & Ors. on 20 August, 2016
Case No.532173/2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P C Act)-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI, DELHI.
Case No. 532173/2016
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra & Ors.
CC No. 25/12
RC No. 23(A)/00/CBI
State through C.B.I.
Vs.
1.Prof. Ramesh Chandra .....(Accused No.1)
S/o Sh. Bholye Ram,
Vice-Chancellor,
Choudhary Charan Singh University,
Meerut, U.P.
R/o D-1/41, Kakanagar, Delhi.
2.M/s Seema .....(Accused No.2)
D/o Prof. Ramesh Chandra,
R/o C-85, Sector-41, Noida, U.P.
3.Sh. D.k. Aggarwal .....(Accused No.3)
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra,
R/o A-225, Sudershan Park, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 8th June 2001
Judgment Reserved : 19th August 2016.
Judgment Delivered : 20th August 2016
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1), Ms. Seema (A-2) and D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) were tried for commission of the offences punishable U/S 120B r/w 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred in short as POC Act hereinafter) and other substantive offences.
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 1 of 53
Case No.532173/2016
Factual Matrix
2. Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was working as professor in Delhi College of Engineering during the period between 23 rd November, 1987 till 28th February, 2000 and thereafter, he joined as Vice Chancellor in Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Ms. Seema (A-2), daughter of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was not eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Environment Engineer (AEE) in Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) in terms of her qualification and experience. Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Ms.Seema (A-2) allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy along with D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) in obtaining and submitted with DPCC and forged photocopy of mark sheet attested by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and false work experience certificate from D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) for consideration of the post of AEE in DPCC.
3. First Information Report R.C.No.DAI-23(A)/2000/CBI/ACB/New Delhi was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 3 rd May 2000. As per FIR, reliable information had been received by the CBI to the effect that R.K. Goel, IFS (not charge-sheeted) Member Secretary, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) Delhi, Prof.Ramesh Chandra (A-1), the then Head of the Department of Applied Chemistry, Delhi College of Engineering (DCE) and posted as Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCSU), Meerut, I. K. Kapila (PW-
8), Senior Environmental Engineer, DPCC, Ms. Seema (A-2), daughter of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & AEE, DPCC and Ashish Goel, son of R.K. Goel and other unknown persons during years 1997-99 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of dishonesty and fraudulently securing appointment & selection to the CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 2 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 post of Assistant Environment Engineer (AEE) for Ms. Seema (A-2) in the DPCC as well as the admission of Ashish Goel in the DCE in B.E. (Civil) in 1999 by abusing their respective official positions as public servants. As per FIR, Ashish Goel s/o R.K. Goel had not even secured the minimum prescribed marks to get through in the entrance examination of DCE for admission in B.E. He was fraudulently selected in the B.E. (Civil) course in the said entrance examination held in 1999. Pursuant to the aforementioned criminal conspiracy Ashish Goel applied for revaluation in the Chemistry paper and Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) by abusing his official position as Head of the Department of Applied Chemistry got the marks in the Chemistry paper increased to such a level during revaluation as a result of which Ashish Goel secured admission in the B.E. course of DCE. After conclusion of investigation, only accused A-1, A-2 & A-3 were charge sheeted & Ashish Goel not charge-sheeted and was placed in column No.2.
4. Case of prosecution, as set out in the charge-sheet is that DPCC by an advertisement dated 31st July 1997 invited applications for five posts of AEE. One post each was reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) and two for General Category candidates. The requisite qualification was either M.E. (Environmental Engineering) with one years experience or 2nd Class B.E. in any discipline of Engineering with three years experience out of which one year s experience had to be in pollution control activity. Ms. Seema (A-2) who appeared in the B.E. (Electronics) Final Examination from Bangalore University in July 1994, did not clear few subjects and qualified the B.E. exam only subsequently by appearing in the supplementary examination held in February 1995. Therefore, at the time of filing application to the post of AEE, she was not eligible to apply for the post. She submitted her application by CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 3 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 enclosing a forged mark-sheet of the Bangalore University dated 12th October 1994 showing that she had passed the examination held in July 1994. Her application was forwarded by the Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) with his own remarks and with his own attestation on the said forged mark-sheet.
5. Additionally, a false experience certificate allegedly prepared by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) of M/s Agro Heat Engineers was produced wherein it was stated that Seema (A-2) had worked as Production Engineer with the said firm w.e.f. 15 th June 1994 to 30th November 1994 whereas her B.E. exam was held during July 1994. This certificate was also attested by the petitioner Prof. Ramesh Chandra. In addition to the above, Prof.Ramesh Chandra (A-1) gave his own certificate regarding experience of Ms. Seema (A-2) strongly recommending her candidature and concealing the fact that she was his daughter. The bio-data-cum-application dated 13th August 1997 of Ms. Seema (A-2) was attested by the petitioner Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1).
6. On conclusion of investigation, accused were charge sheeted on 8 th June 2001. Prof. Ramesh Chandra was shown as the first accused, Ms.Seema as second accused and D.K. Aggarwal as third accused. Charge sheet showed that after RC was registered, searches were conducted at the residence of Seema and incriminating documents were seized from her residence which included Experience-cum-No Objection Certificate dated 4 th May 1998 issued by Prof.Ramesh Chandra in favour of Seema without mentioning that she was his daughter, original degree of BE of Bangalore University dated 28 th March 1996 certifying that Seema ad passed BE course and other documents. Investigations revealed that Ms.Seema (A-2) had failed in B.E., IV year (Electronics Engineering) Examination held in July 1994, which was evident from the mark-sheet of the said CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 4 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 examination dated 12th October 1994.That mark-sheet was got collected by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) from the college of Tumkur in Karnataka during October/November 1994 and Seema took supplementary examination in two subjects in February 1995. Her results were declared on 25 th May 1995, wherein she passed both papers by securing '35 marks each' and consolidated mark- sheet was collected from the college concerned on 23 rd January 1998 by Dr. M.K. Veeriah (PW 3) on behalf of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). Seema (A-2) applied for post of AEE in DPCC on 14th August 1997 and in her CV, she mentioned '1994' as the year of passing her B.E. Application was sent to the DPCC by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) himself who wrote the address and the sender's name and signed on the cover of the envelope.
7. Since Seema (A-2) cleared her B.E. exam only in 1995, she could not have had three years experience as on the date of her applying for the post. Case set up by prosecution is that to make up for this, Seema (A-2), Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) entered into a criminal conspiracy and got the marks altered in the mark-sheet dated 12 th October 1994 in `Engineering Economics and Management paper from AA (Absent) to 35 and in `Probability and Information Theory paper from 14 to 35 and total marks '606' were changed to 667 in the photocopy of Marksheet No.007906 dated 12.10.1994. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents gave his opinion in respect of the all these forged documents which were allegedly attested by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and confirmed the forgery.
8. Thus, in nutshell, Case of the prosecution as per charge sheet is that Ms. Seema (A-2) in active connivance with her father Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) submitted forged mark sheet and false work experience certificates as genuine, CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 5 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 knowing fully well at the time of their use that those were forged & false documents in order to get appointment to the post of AEE for which she was actually not eligible at the relevant time. Pursuant to the submission of forged and false document, Ms. Seema (A-2) was interviewed by DPCC in May, 1998. She was selected for the post and since then is working as Assistant Environment Engineer (AEE) since 22nd May, 1998. Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was party to the criminal conspiracy and committed forgery and criminal misconduct by abusing his official position as a public servant and committed offence of cheating and forgery. Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) being public servant was accorded sanction to prosecute by the Lt. Governor. Charge sheet was filed by CBI on 8th June 2001.
Charges
9. Charges were framed by Ld Predecessor of this court on 11 th August, 2008 for commission of offence u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/'w 13 (1)
(d) of the POC Act by all the three accused and charges for commission of offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the POC Act and u/s 467 IPC against accused Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and u/s 420 & 471 IPC were framed against Ms. Seema (A-
2). Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Points which emerge for determination in this case are:-
(i) Whether accused persons namely Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1), Seema (A-2) and D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) entered into a criminal conspiracy to induce DPCC by preparing and submitting forged mark sheet no. AP0007906 issued by Banglore University, SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka, of 4th Year BE (Electronic Engineering) for selection to the post of Assistant Environment Engineer.
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 6 of 53
Case No.532173/2016
(ii) Whether D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) issued false works experience certificate
to Ms. Seema (A-2) (for having worked as Production Engineer in his firm M/s Agro Heat Engineers in June 1994).
(iii) Whether Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) (while functioning as Professor in Delhi College of Engineering as public servant) committed criminal misconduct and abused official position by corrupt or illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage by securing selection & appointment of her daughter Ms. Seema (A-2) as Assistant Environmental Engineer in DPCC) by issuing false certificate and attesting her forged mark sheet.
(iv) Whether Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) committed offence of forgery by attesting copy of false mark sheet No.A0007906 issued by Banglore University.
(v) Whether Seema (A-2) committed offence of cheating and used forged document (mark sheet showing her pass in 4 th Year Electronics Engineering Examination in 1994 from Shri Siddharth Institute of Technology (SSIT), Karnataka) in order to obtain employment for her as Assistant Environment Engineer in DPCC.
Prosecution Evidence
10. To establish accusation against the accused persons, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Brief outline of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is as under:-
PW-1, A.S. Rao, Accounts Assistant, Northern Railway, Baroda House joined CBI team in search and raid on 4th May 2000, wherein certain documents were recovered, vide memo (ExPW-1/1).
PW-2, Gurinder Singh, Account Officer in Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 7 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 produced and handed over personal file Ex.PW-2/2 of accused Seema (A-2) seized on 4th May 2000 by IO vide production memo Ex.PW-2/1.
PW-3, M.K. Veeriah, Reader, Head of Chemistry Department, SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka identified accused Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and Seema (A-2) in the court. PW-3 proved fact of admission of Seema (A-2) in their college in department of Electronics and Communication as well as issuance of statement of marks No.0007906 dated 12.10.1994 (Ex.PW-3/1) by Banglore University to Seema in respect of Fourth year BE Examination held in July 1994 and mark sheet No.0028204 dated 29.05.1995 (Ex.PW-3/2) of supplementary examination. PW3 proved consolidated mark sheet dated 18.02.1997 Ex.PW-3/3. PW-4, Om Prakash Malhotra posted in Oriental Insurance DO No.12 at 7678 Singh Sabha Road, Clock Tower, Delhi witnessed of specimen signatures of Seema (A-2) taken on sheets Ex.PW-4/1 to Ex.PW-4/9.
PW-5, Anil Goel working in Vigilance Office, Northern Railway, Baroda House was witnesses taking specimen signatures of Seema (A-2) on Ex.PW-5/1 to Ex.PW-5/3 by IO.
