Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cc No.280/19 Cbi vs . Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 1 Of 76 on 22 February, 2020

IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE (P C ACT)
    (C B I)­11, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI



CC No.: 280/19 (Old CC No.: 8557/16)
FIR No.: RC DAI 2012­A­0020­CBI/ACB/New Delhi dated 29.06.2012
U/s 120­B read with 420,471 read with 468,477­A IPC &
U/s 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CNR No.: DLCT11­001112­2019


       Central Bureau of Investigation

       Versus

   1. Pritam Singh Meena (Accused No.1)
      S/o Sh. Hari Singh Meena
      R/o House No.701, Sector­21C,
      Faridabad, Haryana.

       Permanent address:­
       Village­Naur,
       District­Hanuman Garh,
       Rajasthan.

   2. Kapil Walia (Accused No.2)
      S/o Sh. R.P. Walia
      Proprietor of M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's,
      Karol Bagh, Delhi

       Present and Permanent address: R/o 65/57,
       New Rohtak Road,
       New Delhi.



CC No.280/19        CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr.       Page 1 of 76
 Date of FIR                         :       29.06.2012
Date of filing of charge­sheet      :       18.12.2015
Arguments concluded on              :       11.02.2020
Date of Judgment                    :       22.02.2020


Appearance
For Prosecution               : Sh. Dhan Kishore, Ld. Senior P.P. for CBI.
For accused persons           : Sh.Mohd. Qamar Ali, Ld.Counsel for accused
                                no.1 Pritam Singh Meena and Sh. Sudarshan
                                Rajan, Ld.Counsel for accused no.2 Kapil
                                Walia.

JUDGMENT

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

1. Both the accused persons namely Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) Junior Engineer (JE), Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Delhi and Kapil Walia (A­2) Proprietor of M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's have been charge­sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420,468,471,477­A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that :­

(a) A Contract Agreement (CA) No.121/2008­09 dated 20.10.2008 vide work order no.149 dated 17.10.2008 was CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 2 of 76 executed between Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Government through its Chief Executive Officer who delegated his power in this regard to Executive Engineer (SW)­II and M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's for re­boring of 1 No. Tubewell in Ghitorni Village at Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West­II and as per the Contract Agreement, Johnson Pipes were required to be used by M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's.

(b)During investigation, Tubewell in Ghitorni Village at Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West­II was inspected by the Expert from NGRI.

(c) The work regarding re­boring of aforesaid Tubewell was looked after by Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) and also supervised by Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel and Executive Engineer Sh. Radhey Shyam respectively.

(d)For re­boring of the aforesaid Tubewell, Kapil Walia (A­2), Proprietor of M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's used invoice purportedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. bearing signatures of Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel and A­1 and total amount of the aforesaid Contract Agreement was transferred by Delhi Jal Board through EFT No.80 dated 24.10.2008 in CA No. 121/2008­09 in the name of M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's in the account maintained at Kotak Mahindra whose authorized CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 3 of 76 signatory is Kapil Walia (A­2). However, during investigation, the aforesaid invoice was found to be fictitious as Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. produced the office copy of invoice No.009 which was issued to M/s Sarawgi & Sons vide Book No.01 on 16.05.2005 and stated that the aforesaid invoice was not issued in favour of M/s Home Decorators Builders and Engineer's and the same is forged one because the format of the invoice is different and the invoice neither bears his signature nor the signature of the Director of the Company.

(e) As per the strata chart, 55 m Johnson pipe was to start after 101 meters to 156 meters in the Tube­well in question and entry regarding the execution of the work of the aforesaid Tube­well was mentioned in Measurement Book (MB) No. 18693 from pages no.26 to 30. However, during investigation, the aforesaid Tube­well was inspected by Expert from NGRI through Bore­hole Camera who could scan upto 110.5 meters against the recorded depth of 156 meters and as per the Expert's Report, top 56.7 m is seen with 200 mm blank pipe followed by MS Slotted pipe up to 56.7 to 63.1 meters and further about 9 meters of blank pipe; No casing seen after 72 meters and clear strata and caving seen; Present Tube­well depth was only 2/3 of the claimed CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 4 of 76 depth and thus, the Report is conclusive regarding non­use of Johnson pipe.

(f) Executive Engineer Sh. Radhey Shyam and Zonal Engineer Sh. B.C. Patel in their respective checking have done only 10% and 50% of the checking which does not include lowering/installation of Johnson Pipes which is subject matter in the present case whereas Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) has done 100% checking of the work which includes checking of Johnson Pipes and installation of the assembly of the tube­well and hence the culpability lies solely on Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1).

(g)Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) entered into criminal conspiracy with Kapil Walia (A­2) during the year 2008­2009 with the object of facilitating Kapil Walia (A­2) in obtaining the wrongful pecuniary advantage and to cheat Delhi Jal Board. In this particular bore­well, Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) conducted 100% checking of work at the time of installation of tube­well and fraudulently and dishonestly made false entries in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc. and showed that the required Johnson Pipes, as per the strata chart, had been used.

(h)In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, Kapil Walia (A­2) submitted fake and forged invoice showing the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 5 of 76 purported purchase of Johnson Pipes for the release of the payments and Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena (A­1) knowingly falsified the accounts and on the basis of false entries made by him in the official records viz Measurement Book, Completion Report, Final Bill etc., payments were released to the contractor (A­2) causing wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.2,22,252/­ approximately and corresponding gain to the accused persons.

2. After completion of the investigation in the present case, charge­ sheet for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420,468,471,477­A IPC & under sections 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against both the accused persons was filed before the court and vide order dated 11.04.2016, the court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against both the accused persons.

CHARGE

3. Vide order dated 18.11.2016, a charge for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420, 471 read with 468,477­A IPC and section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act against both the accused persons, further for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC against both the accused person, for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC against A­2 Kapil Walia and for the offences punishable under section 477­A IPC and under section 13(1)(d) and under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 6 of 76 Act, 1988 against A­1 Pritam Singh Meena was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. To connect the arraigned accused persons with the offences charged, the prosecution in total has examined twelve witnesses viz Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board as PW­1, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Revenue) in Delhi Jal Board as PW­2, Sh. Vikas Rathi, JE (Civil), Vigilance Department as PW­3, Sh. M.C. Joshi, Draftman (Grade­II), in the office of Executive Engineer (E&M), W&S, South­I, Greater Kailash­1, New Delhi as PW­4, Sh. Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Senior Accounts Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi as PW­5, Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Scientist, Central Ground Water Board, 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi as PW­6, Sh. Shashilov posted as Dy. Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Amba Deep Branch, K.G. Marg, New Delhi as PW­7, Sh. D.V. Reddy, Chief Scientist (Retired), National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) (M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in Hydro­ Geology) as PW­8, Smt. Veer Jyoti, Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi as PW­9, Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as PW­10, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) as PW­11 and Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, ACB/CBI, New Delhi as PW­12.

5. After examining the aforesaid witnesses, on the request of the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 7 of 76 learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the prosecution evidence was closed by the court on 22.10.2018.

STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS

6. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence on record were put to them to which they pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

7. A­1 opted not to lead any evidence in his defence. However, A­2 examined four witnesses in his defence namely Sh. Chandan Singh Tanwar as DW­A­2/1, Sh. Tikam Chand Jain as DW­A­2/2, Sh. Pranaw Kumar Mishra as DW­A2/3 and Sh. Ritesh Walia as DW­ A2/4 and after examining these witnesses, vide order dated 21.09.2019, the court closed defence evidence on behalf of A­2 on the request of his learned counsel.

ARGUMENTS

8. I have heard the arguments as advanced earlier by Sh. B.K. Singh, and thereafter by Sh. Dhan Kishore, learned Senior Public Prosecutors for CBI and as advanced by Sh. Mohd. Qamar Ali, learned counsel for A­1 and Sh. Sudershan Rajan, learned counsel for A­2. I have also perused the record including the evidence and also given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the written submissions dated 04.10.2019 and 02.11.2019 filed by CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 8 of 76 learned Senior Public Prosecutor for CBI.

9. Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that by documentary evidence and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against both the accused persons. He further argued that A­1 was the public servant being Junior Engineer with Delhi Jal Board and a valid sanction has been accorded against A­1 by competent authority with due application of mind. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of A­ 1 to check the execution of the work of re­boring of the bore­well in question awarded to A­2 but he has failed to discharge his duties and he had made false entries in the official records i.e. Measurement Book and the completion report in conspiracy with A­2 in order to facilitate him to claim the payment on account of using Johnson Pipes whereas no Johnson Pipes have been used by A­2 while executing the work order and this fact has been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW­8 Sh. D.V. Reddy who being Scientific Expert, had physically inspected the work order of the bore­well in question by inserting the borehole camera and came to the conclusion that no Johnson Pipes were found installed therein. He further argued that A­1 had helped A­2 in procuring forged bill for payment. He further argued that the invoice/bill showing the purchase of the Johnson Pipes by A­2 from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which was submitted by A­2 with Delhi Jal Board for release of payment of the aforesaid work order, is a CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 9 of 76 forged one and this fact has been proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. He further argued that the conduct of A­1 has resulted in wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the government. On these premise, he argued that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts and prayed for the conviction of the accused persons as per the charges framed against them.

