Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Prem Sagar on 22 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CBI No. 126/11
RC No. 62A/2006/CBI/SCRIII/New Delhi.
CBI
Versus
1.Prem Sagar S/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap R/o E3/4, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi85.
2. Ram Bhaj Gupta S/o Sh. Jagat Ram R/o C331, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi34.
3. Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Mittar Sain Gupta R/o 68B, Punrik Vihar, Opp.D Block, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi34.
4. Neena Synghal W/o Sh. Manoj Synghal R/o 84, Mausam Apartment, C2, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
5. Sumita Singhal @ Sunita Singhal CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 1/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) W/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad Singhal, R/o 149, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
6. Gurjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Gopal Singh R/o 43, Masjid Lane, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi14.
7. Janak Kumar S/o Sh. N B Varandani, R/o 160, Engineer Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi34.
8. Har Prakash Gupta S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, R/o 131C, Pocket A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi95.
9. Deepa Garg (Deepak Garg) D/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, R/o D4, Green Wood City, Sector46, Gurgaon, (Near DPS School, Sector45) Haryana.
10. Devendra Kumar Dwivedi S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prashad R/o 104, G Block, Dilshad Colony, P S Seema Colony, Delhi. ...........Accused persons ( BARODA HOUSE NRGE CGHS) CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 2/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) O R D E R O N C H A R G E:
1. The case of the CBI, in brief, is that Baroda House Northern Railways Government Employees CoOperative Group Housing Society (CGHS) Ltd. was registered in RCS office, Delhi on 26.12.83 vide Registration No. 1143 (GH) with 98 promoter members. The said society was lying defunct as it did not respond to various show cause notices of RCS office and also did not produce the records for verification. The society did not report the resignations/enrollments. The correct expulsion procedure was also not followed. A show cause notice U/s 32 of DCS Act 1972 was issued to the society on 28.08.98 for not conducting Audit since 1996. However, the show cause was later on withdrawn without any ground. There were fictitious enrollments in the society and that the society did not want this fact to come in light. The office bearers of the society, namely accused Prem Sagar, Arti Singh, Suresh Kumar, accused R.B. Gupta, Dr. S.K. Gupta, accused Anil Gupta, S.K. Jindal, accused Neena Singhal, Riti Gupta, Sumita Singhal, Seema Bansal, accused Gurjeet Singh, accused Janak Kumar, accused H.P. Gupta and accused Deepak Garg in conspiracy with the officials of RCS, Delhi & others dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the public at large on the basis of forged documents. The officials of CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 3/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) RCS, Delhi in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy recommended the allotment of land to the society as a result thereof, the DDA allotted a plot to the society on 23.9.2000.
2. Investigation has disclosed that the society had not been meeting the statutory requirement and had many irregularities.
Sh. Azad Singh, Inspector was appointed to inspect the society and also an enquiry under the provisions of DCS Act was ordered. Thereafter, the society produced the records before the RCS officials and sought approval of freeze list. There were 355 enrollments in the society in total. The approved strength was 92 members and, thus, the remaining 263 members have been shown resigned/expelled.
3. Investigation further revealed that the society remained dormant from 20.08.93 to 04.08.97. On 04.08.97 a letter dated 16.07.97 of President and Secretary of the society was processed in the file mentioning therein that the general body meeting of the society was held on 16.07.97.
4. Investigation further revealed that a few members denied their signatures on their respective resignations. The GEQD has CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 4/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) also confirmed that the resignations in respect of 17 members have not been signed by the respective members.
5. Investigation also disclosed that accused Prem Sagar remained Secretary of the Society and during his tenure, 14 forged resignations were accepted. He also informed/produced these resignations before the Managing Committee for acceptance. Accused Prem Sagar along with other members of the Managing Committee namely accused Ms. Neena Synghal, accused Ram Bhaj Gupta, accused Anil Kumar Gupta, accused Ms. Sumita Singhal, accused Deepa Garg & accused Janak Kumar hatched a criminal conspiracy during 199899 at Delhi with each other to accept such forged resignations and to make subsequent enrollments. In pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, these members of Management Committee dishonestly submitted the list of members in the RCS Office which contained the name of members who were shown resigned although they have never resigned and, as such, these accused persons submitted forged resignation of few members in the office of RCS.