PW-6, Deepak Kumar Garg, Senior Vigilance Inspector in Northern Railway, Baroda House attended CBI office and witnessed obtaining specimen signatures of Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on Ex.PW-6/1 to Ex.PW-6/4.
PW-7, L. Sampath Kumar, Warden of Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (SSIT) proved register (Ex.PW-7/A) containing mess bill record. PW-8, I.K. Kapila Senior Environmental Engineer in Delhi Pollution Control Committee identified advertisement (PW-8/1) & placed on record consolidated mark sheet (Ex.PW-8/2) dated 18th February 1997 issued by Banglore University filed by Seema (A-2) with her application showing that Ms.Seema completed BE in February 1995.
PW-8A, Professor M.Z. Kurian, Head of the Department of Electronics and Communication at Sidharth Institute of Technology (SSIT), Tumpur, Karnataka in the year 1994, identified accused Seema (A-2), student of final year of Electronics Engineering, when he was head of the department. He knew and identified Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) in the Court and placed on record documents Ex.PW-8/1 to Ex.PW-8/8 as well as statement of Marks Ex.PW-3/1 (D-16) PW-9, Ravi Shankar Mishra, Bill Collector, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi was witness to the Specimen Signatures.
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 8 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 PW-10, Rajendera Kumar, LDC, Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi accompanied with CBI raiding team on 4 th May 2000 at the time of search at the residence of Ms. Seema (A-2) C-85, Sector-I, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. PW-11, Ashok Kampani, UDC, Delhi College of Engineering in Establishment branch looking after the recruitment of Group A posts in Delhi College of Engineering identified personal file of Prof. Ramesh Chandra as Ex.PW-11/A. PW-12, Nirbhay Kumar, Dy. SP, ACB, CBI, Delhi investigated this case since 3 rd May 2000 be placed on record FIR Ex.PW-12/A. He recovered several documents during searches of the premises of accused persons vide search cum seizure memo dated 4th May 2000 Ex.PW-12/B. He collected documents from Engineering College where Seema had studied from Sh. Y.M. Reddy, then Principal of College vide production cum seizure memo (Ex.PW-12/C). Documents were given by principal is Ex.PW-12/D and received letter (Ex.PW-12/E) from K. Singh, AO, Delhi College of Engineering. He collected specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ramesh Chandra (A-1) vide Ex.PW-12/F-1 to F-34 and of Seema (A-2) vide Ex.PW-5/1 to Ex.PW-5/3. During investigation, he collected original application forms, specimen handwritings and personal files of Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and Seema (A-2). PW-13, H.S. Karmyal, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi conducted search at C-85, Sector-41, Noida under Section 165 Cr.P.C. on instruction of SP Nirbhay Kumar. PW-14, Kameshwar Singh, Deputy Administrative Officer in Delhi College of Engineering and officiating as Administrative Officer of Delhi College of Engineering handed over documents including personal file of A-2 to IO in this case. PW-15, N.C. Sood, Government Examiner of Questioned Document proved on record questioned writing (Ex.PW-15/1). He proved admitted writings and signatures of Ramesh Chandra as (Ex.PW-15/3 to Ex.PW-15/43) and specimen writings and signatures of Seema (A-2).
PW-16, B.B. Saxena, Principal Secretary, Training and Technical Education (TTE), Government of NCT of Delhi proved sanction order dated 16 th May 2001 (Ex.PW-16/A) based on orders of LG for prosecution of Ramesh Chandra (A-1).
Statement of Accused
11. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) denied that he knew Prof. M. J. Kurian,(PW-8A) and was co-examiner in Delhi Collage of Engineering for CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 9 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 M.Tech examination. He Stated that he had attested all the documents except Mark Sheet dated 12.10.1994 of fourth year BE examination of July 1994. A-1 stated that From 1997 to March 2000, he was member and Chairman of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and was not under Sh. B.B. Saxena, Secretary Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi Government and his ACR was maintained by Secretary Services of NCT, Delhi and Secretary services was his administrative officer. A-1 pleaded his innocence and stated that he is an International fame Polymer Scientist and Educationist and has highest qualifications Ph.D, D.Sc. and F.R.CS (London) and remained on very higher post as Dean of Technology, University of Delhi, Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Vice Chancellor of CCS University, Meerut, Vice Chancellor of Mewar University, Chitorgarh, Rajasthan, Pro Chancellor of Sri Venkteshwara Universities and many other higher posts. A-1 stated that he was awarded more than 13 National and International awards and honours after vigilance inquiries by Delhi Government and Government of India from time to time and never found any fault. To dislodge from higher positions, some political rivals and enemies implanted this case upon him, so that he could not be elevated to the post of Governor of any State in Government of India. Perusal of facts clearly reveals, that this case has been registered against him on wrong and false facts and he has been wrongly implicated as an accused in the present case and he prays deserve acquittal.
12. In her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Seema (A-2) admitted that search was conducted at her house by 4/5 persons but she did not know them and even their names and what was seized by them. A-2 stated that she and her husband were pressurized to put signatures on the documents and the same were not readover before obtaining their signatures. A-2 stated that she had not enclosed statement of marks bearing No. 0007906 (Ex.PW-8/14), with the application form, but admitted CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 10 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 that she was selected as Assistant Environment Engineer in DPCC and joined DPCC in May 1998. A-2 pleaded innocence and stated that case was registered against her on wrong and false facts and she was wrongly implicated as an accused in the present case and deserves acquittal. A-2 stated that Seminar was held in July, 1994 and certificate of Sri Sidhartha Institute of Technology (Ex.PW-8/1) does not bear signatures of examiners. A-2 stated that she joined DPCC as AEE in May, 1998 and since then, one Sh. Ajay Kumar Rana was troubling her a lot and he complained about her to Chairman, DPCC, Chief Secretary Delhi Government as well as in Lok Ayukta, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi regarding her selection. Lok Ayukta passed an order dated 11.04.2000 in her favour, wherein DPCC was a party. She tendered on record certified copy thereof (Ex.D-1).
13. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal (A-4) admitted that he was the proprietor of M/s. Agro Heat Engineers, 69/6A, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi and that Experience certificate dated 30.11.1994 of Sh.D.K. Aggarwal (A-3), proprietor of Agro Heat Engineers (Ex.PW-8/8) was issued by him. A-4 pleaded innocence and stated that the factory premises was acquired by MCD during 2005 and since then, factory is not in existence. Ms. Seema had worked in his factory as a trainee w.e.f. 15-6-1994 till 30-11-1994 and he had paid salary as per performance of her duties. A-4 stated that IO Nirbhey Kumar had called him several time in CBI office as well as at Tis Hazari CBI Office at 2nd floor and pressurized him to became approver, but he denied and thereafter, his name was reflected in the charge sheet. A-4 stated that Initially, his name was not in FIR and he was implicated falsely and that Nirbhey Kumar collected blank letter head of his factory from him.
Defence evidence
14. To establish that defence version is probable, accused examined four CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 11 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 witnesses.
DW-1 Sh. Arvind Kumar, UDC, Office of Delhi Pollution Control Committee, produced departmental enquiry file of Seema (A-2) and placed on record statement of Sh. Jand Singh recorded on 6 th September, 2011 & 18th July, 2012 (Ex.DW-1/A) & (Ex.DW-1/B).
DW-2 Sachin Aggarwal, S/o Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal (A-4) deposed that M/s Agro Heat Engineers factory of Industrial Heaters was closed about eight years ago and In 1994, Ms. Seema (A-2) worked as Production engineer. He placed on record cash vouchers dated 10.09.1994, 10.11.1994 & 10.12.1994 (Ex.DW-2/A, Ex.DW-2/B & Ex.DW-2/C) regarding salary payment to Seema (A-2).
DW-3 Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal (A-3) himself appeared in the witness box and placed on record certain documents i.e. license, registration certificate, certificate ST- 37,Notice of SDM/LAC (Ex.DW-3/B, Ex.DW-3/C, Ex.DW-3/D Ex.DW-3/E and Ex.DW-3/F, Ex.DW-3/G. DW-4 Satya Prakash Assistant Director, Office of Lokayukta, GNCT, Vikas Bhawan placed on record certified copy of complaint No.C-18/Lok/2000 (EX.DW-4/A) received in their office on 22.03.2000 and another complaint No.24/Lok/2000 (Ex.DW-4/B) received in their office on 03.04.2000 , in continuation of the complaint (Ex.DW-4/A). DW-4 placed on record certified copy of order dated 11.07.2000 passed by Sh.R.N. Aggarwal, Lokayukta, (Ex.DW-4/C).
15. After conclusion of defence evidence, this court heard submissions advanced by Sh. Vijay Kumar Dogra, Learned Public Prosecutor & Sh. H.K. Sharma, Learned counsel appearing for Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Ms. Seema (A-2) & Sh. Virender Kumar, learned counsel appearing for D.K. Sharma (A-3) and have gone through the records carefully.
Arguments advanced
16. Sh. Vijay Kumar Dogra, Learned Prosecutor submitted that DPCC by an advertisement dated 31st July 1997 invited applications for five posts of AEE, requisite qualification was 2nd Class B.E. in any discipline of Engineering with three years experience out of which one year experience had to be in pollution CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 12 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 control activity. Seema (A-2) who had appeared in the B.E. (Electronics) Final Examination from Bangalore University in July 1994, did not clear two subjects and qualified the B.E. exam only subsequently by appearing in the supplementary examination held in February 1995 and thus, at the time of filing application for the post of AEE, she was not eligible to apply and it stands proved that her application by enclosing a forged mark-sheet of SSIT, Tumkur, Bangalore University showing that she had passed the examination held in July 1994. It is urged that it is established by prosecution that the application was forwarded by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) with his own attestation on the forged mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14). Learned PP submitted that a false experience certificate of M/s Agro Heat Engineers was submitted and used wherein it was noted that Seema (A-2) had worked as Production Engineer w.e.f. "15 th June 1994 to 30th November 1994" whereas her B.E. exam concluded only in July 1994 and it is proved that certificate was attested by the Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1), who had given his own certificate regarding experience of Seema (A-2) and strongly recommending her candidature concealing the fact that she was his real daughter. It is urged that the bio-data-cum-application dated 13 th August 1997 of Ms. Seema was attested by the Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and it is evident that Ms. Seema (A-
2) was not eligible for appointment to the post of AEE in the DPCC in terms of her qualification and experience and that her appointment to the post was in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy between accused persons. R.K. Goel and I.K. Kapila (PW-8) and other unknown persons.
