Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. on 25 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16,ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS)
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Jitender Singh Sharma (A-1)
S/o Late Sh. N.S. Sharma
R/o 1073/A-3, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
(Proceedings already stands abated vide order dated 23.08.2021)
2. Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2)
S/o Late Sh. Shanu Ram Bajaj
R/o 217/13, Geeta Colony, Panipat
Haryana.
3. Subash Chand (A-3)
S/o Sh. Chand Ram Dahiya
R/o G-189, Prashant Vihar,
Delhi-110085.
Date of Institution : 14.03.2007
Date of Arguments: 11.04.2023
Date of Judgment : 25.04.2023
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 1 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
JUDGMENT
1. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 02.08.2005, passed in "Civil Writ Petition Number 10066/2004", while expressing the concern that there is a nexus between the builders, office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and DDA and they have taken over the Cooperative Movement in Delhi to make undue profit, directed the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation in respect of 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies (CGHS). The Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "The Society") was amongst one of the 135 such cooperative group housing societies. The society was registered with the office of Registrar Cooperative Society (in short 'RCS') vide registration number 1274 (Group Housing) dated 07.1.1984, with 62 Promoters members. The registered office of the society was shown as 1253, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi-110023. The list of the members of the society was not approved by the office of RCS till 2003. The society did not take any step to get the list of members approved by RCS. The society was functional till the year 1998, and thereafter it became practically CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 2 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 defunct as the members lost interest in following the cause of the society.
2. It is alleged that accused M.P. Bajaj (A2) who was working as a Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) working as an Assistant Registrar and accused Subash Chand (A3), a private person, entered into a criminal conspiracy with a common object to cheat DDA and other authorities to get the land alloted in the name of the society on the basis of false and forged documents and fake list of members.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In the first General Meeting of the promoter members of the Society, which was held on 16.10.1983, some of the resolutions interalia passed were as under:-
(a) Resolved that the name of the society shall be "Geetanjali Group Housing Cooperative Society Ltd" and its registered address shall be at "1253,Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi110023".
(b) The following office bearers and members of Managing Committee of the society were elected unanimously :
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 3 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Sl. No. Name Designation
i. Sh. Prem Chand President
ii. Sh. Anil Chander Vice President
Sharma
iii. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Hony.
Bains Secretary
iv. Sh. V.S Sundaranan Treasurer
v. Sh. Vipan Malhotra Member
vi. Sh.Rakesh Aggarwal Member
vii. Tilak Raj Khanna Member
viii. Raj Kumar Bindra Member
ix. Kamal Jeet Singh Member
Uppal
x. Bhagwant Kishore Member
Sharma
xi. Sudhir Kumar Khosla Member
xii. Bal Krishan Mandely Member
(c) Resolved further that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bains,
Hony Secretary of the Society be authorised to prepare and sign the registration paper of the society on behalf of its members.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid decisions/resolutions, an application along with requisite documents was submitted to the office of RCS, Delhi Administration for registration of the society. During the scrutiny of said applications and the documents, certain defects were noticed and the same were notified by the office of RCS and the Secretary of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 4 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 the society was requested to attend the office on 09.1.1984. After removal of the aforesaid defects, the society was registered vide registration No. 1274 (Group Housing) dated 07.1.1984, in the name and type of "Geetanjali Vihar Group Housing Societies Ltd" at the above mentioned address.
5. From the record, it is evident that a show cause notice dated 09.10.1986, as evident from the noting dated 27.1.1987, appears to have been issued to the society as it was pointed out that list of members is not serially. The secretary of the society was called for the rectification of the above defects. Records would further indicate that thereafter several communications/notices were sent to the society to meet the statutory requirements as per the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act,1972 and Delhi Co- operative Societies Rule,1973, but the defects were not rectified. In the mean time it was also reported that society has changed the address from house no.1253 to 1249 in the same locality. Those communications/notices were in relation to improper enrollment of members, not holding of election of the society, non submission of the copy of the agenda of the General Body Meeting, resignations and enrollment of members not in prescribed CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 5 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 format, regarding audit of the society, not holding of General Body Meetings etc. Due to the aforesaid reasons the freezed strength of the members of the society was not approved as the requisite and original record was not produced.