10.On the other hand, ld.counsels for both the accused persons argued that on the basis of evidence on record, the charge framed against the accused persons is not substantiated by the prosecution even by the degree of preponderance of probability though the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

11.Ld. counsel for A­1 argued that PW­1 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction against A­1 as he was not the appointing authority to JE in Delhi Jal Board and the sanction was granted mechanically against A­1 without application of mind. He further argued that requisite Johnson Pipes were installed in the borewell in question as per the contract agreement, work of which was duly supervised by Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer but PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy has falsely prepared the report Ex. PW8/A after consultation and dictation of CBI as the recording conducted by him was not shown to anyone on the spot and the DVD prepared by him is of no value since as per CFSL, no opinion could be offered as the DVD do not have the required video quality CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 10 of 76 for video examination. He further argued that the entire work was executed as per the contract awarded and the work order and the bill was processed by the officials of DJB, specially the account department, after receiving the completion report. He further argued that it was the sole responsibility of the account department of DJB to verify the genuineness of the bill/purchase voucher of Johnson Pipes submitted by contractor A­2 which was forwarded to the accounts department with the completion report and test check report and thus, A­1 cannot be held guilty of committing any offence much less the offences for which he has been charged with. On these premise, he prayed that A­1 be acquitted in the present case.

12.In addition to the arguments advanced by ld.counsel for A­1, ld.counsel for A­2 also supplemented in his arguments that the work has been properly executed as per the work order and Bill of Quantity which was duly checked by A­1 and satisfaction thereof was recorded by various officers of Delhi Jal Board. He further argued that A­2 has submitted genuine invoice/bill with respect to the purchase of Johnson Pipes with Delhi Jal Board and the bill was processed by the account department and Executive Engineer who were fully satisfied with the documents as well as the execution of work qua the use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question and only thereafter, the payment was released by the account department to A­2. He further argued that the borewell is CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 11 of 76 still functioning and there was no complaint from any corner and this fact clearly shows that the work of re­boring of bore­well in question has been done as per the work order and the contract agreement. He further argued that as per the contract agreement, there was a defect liability for a period of six months for which a security deposit was made and after the expiry of the same, the security deposit was released to A­2 without any complaint and thus, A­2 is not liable to be held guilty and he be acquitted for the charged offences in the present case.

APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS AND ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS THEREUPON

13.The present case pertains to the re­boring of tube­well situated at Ghitorni Village in Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West­II, New Delhi. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on two aspects, firstly, whether the work has not been executed as per the work order and Bill of Quantity and requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site and secondly, whether the invoice/bill submitted by the contractor A­2, on the basis of which the payment was released to A­2, was a forged one.

14.The core question that needs to be seen is as to whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the arraigned accused CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 12 of 76 persons for the charged offences.

15.It is settled law that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the story of the prosecution must stand on its own two feet. The onus of proof cannot be shifted on the accused persons.

16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as R.K. Dey Vs. State of Orrisa AIR 1977 SC 170 has held that:­ "Three cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely:

(i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving this case;

(ii) that in the criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and

(iii) that onus of prosecution never shifts."

17.From the abovesaid case law, it is clear that it is not at all obligatory on the accused persons to produce evidence in support of their defence and that for the purpose of proving their versions, they can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down.

18.Before dealing with the aforesaid two aspects, the court shall deal with the contention raised by Ld.counsel for A­1 whether PW­1 CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 13 of 76 Keshva Chandra was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution against A­1 Pritam Singh Meena as he was not the appointing authority to Junior Engineer in Delhi Jal Board and that whether the sanction for prosecution of A­1 Pritam Singh Meena has been accorded without application of mind.

19.PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board was the witness who accorded sanction for prosecution against A­1 Pritam Singh Meena and he, in his deposition before the court, deposed that he is higher officer to the Member (Administration), Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi who was competent authority to remove A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board from service and being higher officer to the Member (Administration), he was also competent to remove said officer from service during 2015.

20.From the deposition of PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board and the material on record, it is evident that besides Member (Administration), PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, being higher officer to the Member (Administration), was also competent in Delhi Jal Board to remove A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer from his services. Nothing contrary in the shape of documentary evidence has been placed on record by A­1 during cross examination of PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board to prove and demolish the testimony of CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 14 of 76 PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board that this witness was not competent to remove A­1 from the service. Thus, PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution against A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board.

21.The next question is whether the sanction for prosecution of A­1 Pritam Singh Meena has been accorded without application of mind.

22.The law relating to accord of sanction is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, 2013 Crl.L.J 3092, wherein it has been held that:­ "13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:­

(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.

(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.

(d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.

(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.

(g) The order of sanction is a pre­requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper­technical approach to test its validity".

23.PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board categorically deposed in his deposition before the court that he accorded sanction for prosecution of A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer, Delhi Jal Board vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A after going through CBI report, photocopy of statements of witnesses and photocopy of documents which were received from CBI through their Vigilance Department.

24.PW­2 Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Joint Director (Revenue), Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi was the witness who had forwarded the sanction order already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to CBI through his letter dated 23.11.2015 exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 16 of 76

25.In the facts of the matter and from the testimony of the sanctioning authority PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, it is culled out that only after being satisfied that a case for sanction was made out, PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board has accorded the elicited sanction for prosecution vide sanction order Ex. PW1/A against A­ 1 Pritam Sinigh Meena and the same is also apparent from the bare reading of the sanction order Ex. PW1/A that the sanctioning authority PW­1 Sh. Keshav Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the record by going through the statement of witnesses, documents and other material placed before him. During cross examination of PW­1 Sh. Keshva Chandra, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board deposed that the officials of the Vigilance Department had gone through the file and the office file was moved along with opinion of the officials of the Vigilance Department and before according sanction, he had studied the opinion of the officials of the Vigilance Department.

26.The sanction order, on its face, indicates that all relevant material were placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of according of sanction. It is discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority had perused all the material and prima facie reached to the conclusion. In terms of the law laid in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 17 of 76 Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), it is proved on record that the Sanctioning Authority prima facie reached to the satisfaction that the relevant facts constituted the offences in question. Hence, it is proved on record that the sanction order Ex. PW1/A vide which sanction for prosecution was accorded against A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, was valid.

27.Now, the court shall deal with the first aspect i.e. whether the work has not been executed as per the work order as requisite Johnson Pipes were not used at the site. In order to prove that requisite Johnson Pipes were not installed by contractor A­2 at the aforesaid site as per the work order, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the Report of Scientific Expert Dr. D.V. Reddy who has been examined before the court as PW­8.

28.The main objective of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy in the present case was to find out the depth of the bore­well situated at Ghitorni Village in Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West­II, New Delhi and the type of pipes used therein, more particularly whether Johnson Pipes were used or not. PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected the bore­well in question on the direction of Director, National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) to whom CBI had requested as he was an Expert in this field. For ascertaining the same, he has used the bore­hole simple under water camera for the same.

29.Ld.counsels for the accused persons have disputed the very CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 18 of 76 expertise of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy. The profile of this witness as mentioned in his testimony before the court as PW­8 clearly shows that he has retired as Chief Scientist from National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (NGRI) having degree of M.Sc. in Geology and Ph.D in Hydro­Geology and at the relevant period i.e. in the year 2013­14, he was posted as Sr. Principal Scientist in NGRI. The testimony of this witness further shows that in this case, CBI had written a letter to Director, NGRI to investigate the bore­holes drilled by Delhi Jal Board at different places in Delhi and as this witness had 'expertise' in the said field, the Director, NGRI deputed him for investigation. The facts mentioned in the report Ex. PW8/A also show his expertise. During cross examination of this witness, it has come on record that he has undergone one year's advance training course in hydro­geology and engineering geology (well construction) in Germany. From the testimony of PW­8 Dr.D.V. Reddy, qualification as well as the expertise, procedure and experiment of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy, as detailed in the report Ex. PW8/A, it is crystal clear that this witness was expert in this field and thus, there is no substance in the arguments of the ld.counsels for the accused persons in this regard.

30.To ascertain whether Johnson Pipes were used in the bore­well situated at Ghitorni Village in Mahipalpur Constituency under EE South West­II, New Delhi, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed before the court that he visited the sites of bore­wells along with CBI CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 19 of 76 Officer as well as officials from Delhi Jal Board. This witness had visited the site of the bore­well in question on 27.02.2013 along with PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Scientist, Central Ground Water Board, 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma, Investigating officer, Sh. B.C. Patel, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Department, Range II, New Delhi and A­1. He further deposed that in this case, he thoroughly inspected the bore­well in question by inserting the bore­hole camera which was lowered in the bore­hole with the help of a cable connected with the camera and the videography was monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in the palmtop for viewing the entire length of the bore­hole. He proved the Site Inspection Memo dated 27.02.2013 and rough site plan (D­8) already exhibited as Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F respectively bearing his signatures at points E.

31.He further deposed that the recorded video from the palmtop was then transferred by him to laptop after leaving the site and after going through the video/pictures, he compared the same with the original strata chart supplied by CBI and thereafter, report was prepared by him and the same was forwarded to CBI and he also prepared two CDs from the laptop containing the videos of CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 20 of 76 respective boreholes inspected by him. He further deposed that one CD was sealed and other was left open for official purpose; the video recording was not played at the site before inspecting team. He proved copy of his report dated 24.02.2014 as Ex. PW8/A (Colly) (original seen in other charge­sheet no.1 and compared) along with forwarding letter and certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act. He deposed that the envelope already exhibited as Ex. PW7/B in which the CD already exhibited as Ex. PW7/C was kept in sealed condition, was the same CD in which he had transferred the videography of bore­hole. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

32.In his report, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy has mentioned in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage which is as under:­ Casing details as Lengths Casing Depth Video per diagram details (approx.) Time slot observed 200 mm blank pipe 70.5m 200 mm 56.7 0­2:51min blank pipe 200 mm MS slotted 6.1 m 200 mm 56.7­63.1 2:51­4:51 pipe MS slotted m min pipe 150 mm blank pipe 24.6 m 200 mm 63.1­71.9 4:51­6:13 blank pipe min CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 21 of 76 150 mm Johnson 55.0 m No casing after 72 m depth slotted

33.After inspecting the bore­well in question, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy made following observations in the report :­ "The well was scanned using borehole camera on 27.02.2013 and measured the present depth as 110.5 m bgl. Top 56.7 m of borewell seen with 200 mm blank pipe, followed by MS slotted pipe up 56.7 to 63.1 m and further about 9 m of blank pipe. There was no casing after 72 m and clear strata and caving seen. Present well depth is only 2/3 of the claimed depth.