17. Learned PP further argued that it stands established that Ms.Seema (A-2) had failed in B.E., IV year (Electronics Engineering) Examination held in July 1994 and also took supplementary examination in two subjects in February 1995 and CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 13 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 her result was declared on 25th May 1995 and passed both papers by securing 35 marks each. Learned prosecutor submitted that Issuance of experience certificate (Ex.PW-8/8) dated 30th November 1994 by Sh. D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) for the period i.e. 15th June 1994 till November 1994 is incorrect as since Ms. Seema (A-2) was not present at Delhi till August 1994 and thus she could not have worked as Production Engineer with M/s Agro Heat Engineers of A-3 during the period between 15th June 1994 till 30th November 1994 as certified by D.K. Aggarwal (A-
3) proprietor of the said firm. It is submitted that Seema (A-2) has failed to establish her presence in Delhi during said period from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or in her defence evidence. It is argued that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) prepared experience certificate pursuant to the conspiracy and that there was misrepresentation by Ms. Seema (A-2). Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was aware that his daughter Ms. Seema (A-2) had failed in the year 1994 and Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) had personally received the marks statement. The relevant register (D-20) on page 88 & 89 at S. No. 21 reflects the signature of A-1 (Q-53) proved by the expert N.C. Sood (PW-15) as the signature of A-1. It is argued that experience certificate dated 14 th August 1997 was given by A-1 stating that w.e.f. 1st December 1994 till date (i.e. 14 th August 1997), A-2 had been working as Technical Officer in Continuing Education Cell, Delhi College of Engineering, Government of Delhi. Ld. PP submitted that as on 1 st December 1994, A-2 had not completed her BE. Three years experience was required after passing the BE degree and that the accused persons were aware of this fact and that is why they had entered into the conspiracy of forging the photocopy of the marks statement for the year 1994 and experience certificate issued by A-3. It is submitted that it stands established beyond doubt Seema (A-2) in active CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 14 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 connivance with her father Ramesh Chandra (A-1) submitted the forged mark sheet and false work experience certificates as genuine with knowledge at the time of their use that those were forged documents in order to get appointed to a post for which she was actually not eligible.
18. Learned PP submitted that R.L.Goel, Ashish Goel, I.K. Kapila were named in the FIR, but after investigation no incriminating evidence has come on record to prosecute them. It is submitted that initially at the time of recording of FIR, a larger conspiracy between the accused were suspected. Later on conspiracy between Ramesh Kumar (A-1), Seema (A-2) & D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) could be substantiated. Therefore, only these accused were charge-sheeted fairly by the CBI. In support of his submissions, Ld Prosecutor relied upon, Nakul Kohli Vs State1 Budhu Ram vs State of Rajasthan decided on 24 th July 1962 & Hema Vs. State, through Inspector of Police, Madras2.
19. Per contra, H.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused persons submitted that the original of alleged forged photocopy of statement of marks Ex. PW-8/14 of Seema (A-2) has not been placed on record and in the absence of original document, photocopy of the same is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel relied upon J. Yashoda Versus K. Shoba Rani 3, wherein it is observed that it is necessary for the party to prove existence of the original document as per the conditions laid down in Section 65 of Evidence Act. He argued that in H. Siddiqui Versus A. Ramalingam 4 it is held that admitting signature in photocopy of document does not amount to admitting contents of 1 173 (2010) DLT 197 2 CA No.31 of 13 Decided on 07.01.2013 3 (2007) 5 SCC 730 4 (2011) 4 SCC 240 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 15 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 documents and in U Sree Vs. U. Srinivas 5 it is held that that secondary evidence relating to a contents of document is inadmissible, until production of original is accounted for. Learned counsel argued that since alleged forged copy of marksheet Ex.PW-8/14 is inadmissible in evidence and in such circumstances, opinion of handwriting expert Ex.PW-12/V & Ex.PW-12/V1 on the basis of photocopy of a document is also not admissible in evidence and It is urged that the evidence of an expert is nothing beyond an opinion expressed by him is not binding on the Court. Learned counsel argued that prosecution had not taken specimen handwriting of the accused persons either with the permission of court or in consonance with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, thus, the opinion of an expert is fallacious material and carries no suggestive value in view of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukdeo Singh & Ors6, wherein it was held that in the situation like the present one, since specimen handwriting has not been taken in consonance with law, report of handwriting expert is of no consequences at all and cannot be used. On similar lines division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case Crl. Appeal No.362/2008, Sh. Harpal Singh Vs. State date of decision 25.05.2010 held such report as not admissible. It is argued that there is no iota of oral or documentary evidence on record to show that professor Ramesh Chandra (A-1) conspired with D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) at any point of time. Learned counsel relied upon State of Tamilnadu Versus Nalini7, wherein it is held that "The first condition which is almost the "opening lock" of the provision is "the existence of "reasonable ground to believe" that the conspirators have conspired together. If this condition will be 5 I (2013) DMC 91 (SC) 6 1992 AIR 2100 7 1999 Crl. J 3124 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 16 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 satisfied, even then there is no prima facie evidence to show that there was such a criminal conspiracy. If the aforesaid preliminary condition is fulfilled, then anything said by one of the conspirator becomes substantive evidence against the other."
20. Learned counsel argued that allegation of the prosecution that Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) gave the certificate of experience to Seema (A-2) by strongly recommended her candidature for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer in DPCC is not a criminal act and the said experience certificate (Ex.PW- 8/18) was given by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) in his capacity as Coordinator Incharge and principal investigator of a project in Delhi College of Engineering. Seema (A-2) was working in project in Delhi College of Engineering as 'Technical Officer' w.e.f. 01.12.1994 to 14.08.1997 (last date of Applying) and till 22.05.1998 (date of joining DPCC) under (A-1) of issuance of Ex.PW-8/18. Learned counsel argued that prosecution has not alleged that content of (Ex.PW-8/18) is wrong and in such circumstances, the allegation of the prosecution in relation to issuance of Ex.PW-8/18 by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) to Seema (A-2) does not constitute any offence. Learned counsel urged that prosecution further alleges that Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) concealed the fact that Seema (A-2) was his daughter whereas all the certificates/ annexures enclosed with application (Ex.PW-2/2-A) of Ms.Seema bear name of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) as her father and thus, no question of disclosing the name of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-
1) as father of Seema (A-2) arose in the certificate (Ex.PW-8/18) as the same was issued to Ms. Seema (A-2) working as the 'Technical Officer' in a project under A- 1 in Delhi College of Engineering by A-1 in his capacity as Coordinator Incharge of project in Delhi College of Engineering and not otherwise. It is submitted that Prosecution is not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Mark Sheet of CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 17 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Seema (A-2) for the examination held in July, 1994 was collected by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and that sanction for prosecution of professor Ramesh Chandra is not a valid sanction as same has not been taken from the competent authority.
21. Learned counsel argued that Ms. Seema (A-2) joined BE in Electronics & Communication Engineering in SSIT Tumkur, Bangalore University, Karnataka and was staying in hostel. An advance amount of hostel fees was deposited by her in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and while she was in final year in April, May, 1994, during preparatory leave she came to stay at her home in Delhi and joined a job as trainee production Engineer in M/s. Agro Heat Engineers from 15.06.1994 onwards. It is submitted that DW-2 (Sachin Aggarwal) and DW-3 (D.K. Aggarwal) have proved her salary slips during the said period and DW-3 (D.K. Aggarwal) even testified that he had issued experience certificate dated 30.11.1994 to Ms. Seema and has identified his signature on that. It is submitted that experience certificate Ex. PW-8/8 has been issued by DW-3 in 1994 and attested by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on 02.03.1995, prior to the advertisement of the vacancies in DPCC. It is submitted that Ms. Seema (A-2) was absent in one paper of her final year exams held in July 1994 as is evident from Ex. PW-3/1. (D-16). She got her course completion certificate Ex. PW-3/DA on 28.07.1994 and continued working at Agro Heat Engineers. Result of July, 1994 exams, was declared in October, 1994 and she failed in one paper and was absent in another. She applied for revaluation for few subjects of July 1994 exams in October, 1994 and result of same was declared in December, 1994 and Mark Sheet No.0034147 dated 28.12.1994 was issued to her by depositing back the first original Mark Sheet No.0007906 dated 12.10.1994. Her marks in one subject was got increased from 39 to 44 and total marks increased from 607 to 611. Seema (A-2) appeared in CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 18 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 supplementary examination for the final year 1994 which was delayed by Bangalore University and held in February, 1995 for the students of Annual Scheme final year 1994, even though those students were issued course completion certificate in 1994. It is submitted that supplementary examination was in fact, part of the main exam of 1994 and a chance to the students to complete the final year without losing one year and also get the admission in the next higher class as per convention of all universities before the results of supplementary exam was declared and Ms. Seema (A-2) student of final year in 1993-1994 appeared in the exams and qualified her absent/fail paper of July, 1994 in supplementary exam held in February, 1995. It is submitted that Under such convention in all universities and with the knowledge that a course completion certificate has been issued to her in 1994, she wrote year of passing BE Degree as 1994 in her curriculum vitae Ex.PW-15/1 (D-19) innocently.
22. Learned defence counsel further urged that as per the advertisement dated 31st July, 1997 of DPCC Ex.PW-8/19 (D-19), eligibility for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer was ME-(Environmental Engineer) with one year experience or a second class Bachelor of Engineering degree with three years experience including one year experience in pollution control unit and till the date of advertisement accused Seema (A-2) was having a course completion certificate dated 28.07.1994 and three years experience as trainee production engineer in M/s. Agro Heat Engineers from 15.06.1994 to 30.11.1994 as well as technical officer in Delhi College of Engineering from 01.12.1994 to 13.08.1997 and further till February, 1995, she had cleared her BE supplementary exam of the final year 1994. It is argued that Under such circumstances being eligible, she applied for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer in DPCC advertised vide CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 19 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 advertisement Mark PW-8/1 (Ex. PW-8/19) on 13 th August, 1997. It is submitted that the application of Ms. Seema dated 13.08.1997 (Ex.PW-2/2-A) was annexed with experience cum no objection certificate Ex.PW-8/1, copy of statement of marks of Bangalore University dated 08.02.1997 Ex.PW-8/2, copy of statement of marks issued by the University of Delhi for ME (E &C) Ex.PW-8/3, copy of Experience Certificate of Agro Heat Engineers Ex.PW-8/8, copy of statement of marks of ME (E&C) Ex. PW-8/9, Ex.PW-8/10, Ex.PW-8/11, copy of B.E. degree certificate of February, 1995 Examination issued by Bangalore University dated 28.03.1996 Ex.PW-8/13. Experience certificate issued by Coordinator Incharge of a project of Delhi College of Engineering (A-1) Ex.PW-8/18, and various other documents and these documents have been proved by PW-8 Mr. I.K. Kapila. It is argued that Ex. PW-8/14 cannot be on record as the photocopy of the same has not been verified by Jand Singh and same cannot be the basis of call of interview. It is submitted that the original statement of marks of Ms. Seema (A-2) dated 12.10.1994 was surrendered by her to Bangalore University at the time of taking mark sheet No.0034147 dated 28.12.1994 itself. She placed on record her consolidated statement of marks of BE Examination, thus PW-8/2 (consolidated mark sheet of BE) and Ex.PW-8/13 were annexed with application Ex.PW-2/2-A and Jand Singh has not verified Ex. PW-8/14.