6. The noting dated 12.5.1998, recites that the society has been given enough opportunity to produce record for verification of its freezed list till date, but the complete information and record not filed and also the original record not produced for verification, therefore, it was proposed to issue a reminder to the society before winding up order is issued. The last noting in this regard is dated 16.11.1998, which says that a letter was sent to the society by registered post but the same has been returned back undelivered with the postal remarks "LEFT". The last correspondence received from the society was on 13.5.1998. It was also proposed that the Inspector may be deputed to conduct the spot verification of the society.
7. After 16.11.1998 till 14.2.2003, for more than 4 years, no proceedings took place in the file pertaining to the society and things were allowed to rest in the cold storage. There was no communication between the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 6 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Managing Committee of the society and the office of RCS. The defects notified by the office of RCS and show cause notices issued remained unanswered.
8. It is alleged that all of a sudden in the year 2003, the noting file pertaining to the society became alive. On 15.11.2002, a letter dated Nil was received by the office of RCS vide diary No. 8392, purportedly signed by president Sh. Jasbir Singh and Secretary Pawan Kumar. The said letter was addressed to the Assistant Registrar(South West)Cooperative Societies, Government of NCT, Delhi, which reads as under:
" sub: Submission of final list of members and other documents for verification.
Sir, In this connection, as desired by you, the following documents are enclosed herewith for further necessary action.
1. List of members, three copy.
2. Affidavit of President/Secretary /Treasurer/Members. No. of 62.
3. Photocopy of Ration card of new members enrolled for proof of residence.
Thanking you.
Your faithfully
Sd/- Sd/-
President/Secretary
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 7 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
9. Another letter authorising one Sukhbir Singh to collect the authority letter of verification of the record and list of verification in respect of the society with the address, 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, purportedly signed by Sh. Jasbir Singh, was also received in the office of the RCS.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Subash Chand (A3) has forged the signature of Sh. Jasbir Singh appearing on these two letters which have been confirmed by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents( in short 'GEQD').
11. It has been further alleged that pursuant to the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, accused M.P. Bajaj(A2) the then Dealing Assistant allowed one Sh. Sukhbir Singh to represent the society on the basis of forged authority letter purportedly signed by Sh. Jasbir Singh, President of Society and did not consider the following irregularities (i) the order of the then Assistant Registrar (South-West) who had deputed an Inspector to conduct spot investigation of the society as the letters sent to the last known address of the society received back with the remarks "left" (ii) He did not make any enquiry CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 8 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 about the change of address of the society shown in the authority letter (iii) there was no correspondence between the office of the RCS and the society after 1998 till 2003,
(iv) did not check the record of the society as regard to the genuineness of the list of members submitted for approval (v) did not obtained compliance report of the audit conducted till 2002 and (vi) did not confirm the identity of the authorized representatives or the President of the society, and proceedings were started.
12. Investigation has further revealed that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) had conducted the audit of the society for the period 1990-1991 to 1996-1997 while working as Auditor in the audit section of the Registrar Cooperative Society and accepted the forged accounts papers submitted by the society for conducting audit which enabled to make strength of the society at 62 members during the year 1998, whereas investigation revealed that the society was not having 62 members during that period.
13. Investigation has further revealed that in furtherance of the above criminal conspiracy, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2), on the basis of the aforesaid CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 9 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 two forged letters dishonestly initiated a note on 14.02.2003, which reads as under :
" Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Authority of the society Appeared alongwith original record of the society.
Filed list of members, individual affidavit.
Secy's affidavit checked w.r.t the resignations/enrollment.
Asked to attach the copy of receipts share money in respect of member enrolled.
To come up on 17.02.2003 alongwith authority letter from the MC of the society ( initial ) 14.2.2003
14. The said note dated 14.02.2003, was duly approved by accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) the then Assistant Registrar (South-West), on the same day.
15. On 17.02.2003, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) the then Dealing Assistant, initiated another note, which reads as under:
"Sh. Sukhbir Singh, authority appeared.