34.It is settled law that an expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific expert's evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.

35.As per the observation made by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his report Ex. PW8/A, he could measure the depth of present bore­well by scanning it through his bore­hole camera and found its present CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 22 of 76 depth as 110.5 m bgl. on seeing the video images on his palmtop however, this witness did not make any specific observation or comment about the non­use of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question in the present case in his report Ex.PW8/A for which he was engaged for. Though Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation has pointed out that in the report Ex. PW8/A, it has been mentioned that under present RC 20(A)/2012, Dr. D.V. Reddy had inspected total fourteen wells in two time schedules i.e. between February 2013 and September 2013 and no Johnson type screen was seen in any of the borewells upto the investigated depth however this argument of the Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation is not tenable for the reason that it appears to be a general observation made by Dr. D.V. Reddy inasmuch as in his report Ex. PW8/A while mentioning in tabular form the difference about the casing details between the strata chart supplied to him and his observations thereupon as per the video footage qua the borewell in question in the present case, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not specifically make any observation that no Johnson Pipe was found in the borewell in question in the present case and the same is completely silent in this regard and also there is no explanation offered for the same. Even at the time of inspection of the borewell in question, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not reveal or discuss his observations to any person accompanying him more particularly with the other scientific CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 23 of 76 expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Scientist, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), 18/11, Jam Nagar House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi who had accompanied PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy on the instruction of the then Chairman, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and this fact has been admitted by PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy during his cross examination by categorically admitting that during recording, he had not mentioned or told anybody that Johnson Pipes were not found in the bore­hole which also finds support from the cross examination of PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department of Delhi Jal Board who deposed that Dr. D.V. Reddy never indicated absence of use of Johnson pipes and PW­11 Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer, Delhi Jal Board who deposed that Dr. Reddy did not disclose during inspection that there was no Johnson Pipes found in the borewell. The cross examination of other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli reflects that Dr. D.V. Reddy did not seek any opinion from this witness either at the time of inspection or after the inspection or even at the time of preparation of report or analyzing the data and also that Dr. D.V. Reddy did not tell that Johnson Pipe was not there. Even during cross examination, it has been admitted by PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy that he did not take any opinion from any official of CGWB during inspection or thereafter at the time of preparing his report Ex. PW8/A. IO PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma has also not taken any separate opinion from Sh.

N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli regarding the absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell in question nor he asked for a separate opinion from Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. PW­8 Dr.D.V. Reddy should have made comments about the existence of pipes or strata or their nature at the spot itself while he was noticing the same but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case. The report Ex. PW8/A and the deposition of Dr. D.V. Reddy before the court as PW­8 reflect that in the Inspection Team, he acted as one man army and took all the decisions of his own without taking any opinion, worth the name, from other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli who was accompanying him at the time of inspection of the bore­well in question thereby defeating the very purpose of including Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli in the Inspection Team and made him not less than a mute spectator.

36.Neither PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy nor any of the prosecution witnesses in their respective deposition before the court gave any particular characteristics or specification of Johnson Pipes nor they disclosed how the Johnson Pipes are different from slotted, plain or any other pipes. PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy did not anywhere state that he was aware about the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipe or that before inspecting the site, he ever tried to know about the same from the Johnson Company and this witness admitted during cross examination that neither he visited Johnson Company nor he CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 25 of 76 met with any of their officials. Even Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma did not seize or take any article/document/literature pertaining to Johnson pipes from PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy or Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli as has been admitted by him during cross examination. Some competent officers from Johnson Pipes Company should have been asked by the Investigating Officer to join the inspection team at the time of inspecting the present bore­well to throw light on the characteristics and specifications of Johnson Pipes but no such person was made to join the Inspection Team and this fact has been admitted by Investigating officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination that he did not call any person from manufacturer of Johnson Pipes during investigation which has been duly supported by the cross examination of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy who deposed that nobody from Johnson Pipes was present at the inspection site during inspection conducted by him. The report of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy nowhere clearly spelt out that no Johnson Pipes were used in the present bore­well and in his report, Dr. D.V. Reddy failed to support and substantiate his findings with due reasons.

37.It is interesting fact that Dr. D.V. Reddy has conducted the inspection after a lapse of more than four years after the completion of the work order. PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that Johnson Pipes are metallic pipes and CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 26 of 76 that the metallic pipes are subject to faster corrosion as compared to PVC Pipes. It has come in the cross examination of this witness that metals buried underground are subject to corrosion due to soil, water and metal and it also depends upon solidity of water, acidity of water and the pollution of the soil but in the present case, he had not tested the quality of water in the area. He admitted during cross examination that he has not done any course in study of metals buried underground and none of his publications are in the field of metals buried underground. Other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli during cross examination deposed that after about one year, the pipes are likely to be deposited with rust, dust, corrosion and corresion (chemical reaction), mud etc. on the inner surface and if the quality of the pipes is bad, the corrosion will be faster but if the quality of the pipes is good then it may last longer however, in both the case, the dust etc. would enter through the mesh and get deposited on the pipes due to which it is not possible to ascertain the make of the pipes and that this problem can be overcome by cleaning the sides of the pipes by using compressor but in the present case, no compressor was used to clean the pipes after removal of assembly. The other witness PW­11 Radhey Shyam also deposed during cross examination that he got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board and further deposed that Johnson Pipe is metallic pipe and the water in South Delhi is hard water. He categorically admitted during cross CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 27 of 76 examination that there is faster moss formation and corrosion in hard water in metallic pipes due to the same including chemical reaction and other deposits etc., the shape and the holes in the Johnson Pipes would also be changed and blocked within certain period and after such change, the nature and make of the Johnson Pipe cannot be ascertained. Dr.D.V. Reddy did not state either in his report or in his testimony before the court that due to rust, dust, corrosion or mud etc. he could not ascertain the make of the pipes which were found by him in the bore­well in question during inspection or that there was no equipment to clean the said pipes in order to ascertain their makes. The Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma also admitted during cross examination that they had not tried to remove the pipes to ascertain the nature of the pipes in the borewell and also did not try to clean the pipes in borehole by using compressor. Also there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary proof to show what is the minimum and maximum life span of buried underground Johnson Pipes when they got disposed off during the course of time in worse to worse conditions as well as in normal conditions. The cross examination of PW­11 Radhey Shyam, who got installed many borewells during his tenure in Delhi Jal Board, reflects that the life of borewell in South­West Delhi is normally 4­5 years. There is no clause either in the agreement or in the work order to show as to till what time period contractor/A­2 was liable for the work done in the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 28 of 76 bore­well in question as the agreement and the work order are silent in this regard. In these circumstances, without there being any proof of non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question, no liability can be fasten upon the contractor/A­2 who had executed the work order in question more particularly in view of the report and testimony of scientific expert PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy which are completely silent about the make of the pipes which were found by him in the bore­well in question during inspection.

38.Though PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination did not recollect as to what was the status of the site when they reached the site whether the pumping assembly was being removed by the officials present there or the same was already removed immediately before they reached the spot, but, the cross examination of Investigating Officer PW­12 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma reflects that on the day of inspection i.e. 27.02.2013, the borewell was in working condition, however, other witness PW­3 Sh. Vikas Rathi has given different versions in his deposition before the court inasmuch as his examination­in­chief reflects that on 27.02.2013 when he along with inspecting team visited the borewell in question, the borewell in question was open and pumping assembly was taken out with the help of electrical and mechanical staff of Delhi Jal Board whereas in his cross examination, this witness admitted that pumping assembly was already taken out before they reached the site.

39.I have perused the site inspection memo dated 27.02.2013 Ex. PW3/E. Perusal of the same shows that at the time of inspection, the bore­well in question was opened and pumping assembly was taken out with the help of E&M staff of Delhi Jal Board and the proceedings were concluded. Thus, it is evident from the site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E that the work of opening and removing the pumping assembly in the borewell in question was started in the presence of Inspection Team after their reaching at the spot.