23. It is urged that no question of forging the mark sheet bearing No.0007906 of July, 1994 examination arise in the above said circumstances. PW-8 Mr. I.K. Kapila has deposed that all documents were verified by Mr. Jand Singh Account Officer/ Holding Incharge of Administration. Ex.PW-8/14 does not bear verification/signature of Mr. Jhand Singh, only possibility is that said document was not enclosed with the application Ex.PW-2/2-A and possibility of getting CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 20 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 signed from Gurinder Singh by the CBI later on cannot be ruled out. It is argued that the allegation of the prosecution to the effect that Ex.PW-8/14 i.e. photocopy of statement of mark sheet dated 12.10.1994 has been forged does not sustain. Moreover in the circumstances, when documents annexed with the application Ex. PW-2-2/A are self contradictory, then no interview call could be made for the said candidate and document Ex. PW-8/14, is not verified by Mr. Jhand Singh Account Officer/Holding Incharge of Administration.
24. Ld counsel argued that testimony of I.K. Kapila (PW-8) is not reliable as he is an accomplice in the eye of law because of the reasons that FIR (D-1) named accused, that there is no mention in the charge-sheet of the present case that he has not been charge-sheeted because of want of evidence against him and that Charge sheet also contains an averment that investigation in this case continues and supplementary charge-sheet may be filed, if any. These three facts reflect that on the day when statement was being recorded on 12 th July 2012 for the first time, he continued to be a suspect in the present case and thus, his deposition is not reliable till his testimony is corroborated by independent evidence. I.K. Kapila (PW-8) had been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-8 had categorically stated that board will answer which of the two mark-sheets i.e. whether Ex.PW- 8/2 or Ex.PW-8/40 was considered by them for considering Ms. Seema (A-2) to be eligible for the post of AEE and PW-8 admitted that he did not prepare the list of eligible candidates. PW-8 could not say, whether it was specified to the public at large that experience certificate for the post of AEE was required after graduation or an experience certificate before graduation will also be accepted. PW-8 admitted that note sheet from page no.1/N to 3/N of (D-24), could not have been the basis of his note page no.1/N to 6/N and therefore, some other material must CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 21 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 have been placed before him for preparing note (Ex.PW-8/DX1) and that this admission reflects a tampering in the file.
25. Sh.H.K.Sharma, Ld.Counsel for Ramesh Chandra (A-1) lastly submitted that Registration of FIR on the basis of source information was against the provisions of CBI Manual Crime, which has been treated as a supplementary statute by the Supreme Court in many judgments including Mohan Lal Vs. State 8, B.Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs Union of India 9, Woolmington Vs. The Director of Public Prosecutions10, Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujrat, 11 VarKey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala 12 The State of Kerala Vs.A. Pareed Pillai 13, Alpic Finance Ltd. Vs. P.Sadashiv & Anrs14, Hira Lal,Hari Lal,Bhagwati Vs. CBI15, U.Sree Vs. U.Sriniwas16, Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.17, J. Yashoda Vs. K.Shobharani18, M. Chandra Vs. M. Thangamuthu & Ors. 19, H. Siddiqui By LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam 20, Ganpat Singh Vs. The State21 Abdulla Mohd. Pagaker Vs. State22,C. Chenga Reddy & Ors.vs. State of A.P.23, State Vs. K.Narsimachari24, Dinesh Narayan Raijada Vs. State of Bihar25, C.M.Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I.26, State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhade27 Raj Kumar Singh@ Raju@ Batya Vs. State 8 Crl.Appeal No.1393 of 2010, DOD 17.04.2015 9 2007 Vol. 2013 JT 91 10 (1935) U.K.H.L (E) 462 11 AIR 1964 SC 1563 12 AIR 1993 SC 1892 13 AIR 1973 Supreme Court 326 14 AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1226.
15 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2545 16 1 (2013) DMC 91 SC 17 (III) (2013) DMC 405 S.C. 18 (2007) 5 SCC 730 19 (2010) 9 SCC 712 20 (2011)(4) SCC 240 21 AIR 1967 Raj. 10 22 1980 Crl. J. 220 23 1996 SCC (CRL)-1205 24 AIR (2006) SC 628 25 2007 Crl. J. 453 26 I (2009) CCR 499 SC 27 III 2009 CCR 700 SC CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 22 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 of Rajasthan28, Man Sigh Vs.Delhi Administration 29, Subhash Chand Chauhan Vs. C.B.I.30, L.K. Advani & Ors. Vs. C.B.I. 31 State of Tamil Nadu32, State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukdeo Singh & Ors33, Alamgir Vs. State(NCT, Delhi)34.
26. Sh. Virender Kumar, Ld counsel appearing for A-3 submitted that there is no evidence to prove that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) had met Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-
1) or visited the place of working of Ms. Seema (A-2) and as per admitted case of CBI, experience certificated was given in 1994 and at the said time no one would have conceived any vacancy arising in DPCC in the year 1997. It is argued that from the factum of issuance of certificate, by A-3 perse, in absence of any further evidence, no meeting of mind can be inferred between A-1, A-2 and A-3. Learned counsel submitted that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) was proprietor of M/s. Agro Heat Engineers, situated at 69/6-A Najafgarh Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, wherein Ms. Seema worked as a trainee w.e.f. 15.06.1994 to 30.11.1994 and A-3 had paid salary to her. It is submitted that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) had joined investigation several times and on asking had furnished blank letter head of his factory to IO/Nirbhay Kumar. DW-2 Sachin Aggarwal had identified Ms.Seema (A-
2) in the court and clearly stated that she was working as Production Engineer in the factory of Shri D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) in 1994 and proved cash vouchers dated 10.09.1994, 10.11.1994 and 10.12.1994 regarding salary payment of Ms. Seema. It is submitted that the experience certificate given by A-3 was a certificate of Private Establishment and Apprentices Act, 1961 provides in Section 2(j) about 28 (2013) Crl. J. 3276 SC 29 AIR (1979) SC 1455 30 117 (2005) DLT 187 31 (1997), JCC 294
32. 1999 Crl. J 3124 33 1992 AIR 2100 34 2003 CRI. L.J. 456 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 23 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 graduate or technician apprentices and an apprentice who holds, is undergoing training in order that he may hold a degree or diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent qualification granted by any institution recognized by Govt. and undergoes, Apprenticeship training in any such subject field in Engineering or Technology as may be prescribed. Therefore, even the statue recognizes the act of engineering students, venturing their joining industries, to gain experience during the course of their study i.e. prior to the period when they are awarded degree or diploma as the case may be. Thus, it is argued that joining of Seema (A-2) with M/s. Agro Heat Engineers for a short term is not an illegal act and salary of Ms. Seema was deducted for the leave taken by her during June to November, 1994 as shown in the salary slips. It is urged that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In support, Ld counsel relied upon Aditya Nashier vs CBI35.
Legal position
27. Before discussion of evidence, relevant position of law may be noted .Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as under:-
"Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) An illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof Explanation: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
35 2014 IV AD (DELHI) 661 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 24 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design:-
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
28. Thus, Section 120-A adumbrated thereon Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act gives the legislative provisions applicable to conspiracy and its proof. An agreement, concert or league is the crux, of the offence. Conspiracy requires an act (actus reas) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). From the definition of conspiracy in Section 120-A, it is evident that the agreement constitutes the act and the intention to achieve unlawful object constitutes the mental state. All conspirators are liable for the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy besides being liable for committing an offence of conspiracy itself.
29. In a decision reported as State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors36. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge, but the law require something more. It is well settled that the offence of conspiracy requires some physical manifestation of agreement. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or 36 (1996) 4 SCC 659 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 25 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 conduct. The relative acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents cannot be allowed to enter the judicial verdict. The court must thus be strictly on its guard.
30. Four fundamental requirements for proving conspiracy by way of circumstantial evidence are well known i.e. (I.) That the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established; (II.) That all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (III). That the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (IV). That the circumstances should, by a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved; In State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu 37, it was observed that "A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy.
31. It is well settled that the abuse of position, in order to come within the mischief of Section 13 (1) (d) of the POC Act, must necessarily be dishonest and prosecution must also prove affirmatively that by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position, the accused obtained any pecuniary advantage for himself or for some other person.
32. Offence of cheating as defined under section 415 of the I.P.C. requires essential element of deception as well as fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused. While analyzing the provisions under sections 420 and 415 of the I.P.C. it has been pointed by the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.
37. AIR 2005 SC 3820 CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 26 of 53 Case No.532173/2016
-vs- State of Uttaranchal & Ors.: AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251 that it is the guilty intention which is gist of offence of cheating. In order to constitute offence punishable under section 420 of the I.P.C., intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered. Forgery as defined under section 463 of the I.P.C. requires that making of any false document must be with intent to cause damage or injury or with intent to commit fraud. Under section 464 of the I.P.C., making of a false document for the purpose of forgery must be with dishonest or fraudulent intention. Joint reading of section 463 & 464 IPC indicates that words used like fraudulently, dishonestly and intention to commit fraud, refer to the 'mens rea' which is an essential ingredient for proving offence of forgery and also, Section 471 of the I.P.C., providing for punishment for the offence of using of forged document as genuine, postulates that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was a forged document and also that accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly. User of a forged document dishonestly or fraudulently shall arise only when accused uses the document with intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to anyone. Dishonestly as defined in Section 24 IPC demands doing of anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Similarly the word fraudulently as noted in Section 25 IPC states that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
Discussion of Evidence
33. On the touchstone of legal position noted above, now this court shall advert to facts-in-issue and material evidence on record. To Prove the charges for commission of offence of conspiracy u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC & 13(2) r/w CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 27 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 13(1)(d) PC Act, prosecution had to establish that Ms. Seema (A-2) had failed in two subjects namely (1) engineering Economics and Management & (2) Probability and Information Theory and that her original mark sheet showed failed in the 4th year BE examination held in July 1994 by Sri Siddharth Institute of Technology (SSIT) Tumkur, Banglore University, Karnataka. Ms. Seema (A-2) allegedly used forged attested copy of the mark sheet no. AP0007906 (Ex.PW- 8/14) showing her passed in the aforesaid two subject of the IV year Electronic Engineering Examination in 1994. Further role alleged on the part of Seema (A-
2) is that she obtained false experience certificate in her favour from D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) Proprietor M/s Agro Heat Engineers to show that she was working as Production Engineer during the period between 15 th June 1994 till November 1994, whereas, she [Ms. Seema (A-2)] had been attending college at SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka for submitting project report in June 1994 and had been residing in hostel and consequently on the basis of (I) forged attested copy of the mark sheet and (ii) experience certificate, she was selected and appointed as Assistant Environmental Engineer (AEE) in Delhi Pollution Control Committee.