Filed POR in respect of members enrolled.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 10 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 To file amended secretary's affidavit.
On request, Sh. Singh has been directed to appear on, 04/03/03 ( initial ) 17.2.2003
16. The note dated 17.02.2003 was also duly approved by accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1), the then Assistant Registrar (South-West). On 14.03.2003, another note was prepared by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) in support that Sh. Sukhbir Singh has filed the requisite documents.
17. Investigation has further revealed that pursuant to the above said criminal conspiracy, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) had taken on record forged affidavits and photocopies of the following documents which was the basis of approval of the freezed list.
1. Affidavit of Secretary/President.
2. Photocopies of resignation letters containing signatures of the resigned members and refund vouchers containing signatures of 45 members.
3. Photocopies of application of 45 enrolled members containing signatures of the members and photocopies of receipts of share money.
4. Photocopies of the minutes of the meeting.
5. Affidavit of 62 members figuring in the final list.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 11 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
6. Copies of audited accounts upto 2002 signed by the President (Jasbir Singh) Secretary (Pawan Kumar) and Treasurer (Sunil Madan).
7. Copies of the election proceedings.
8. Certificate of the President that no Court case is pending against society.
18. Investigation has further revealed that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2), Dealing Assistant initiated a detailed note on 12.03.2003, wherein the details of the promoter members, affidavit of Secretary/President, position in respect of Membership, details of 45 resignations, details of 45 new enrollments, Audit positions, election position, individual affidavit of 62 members figuring in the final list, certificate regarding no court case pending etc. was mentioned. Vide said note, he further recommended that "in view of the position explained above, the strength of the society may be freezed at 62 members and forwarded to DDA for allotment of land as per the detail shown below". In the said note, he has also mentioned the list of 62 members to be freezed for forwarding the same to the DDA.
19. The aforesaid proposal was forwarded by accused Jitender Singh Bajaj (A1) on the same day, vide CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 12 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 his note dated 12.03.2003 to DDA for allotment of land. The said note dated 12.03.2003, reads as under:
" The proposal on the file relates to forwarding of list of members to DDA for allotment of land. The society was registered with 62 promoter members out of which 45 members have resigned ("A" page 44-46/N) and 45 members have been enrolled. ("B" page 46-47/N). All the requisite requirement are now fulfilled. If approve we may forward the list of 62 members to DDA for allotment of land as at "X" above.
( sd/-) 12.3.2003
20. The said note/noting was marked to the then Joint Register, Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar and then was finally approved by Registrar of Cooperative Societies Sh. Narayan Diwakar, on 13.03.2003. It is further revealed that on 17.03.2003, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) prepared another note and placed it before accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) the then Assistant Registrar (South-West) to forward the list of 62 members of society to Assistant Registrar (Policy). The said list was verified by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) and countersigned by accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1). It also contain the Rubber Stamp Impression of another society namely "Gauravshalli Cooperative CGHS Limited" instead of "Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Limited".
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 13 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
21. On 05.04.2003, Sh. Yogi Raj, the then Assistant Registrar(Policy) forwarded the said list of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS with the list of other two societies to DDA for allotment of land.
22. Investigation has further revealed that accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) wrote a letter to Assistant Registrar (Policy) stating that the audit of society was done upto 2001-2003 and election was held on 31.08.2002. He certified that as per the general inspection conducted by the officials of the branch and also as per the record available in this branch, the society is functioning from 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. This was done by accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) in reply to a query raised by Director (R.L), Delhi Development Authority which was addressed to the office of RCS for confirmation of the recommendations made by RCS earlier in respect of 80 societies to whom land was proposed to be allotted.
23. It is revealed that the society never operated or functioned from 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi as stated CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 14 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 by the owner of the said house who was examined during the investigation.
24. During the investigation, another set of facts came to the light. During the month of January/February, 1998, one Mrs. Shahjahan Begum @ Noor Jahan along with Sh. Mayank Goswami approached Sh. K. Lakshmi Narayanan, the then Treasurer of the society for enrollment of new members in the society and offered to give a premium of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for enrollment of each member and accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- to Sh. K. Laxmi Narayanan, the then Treasurer of the society.