6. In addition to the above, the resignations of Naresh Chand CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 5/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) Gupta and Sat Narain were also accepted during the tenure of accused Ram Bhaj Gupta, accused Anil Kumar Gupta and accused Janak Kumar and they attended the meeting of the society when these forged resignations were accepted. Accused Har Prakash Gupta and accused Gurjeet Singh remained General Secretary and President of the society respectively and accepted the forged resignations of S/Sh. Naresh Chand Gupta and Sat Narain. The GEQD also confirmed that the resignation of Sh. Sat Narain (Singla) was prepared and signed by accused H.P. Gupta.
7. Investigation also disclosed that in response to RCS Office letter dated 23.10.97, a letter purportedly signed by D.S. Bedi alongwith certificate was sent to RCS office during the tenure of accused Har Prakash Gupta and other office bearers containing false information and, thus, was used as genuine with a view to dishonestly cheat Govt. of NCT Delhi and DDA.
8. The investigation further disclosed that accused D.K. Dwivedi was Dealing Assistant in the RCS Office during the relevant period when the proposal of the society was processed to approve the freeze list. Accused D.K. Dwivedi entered into CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 6/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) criminal conspiracy with other accused persons namely accused Prem Sagar, accused Neena Synghal, accused Sumita Singhal, accused Gurjeet Singh, accused H P Gupta, accused RB Gupta, accused Anil Kumar Gupta, accused Janak Kumar and accused Deepa Garg at Delhi during the year 199798 with a view to cheat DDA/Govt. of NCT Delhi and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy accused D.K. Dwivedi on 20.02.98 initiated a detailed note on the files of the society at RCS office wherein he dishonestly falsified the information on record and recommended the approval of the list of the society with ulterior motive. Accused D.K. Dwivedi dishonestly initiated in his said notesheet that resignations of the members till such time have been verified with the records of the society i.e. meetings of management committee, refunds of share money etc found to be in order which is contrary to the fact that there were no meetings and also many of the resignations shown accepted in such meetings were forged. Accused D.K. Dwivedi also falsified the records of the society wherein he shows the presence of D.S. Bedi in the office of RCS whereas the investigation disclosed that he knowingly obtained the signatures of other person in the name of Daljeet Singh Bedi. CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 7/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS)
9. The investigation further disclosed that with the aforesaid acts, accused D.K. Dwivedi in connivance with other accused persons abused his official position and dishonestly induced the senior officers by putting forth the falsified information on record for approval of freeze list and, thus, the office bearers of the society namely accused Prem Sagar, accused Neena Synghal, accused Sumita Singhal, accused Gurjeet Singh, accused H P Gupta, accused R B Gupta, accused Anil Kumar Gupta, accused Janak Kumar and accused Deepa Garg dishonestly got the list of the society approved form RCS office on 12.03.98. Accused D.K. Dwivedi was dealing Assistant in the RCS office when the list of the society was approved but accused D.K. Dwivedi with a view to give favour to the society out of the way, dishonestly signed the approved list against the stamp of Inspector/RCS office for verifying the said list with ulterior motive.
10. In pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy of accused D.K. Dwivedi and other accused persons, office bearers of the society got the land allotted at plot no. 40A, Sector10, Dwarka on subsidized rates and, thus, cheated Govt. of NCT Delhi and DDA. Accordingly, the flats have been constructed on the CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 8/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) allotted plot of land. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against all the accused persons under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act).
11. I have heard Dr. Padmini, Ld. PP for CBI and;
Sh. A.K. Singla, Ld. Counsel for accused Prem Sagar (A1), accused Ram Bhaj Gupta (A2), accused Anil Kumar Gupta (A3), accused Neena Synghal (A4), accused Sumita Singhal (A5) and accused Janak Kumar (A7);
Sh. Harsh Khanna, Ld. Counsel for accused Gurjeet Singh (A6) and Sh. Prakash Khandelwal, Ld. Counsel for accused Devender Kumar (A10). I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of Gurjeet Singh (A6) and accused Deepa Garg (A9).