34. The role allegedly played by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) is that while working as Professor in Polymer Technology in Delhi College of Engineering as a public servant, he attested forged photocopy of mark sheet no. AP0007906 (Ex.PW-8/14) issued from Banglore University pertaining to his daughter Ms. Seema (A-2). Secondly, Ramesh Chandra (A-1) personally collected the mark sheet showing her 'failed' in October-November 1994. Thirdly, Application of Seema (A-2) along with the enclosed documents including the forged attested copy of aforesaid mark-sheet addressed to DPCC was forwarded on 14 th August, 1997 by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) recommending the candidature of Ms.Seema (A-
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 28 of 53 Case No.532173/2016
2) by concealing the fact that Ms.Seema (A-2) was his daughter.
35. Alleged role of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) Proprietor of M/s Agro Heat Engineering is that he prepared false experience certificate dated 30.11.1994 in favour of Ms. Seema (A-2) showing that she worked as Production Engineer in his firm during the period between 15th June 1994 till November 1994, whereas during the said period Ms. Seema (A-2) had been attending college SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka for (I) submitting her project report in June 1994 and (ii) had been residing in hostel there.
36. At the outset, material facts which have been admitted by the accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and during the course of arguments, may be noted. (I) Ms.Seema (A-2) is a daughter of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) (ii) Ms.Seema applied for the post of Assistant Environment Engineer in Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on 14th August 1997 in response to advertisement of by DPCC. (iii) D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) was Proprietor of M/s Agroheat Engineering issued work experience certificate to Ms. Seema (A-2) to the effect that she worked with his firm as Production Engineer w.e.f. 15 th June 1994 till November 1994. (iv) Ms. Seema (A-2) studied at SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka, BE (Electronics) during 1990 to 1994. (V) In July 1994, Seema (A-2) was granted course completion certificate by SSIT College, Tumkur. (vi) Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was working as Professor in Delhi College of Engineering since 1994 till July 1997 and thereafter, he joined as Chairman, DSSSB w.e.f. July 1997 to February 2000 and w.e.f March 2000, was working as Vice Chancellor in Meerut University.
Role of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3)
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 29 of 53
Case No.532173/2016
37. First of all, this court shall discuss relevant facts as regard experience certificate and alleged role of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3). In order to establish its case against D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) as party to the conspiracy for commission of offence u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC & u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of POC Act, it was to be shown by the prosecution that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3), prepared the Experience Certificate intending that the said document would be used by Ms.Seema (A-2) for the purpose of cheating and Prosecution was required to place material on record to indicate that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) forged the experience certificate with intention to cheat.
38. In this regard, submissions advanced by learned prosecutor was that issuance of experience certificate (Ex.PW-8/8) dated 30 th November 1994 by Sh. D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) for the period w.e.f. 15 th June 1994 till November 1994 is incorrect as Ms. Seema (A-2) was not present in Delhi till August 1994 and she had been attending college at Tumkur for submitting her project report and was residing in hostel and thus, she could not have worked as Production Engineer with M/s Agro Heat Engineers Firm of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) during the said period as certified by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) proprietor of the said firm. Whether Seema (A-2) attending college for submitted project report in June 1994.
39. As regards the fact of attending college by Ms. Seema (A-2) at Tumkur for submitting project report in June 1994 is concerned, Prof. M.J. Kurian (PW-8A), HOD of Shri Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Karnataka in his deposition stated that the project report (Ex.PW-8/1) (D-21) was submitted before him on 23rd June 1994 and the said date was not necessarily the date of completion of the project. Perusal of report Ex.PW-8/1 indicates that the said report was submitted by four students. Apart from Seema (A-2), three other CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 30 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 students' Himanshu Aggarwal, Gurdesh Singh Mann and Nikhil Gupta's names are mentioned thereon. PW-8A Prof. Kurian categorically testified that any of the four students could have submitted the report. It is significant to note that in cross- examination, PW-8 admitted that project report of four students was submitted to Industry Guide before '27th May 1994' in view of Ex.PW-8/DA, which is the certificate dated 27th May 1994 issued by M.K. Prasad J for Chief Engineer, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Thus, evidence produced by the prosecution itself, indicates that Project Report stood submitted prior to 27.05.94 and that too by either of the 4 students. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the project report was submitted in June 1994 or that Seema (A-2) was attending college at Tumkur in connection with submitting her project report in June 1994.
Whether Seema (A-2) was residing in Hostel.
40. Now the next point to be addressed is whether prosecution has conclusively established the fact that Seema (A-2) was residing in the hostel during the period between 15th June 1994 till November 1994. During arguments, case set up by the prosecution was that it was only during the period between June to August, 1994, Ms. Seema (A-2) was residing in the hostel at Tumkur, as evident from the mess bill calculation register and that in July 1994, Seema (A-2) appeared in the 4th Year BE examination at Tumkur and as per her attestation forms submitted by her, she remained in Tumkur Karnata, till August 1994. On the other hand, defence version is that from the factum of submission of mess record, it cannot be inferred that A-2 was in Tumkur in June 1994 and that the presumption of the prosecution about the presence of Ms. Seema in the hostel during June to August, 1994 is without any basis of evidence and that CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 31 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Hostel Mess Register cannot said to be a conclusive evidence that Seema (A-2) was present at Tumkur during the period between June to August 1994 and therefore, was attending college. Mess Charges to be recovered from hostel advance were fixed and compulsorily deducted and charged from the hostelers. Allegation of hostel accommodation of Seema (A-2) during June, July, August, 1994 is not supported by Prosecution witnesses.
41. PW-7/Sh. L. Sampat Kumar Proved Ex.PW-7/A) having Mess Bill Record from 1992 Till Sept.1994 and stated that MESS advance (amount) paid by Seema (A-2) in four installments were mentioned in Ex.PW-7/B. Mess Bill Calculation Register (Ex.PW-7/A) showed entries Ex.PW-7/AA (for the month of June at page no. 230-
231), Ex.PW-7/AB (for the month of July at page no. 240-243) and Ex.PW-7/AC (for the month of August at page no. 254-255), which reflect name of Seema (A-2) at serial no. 35 for the month of June & July and entry at serial no. 34 for the month of August indicating boarding charges, number of days and total chargeable amount as well as the receipt number and the date/mode of payment. Against the name of Seema Mallik, mode of payment had been mentioned as "Mess advance" & "Adjusted from MA". PW -7, in his deposition stated that if a hostler did not pay MESS Charges, then MESS charges were adjusted against "MESS advance". PW-7 admitted that no payment was made by Seema (A-2), after Sept. 1993 towards MESS Bill. PW-7 admitted that hostler's monthly MESS charges were fixed irrespective of the hostler using the facility of MESS or not and on the basis of this register, he could not say whether a particular hostler was attending his/her classes or not.
42. IO/PW-12 SP, Nirbhay Kumar also in his cross-examination stated that he did not meet any employee of M/s Agro Heat Engineers working from 15.06.94 to CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 32 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 30.11.94 and nothing has emerged on record during his investigation that hostel charges could not have been deposited in advance before the due date and It was a matter of record as to when, A-2 had deposited her MESS dues. PW12 had not come across any student, who had stated that on depositing MESS advance, it was mandatory for him or her to consume food in the MESS.
43. PW-7 proved that entries in Ex.Pw-7/A were made /adjusted from the MESS advance received from the hostler, irrespective as to whether he or she uses MESS or not. As per PW-7, after Sept. 1993, A-2 had not made any deposit in MESS advance.
44. On consideration of the material evidence on the point in question, this court finds that MESS advance bill does not conclusively prove the presence of Seema (A-2) at Tumkur continuously during the period from 15.06.1994 to August 1994.
D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) not a party to Conspiracy
45. Now, Experience certificate issued by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) Ex.PW-8/8 (again Exhibited by defence as DW-2/D) reads as under:-
"Ref. No.AHE/94-95/7 Dated 30-11-94
EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
It is certified that Ms. SEEMA D/o Dr. R. CHANDRA, D-II/41, KAKA NAGAR, New Delhi-110003 has worked as a production Engineer in this organisation from the 15th June 1994 to 30th Nov 1994. She has very effectively and efficiently supervised the production of various types of electric heating elements, heaters, electric ovens, temperature control panel etc. She is very hard working. I wish to her success in life.
For AGRO HEAT ENGINEERS D.K. Aggarwal Prop."
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 33 of 53 Case No.532173/2016
46. In his deposition, D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) who appeared in the witness box as DW-3. D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) has not disputed issuance of experience certificate to Ms. Seema (A-2) on the letter head of his firm M/s Agro Heat Engineers at Industrial Heaters at 69/6A, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, Delhi. DW-3 stated that Ms. Seema (A-2) joined his firm as Production engineer on 15 th June 1994 and worked there till 30 th November 1994. DW-3 placed on record cash vouchers dated 10.09.1994, 08.10.1994, 10.11.1994 & 10.12.1994 exhibited as Ex.DW-2/A, Ex.DW-3/A, Ex.DW-2/B & Ex.DW-2/C respectively. He identified his handwriting and signatures as well as signatures of Ms. Seema (A-2) on these vouchers. A-3 deposed that he used to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to Ms. Seema (A-2) during the period she remained employed. D.K. Aggarwal (A-3)/DW-3 further stated that one blank letter head Ex.PW-12/X (D-11) was obtained from him by PW-12/IO Insp. Nirbhay Kumar on the pretext of comparing letter head with experience certificate (Ex.PW-2/D), who insisted that A-3 should become an approver and on his refusal, he threatened A-3 to implicate him and his family members and was falsely implicated in this case. In cross-examination by learned prosecutor, DW-3 denied that Seema (A-2) had never worked in his firm or he issued a false experience certificate. DW-3 stated that his object was to employ her as she was pursuing B-Tech final year and at that time, new electronic temperature controller was introduced in the market and he thought that Ms. Seema (A-2) would help production of temperature control panel in their firm. DW-3 denied the suggestion given by the Prosecutor that he forged the vouchers after registration of the FIR and to save himself and co-accused.