25. Smt. Shahjahan Begum @ Noorjahan promised him to get the freezed list approved as she had influence and contacts in RCS office and stated to have taken some records pertaining to the society i.e like Membership Register, Proceeding Register etc. from Sh. K. Laxmi Narayanan so that matter may be pursued with the office of the RCS for getting the freeze list approved, however, before enrollment of the new members and approval of the said list by Registrar Cooperative Society, Smt. Shahjahan Begum @ Noorjahan took last breath in CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 15 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 February, 1999 at Saudi Arabia during Hajj and therefore no activity took place till 2001.
26. The existing management Committee members lost interest in running the society as Sh. K. Laxmi Narayanan, the then Treasurer was expecting his transfer to Chennai and Sh. Shyam Sharan Verma, President had purchased one house and tendered his resignation.
27. In September/October 2001, Sh. Alam Ali, son of Smt. Noorjahan approached Sh. K. Laxmi Narayanan and asked for handing over remaining records of the society. Finally, during March/April,2002, the Management committee Members handed over the remaining records to Sh. Alam Ali at Janakpuri. These records were further handed over to one Sh. Joginder Dabass (since expired) by Sh Alam Ali during 2002. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Joginder Dabass got various documents signed from accused Subash Chand (A-3) in the capacity of the President of the Society (Sh. Jasbir Singh) including the authority letter authorizing Sh. Sukhbir Singh. Sh. Joginder Dabass expired sometime during the year 2004.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 16 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
28. After the death of Smt. Noorjahan, Sh. Joginder Dabass was controlling the society. He inducted accused Subash Chand (A3) and Jasbir Singh as members of the society during the year 2001 for processing the freezed list in the office of RCS. It is alleged that Joginder Dabass manipulated the record and indulged in forging the documents through accused Subash Chand (A3). Accused Subash Chand (A3) is alleged to have forged the signature of Jasbir Singh on various records. These forged records were submitted to the office of Registrar Cooperative Society for approving the freezed list of members of the society and forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land.
29. It is further revealed that out of 62 affidavits executed in 2002, which were taken on record by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2), there is one affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Bhatia who has been shown as resigned and his name is not figuring in the final list of 62 members approved by RCS on 13.03.2003. There are few other members who have been refunded their money from the society but in order to complete the list of 62 members, their names were included in the list. Their names are as under CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 17 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
1. Sh. Anil Chander Sharma
2. Sh. K.L. Badhan
3. Sh. Anil Kumar Pasrija
4. Smt. Anitha Pathak
5. Sh. Ramesh Sharma
30. As per the final list submitted to the DDA, as approved by office of RCS on the basis of applications forms and affidavits, it was claimed that 14 persons became the members of the society but they all have disowned their signatures appearing against their names, on the aforesaid documents. The list of such persons is as under:
01. Sh. Sudhir Khosla
02. Sh. M.K. Bains
03. K.L. Badhan
04. Ikhtar Ali
05. Sanober Ali
06. Alam Ali
07. Amir Dehlvi
08. Kappu
09. Aslam Khan
10. Smt. Naseema Begum
11. Mrs. Mohzabi
12. Shakeel
13. Jasbir Singh
14. Anil Chander
31. In the final list submitted to the office of RCS, it was stated that few members have resigned and their money has been refunded to them but Sh. Dharam Pal Bhatia, Sh. Dinesh Bhatia and Sh. Vinod Sharma has CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 18 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 denied to have resigned from the society and they have disowned the signatures on respective resignation letters and refund vouchers. This fact has been confirmed by the GEQD.
32. Further, three persons namely Sh. Man Mohan Bhandari, Smt. Kaushlya Devi and Sh. P.C. Goswami, who were shown as the members in the final list, were reportedly dead at that time, as confirmed by their sons.
33. As per the investigating agency, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1), the then Assistant Registrar (SouthWest), accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2), the then Dealing Assistant, by abusing their official position as public servants by corrupt and illegal means knowingly used as genuine the aforesaid forged documents which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents got the freezed list approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar Cooperative Society and dishonestly induced the DDA to allot the land in favour of the society.