40.As per the site inspection memo dated 27.02.2013 Ex. PW3/E, the Inspection Team visited the site in question at 01:15 PM and the proceedings were concluded at 02:15 PM. Dr. D.V. Reddy also admitted the time of their visit at the site as 13:15 hours during cross examination but he did not remember as to for how long they stayed at the spot. Dr. D.V. Reddy admitted during cross examination that upon removal of pumping assembly, there is a lot of suspended solids in the water inside the bore­hole and it takes time for suspended solids to settle down. However, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not specify how much time the suspended solids took to settle down. The cross examination of other scientific expert PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli also reflects that when a borewell's pumping assembly is removed, there is a lot of turbidity in the water inside the bore­well which takes approximately at least six hours for turbidity to settle down and further it is obvious that if there is CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 30 of 76 turbidity in the water, then the recording may not be clear. He further admitted during cross examination that the borewell camera can view upto the depth which is obstructionless and without mud and further the strata of the borewell in question was alluvial. PW­ 11 Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that when the borewell assembly is removed, mud falls into the holes and water inside would get dirty. Sh. D.V. Reddy had started the inspection immediately after removal of the pumping assembly as has been deposed by IO PW12 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination. It is pertinent to mention that in his report, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the video time slot till 71.9 m as 6:13 min but thereafter, he did not give the video time slot for the alleged clear starta and caving seen and no casing seen by him after 72 m till 110.5m i.e. the total depth of the borewell in question which was allegedly seen by Dr. D.V. Reddy during inspection. In his cross examination also, he has admitted that in his report Ex. PW8/A, only starting point of video time slot is mentioned and not the ending point. Why the same has been left, this witness has not given any explanation in this regard and also the prosecution has not been able to explain the same. The cross examination of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy and PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar reflect that there was suspended solids and turbidity inside the bore­well in question and keeping in view that one hour was taken by Dr. D. V. Reddy in CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 31 of 76 inspecting the bore­well in question as per the site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E, it is quite possible that since the suspended solids inside the bore­well could not be settled down during inspection and also there was turbidity inside the bore­well in question, the same may be the reason that Dr. D.V. Reddy had not mentioned the make of any of the pipes used in the bore­well in question and that is why his report as well as deposition is silent in this regard.

41.Moreover, for the inspection of the borewell in question, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy has used the bore­hole simple under water camera. PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Scientist deposed during cross examination that only on the basis of the pattern of the inner portions of the pipes, the type of the pipe can be ascertained. The camera of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy does not have the capacity to measure the thickness and dia of the pipe inside the borewell as has been admitted by him during cross examination. PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy during cross examination admitted that Johnson Pipe is a metallic pipe and there are many methods of identifying metals buried underground like geo­physical methods which includes ground penetrating radar method, electro­magnetic conductivity etc. but in the present case, none of the above methods were used by him. There is also nothing on record to shows which method was more appropriate than that which has been adopted in the present case by Dr. D.V. Reddy. Even during cross examination CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 32 of 76 the Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma deposed that no suggestion was taken from anybody from Delhi Jal Board in respect of the methods available to detect presence or absence of Johnson Pipes in the borewell.

42.As per the deposition of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy, after lowering the bore­hole camera in the bore­well in question, videography was monitored as well as recorded simultaneously in the palmtop in order to view the entire length of the bore­hole and thereafter the video was transferred by him to his laptop and after going through the video/pictures, he compared the same with the original strata chart supplied by the CBI and thereafter, prepared the report Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that he prepared two video CDs from the laptop of the respective boreholes inspected by him. The video CD has been exhibited as Ex. PW7/C which has been accompanied with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

43.Ld.counsels for the accused persons raised objection with respect to the non­compliance of the requirement in the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy and cross examined him in this regard. During cross examination, this witness admitted that his signatures on certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are not his official signatures and voluntarily deposed that he had not signed the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act but the name appearing above the stamp, is in his handwriting. He further CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 33 of 76 deposed that on certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act his stamp is used as it is not in his letter head. This witness denied the suggestion that the said certificate was not issued by him. Though during cross examination an issue has been raised with respect to the signature of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy on the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act however, looking into the overall language of the certificate and more particularly once the witness appeared before the court in person and has categorically deposed in his cross examination that his name on the same is in his handwriting which also bearing his stamp and further denied the suggestion of the ld.counsels for the accused persons that the said certificate was not issued by him, the court is of the opinion that the requirement of certificate under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act stands complied with. Thus, the contention of the ld.counsels for the accused persons is without any base and the same does not hold water.

44.Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, the CBI has sent CD Ex. PW7/C to Computer Forensic Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for video CD examination regarding whether the CD has been tampered with or not however, as per report no. CFSL­2015/G­345 dated 30.12.2015 regarding result of examination, the opinion could not be offered by Scientific Expert as the DVD do not have the required video CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 34 of 76 quality for video examination in the existing system available with the laboratory at that time. Since Dr. D.V. Reddy did not make any specific observation or comment in his report Ex. PW8/A about non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question and the make of the other pipes used therein, the DVD was the best evidence before the court which could have rendered some help to facilitate the court to view as to what was the nature of pipes installed in the bore­hole in question but even the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion in this regard, for the reasons stated above.

45.The conduct of the Investigating Officer clearly reflects his lackadaisical and callous approach in investigating the present matter which is apparent from the record that at the spot, the investigating officer did not insist Dr. D.V. Reddy to transfer the recording from palmtop to laptop in the presence of inspecting team and also the video recording was not played before the inspecting team nor the DVD was prepared at the spot. The conduct of the Investigating Officer is also apparent from his cross examination wherein he deposed that he orally instructed Dr. Reddy to preserve the recordings in its original form as the same may be required during trial.

46.During cross examination also, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed that he did not replay the recording to show that the same was properly recorded at the spot. PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board who was the member of the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 35 of 76 Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that after inspection, the device was not displayed nor the recording was shown as to the recorded material or that it was properly saved. Though it has come in the cross examination of PW­6 Sh. N. Jyothi Kumar Nalli, Scientist that except the last leg of the recording which was of about less than a minute, Dr. D.V. Reddy did not show the complete recording after completion of inspection but this witness did not say what he had seen therein. The cross examination of PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy reflects that at the time of recording, he did not indicate the name of the file under which the recording was recorded and further the files were saved in Mp4 format and was aware that the name of the file can be changed. Despite the same, he prepared the CD in his office at NGRI, Hyderabad and not at the spot. The bore­well in question was inspected by Dr. D.V. Reddy on 27.02.2013 however, he prepared his report Ex. PW8/A on 24.02.2014. There is no explanation offered by Dr. D.V. Reddy why he took such a long time in preparing the report. Even the Investigating Officer did not bother for near about one year to enquire about the report from Dr. D.V. Reddy in this regard. The conduct of PW­8 Dr.D.V. Reddy shows that he conducted the inspection of the bore­well in question and prepared his report in a very casual manner. The camera, palmtop, wires and other equipments used by Dr. D.V. Reddy at the time of inspection of the borewell in question were also not seized by the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 36 of 76 Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination who voluntarily deposed that the same was not required. Dr. D.V. Reddy in his deposition before the court also admitted that the camera and the palmtop were not seized by the Investigating Officer. PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil), Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, member of the Inspecting Team also admitted during cross examination that Investigating Officer did not seize any device from Dr. D.V. Reddy. The Investigating Officer even admitted during cross examination that since Dr. D.V. Reddy has already submitted his report to him, he did not ask Dr. D.V. Reddy whether he has preserved the recordings of the borewell and also he had not instructed Dr. D.V. Reddy to bring his palmtop in the court to show the recording conducted on 27.02.2013. Dr. D.V. Reddy ought to have produced the recording in his palmtop as the palmtop was the original source but neither the palmtop nor the laptop were produced before the court during trial. Thus, the testimony of PW­ 8 Dr. D.V. Reddy regarding non­use of Johnson Pipes in the bore­ well in question does not find support from his own equipments which he used at the time of inspection of the bore­well in question and also from the testimony of any other prosecution witnesses who were accompanying him at the time of inspection of the bore­ well in question. Moreover, since the original sources viz camera, palmtop, wires and other equipments were not seized by the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 37 of 76 Investigating officer, the report made on the basis of the same as well as the DVD prepared thereof on which no opinion could be offered by CFSL, do not have any sanctity in the eyes of law as the same have lost their significance without their contents shown in the original source. All necessary precautions were neither taken at the end of the investigating officer nor made vivid in his deposition in the court thereby bringing the authenticity/genuineness/accuracy of the contents of the data recorded by Dr. D.V. Reddy in his palmtop under the cloud of doubt. In this fact of the case, the tainted video recording in the palmtop which was subsequently allegedly transferred to laptop and from laptop, DVDs were prepared, cannot be looked into.

47.Moreover, in the report Ex. PW8/A, PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy has given the depth of the borewell in question in meters. The said report was prepared by him by seeing the video as admitted by him during his deposition before the court. This witness also admitted during cross examination that he had recorded his voice in respect of the depth in feet but in his report, the depth is given in meters as when he prepared the report, everything was converted into meters as a standard format. He further admitted during cross examination that voice recording was available in the camera and it was used to indicate as to till what depth the camera was inserted in the borehole. Though PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy deposed during cross examination that they had two cameras, one was graduated in feet CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 38 of 76 and the another was in meters however, this witness did not remember as to which camera was used in the present case. Which camera PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy had used at the time of inspection of the borewell in question or otherwise whether he had correctly and exactly converted the depth of the borewell in question from feet to meter could have been ascertained by the court by listening the voice of Dr. D.V. Reddy qua depth of the borewell in question as recorded in the DVD but no such DVD was played during the deposition of this witness. Even the said DVD was of poor video quality and therefore the CFSL was not able to offer any opinion on the same. The cross examination of PW­3 Sh. Vikas Rathi reflects that at the time of inspection, Dr. D.V. Reddy was also speaking about the depth reached through the cord. Though the CD was played before the court during the deposition of the Investigating Officer PW­12 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma but after hearing the same, Investigating Officer admitted that in the said CD nowhere Dr. Reddy had spoken about the non­availability of Johnson Pipes in the present borewell. Dr.D.V. Reddy did not explain as to what was the need for him to convert the depth of the borewells from feet to meter. Perusal of the site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E shows that make of the camera, length of wires, details of other equipments used by Dr. D.V. Reddy, whether Johnson Pipes were available in the borewell in question or not and how much depth the camera was lowered in the borewell in question, CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 39 of 76 are not mentioned on it and the Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma has also admitted these facts during cross examination.