47. DW-2 Sachin Aggarwal supported defence version and testimony of A-3 and CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 34 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 in his deposition stated that in the year 1994 Seema (A-2) identified by him in the Court was working as Production engineer in the factory of his father and that he used to visit the factory for providing lunch to his father. He categorically denied the suggestion given by learned PP that Seema (A-2) was not employed by his father and that vouchers (Ex.DW-2/A to Ex.DW-2/C) had been fabricated and falsely prepared or antidated by his father to save himself as well as co-accused. Testimony of DW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of DW-3 to establish the fact that Seema (A-2) had actually worked in the factory M/s Agro Heat Engineering belonging to DW-3 during the period between 15.06.1994 to 30.11.1994.
48. No dispute was raised by Ld Prosecutor during arguments and it is also not mentioned in the charge-sheet or charges as regards working by Ms. Seema (A-2) at M/s Agro Heat Engineering belonging to Sh. D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) during period w.e.f. September, October & November 1994. Disputed question of fact pertained only for the period 15th June 1994 till August 1994. In their deposition, DW-3 as well as DW-2 have proved the payment vouchers and it has already been observed that the fact regarding submission of project report by Ms. Seema (A-2) in June 1994 has not been established by the prosecution and this court finds that it will not be safe to conclude merely from the Mess Bill Register (Ex.PW-7/A) regarding payment of Mess charges from the deposit in the mess advance, the inference about the presence and attendance in college of Ms.Seema (A-2) in the college at Tumkur with reasonable degree of certainty, particularly in the face of defence evidence noted above. Legal position is well settled that the accused is required to show only that his case is probable and is not required to establish his case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt as is required to be established CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 35 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 by the prosecution.
49. Perusal of vouchers (Ex.DW-2/A) dated 10 th September 1994 shows that Rs.6,500/- had been paid as a salary to Ms. Seema (A-2) w.e.f. 15.06.1994 to 30.08.1994 which included Rs.2,500/- for 15.06.1994 to 30.06.1994 and Rs.4,000 for period 01.07.1994 to 30.08.1994. These vouchers DW-2/B, DW-2/C & DW-3/A and certificate Ex.DW-2/D, clearly show that Seema (A-2) worked with M/s Agro Heat Engineers. In view of the evidence on record, it appears plausible that Seema (A-2) had joined the firm Agro Heat Engineering of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) on 15th June 1994 and in the month of July 1994 and part of the August, she appeared in the examination at Tumkur and thereafter, she continued to work in the said firm till 30th November 1994 before joining as Technical officer in Delhi College of Engineering w.e.f. 01.12.1994.
50. This court finds that there is not an iota of incriminating evidence on record to show existence of knowledge or intention on the part of D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) as regard the fact that the experience certificate issued in November 1994 would be or might be used by Seema (A-2), herself or in connivance or in conspiracy with Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) after three years in 1997. No overt act is established to have been committed by D.K. Sharma (A-3) before or in pursuance of alleged conspiracy. Furthermore, mere knowledge is not a substitute for the 'Agreement', contemplated under 120B IPC. This court finds that Allegation of conspiracy, with respect to procuring experience certificate for Ms. Seema (A-2), from or by D.K.Aggarwal (A-3) has not been established. There is no satisfactory testimonial or documentary evidence to prove issuance of forged experience certificate by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3), with respect to Seema (A-2), qua her work at the establishment of A-3 or even to indicate that D.K.Aggarwal (A-3) or his firm CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 36 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 ever knew or had acquaintance with Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). Evidence on record has failed to establish that the experience certificate issued by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) was issued fraudulently or dishonestly. To conclude this court finds no sufficient and satisfactory incriminating evidence on record or reasonable grounds to believe that D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) had a meeting of mind or common intention with Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Seema (A-2) to cheat DPCC or to commit criminal misconduct. Therefore, D.K. Aggarwal (A-3) deserves to be acquitted from the charges.
Conspiracy between Prof.Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Seema (A-2) stands established.
51. This court finds that existence of conspiracy between Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and Seema (A-2) stands established. Perusal of the material on record shows that pursuant to advertisement Ex.PW-8/19 (D-19), Seema (A-2) applied for the post of Assistant Environment Engineer (AEE) in DPCC vide application (Ex.PW-2/3) along with Curriculum Vitae (Ex.PW-15/1). Curriculum Vitae shows year of passing 1994 with 56.5%. Marks statement dated 12 th October 1994 indicates that she appeared in the examination in July 1994 and when the advertisement for the post of AEE dated 31 st March 1997, was published, Seema (A-2) was not eligible to apply for the post as she was not having post qualification experience of three years. Indisputably, Seema (A-2) appeared in the papers of eleven subjects of BE 4 th Year in July 1994 which is reflected from the mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14) dated 12 th October 1994 of Banglore University bearing serial no. AP0007906. PW-3 Dr. M.K. Veeriah working in Shri Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Tumkur, Karnataka proved on record mark- sheet as Ex.PW-3/1 and testified that statement of marks was issued by Banglore University to Ms. Seema in respect of 4 th Year BE examination held in July 1994.
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 37 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 PW-3 deposed that their institute SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka was affiliated with Bangalore University and marksheet and certificates were issued from Banglore University and minimum pass marks in each paper were 35 out of 100. PW-3 deposed that according to Marks sheet of supplementary examination Ex.PW-3/2 (d-17) dated 25.05.1999, she had obtained 35 marks each in both the papers and completed the course in Second Class for the same year.
52. It stands proved that She entered into a conspiracy with his father Prof.Ramesh Chandra (A-1) to prepare and submit false mark-sheet in order to make her eligible for the post. PW-2 Gurender Singh, Accounts Officer in DPCC in his deposition testified that he had handed over personal file (Ex.PW-2/2) maintained in DPCC of Mrs. Seema (A-2) to Deputy SP Nirbhay Kumar/IO (PW-12) vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/1. PW-2 identified signature of Seema (A-2) at point A-18A on the documents in the file including attestation form Ex.PW-2/7. Similarly, PW-12 Nirbhay Kumar, IO in his deposition, proved on record attestation forms (Ex.PW-12/O & Ex.PW-12/P) which are replica copy of Ex.PW-2/7. Attestation forms proved on record are Ex.PW-2/7, 2/8, 12/O & 12/P. These attestation forms show that Seema (A-2) had signed at points A-18A on Ex.PW- 2/7, A-18B on Ex.PW-2/8, A-29A on Ex.PW-12/o and A-30 on Ex.PW/12/P. These attestation forms note and indicate that Seema (A-2) was in Tumkur, SSIT, Karnataka, during the period August 1990 till August 1994 vide annexure 1. Furthermore, as per the attestation form Column 11-A Seema (A-2) was in employment between 15.06.1994 till 30.11.1994 as Production Engineer @Rs.5,000/- with M/s Agro Heat Engineering Industries, Delhi. Forged copies of statement of marks filed by Seema (A-2). Statement of Marks dated 28.12.1997 for the annual examination held in July 1997 wherein in one subject Engineering CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 38 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Economics and Management Seema (A-2) was absent and in the other subject Probability and Information Theory, she had obtained 14 marks. Result of examination was 'failed'. Statement of Marks No.0007906 (Ex.PW-8/14 dated 12 th October, 1994 clearly indicates that examinations of the 4 th Year BE (EE) were held in July 1994. Mark Sheet Ex.PW-3/2 dated 25.05.1995 shows that only in Supplementary examination held in February, 1995, Seema (A-2) obtained 35 marks each in both the papers i.e. Engineering Economics and Management and Probability and Information Theory, wherein she had earlier was 'absent' and had obtained '14 marks' respectively. There is an endorsement by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on the application (Ex.PW-2/3) of A-2 certifying that "Ms. Seema was working as a 'Technical Officer' in Delhi College of Engineering in the pay scale of 2000-3500 and her basic pay was Rs.2000/- and total emolument as Rs.6,450/- per month and he had no objection for her applying for the post". Bio-data of Ms. Seema (A-2) is (Ex.PW-15/1 & Ex.PW-8/20) wherein in column no. 9 pertaining to educational qualification, it is mentioned that she passed the BE (E & C), from Banglore University in the year 1994 with 56.5% marks. Seema (A-2) in her biodata misrepresented that she passed BE exam in the year 1994 which fact was false to her own knowledge. Indisputably, Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) being the father of Seema (A-2) was having knowledge about the true state of affairs and the fact that the 'curriculum vitae' mentioning the fact that "A-2 had passed BE in the year 1994" was not correct.
53. It has emerged in evidence that copy of statement of Marks dated 12 th October, 1994 having No.AP0007906, apparently issued by the registrar pertaining to 4th year BE of Seema (A-2) is forged & this forged copy of the mark sheet (Ex.PW-8/14) is attested as true copy by Prof.Ramesh Chandra (A-1)on 14th CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 39 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 August, 1997. His signatures appears at point Q-7 & under the word "Attested true copy" at Q-25 whereas genuine Mark sheet i.e. (Ex.PW-3/1) proved on record is having same no.0007906 and dated 12 th October, 1994 issued from Banglore University wherein at S.No.3 against subject code 'E-43' pertaining to subject engineering Economics and Management, Seema (A-2) has been shown as 'absent' in the column Marks Obtained and 'fail' in remarks column and in S. No.7 against subject code 'E-418' in the subject Probability and Information Theory, '14 marks' are shown out of total 100 and the remarks are 'fail'. In the genuine mark sheet (Ex.PW-3/1),grade total is shown as '0606' out of 1100 whereas in the forged mark sheet Ex.PW-8/14, total marks are mentioned as '0667'.
54. PW-15 N.C. Sood GEQD expert has opined and testified that attested true copy at point Q-25 was written by Ms. Seema (A-2) and signatures at point Q-7 were of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on Ex.PW-8/14. There is statement of marks Ex.PW-3.2 of Supplementary examination (E-318) (having S.No. 0028204) dated 25th May, 1995 pertaining to Seema (A-2) 4th year BE, wherein for the E-43, '35' marks were obtained and for the subject E-418 also 35 marks were obtained with the result 'completed with second class'. Genuine mark sheets are proved by PW-3 Dr. M.K. Veeriah working in SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka.