34. It is further alleged that accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) have also CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 19 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 attempted to commit the offences of criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means by abusing their official position as public servants and facilitated the approval of freezed list of the members of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. for allotment of land by DDA in favour of the society.
35. As per the investigating agency, allegations against Sh. Narayan Diwakar who was named in the FIR, could not be substantiated as no criminality on his part could be established during investigation.
36. Ultimately, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that there is a prima-facie evidence, oral and documentary to show that the accused persons namely Jitender Singh Sharma (A1), Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) and Subash Chand (A3) have committed the offences U/s 120- B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences under section 15 r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A2) and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468, 471 IPC against accused Subash Chand (A3).
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 20 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
37. During the investigation, requisite sanction U/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, was obtained for prosecuting public servants namely accused Jitender Singh Sharma (A1) and accused Mohinder pal Bajaj (A2) and was filed with the chargesheet.
FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES
38. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 14.03.2007. Vide order dated 20.04.2007, Ld. Predecessor of this Court observed that "there is a prima-facie sufficient material to take cognizance against all accused persons of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet", and accordingly, cognizance of the offences was taken and the accused persons were ordered to be summoned.
39. The order sheet dated 5.5.2008, would reveal that copies of few documents were supplied to the accused persons. The then Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that certain documents may be inspected by the accused persons as those documents do not contain any material particulars and the statement of few witnesses have not been recorded u/s 161 CrPC. Taking into consideration the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 21 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 aforesaid submissions made by the then Ld. PP for the CBI, Ld. Predecessor of this court asked the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to inspect the documents and make copies thereof, and case was adjourned for consideration on charge for 3.05.2008.
40. Records would further indicate that when the case was at the stage of argument on charge, vide order dated 13.10.2008, certain directions were passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as under:
1. Commanded the Director CBI to get a case registered against the Investigating Officer of the CBI under section 217 & 218 IPC, cause it to be investigated and get him punished in accordance with law.
2. Commanded the Director, CBI to get the matter investigated further particularly on following points:
(i) Sh. K.Lakshmi Narayanan received a sum of Rs 3,85,000/- from Smt Shahjahan Begum @ Noor Jahan for enrollment of new members.
It has not been specified in the chargesheet as to who were enrolled in pursuance of said CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 22 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
money received by Sh. K. Lakshmi
Narayanan from Smt. Noor Jahan.
(ii) It was also observed that it has also not been
highlighted as to for what amount of money, Alam Ali handed over records of the society to Joginder Dabas.
(iii) It was further observed that what documents were fabricated at the instance of accused Joginder Dabas(since deceased), have also not been highlighted.
(iv) It was also observed that Mayank Goswami joined the conspiracy, when he approached K.Lakshmi Narayanan along with Smt. Shahjahan Begum @ Noor Jahan. His further actions were not highlighted by the Investigating Officer.
(v) It was further observed that Sukhbir Singh represented the society before officials of Registrar, Cooperative Societies and produced false records. Whether documents produced by Sukhbir Singh were forged in his presence or not, the chargesheet is silent.
41. The then IO, CBI, challenged the order dated 13.10.2008, before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeal and ordered that "the directions contained in the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 directing the CBI to register a case against the petitioner is hereby set aside. It is CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 23 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 clarified that the impugned order remains unaffected as regards the other portions. It is however open to the accused persons to seek whatever remedies are available to them in law ".
42. In the light of the above order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it appears that further investigation was conducted by the investigating agency on the observations made by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2008, and a status report titled as Final Report dated 27.5.2009 was filed by the CBI.