48.Cumulative effect of elicited aforesaid facts bring into fore that the procedure adopted by PW­8 Dr. D.V. Reddy during inspection of the bore­well in question and his findings on it, cannot be terms as conclusive and clinching evidence. Thus, it would not be safe to rely upon his report.

49.Perusal of site inspection memo Ex. PW3/E shows that Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Department, Range II, New Delhi was also joined by the Investigating officer as independent witness during the inspection of the borewell in question, however, he was not cited as prosecution witness nor he was examined before the court and also no explanation has been offered in this regard. Thus, the purpose of joining Sh. Sandeep Kumar as independent witness during investigation of the borewell in question stands defeated.

50.It is pertinent to mention that work of the bore­well in question was completed on 22.10.2008 as per the Strata Chart and the completion report. The inspection of the bore­well in question was got carried out during investigation through Scientific Expert Dr. D.V. Reddy on 27.02.2013. In between, there was a considerable gap of more than four years. PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer who, at the relevant time, was working as CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 40 of 76 Executive Engineer with Delhi Jal Board who was also having responsibility of 10% in checking the proper execution of work order in the present case, admitted during cross examination that after the installation of bore­well is complete and the bore­well is functional, the site is handed over to the E&M (Electrical and Mechanical) Wing of Delhi Jal Board and once the bore­well is handed over to the E&M Wing, the Zonal Engineer and the Junior Engineer do not have any control over the bore­well. During cross examination, he further deposed that he does not know if any repair was carried out by the E&M Department including replacement of pipes in the bore­well after handing over the same to the E&M department. He further admitted during cross examination that it is the responsibility of E&M department for day to day maintenance and repairs of the bore­well.

51.From the above, it is clear that it was E&M department who was looking after the day to day maintenance and repair of the borewell in question during that period of more than four years. However, witness from E&M department of Delhi Jal Board has neither been cited nor produced nor examined by the prosecution and also no record has been produced before this court to show that after handing over the bore­well in question to E&M Department, no maintenance or repair work was carried out by E&M Department in the bore­well in question. The investigating officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma admitted during cross examination that he did CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 41 of 76 not enquire or record statement of any official of Delhi Jal Board with regard to the taking out of any pipe/any repair work from the said borewell after taking the possession of the site/borewell and till the date of inspection and also did not seize any register from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board. The witness from E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board could have facilitated the court in adjudicating the matter in this regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that witness from E&M Department was not traceable or could not be find out. By not citing, producing and examining the witness from E&M Department, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused persons. In these circumstances, since the bore­well in question was under the care of E&M Department of Delhi Jal Board for such a long period of time and also there is nothing on record to show that no repair or maintenance work was done in the bore­well in question, therefore, no responsibility can be fastened upon Pritam Singh Meena A­1. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that Johnson Pipes were not used in the bore­well in question.

52.Now coming to the second aspect whether invoice/bill marked as Mark PW10/X submitted by contractor A­2, on the basis of which the payment was released to A­2, was a forged one.

53.In order to prove forgery, the prosecution has examined PW­10 Sh.

Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who deposed that in the year 2008­2009, he was doing the business of Steel Pipes in the aforesaid name and style and M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. never dealt with business in respect to Johnson Pipes and had never dealt any business relating to Johnson Pipes or any other make with Home Decorators. He further deposed that vide production­cum­receipt memo dated 16.04.2013 Ex. PW10/A, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI including invoice no.009, book no.01 dated 16.05.2005 Ex. PW1/D­1. He further deposed that vide production­cum­receipt memo Ex. PW10/B, he had handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI including the certificate Ex. PW10/C issued by him to the effect that his firm M/s Ambica Engineering P. Ltd. has no business dealing with Home Decorators Builders and Engineers. He further deposed that tax invoice no. 09 dated 17.10.2008 in the name and style of M/s Ambica Engineering P. Ltd. issued in favour of M/s Home Decorators Builders and Engineers marked as Mark PW10/X was not issued by his firm to Home Decorators Builders and Engineers at any time and that the format of the invoice is different from his firm's invoice and that the said invoice does not bear his signature or writing or signature and writing of his any employee and the said invoice appears to be forged invoice. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.

54.Before adverting further, it is worthwhile to mention that the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 43 of 76 investigation in the present matter has not been up to the mark. From every act of investigating agency what the Court expects is the fairness. Fairness of investigation in this case is not apparent from the face of record. It was all the more necessary for the investigating officer to observe all necessary care, caution and collect all possible material pieces of evidence to nail the arraigned accused persons for the charged offences. Of course, officers of CBI, the premier investigating agency, at the outset, cannot be said to be untrustworthy but when in a serious case of alleged misconduct by the public servant, what is expected by the court from the officers of the investigating agency, is to collect the best possible incriminating evidence at the first instance against such suspects/accused persons to lead credence and to avoid criticism. In the present case, the investigation, as carried out by the Investigating Officer, as discussed above, shows his lackadaisical and casual approach in investigating the present matter.

55.The issue before this court is whether invoice marked as Mark PW10/X submitted by the contractor/A­2 with Delhi Jal Board is a forged and fabricated document or not. In the present case, Ex. PW1/D­1 i.e. certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original/genuine invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 from book no.1 allegedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Sarawgi & Sons is stated to be original/genuine invoice whereas Mark PW10/X i.e. invoice no.09 dated 17.10.2008 from CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 44 of 76 book no.609 allegedly issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers is stated to be forged document. It is pertinent to mention that work order no. 149 between Delhi Jal Board and M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineers for the borewell in question was executed on 17.10.2008 and the work of which was completed by M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineers on 22.10.2008. In case M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineers has allegedly purchased Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., if any, the same ought to have been purchased after the execution of work order dated 17.10.2008. However, the CBI has relied upon document i.e. certified photocopy of carbon copy of invoice no.009 from book no.01 Ex. PW1/D­1 which pertains to 16.05.2005 and vide this invoice, the CBI has alleged that the same was issued to M/s Sarawgi & Sons and not to M/s Home Decorators & Engineers and thus, no Johnson pipes were sold to M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineers by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vide this invoice. Instead of relying upon the invoice no. 009 pertaining to dated 16.05.2005, the CBI ought to have based its case on the invoice pertaining to period after dated 17.10.2008, the date on which work order qua the borewell in question was executed and work of which was completed on 22.10.2008. It is not understandable why the CBI has relied upon the invoice which pertains to dated 16.05.2005 as during the said period neither the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 45 of 76 work order qua the borewell in question was executed nor the work of the same was executed and there is no explanation put forth by the CBI in this regard. I have perused both the documents and perusal of the same shows that there is no co­relation with both the documents with each other inasmuch as invoice no.009 Ex. PW1/D­1 has been issued from Book No.01 whereas invoice Mark PW10/X has been issued from Book No.609. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not use Book No.609 either during the financial years 2005­2006 or during the financial years 2008­2009 but the entire investigation is completely silent in this regard and also witness PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not utter even a single word in his entire deposition before the court that Book No.609 was not in existence or that they never used the said Book either during the financial years 2005­ 2006 or during the financial years 2008­2009. There is also nothing on record to show how many Bill Books were used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. either during the financial years 2005­2006 or during the relevant financial years 2008­2009 when the work of the borewell in question was executed. Perusal of Ex. PW1/D­1 shows that the name and address of Printer i.e. M/s Malik Press, 1­ B, Gopal Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi­33 is mentioned therein from where M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to get the Bill Books printed and when this document was seized by the CBI, the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 46 of 76 name and address of the said Printer had come in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer however, the cross examination of Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma reflects that he did not inquire as to how many invoices Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. got printed in the name of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in a year and the name of the Printer from where M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to print the purchase vouchers and also he did not make witness to any Printer. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not use Book No.609 either during the financial years 2005­2006 or during the financial years 2008­2009, which gave a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution and thus, without there being any documentary proof contrary to the same, invoice Mark PW10/X alleged to have been issued to M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from Book No.609, cannot be said to be a forged or fabricated document, as alleged by the CBI.