55. It is noteworthy that In her application (Ex.PW-2/3), Seema (A-2) had inter- alia stated "with respect to your advertisement in "the Times of India" enclosed kindly find herewith my curriculum vitae along with attested copies of certificates for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. The undersigned has more than three years of research & development experience." Attestation forms Ex.PW-2/7 (Ex.PW-12/O, Ex.PW-12/P) signed by A-2 show that in column 10 thereof, it is mentioned that BE (electronics) was completed by applicant Seema (A-2) CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 40 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 between the period 1990 to 1994 from SSIT, Tumkur. Curriculum Vitae (Ex.PW15/1 & Ex.PW-8/20)of A-2 on record and in para 9 pertaining to education qualification, it represent that BE (E & C) was passed from Banglore University in the year 1994. PW-2 Gurinder Singh has identified signature of Mrs. Seema (A-2) on application for the post of AEE (Ex.PW-2/3) as well as Curriculum Vitae at point Q-20 & Q-21 (Ex.PW-2/4). PW-15 N.C.Sood, GEQD (Government Examiner of Questioned Document), Shimla identified the signatures of Mrs. Seema (A-2) on application for the post of AEE (Ex.PW-2/3) as well as Curriculum Vitae at point Q-20 & Q-21 (Ex.PW-2/4).
Seema (A-2) misrepresented facts
56. Material on record makes it clear that while applying for the post of AEE, Ms. Seema (A-2) had mis-represented that she had completed her BE degree in the year 1994. Register of marks (Ex.PW-8/D) and its relevant page (Ex.PW-8/7) indicates that at serial no.21 pertaining to Mrs. Seema (A-2) for the subject 'Engineering Electronics and Management' having code 4.3, she had been shown as absent whereas in the mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14), she is stated to have obtained 35 marks. Similarly, for the subject Probability & Information Theory. As per the register (Ex.PW-8/D) and relevant page Ex.PW-8/7, marks received have been shown as '14' but in copy of mark-sheet marks obtained are shown as 35. As per the statement of marks (Ex.PW-8/2) dated 18 th February 1997, having serial no. CS-27770, against the said two papers namely Probability and Information Theory and Engineering Economics and Management, 'February 1995' has been mentioned in remark column.
57. It may be noted that Column 9 of Curriculam Vitae (Ex.PW-15/1) specifies CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 41 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 factual position as regards year of passing different exams. Copies of the documents attested by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on 13.08.1997 and filed along with the application (Ex.PW-2/3) & certified on 14.08.1997 may be noted in the tabular form, as under:
Sl. Exam Univ/ Institute Year of Details of Copies of documents filed No passed passing with application (Ex.PW-2/3) and attested by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) proved on record.
1. D.S.S.E. CBSE 1988 Ex.PW-8/17 & Ex.PW-8/16
2. DSSCE CBSE 1990 Ex.PW-8/15
3. B.E. (E&C) Banglore Univ. 1994 Ex.PW-8/14
4. M.E.(E&C) Delhi Univ. 1997 Ex.PW-8/3 (not attested)
58. It may be observed that personal file of the accused Seema (A-2) was seized by the IO/PW12 from the Public Office i.e. Delhi Pollution Control Board Committee. Gurvinder Singh (PW-2) identified his signatures on each page of the file and also signatures of D.S.Popli on seizure memo. Ex.PW-7/B that Ms. Seema stayed in SSIT from 9th August 1990 to 31st August 1984. Ex.PW-3/DB at serial No.4 (III) notes that A-1 had received mark sheet of Ms. Seema in October, November 1994. Ex.PW-12/D at serial No.1 notes that on the basis of course completion certificate, a student might work in a private firm, which she had taken on 28.07.1994. At serial No.3, it is noted that new marks card given after surrendering the old marks card. Prof. M.Z. Kurian (PW-8A) collected the marks card on 22nd August 1995 and old marks card was collected by Prof. Chandra (A-
1) father of Ms. Seema at serial No.7, July 1994 exam, Marks card collected by A- 1 on 19th October 1994, Therefore, A-1 has to imputed with knowledge that his daughter in year 1994 failed to pass her BE Examination.
59. As per evidence of Y.K. Kapila (PW-8) post qualification experience was CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 42 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 considered. This court finds no merit in the contention of learned defence counsel to the effect that A-2 was having a course completion certificate dated 28 th July 1994 (Ex.PW-3/DA) and therefore, Seema (A-2) could write in her application form Ex.PW-2/2 and curricular Vitae Ex.PW-8/20 that she had passed the examination in the year 1994. Completion of the course and passing of the BE examination are two different things and that course completion certificate Ex.PW-3/DA) notes that the results are expected during October 1994, cannot be overlooked. Y.K. Kapila (PW-8) in his deposition, has stated that all the attested copies of certificate were to be attached with the application and during cross- examination by learned Prosecutor for the CBI, PW-8 admitted that he must have made the statement portion A to B of Mark 8/2 to the CBI, including the statement that on the basis of attested photocopies of Mark Sheet No. AP007906 dated 12.09.1994 of Banglore University. List of the candidates was prepared & called for interview, having exhaustive detail of each candidate.
60. PW-8 has testified that as per the document Ex.PW-8/2 (consolidated statement of marks dated 18.02.1997 of fourth year BE) and Ex.PW-8/13 (Degree certificate issued by the Banglore University), Ms. Seema (A-2) is indicated to have completed the BE in February 1995, whereas Ex.PW-8/14 (copy of the statement of marks) indicates that she had completed BE in July 1994 as a result shown as second class at point C thereon. PW-8 testified that applications were scrutinized in his presence and if PW-8/2 i.e. the consolidated statement of marks of the Banglore University dated 18.02.1997 showing Ms. Seema having clear annual scheme examination in February, 1995 of the 4 th year BE (Electronic Engineering) and Ex.PW-8/13, the degree certificate of Banglore university that the year of examination for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering to which Ms. CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 43 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Seema was admitted to, was February, 1995, had been considered, Ms. Seema would have been in eligible and thus, Ex.PW-8/14 the statement of marks of the Banglore University dated 12.10.1994 indicating the completion of 4 th year BE (Electronic Engineering) Annual scheme examination of July 1994 must have been considered by the staff who scrutinized the applications, in his presence.
61. PW-8 testified that Ex.PW-8/14 was the attested copy of the mark-sheet which fulfilled requirement of the advertisement Ex.PW-8/19. He deposed that applicant Ms. Seema (A-2) was required to have the experience after necessary qualification which would have made her eligible for apply to the post and according to advertisement dated 31.07.1997, candidate must hold a degree certificate in any field of Engineering. This court finds no merit in the contention of Ld Defence counsel that because relied upon documents filed along with the application by Seema reflects that degree certificate was part of application and thus, the claim of Seema to seek interview letter, was on the strength of degree certificate which reflected her year of passing as it has been established that along with other documents, attested copy of Forged mark sheet of fourth year was filed by her to obtain her appointment of AEE in DPCC. There is no merit also in the contention of the Ld.defence counsel that no interview letter could be obtained on the strength of forged copy of mark sheet because mark sheet could not substitute the degree certificate or that there was no need for her to forge that mark sheet or to use any forged document, as that fact has been established that she did not forged document as genuine.
62. This court finds no merit in the submission of learned counsel that Jhand Singh who verified the documents filed along with application was not examined by Prosecutor and had not verified the attested forged copy & thus. it is not CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 44 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 proved. Court has to find facts and draw inference & having regard to the testimonial, documentary record, it is not necessary to examine all the witnesses. His non-examination does not make any dent in the prosecution case, which is found cogent. Statement of I.K.Kapila (PW 8), Gurinder Singh (PW-2) clearly shows that attested forged copy of Mark sheet Ex.PW-8/14 was filed by Seema (A-2) along with her application for the post of AEE and was relied upon by the staff of DPCC at the time of scrutiny for calling Ms. Seema (A-2) for interview. There was misrepresentation by Seema (A-2). It is also obvious that if the copy of the said mark-sheet dated 12th October 1994 (Ex.PW-8/14) had not been filed, applicant Ms. Seema (A-2) would not have been called for interview. This court finds no merit in the contention of Sh. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for accused, that testimony of I.K.Kapila (PW-8) is not reliable as he is an accomplice in the eye of law because, he was named in the FIR or was not charge-sheeted or continued to be a suspect in the present case or further that I.K. Kapila (PW-8) had been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW8 might have been a suspect initially in FIR, or even an accomplice but he was a competent witness, who stood the test of cross-examination and thus, his testimony can not be discarded as a whole and in any case, this fact stands established that Seema (A-2) had filed & used forged attested copy of marksheet in order to secure her selection in DPCC with the intention to cheat the employer and she succeeded to do so. A-1 had knowledge of factum of failure of Seema (A-2) and collection of Mark-sheet
63. Evidence On Record Establishes Personal Knowledge of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) about the factum of failure of Ms. Seema (A-2) in the year 1994 in two Subjects of BE IVth year. PW-8A Prof. M.Z. Kurian, testified that he knew Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). He identified A-1 in the court and stated that he had CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 45 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 worked as co-examiner in Delhi College of Engineering for M.Tech Examination along with Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). He identified the statement of marks received at SSIT Tumkur and recognized stamp impression and signatures of Principal Dr. Y.uni Venkata Reddy on Ex.PW-8/4 and Ex.PW-8/5. PW-8A although in his examination-in-chief stated that he did not know who received or collected Ex.PW-8/5 and statement of Marks was issued to the parents and students and if, student was far away, it was collected by the faculty and sent to the student. This witness was cross-examined by ld. Prosecutor and in cross-examination, PW8A deposed that he had collected one/two documents and sent the same to Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and had collected marks card of Seema and handed over to M.K. Veeriah (who was examined as PW-3).
64. PW-8A deposed that he had informed the investigating officer that all the marks cards had to be deposited to get the mark sheet and he had submitted all marks cards to the college to get the provisional degree certificate. He admitted that in order to get the reevaluated mark card, the old mark card was to be submitted. PW-8A deposed that he had submitted old mark card of Seema, which he had stated to have received in September 1995 and had received reevaluated mark card of Ms. Seema on 22.08.1995, prior to receipt of old mark card of Seema (A-2) from Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). He stated that when inquiries were made from him by the Investigating Officer, he recalled that he had collected provisional decree certificate date 05.09.1995 of Seema (A-2). PW- 8A Prof.M.Z.Kurian in his deposition, after seeing marks card register (Ex.PW-8/7), identified his signature at point Q53 in relation to entry at S.No.21 on Page 88 for issuance of certificate no. 0034147 issued in the name of Seema (A-2). In cross- examination on asking, PW-8A identified his signatures at Q-53 at page 89 in CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 46 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 relation to entry at serial No21 on page 88 for certificate No.0034147 issued in the name of Seema on Ex.PW-8/7, Ex.PW-8/8 and identified stamp and stamp impression of the signatures of the then Principal of PW-8/5 and states that he had collected the same.