43. In the said status report/final report, the above said observations made by Ld. Predecessor of this court were responded as under :
i. Further investigation revealed that a deal was struck between Shri K.Lakshmi Narayanan and Smt. Noor Jahan for enrollment of new members by Shri K. Lakshmi Narayanan as per the list required to be provided by Smt. Noor Jahan. Shri. K.Laksmi Narayanan received a sum of Rs 3,85,000/-from Smt. Noor Jahan but she could not supply the list of new members proposed to be inducted as new members of the society and meanwhile, when she was on pilgrimage, she died outside India. Smt. Noor Jahan could not provide a list of members to Shr. K. Lakshmi Narayanan,hence, he could not induct any member but as per the agreement/deal with Smt. Noor Jahan, he subsequently handed over the records of the society to Shri Alam Ali s/o Smt. Noor Jahan. The enrollment of new members was done by Shri Joginder Dabas who CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 24 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 has also since expired. Hence,there are crucial missing links which could not be joined at this stage because Smt. Noor Jahan and Shri Joginder Dabas, who had played roles in inducting fictitious persons and creating false resignation letters of the original members, have expired.
ii. Shri Joginder Dabas handed over a sum of Rs 1 lac to Shri Alam Ali for the records of the society. Shri Alam Ali made a payment of Rs 50,000/- to Shri K.Lakshmi Narayanan for obtaining the records of the society from Shri K.Lakshami Narayanan and his associates and kept the remaining Rs 50,000/- with him in exchange for handing over the records of the society to Shri Joginder Dabas. It is to be submitted that Shri Joginder Dabas and Smt Noor Jahan were business partners where Smt. Noor Jahan was involved in a deal pertaining to transfer of the records of the society with Shri K. Lakshmi Narayanan whereas Shri. Joginer Dabas had some kind of deal with Smt. Noor Jahan only. It was Smt. Noor Jahan who gave direction to her son Shri Alam Ali to help Shri Dabas in getting the records of the society from Shri. K.Lakshmi Narayanan and his associates. The initial amount of Rs 3,85,000/- which was given to Shri. K.Lakshmi Narayanan as part of the deal, was given by Smt. Noor Jahan but what deal took place between Shri Joginder Dabas and Smt. Noor Jahan is not known. Even the fact of transfer of Rs 1 lac by Joginder Dabas to Alam Ali who kept Rs 50,000/- with himself and gave the remaining Rs 50,000/- to K. Lakshami Narayanan is an admission by Alam Ali and K.Lakshmi Narayanan and there is no independent evidence to prove transaction of money.
iii. Since Shri Joginder Dabas has expired, nothing concrete has come out as to what documents exactly were fabricated by him and Smt. Noor Jahan. However, it has been revealed that Smt. Noor Jahan created some documents for the purpose of enrolling few members but could not enroll any of the members because during her lifetime, she could not get the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 25 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 original records of the society. The original records of the society were handed over by Shri. K.Lakshmi Narayanan and his associates to Shri Alam Ali only after the death of Smt. Noor Jahan and Shri Alam Ali passed over these documents to Shri Joginder Dabas who inducted several fictitious persons as members and also created forged documents showing resignations of the original members. Since he too has expired and nobody was there with him during the entire process of inducting fictitious persons, nothing could be brought out during the investigation as to what documents exactly were created by Joginder Dabas. In this regard, the statement of accused Subhash Chand who was directed by Shri. Joginder Dabas to forge the signature of Shri Jasbir, is the only evidence which suggests that Shri Joginder Dabas had created forged documents. But the documents created by Shri Joginder Dabas could not be identified.
iv. Shri Mayank Goswami has played a vital role in striking the deal of transfer of the society from Shri K.Lakshmi Narayanan and his associates to Smt. Noor Jahan. However, his role was limited to the extent that he arranged the meetings of the parties i.e Shri K. Lakshmi Narayanan and Smt Noo Jahan for transfer of the records of the society. The deal for Rs 3.85,000/- took place in his presence. Subsequent to the deal, some amount was also exchanged between the parties of the deal. Shri Mayank Goswami also got Rs 10,000/- as his commission for bringing both the parties together for the deal. So far, his role has not surfaced subsequently when the actual transfer of the records took place between Shri K. Lakshmi Narayanan and Shri Alam Ali.