56.The entire case of the prosecution is based on the certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original/genuine invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 exhibited as Ex. PW1/D­1, as the same was alleged to have been forged by contractor/A­2. It is pertinent to mention that in this case neither the original invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 from book no.1 of Ex.PW1/D­1 which was supplied to purchaser M/s Sarawgi & Sons, nor the carbon copy CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 47 of 76 thereof which was kept by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., has been placed on record by Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma. It has been admitted by PW­10 Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during cross examination that while preparing the bill, they placed a carbon paper and four copies of the same are prepared i.e. one is original and three copies are carbon copies. It has also come in the cross examination of this witness that he had retained the copy of all the bills issued by his company and handed over to the Investigating Officer. Perusal of production­cum­receipt memo Ex. PW10/A shows that vide this production­cum­receipt memo PW­10 Tilak Raj Magon produced the photocopy of invoice no. 09 dated 16.05.2005 Ex. PW1/D­1 to Investigating Officer Shitanshu Sharma and it is also mentioned in Ex. PW10/A that the carbon copy of Ex. PW1/D­1 is in RC 14(A)/2011. The endorsement on the back side of PW­1/D­1 reflects that its carbon copy was given to Inspector Anand Swaroop in RC14(A)/2011 in C.A. No. 212 (08­09). The fact that carbon copy of invoice Ex. PW1/D­1 is in RC14(A)/2011, has come in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma when he received the documents from PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vide production­cum­receipt memo Ex. PW10/A but despite the same, he did not make any effort to seize the carbon copy of Ex. PW1/D1. The Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 48 of 76 admitted during cross examination that during investigation, he did not seize any document from Inspector Anand Swaroop in the present case nor he conducted any investigation from Inspector Anand Swaroop. It is also usual practice in the business that original invoice/bill is always given to the purchaser. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Investigating officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma made any effort, worth the name, to seize the original of invoice Ex. PW1/D­1 from M/s Sarawgi & Sons who was the alleged purchaser of the goods mentioned in Ex.PW1/D­1. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that infact the original of invoice Ex. PW1/D­1 was issued to M/s Sarawgi & Sons by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. No person from M/s Sarawgi & Sons was cited as witness in the present case to prove that Ex. PW1/D­1 was issued to them by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at any point of time. The original purchaser copy of the invoice and the carbon copy thereof, were the best documentary evidence which ought to have been produced before the court and the non­production of the same by the Investigating Officer, has given a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, since Ex. PW1/D­1 was the certified photocopy of carbon copy of invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 but no application was moved on behalf of the prosecuting agency to lead secondary evidence in order to prove the same. Thus, the certified photocopy of carbon copy of alleged original invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 49 of 76 Ex. PW1/D­1 is not admissible in evidence.

57.The base of PW­10 Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. alleging that invoice Mark PW10/X appears to be forged document, has been stated by this witness during his deposition before the court by deposing that the format of invoice Mark PW10/X is different for his firm's invoice, the same does not bear his signature or writing or signature and writing of his any employee. This part of deposition of PW­10 Tilak Raj Magon has lost its significance in view of the fact that certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original/genuine invoice Ex. PW1/D1 was issued on 16.05.2005 i.e. much prior to the execution of work order dated 17.10.2008 as well as completion of work order of the borewell in question in the present case dated 22.10.2008 and more particularly when certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original bill Ex. PW1/D­1 has been issued from Book No.1 whereas alleged original bill Mark PW10/X has been issued from Book No.609 and thus, it is quite obvious that Mark PW10/X is a different bill and cannot bear the same contents as mentioned in the certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original bill Ex. PW1/D­1, for which the court has already observed that the said document is not admissible in evidence.

58.So far as the writing as well as signature on alleged forged invoice Mark PW10/X is concerned, PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. deposed in his examination­ CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 50 of 76 in­chief before the court that the same was neither written as well as signed by him nor any of his employees. No record of the employees working with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2008 has been placed on record by PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon and even the cross examination of this witness reflects that the Investigating Officer did not ask any list of his employees and no investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer to any employee. Even, the answers of this witness Sh. Tilak Raj Magon during cross examination that he does not remember exactly how many employees were employed by him in his company in the year 2008­2009 whether there were 50 or 100 employees or that ESI and PF of any of his company's employee was not deducted by him, do not seem to be satisfactory nor inspired confidence when it is his admitted case during cross examination that his company is registered under the Company's Act. The fact that invoice Mark PW10/X was neither signed by PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon nor any other Director/Employee or his company, has come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma during investigation which is apparent from the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Tilak Raj Magon and in that eventuality, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to obtain the specimen handwritings and signatures of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon and the employees/authorized signatories of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to prove on record that invoice Mark PW10/X does not CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 51 of 76 bear the signature of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon or any of the employees/authorized signatories of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but the Investigating Officer did not take any list of employees from PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon who were working with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also did not obtain the specimen signature of any of the employees of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and this fact has been admitted by Investigating Officer PW­ 12 Sh. Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination which has been duly corroborated by PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon Director M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during cross examination who deposed that the Investigating Officer did not take the sample handwriting or signatures of the Directors or employees of the company or his at any point of time. Though PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon deposed during cross examination that in the year 2008­09, all the bills of his company used to be prepared by him or his son but he did not utter even a single word to fortify that alleged forged bill Mark PW10/X does not bear the signature of his son. Even the son of this witness was not produced in the witness box to fortify that alleged forged bill Mark PW10/X does not bear the signature of the son of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon. Moreover, PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon admitted during cross examination that he cannot identify the signatures or handwriting of his all employees but in his deposition itself he has given different version before the court wherein it has come on record that Mark PW10/X does not bear his CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 52 of 76 handwriting as well as signature nor any of his employee which reflects that this witness could identify the handwriting and the signatures of his employees. In these circumstances, without there being any expert opinion on invoice Mark PW10/X qua the handwritings and signatures of any of the employees of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2008 much less the handwritings and signatures of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. or his son thereon, the CBI has failed to prove on record that invoice Mark PW10/X was not written and signed on behalf of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

59.As regards the fact that the format of the alleged forged invoice Mark PW10/X is different from that of certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original bill Ex. PW1/D­1, the court has already observed that Ex. PW1/D­1 was issued on 16.05.2005 i.e. much prior to the execution of work order dated 17.10.2008 as well as completion of work order of the borewell in question in the present case dated 22.10.2008. There is nothing on record to prove that in the year 2008 M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used same format and print style of the invoices as that of the format and print style of certified photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original bill Ex. PW1/D­1 which was allegedly being used by them in the year 2005. The prosecution in order to prove that invoice Mark PW10/X is forged one, ought to have produced before the court in CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 53 of 76 evidence any such invoice/bill of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which had been used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2008 and then only comparison could have been made between the invoice Mark PW10/X and such invoice/bill of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but no such invoice has been produced before the court for comparison. Though it has come in the cross examination of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon that he has retained the copies of all the bills used by his company and handed over to the Investigating Officer but no such bills have been placed on record by the Investigating Officer. Instead of oral testimony of PW­10 Tilak Raj Magon, the base of saying that invoice Mark PW10/X is forged/fake one could have been substantiated by this witness by showing to the court any documentary evidence i.e. invoices which were used by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2008­2009 but no such invoice has been produced before the court and as admitted, even during cross examination also PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon did not bring the copies of bills and he deposed on the basis of the records which were shown to him. It is a cardinal rule of evidence that where documentary evidence exists, the same shall be produced as being the best evidence and the oral proof/testimony cannot be substituted for the documentary evidence. Moreover, the source of making alleged forged invoice Mark PW10/X not found out by the Investigating Officer nor any effort has been made to seize any incriminating CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 54 of 76 material by conducting search in the office of A­2 or by subjecting accused A­2 to interrogation.

60.Ld.counsel for A­2 argued that they used to buy Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in cash as in cash purchases, they used to get more rebate on the material purchased from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He further argued that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to issue different invoices for cash purchase and cheque purchase and in order to evade sales tax M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. does not reflect the cash dealings.

61.In order to prove the same, A­2 has examined DW­A­2/1 Sh. Chandan Singh Tanwar who deposed that being contractor during the year 2006­2010, he was doing the job of boring the borewells and had executed borewell work orders for Delhi Jal Board and other government bodies. He further deposed that he used to buy Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineers besides other firms wherever the same were comparatively cheaper and several times, he used to purchase Johnson pipes on cash basis and also through cheque. He further deposed that he used to get 10­12% discounts on cash payments from them as compared to the payment made through cheques.

62.The other witness Sh. Tikam Chand Jain who was examined by A­ 2 as DW­A­2/2 deposed that earlier he has come in the court in another matter and deposed in CC No.11/2015 and CC No.16/15 CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 55 of 76 and admitted that Ex. DW­1­2/2/X and Ex. DW­A­2/2/X­1 respectively are the certified copies of his depositions before the court in the aforesaid cases. He further deposed that in the year 2006, he was partner in M/s R.B. Sales who used to deal in the business of installation of borewells. He further deposed that they used to purchase Johnson pipes from Ambica Engineering besides other firms either in cash as well as by cheque and in the case of purchase by cash, they got extra discount. He further deposed that Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to keep two sets of bill books, one for the cash payment and other for the cheque payment. He further deposed that different staff used to sit at different time in M/s Ambica Engineering and the person who used to sit there, used to prepare and sign the bills. He further deposed that whenever Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. does not have requisite quantity of Johnson Pipe or other pipes, they used to arrange from other vendors and deliver the same to the party.

63.A­2 also examined his brother Sh. Ritesh Walia as DW­A2/4 who deposed that he had purchased material as mentioned in invoice Mark PW10/X in cash in respect of work order in the present case for which invoice Mark PW10/X was issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. duly signed by the staff sitting there and the material was delivered at the site of the borewell in question by M/s Ambica Engineerings Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that at the time of installation/boring, he remained present there and AE/ZE, CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 56 of 76 JE, XEN/EE and the general public also remained present there. He further deposed that items mentioned in Mark PW10/X were utilized in the installation of the borewells under the work order out of which 55 meters Johnson Pipes were installed in the borewell in question. All the aforesaid three defence witnesses have been cross examined by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI.

64.On the other hand, it has come in the deposition of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. before the court that they never dealt with Johnson Pipes.