12. Sh. Harsh Khanna, Ld. Counsel for accused no.6 contended that accused no.6 has nothing to do with the allegations contained in the chargesheet. No previous member reported any illegality/irregularity in the matter of their memberships. According to him, even otherwise, any such CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 9/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) irregularity in the matter of management of CGHS has to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of DCS Act and not under IPC. Ld. Counsel further contended that as per charge sheet complainant is "Inspector H.K. Lal, CBI, ACB, New Delhi" and it shows that there was/is no independent complainant and the Inquiry Officer has become the complainant to falsely implicate the accused no.6. It is further contended that FIR has been registered in violation of Section 154 Cr.P.C. CBI had no jurisdiction to register the FIR in view of Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
13. Sh. Prakash Khandelwal, Ld. Counsel for accused Devender Kumar (A10) has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case as he was the junior most employee in the office of RCS. According to him there is nothing on record to frame charge against the accused no.10.
14. Accused No. 9 submitted that she was elected as member of Managing Committee on 14.4.1998 whereas the alleged criminal conspiracy is shown to be prior to 14.4.1998. She resigned as member of the Managing Committee on 5.3.2000 and surrendered the membership of the society on 9.4.2000 CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 10/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) while the land was allotted to the society on 23.9.2000 i.e. when the accused no.9 had already left the society as a member. It is contended that the only allegation against the applicant is that during her tenure as a member of the Managing Committee certain resignations submitted by the Secretary and the President of the Society were accepted in the meeting of the Managing Committee. According to accused no.9 this fact by itself does not show that accused no.9 was aware whether the said resignations were forged. In support of her contention accused no.9 has relied upon judgment A.P. Narang vs. CBI, Crl. Rev. Petition No. 397/2010 decided on 17.1.2011 by High Court of Delhi.
15. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the accused persons and Ld. PP for CBI. I have also gone through the judgments cited by them. Sh. A K Singla, Ld. Counsel for A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 conceded that charges against A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 be framed as per record.
16. The contention that the consent of State as required u/s 6 of DSPE Act, 1946 was not taken is misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The investigation was CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 11/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) referred to CBI in the present matter by the High Court. Once the order for investigation of a case to CBI is passed by the High Court under its inherent powers, permission from State Government is not required. High Court is competent enough to refer a matter for investigation to CBI. Though not referred to and relied upon, for taking view I am supported with the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sh. S.N.Dhingra of our High Court in Criminal MC No. 2784 of 2007.
17. It is contended that the noncompliance of Sec.3 of DSPE Act, 1946 vitiates the entire investigation. As per Sec. 3 of DSPE Act, 1946, the Central Government makes notification in the official gazette to specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment. It is contended that the Act confers the jurisdiction on the CBI in relation to the investigation by the Central Government u/s 3 of the Act and such offences as notified are mentioned in DSPE Act, 1946. The offences covered by Sec. 3 of the said Act do not include the offences under the Cooperative laws. Thus, the investigation done by the CBI for the cooperative societies is in violation of Sec.3 as it has no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. In my opinion CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 12/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) the Offences mentioned in the chargesheet are all notified offences U/s 3 of the DSPE Act and, therefore, no fresh notification is/was necessary.
18. The contention that the DCS Act, is a complete self contained statute and, therefore, provisions of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked. The DCS Act, 1972 provides for a well defined system of addressing the issues relating to various private cooperative societies and it contains the provisions of fine, appeal, punishment and, as such, the application of provisions of the IPC by the CBI is wholly illegal. It is further contended that the matter is covered under the provision of Section 82(3) of DCS Act which completely debars the prosecution without giving the opportunity of being heard as well as previous sanction of RCS. The offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is punishable under the provisions of Special law and, therefore, the provisions of Indian penal Code, being general law, cannot be invoked. In respect of this contention, accused have relied upon judgment Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Textile Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2007(5) SCALE 366.
CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 13/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS)
19. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. PP for CBI that provisions under DCS Act and DCS Rules are for administration of Cooperative Group Housing Society which do not cover conspiracy to cheat, using forged documents as genuine and forgery for purpose of cheating. According to him, it cannot be said that the chargesheet filed by the CBI is barred due to enactment of Special Law.
20. I have gone through the judgments cited by the accused.
The cited judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Wherever the Legislature in its wisdom deemed fit, they have restricted/prohibited the applicability of other Acts which could be seen from the provision of section 91 of DCS Act, 1972 which provides "The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 shall not apply to Cooperative Societies Act". But such restriction/prohibition is nowhere mentioned in DCS Act, 1972 debarring the applicability of IPC or PC Act under which the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Thus, DCS Act does not impose any bar to take resort to the provisions of General Criminal Laws.
21. The facts and circumstances of the present case prima CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 14/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) facie reveal that entire proceedings conducted in the office of RCS were actuated with conspiracy. Bogus documents were used. The modus operandi of reconstruction of documents was adopted. The procedure was followed with a view to give colour to their acts. Following procedure prescribed under the Act would not validate the acts when they were actuated with conspiracy to cheat the RCS and office of DDA. From the documents and the statement of the prosecution witnesses on record, there is a grave suspicion against all the accused persons of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the office of RCS and DDA.
22. Further, it is contended that IO is complainant in this case and, thus, the registration of FIR in the present case does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 154 Cr.PC. The contention is devoid of any merit. Our High Court of Delhi while hearing the Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004 passed order dated 2.8.05 directing the CBI to conduct the thorough investigation in the matter relating to 135 CGHS. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Delhi High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, an inquiry was conducted by CBI which disclosed commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons in CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 15/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) the matter of dishonest and fraudulent revival of society. Therefore, CBI rightly lodged the FIR in the present case. While registering the FIR, the acts and omissions on the part of the accused persons and disclosure of commission of cognizable offences by them were detailed in the FIR. The FIR registered by CBI fully satisfies the ingredients of Section 154 Cr.PC. It is the settled law that once an investigation is directed into alleged offences by the Court, two conditions are necessary to commence the investigation:
(i) The police should have reason to suspect the commission of cognizable offence and;
(ii) A Police Officer should subjectively satisfy himself to the existence of sufficient grounds to enter into investigation.
These two conditions were duly satisfied at the stage of lodging of FIR in the present case by the CBI before entering into investigation. Thus, the present FIR was rightly registered by the CBI and just because the FIR was not lodged on a complaint received from a complainant/individual is not a ground to discharge the accused.
23. From the documents and the statement of the prosecution witnesses on record, there is a grave suspicion against all the accused persons of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 16/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) cheat the Office of RCS and DDA. The judgments relied upon by the accused persons are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
24. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that:
(i) Primafacie case is made out against accused Prem Sagar (A1), accused Ram Bhaj Gupta (A2), accused Anil Kumar Gupta (A3), accused Neena Synghal (A4), accused Sumita Singhal (A5), accused Gurjeet Singh (A6), accused Janak Kumar (A7), accused Har Prakash Gupta (A8), accused Deepa Garg (A9) and accused D.K. Dwivedi (A10) for committing offences u/S. 120B r/w U/s 420/468/471 IPC r/w S. 13 (2) r/w S. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
(ii) Primafacie case is made out against accused Har Prakash Gupta (A8) for committing offences u/S. 420/468/471 IPC.
(iii) Primafacie case is made out against accused Prem Sagar (A1), accused RB Gupta (A2), accused Anil Kumar Gupta (A3), accused Neena Synghal (A4), accused Sumita Singhal (A5), accused Gurjeet Singh (A6), accused Janak Kumar (A7) and accused Deepa Garg (A9) for committing offences u/S. 420/471 IPC and
(iv) Primafacie case is made out against accused D.K. CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 17/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS) Dwivedi (A10) for committing offences u/S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Announced today in open (PRAVEEN KUMAR) court on 22.12.2011. Special Judge, PC Act CBI3, Rohini Court, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Prem Sagar and others Page 18/18 (Baroda House NRGE CGHS)