65. Prof. Kurian (PW-8A) admitted that page 83 of the marks card register at portions X to X1 Ex.PW-8/DD shows that it relate to the July/August 1994 annual examination for the fourth year of electronics and communication. PW-8A deposed that entry portions A to A-1 on page 101 of marks issued Register Ex.PW-8/DH, relates to forth year Bachelor of Engineering Electronics and Communication for January/February 1995 supplementary examination. PW-8A admitted that for issuance of a mark sheet to any person other then the candidate, a written request is required but he added that a phone call from the student or from the parent of the student was also sufficient for issuance of a mark sheet to any person other then the candidate and he did not know whether there was any such record maintained for recording the request of parents for issuance of the mark sheet.
66. It is note worthy that PW-3 Dr.M.K. Veeriah, Head of Chemistry Department, at SSIT Tumkur, Karnataka knew A-1 & A-2. In his deposition, he clearly stated Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) once came in the year 1994 to meet her daughter Seema (A-2) and had met him. PW-3 also had come to Delhi three time as external examiner in the year 1991, 1992 & 1996 and during these occasions, he met Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) in his department and had visited his house. PW-3 stated that he had received this mark sheet from Mr. M.Z. Kurian (examined as PW-8A). PW-3 handed over this mark sheet Ex.PW-3/2 to accused Seema (A-2) when he had come to Delhi in the year 1996. PW-3 deposed that he had received CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 47 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Ex.PW-3/2 (mark sheet of supplementary examination dated 29.05.1995) from accused Seema (A-2) with a request to obtain her a consolidated mark sheet. PW- 3 deposed that he had submitted said mark sheet to the college for obtaining consolidated mark sheet and had received consolidated mark sheet Ex.PW-3/3 dated 18.02.1997 from the college. Dr. Veeriah (PW-3) stated that on the back of supplementary mark sheet, he had made an endorsement as having received the same and Ex.PW-3/4 bears his signatures at point A. PW-3 clearly stated that he received the consolidated mark sheet on 23.01.1998 and had sent the consolidated mark sheet Ex.PW-3/3 to Seema (A-2). PW-8A denied the suggestion given by learned defence counsel that he had testified falsely that he had received the mark sheet bearing No.0034147 on 22.08.1995. Strangely, suggestion was given by defence counsel to Prof. Kurian (PW-8A) that Ms. Seema was there at SSIT, Maralur, Tumkur, Karnataka in February 1995, which was admitted by him and on asking, he categorically denied that Ex.PW-8/8 was not collected by him and that rather as per signatures at point Z in the register D-20 in relation to entry at Srl. No.21 pages 88 & 89 indicate that he had collected i.e. Ex.PW-8/8.
Attestation of forged copy of mark sheet by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1)
67. Now this court shall advert to Attestation by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) on the alleged forged mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14). This court finds that forged copy of mark sheet Ex.PW-8/14 was attested by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1). In her statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, version taken by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) that he had attested all the documents except forged mark sheet i.e. (mark sheet dated 12.10.1994 of IVth Year BE examination held in July 1994) has not shown to be probable and acceptable. Not only specimen signatures of Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and Ms. CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 48 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 Seema (A-2) were obtained by the IO during investigation but also admitted handwriting were collected and proved on record. Admitted documents contain handwriting and signatures in the documents maintained in personal files of Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and Ms.Seema (A-2) which are the public documents maintained in the due course and seized from the Government Office from the proper custody of the officials. These admitted handwriting apart from the specimen handwriting and the questioned documents were sent to the GEQD, Shimla. Personal file is public document and it has been established that PW-2 Gurinder Singh handed over personal file (Ex.PW-2/2) of Ms. Seema (A-2) to the IO/DSP Nirbhay Kumar (PW-12) vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-2/1). Similarly PW-14 Dr. Kameshwar Singh had handed over service book and personal file Volume I, II & III of Ramesh Chandra (A-1) to DSP Nirbhay Kumar (PW-12) seized vide production cum seizure memo dated 10 th May 2000 (Ex.PW-11/A) (D-28). PW-2, PW-12 & PW-14 have proved the documents seized by IO PW-12 from PW-2 and PW-14 respectively who were the concerned officials and the files were being maintained in the administrative branch of the Government Office.
68. Furthermore, Gurinder Singh (PW-2) in his deposition identified signatures of Seema (A-2) as she used to sign in her presence for receiving salary. PW2 identified signatures of Seema (A-2) at point Q20 and Q21 on the document Ex.PW-2/3, i.e. the application of A-2 for the post of AEE through proper channel and Ex.PW-2/4 i.e. curriculum vitae of A-2. He identified handwriting and signatures of A-2 on the documents (Ex.PW-2/5 to Ex.PW-2/20) at Mark A1 contained in the personal file (Ex.PW-2/2) and Marked A-16 to A-18, A-18A, 18B, A-19, A-21 to A-30. PW-2 identified his signatures on all these documents/ pages of personal file put at the time of their seizure by IO.
CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 49 of 53
Case No.532173/2016
69. Report of the expert as regards signature & the date put by
Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and the stamp affixed below the signatures is proved as Ex.PW-12/V1 and the reasoning (Ex.PW-15/45) given by PW-15 N.C. Sood is proved on record. Signatures of A-1 on the forged mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14) are at point Q7 and mark-sheet (Ex.PW-8/14) bear handwriting of Ms. Seema (A-2) at point encircled Q25, as per opinion given by the expert PW-15. PW-15 has given opinion on the basis of general writing habits as well as individual characteristics and similarities in nature of execution of letters between admitted as well as specimen handwriting and signatures on the one hand and disputed signatures and handwriting on the other. This court finds no justifiable reason to disagree with the opinion of handwriting expert.
70. Section 311 A Cr.P.C. had came into force on 23.06.2006 and Inserted in the Code by Amendment Act 25 of 2005 and for the cases which had been instituted prior to 2006, it is not mandatory to take specimen signatures in the presence of Magistrate. As per Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, if the Magistrate is satisfied that for the purpose of investigation or proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, he can allow any person to take his measurements or photographs. As per Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, Court may direct any person to write or figures for the purpose of comparison and it is not required that in every case during investigation, the court has to give directions and that this contention of learned defence counsel that without directions of the Magistrate, the specimen signatures and handwriting would not be admissible in evidence, is not acceptable. Opinion of the expert is relevant as per Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. The handwriting and signatures of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Ms. Seema (A-2) has been proved by PW2 & PW-15 on CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 50 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 the admitted handwritings contained in the personal file which has been proved as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Sukhdeo Singh's case relied upon by learned defence counsel, it was observed that in the said case, the genuineness of the admitted handwriting of the accused and the fact that handwriting expert is a competent and reliable witness, whose evidence inspires confidence. In the present case, the evidence of N.C. Sood (PW-15) inspires confidence.
71. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW-2 & PW-15 to rebut their testimony regarding the authenticity of the public document and there is not even any suggestion on behalf of accused to indicate that the record produced by them was not genuine or was not maintained in the public office or was not in proper custody. Thus, not only, the Seema (A-2), but also father Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was personally involved in collection of consolidated mark sheet and thus, had the knowledge, that his daughter Seema (A-2) had failed in two papers in the BE fourth year examination held in October 1994.
Conclusions
72. This court finds no substance in the submissions advanced by Sh.Sharma, learned counsel that the case of the prosecution is fallacious as regards filing of the photocopy of the forged mark sheet bearing No. AP007906 dated 12.10.1994, with the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) or that requisite three year experience was not post qualification. Plain reading of the advertisement (Ex.PW-8/19) for the post of AEE, reflects that the eligibility experience was three years along with the BE Degree. The required Experience had to be post degree experience and not the experience as an apprentice as argued. No doubt, Experience certificate issued by Sh.D.K. Aggarwal (A-3), was a CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 51 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 certificate given by a private establishment and given under the Apprentices Act, 1961. It is true that there was nothing wrong in the act of Ms.Seema (A-2) joining short term job, i.e. from 15.06.1994 to 30.11.1994 as prescribed in statute and it cannot be termed as an illegal act and this court has already held herein before that experience certificate was not issued falsely or forged by D.K. Aggarwal (A-3). There may not be any illegality in the act of merely forwarding the application of Seema (A-2), working as Technical Officer w.e.f. 01.12.1994 by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1), as HOD of Delhi College of Engineering, but illegality found to have been committed by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) was that he had forwarded the application of his daughter containing wrong particulars as regards the year in which Seema (A-2) passed BE and also in the act of attesting the copy of the forged mark sheet No.AP0007906 (EX.PW-8/14). There is no doubt that forged photocopy of the mark-sheet was a valuable security within the meaning of Section 30 IPC as it was a document purported to create a legal right and this Court holds that by attesting forged copy of the mark-sheet by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) committed forgery with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said document was issued by the Banglore University, which he knew that it was not made and with the intent to support the claim of Seema (A-2). Since at the time of attesting forged copy of mark-sheet of Seema (A-2) his daughter as well as technical officer under him and forwarding it as public servant as head of department of Chemistry in DPCC. Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) abused his authority in order to cause pecuniary advantage to Seema (A-2).
73. This court finds the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubts that during the period between 1997-1998 Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) and his daughter Seema (A-2) entered into a conspiracy to dishonestly induce the CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 52 of 53 Case No.532173/2016 authorities of DPCC in selecting & appointing her as Asstt. Environment Engineer on the strength of forged photocopy of Mark-sheet No. AP0007906 attested, recommended and forwarded by Ramesh Chandra (A-1) by abusing his authority by corrupt and illegal means and committing criminal mis-conduct in his capacity as a public servant purporting to show that she had passed BE 4 th year (Electronic Engineering Exams) from SSIT Tumkur Karnataka while she had actually failed in two subjects i.e. Engineering Economics and Management and Probability and Information Theory and Seema (A-2) in conspiracy with Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-
1) dishonestly and fraudulently secured employed in DPCC as AEE. In the result, this court finds that prosecution has established charges u/s 120B IPC r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused Prof. Ramesh Chandra (A-1) & Seema (A-2) and substantive charges u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 467 IPC against Ramesh Chandra (A-1) as well as charges u/s 420 & 471 IPC against Seema (A-2) . Prof. Ramesh Chandra (a-1) and Seema (A-2) are convicted for these charged offences.
74. This court holds that prosecution has failed to establish charges u/s 120B IPC r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against D.K. Aggarwal (A-3), who stands acquitted. His previous bail bonds cancelled and surety discharged. He is directed to furnish a personal bond with one surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- as required u/s 437A Cr.P.C Dictated and announced in the (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) open court on 20.08.2016 Special Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06 Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CBI Vs. Ramesh Chandra 53 of 53