65.Firstly, the court shall deal with issue whether M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ever dealt with Johnson pipes or not. Perusal of the record shows that the factum of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. being never dealt with Johnson Pipes, has come in the knowledge of Investigating officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma during investigation of the case which is apparent from the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd., however, despite the same, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation in this regard. Even the Investigating Officer did not visit or conduct any search of godown of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to check whether they deal with Johnson Pipes or not and this fact has been admitted by Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma during cross examination which also finds support from the cross examination CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 57 of 76 of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has come on record that the Investigating Officer had not visited godown and registered office of the company and no raid was conducted either in the office or in the godown. On the other hand, it has come in the cross examination of defence witness DW­A2/2 Sh. Tikam Chand Jain that on one or two occasions, he went to the office of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of Johnson Pipes and they used to take 'Pakka' bill from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and further he got retired in the year 2007 from M/s R.B. Sales and thus, he cannot show the copy of any purchase voucher of the purchase of Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which might be in his office and also admitted that M/s R.B. Sales used to maintain ledger accounts and other documents of business dealing but despite the same, Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI did not make any request to the court to direct this witness and also did not move any application to direct the officials of M/s R.B. Sales to bring the said record in order to falsify the deposition of this witness. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. never dealt with Johnson Pipes.

66.So far as the cash dealings are concerned, besides the examinations­in­chief of the aforesaid defence witnesses that they used to purchase Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt.

Ltd. on cash basis and sometimes on cheque basis, it has also come in the cross examination of DW­A­2/1 Sh. Chandan Singh Tanwar that he used to purchase Johnson Pipes from Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in cash only and never through cheque. During cross examination of the aforesaid defence witnesses, nothing material could be elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to falsify their deposition in this regard. Though, the cross examination of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reflects that no cash dealing used to take place in his company, however, except his bald statement, there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary evidence to prove that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not use to do business dealings in cash. Even the subsequent cross examination of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon also reflects that he has maintained cash book.

67.Moreover, perusal of the photocopy of carbon copy of the alleged original/genuine invoice no.009 dated 16.05.2005 exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 alleged to have been issued by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s Sarawgi & Sons shows that this document is silent about the mode of payment alleged to have been made by M/s Sarawgi & Sons to M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Nothing is mentioned in Ex. PW1/D­1 whether the mode of payment was in cash, cheque, draft, online etc. or there was any other manner. PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. also admitted during cross CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 59 of 76 examination that in the bills issued by the company, there is no mention as to whether the payments were made by cash or by cheque. Perusal of the record shows that during investigation, besides other documents, PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. has also provided the certified copy of the ledger accounts of M/s Sarawgi & Sons though not of the relevant financial year 2008­2009 but for the financial year 2005­2006 to PW­9 Inspector Veer Jyoti, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide production­cum­receipt memo Ex. PW10/B on 16.02.2012. The deposition of Inspector Veer Jyoti as PW­9 also reflects that vide production­cum­receipt memo exhibited as Ex. PW12/B, PW­ 12 IO Inspector Shitanshu Sharma had received the said ledger account of M/s Sarawgi & Sons besides other documents from PW­9 Inspector Veer Jyoti. However, perusal of the record shows that no such ledger accounts maintained by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. of M/s Sarawgi & Sons has been placed on record by the CBI and even nothing about the whereabouts of the same has been averred by the Investigating Officer during his deposition before the court. There is no explanation why the CBI has withheld the said ledger account. No person from M/s Sarawgi & Sons has been made a prosecution witness in the present case. If the ledger account maintained by M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. of M/s Sarawgi & Sons and the ledger account maintained by M/s Sarawgi & Sons of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 60 of 76 placed on record by the CBI, the court could have the opportunity to make comparison of the same with each other to ascertain whether M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. used to do business transaction in cash or not or that whether they are tallying with each other or not but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case. Even there is also nothing on record to show that Investigating Officer PW­12 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma has made any effort to seize the ledger account of M/s Sarawgi & Sons of the relevant year 2008­2009. In these circumstances, it is not proved on record that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. did not use to do business dealings in cash.

68.The deposition of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. also shows that they never dealt with M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's and a certificate to this effect had already been provided by him to the CBI which has been exhibited as Ex. PW10/C. However, except the bald statement of PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary proof to show that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. never dealt with M/s Home Decorators Builders & Engineer's. PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon, Director of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. admitted during cross examination that they used to maintain the cash book, ledger, journal, stock register and all other relevant books of accounts and they keep the old account books and register/ledgers in their record. Though it has also come CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 61 of 76 in the cross examination of this witness that during investigation, all the statements of accounts, ledger, journal, stock register and all other relevant books of accounts of the parties concerned in this case, were supplied to the Investigating officer however, perusal of the record also shows that except the documents as mentioned in production­cum­receipt memos Ex.PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B, no other records have been seized by the investigating officer during investigation nor the same were produced before this court during the deposition of this witness. PW­10 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon also did not depose by which other production­cum­receipt memo he had handed over the said documents to the Investigating Officer. Even no such memo is on record to shows that Sh. Tilak Raj Magon has handed over any other documents besides the documents as mentioned in Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B to the Investigating Officer during investigation. On the other hand, the Investigating officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma categorically admitted during cross examination that he did not seize any sale, purchase register, purchase book, cash book, general account of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also not seize any computer or hard disc of M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. He further admitted during cross examination that he did not obtain the list of customers who dealt with M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. from Tilak Raj Magon and investigate on the basis of invoices and information provided by Sh. Tilak Raj Magon. The said record ought to have CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 62 of 76 been seized and produced before the court in order to help the court to find out the truth but the same is conspicuously missing in the present case.

69.It is pertinent to mention that besides the present case, other cases were registered case against other Junior Engineers, Zonal Engineers and the contractors pertaining to different borewells. During defence evidence, A­1 has examined Sh. Tikam Chand Jain as DW­A2/2 and the certified copy of his evidence recorded in CC No. 16/15 and uncertified copy of his evidence recorded in CC No.11/15 before the court in another matters have been exhibited as Ex. DW­A2/2/X and Ex. DWA­2/2/X1. The court is aware of the fact that in CC No. 16/2015 (New CC No. 286/19) has already been decided by the court on 23.07.2019 and other CC No. 11/15 is pending adjudication before this court. Perusal of evidence of Sh. Tikam Chand Jain Ex. DW­A2/2/X and Ex. DW­A2/2/X1 so recorded in the said cases shows that he, being defence witness DW­A2/2 in the present case, was the prosecution witness in the aforesaid cases bearing CC No.16/2015 and CC No.11/2015 who was examined by the prosecution before the court as PW­8 as PW­ 12 respectively and perusal of the deposition of Sh. Tikam Chand in the said cases reflects that he used to purchase Johnson Pipes from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for M/s R.B. Sales in cash as well as by way of cheques who used to issue different bills in case of payment in cash and by cheque and there used to be saving CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 63 of 76 when the payment was made in cash. Thus, from the deposition of prosecution witness Sh. Tikam Chand in the aforesaid aforesaid CC No.16/2015 and CC No.11/2015, the deposition of PW­5 Sh. Tilak Raj Magon that M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. never dealt with Johnson Pipes and no cash dealing used to take place in his company stands falsified.

70.A­2 has examined DW­A2/3 Sh. Pranaw Kumar Mishra who deposed that in August, 2008, he was doing the job of accounting and auditing on assignment basis on behalf of known CA's and he used to do part time accounting for M/s Home Decorator Builders and Engineers (Partnership firm). This witness has brought the statement of account of Home Decorators and Builders Engineers for the period from 1st October 2008 to 31st October 2008 marked as Mark DW­A2/3X and deposed that during the period from 11.10.2008 to 17.10.2008, there were cash withdrawal of about Rs. 4,55,000/­ which were used for payment of labour, purchases for contracts and other expenses of the firm. This witness has also brought the photocopy of ITR of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers for the assessment year 2009­2010 along with profit and loss account and balance sheet marked as Mark DW­A2/3/X.

71.This witness was cross examined by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI. The cross examination of this witness reflects that he had done the accounting and auditing of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers on the instructions of Sh. Amit Singh, CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 64 of 76 Chartered Accountant, however, he was not CA in the year 2008­ 2009 nor even on the date of his deposition before the court on 21.09.2019. As admitted during cross examination, this witness have not brought any authority letter from Sh. Amit Singh authorizing him to submit the documents Mark DW­A2/3­X and Mark DW­A2/D­X1. The cross examination of this witness also reflects that he does not know the whereabouts of Sh. Amit Singh.

72.It is apparent from the deposition of this witness that except his bald statement, there is nothing on record in the shape of documentary evidence to show that this witness had conducted audit work of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers at the instructions of Sh. Amit Singh, Chartered Accountant or that Sh. Amit Singh was a Chartered Accountant at any time much less during the relevant time. This witness did not file the return for Mark DW­A2/3­X1, nor he prepared the balance sheet annexed with Mark DW­A2/3­X1 nor he signed the same and these facts have been admitted by him during cross examination. The original of the same has also not been produced before the court. He admitted during cross examination that there are two original acknowledgements of Mark DW­A2/3­X1 one with the Income Tax Department and other with the assessee. Perusal of Mark DW­ A2/3­X1 shows that Sh. Rajender Wallia was the assessee and he could have proved the genuineness of Mark DW­A2/3­X1 but A­2 did not examine this witness to prove the same. Mark DW­A2/3­ CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 65 of 76 X1 is a photocopy which ought to have been accompanied with certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act which is conspicuously missing in the present case. Similarly, statement of account Mark DW­A2/3­X is also not accompanied with certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Banker's Book of Evidence Act. Since Mark DW­A2/3­X1 and Mark DW­A2/3­X are not accompanied with relevant certificates under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the same are not admissible in evidence and thus, cannot be looked into in the present case. Hence, the testimony of this witness is of no help to A­2 in the present case. Though A­2 has failed to prove the statement of account of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers for the period from 1 st October 2008 to 31st October 2008 Ex. DW­A2/3­X through DW­ A2/3 Sh. Pranaw Kumar Mishra, however, the prosecution witness PW­7 Sh. Shashilov who was posted as Dy. Manager in Kotak Mahindra Bank has proved the statement of account of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers for the period from 25.08.2008 to 31.10.2008 as Ex. PW7/B but from the same it cannot be inferred that the cash withdrawal of amounts so made from the account of M/s Home Decorators, Builders and Engineers, were used for the payment of labour, purchases of contracts and other expenses of the firm as has been the defence taken by A­2.

73.Ld.Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI contended that the onus is upon A­2 to satisfy the court that he had purchased Johnson Pipes CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 66 of 76 from M/s Ambica Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as the said fact was within the special knowledge of A­2.

74.Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act provides as under :­ "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."

75.However, section 106 Indian Evidence Act comes into play only after the prosecution has been able to prove prima facie case which the prosecution has failed in the present case.

76.From the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove on record by convincing and cogent evidence that invoice Mark PW10/X is a forged bill/invoice.

77.The prosecution has alleged conspiracy of A­1 in showing favour to A­2 in the installation of Johnson pipes in the bore­well in question as well as in submission of the forged invoice Mark PW10/X. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 67 of 76 proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express or partly implied. Even Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the co­conspirators.

78.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) Crimes 191 (SC) has held that:­ "To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means was primary condition and mere knowledge, even discussion, of plan by an accused would not per­se constitute conspiracy. It was also held that although, the agreement among the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication, the inference can only be drawn on the parameters in the manner of proved facts, in the nature of circumstantial evidence and whatever be the incriminating circumstance, it must be clearly established by reliable evidence and they must form the full chain whereby a conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.

79.As regards the alleged conspiracy in the installation of the Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question, the court has already discussed above that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that Johnson Pipes had not been installed in the bore­well in question.

80.As far as the alleged conspiracy qua the forged invoice Mark PW10/X, the said invoice Mark PW10/X bears the signatures of accused Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer (A­1) and Sh. B.C. Patel, Zonal Engineer at point A but the main responsibility lies with the contractor/A­2 to submit the same. PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Executive Engineer in his cross examination before the court admitted that it is not the duty of the Zonal Engineer/Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher. This witness further admitted during cross examination that it was the duty of the accounts department to check the genuineness of the purchase voucher and if any discrepancy is found by the account department in the file and the final bill with annexures, the accounts department sent the same with objection to him but in the present case, the account department put the file before him without any objection. He further admitted that the accounts department used to verify the purchase vouchers from its vendors telephonically and in case the telephone number is not mentioned in the purchase voucher, the accounts department can verify the CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 69 of 76 same by sending a person to the vendor and thereafter only, the payment to be made to the contractor and that there is no role of the Junior Engineer in release of the payments.

81.PW­5 Vinay Kumar Tyagi who was Junior Accountant in the year 2008 from Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that in case any discrepancy is noted, the correction is made by accounts department and therefore, the documents along with final bill is sent to Executive Engineer however, in the present case, no objection was raised by the accounts department before sending the file for pay order and further the papers and the calculations etc. were in proper order.

82.From the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that Pritam Singh Meena A­1 who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time, was not required to personally verify the correctness and genuineness of the bill submitted by A­2/contractor. There is no material evidence on record to suggest that A­1 contributed to the submission of forged bill or he verified or certified the same as genuine in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. Moreover, there is nothing on record which suggests that Junior Engineer is duty bound to verify the genuineness of the invoices/bills. Therefore, for the submission of the bill Mark PW10/X, no liability can be fastened upon Junior Engineer Pritam Singh Meena A­1.

83.Moreover, PW­11 Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer admitted during cross examination that instructional order dated CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 70 of 76 06.09.2000 Ex. PW3/DA (inadvertently it has been mentioned as PW3/D­1 on the document) issued by Binay Kumar Jha, Director (F&A) is applicable to the accounts department. The other witness of Delhi Jal Board PW­3 Vikas Rathi, Junior Engineer (Civil) Vigilance Department has also admitted in his cross examination that circular Ex. PW3/DA was circulated in their office and the payment is released to the contractor only after properly checking is done by Executive Engineer and Accounts Department. PW­4 Sh.M.C. Joshi, Draftman (Grade­II), Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that the responsibility to release the payments was on EE and Accounts Department. The cross examination of Investigating Officer PW­12 Shitanshu Sharma also reflects that the fact of there being an instructional order Ex. PW3/DA, has come into his knowledge during investigation at the time of recording of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam but despite the same, he did not inquire about Ex. PW3/DA from any other officials of Delhi Jal Board and this fact has been admitted by him during cross examination. He also admitted during cross examination that he also did not inquire from the Account Department of Delhi Jal Board whether they have verified the purchase voucher from its vendor before releasing the payment to the contractor. PW­5 Sh. Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Junior Accountant in the year 2008 with Delhi Jal Board also admitted during cross examination that circular Ex. PW3/DA was issued for CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 71 of 76 Accounts Department but he did not follow the same in view of subsequent circular dated 02.11.2004 Ex. PW5/DB which was brought by this witness himself. In his further cross examination, this witness categorically admitted that subsequent circular does not replace the earlier circular as no such thing is mentioned, but in practice, they follow the subsequent circular Ex. PW5/DB.

84.Perusal of Ex. PW3/DA shows that vide this instructional order, it was imperative for Finance Officers to ensure that Contractor's bills submitted to them for clearance are duly and properly verified, including the verification of procurement bills regarding material such as pipes, cement, steel and valves etc., in original and field books and no contractor's bills shall be passed or payments made without the necessary compliance.

85.Subsequent instructional order Ex. PW5/DB also shows that it was the duty of the Executive Engineers to obtain original procurement voucher from the contractor having CA No. and consumption noted thereon and then attested copy be enclosed with the bill with further directions to obtain along with the bill the test certificate and guarantee issued by the manufacturer from the contractor. All Accountants and All Junior Accountants also mentioned on Ex. PW5/DB and copy of this instructional order was sent to the concerned departments containing one of the instructions to all ACAs to ensure the compliance before releasing the payment.

86.Perusal of alleged forged invoice Mark PW10/X shows that no CA CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 72 of 76 Number is mentioned on it which was the requirement of Ex. PW5/DB and also there is no noting/initials of the officials of accounts department on Mark PW10/X. During cross examination PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board admitted that there is no mention of any purchase voucher on the final bill on page no.1.

87.In the present case, payment was released to contractor/A­2 and the Finance Officers of Delhi Jal Board were bound to follow the instructions contained in the above instructional orders Ex. PW3/DA and Ex. PW5/DB but the same have not been followed in the present case. Moreover, PW­11 Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board who after seeing the records including measurement book, strata chart, completion report, final bill along with its annexures admitted that the entries in these documents correctly record the work, which was actually done and further after going through the official noting on Ex. PW4/E, he admitted that as per the said noting, bearing his signature at point B, the work was completed satisfactorily.

88.Perusal of page no.30 of measurement book Ex. PW3/D shows that work has been done as per work order. During cross examination, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Superintendent Engineer from Delhi Jal Board has deposed that certificate Ex.PW11/DA was issued in respect of the present case which is at page no.30 of measurement book Ex. PW3/D bearing his signatures at point A and that of Sh. B.C. Patel, CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 73 of 76 Zonal Engineer at point B wherein it has been mentioned from point A to A1 that 'Work has been done as per work order'. The Investigating Officer PW­12 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma has also deposed same facts about the same in his cross examination.

89.From the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the opinion that since it was the duty of the Finance Department of Delhi Jal Board to verify the genuineness of invoice Mark PW10/X, A­1 Pritam Singh Meena, Junior Engineer who has personally supervised the material and work as well as issued the satisfaction certificate qua installation of Johnson Pipes in the bore­well in question which has also been signed, checked and cross checked by the officers of Delhi Jal Board, cannot be held criminally liable for the commission of alleged act of criminal conspiracy in the present case.

90.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of forgery as well as conspiracy against both the accused persons.

91.There is no fact proved by legally admissible evidence, oral or documentary, direct or circumstantial in nature, independent of sources which are likely to be tainted, of the arraigned accused persons having any meeting of minds for doing any illegal act or an act by illegal means or any amongst them having taken any active part in the commission of any conspiratorial acts in the present CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 74 of 76 case. The report of Dr.D.V. Reddy is not conclusive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used as corroborative piece of evidence, as per discussion above.

92.In view of my discussion hereinabove, it is apparent that no substantive evidence has come on the record to show that the accused persons have committed the charged offences. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.

I accordingly, acquit both the accused persons namely Pritam Singh Meena and Kapil Walia for the offences punishable under sections 120­B read with 420, 471 read with 468, 477­A IPC and section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

I also accordingly acquit both the aforesaid accused persons for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC.

I also accordingly, acquit A­2 Kapil Walia for the offence punishable under section 471 IPC.

I also accordingly, acquit A­1 Pritam Singh Meena for the offences punishable under section 477­A IPC and under section 13(1)(d) and under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

93.In compliance of the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C. and on the direction of this court, both the accused persons have submitted their respective personal bond and surety bond for the sum of CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 75 of 76 Rs.35,000/­ which have been accepted.

94.Ahlmad/Junior Judicial Assistant is directed to page and book­ mark the file so as to enable digitization of the entire record.

95.File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. (Announced in the open court today i.e. 22.02.2020) (ANURAG SAIN) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)­11, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi CC No.280/19 CBI Vs. Pritam Singh Meena & Anr. Page 76 of 76