v. The identity of Sukhbir Singh who represented the society and produced forged documents in the RCS office could not be established. Hence, it could not be ascertained whether the documents were forged in his presence or not. Efforts were made during the course of further investigation to identify Sukhbir Singh. As per available evidence, only two persons i.e S/Shri CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 26 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Mohinder Pal Bajaj and Joginder Dabas had come in contact with this person and they could only reveal the identity of this person. Since, Shri Joginder Dabas has already passed away and Mohinder Pal Bajaj has deposed that he met the alleged Sukhbir Singh during the course of his official duty and he did not have any earlier acquaintance with him so it is impossible for him to identify Sukhbir Singh. Since the identity of Sukhbir Singh could not be established, thereafter, it could not be ascertained whether the documents produced by him in RCS office were forged in his presence or not. Hence the court's observation remains unanswered in this regard.
Further investigation has indicated that S/Shri K.Lakshmi Narayanan, Shyam Sharan, Anil Chander Sharma, Sudhir Khosla, Alam Ali and Mayank Goswami have played vital roles in transferring the records of the society to Shri Joginder Dabas. It is also revealed that these persons were only privy to the deal that took place among themselves for transferring all the records of the society to Shri Joghinder Dabas. However, there is no documentary evidence except their own admission/confession that they made a deal in lieu of money, hence, it would be difficult to prove the case against these persons in the court of law in absence of any corroborative evidence. The death of Smt. Noor Jahan and Shri Joginder Dabas is a major gap in the investigation which cannot be bridged by any other evidence.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, sufficient evidence has not come on record to launch prosecution against S/Shri Sukhbir Singh, Mayank Goswami, Alam Ali and K. Lakshmi Narayana. It is also submitted that Joginder Dabas and Smt. Noor Jahan @ Shahjahan Begum have already expired. The Hon'ble Court is requested to proceed further with the chargesheet filed before the court on 14.3.2007 ( CC 48/2007) of which cognizance was already taken.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 27 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 S/Shri Mayank Goswami, Alam Ali and K.Lakshmi Narayanan are crucial witnesses for proving the prosecution case and material documents. They will also throw light on the role of main accused persons and unfold the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to revive the defunct society on the basis of false and forged documents. The prosecution will suffer irreparable loss if the said persons are chargesheeted despite lack of sufficient evidence. So, in the interest of justice, the aforesaid persons may be examined at the appropriate stage as witness in this case.
44. Accused Jitender Singh Sharma took objections to the aforesaid status report and moved a miscellaneous application dated 4.10.2010, wherein it was stated that the CBI had not taken the order of this court in letter and spirit; the findings returned by CBI are self contradictory; Alam Ali had clear cut knowledge about the transactions which took place between his mother and K. Lakshmi Narayan but instead of making him as an accused, he has been arrayed as a prosecution witness; even Mayank Goswami should have been an accused but he was also made a prosecution witness; the investigation has been highly suspicious and it was prayed that the said status report may kindly be rejected.
45. Vide order, dated 26.5.2011, Ld. Predecessor of this court, after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the accused Jitender Singh , Ld. PP for CBI and after perusing the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 28 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 documents on record, dismissed the application filed by accused Jitender Singh, while observing that :
" Sufficient evidence does not exist to connect K.Laxmi Narayanan, Mayank Goswami and Alam Ali except their own statements. In case these persons are summoned as accused, even their own statements would not be read in evidence, the same being confessional in nature. Therefore, if these persons are summoned as accused, it would be a case of no evidence against them and they will have to be discharged. So far as Sukhbir Singh is concerned, during investigation, his identity could not be established. In these circumstances, I accept the final report filed by CBI in respect of accused Sukhbir Singh, Mayank Goswami, Alam Ali and K.Laxmi Narayanan and dismiss the application of accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A1)."
FRAMING OF CHARGES
46. Subsequently, vide detailed order dated 19.07.2011, Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided the charges against the accused persons and they were charged as under:
1 Jitender Singh Sharma 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences under section CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 29 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 15 read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj 1988 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of 3 Subhash Chand P.C Act,1988 AND substantive offences under Section 420/511/468/471 IPC
47. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed and claimed trial.
ABATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED JITENDER SINGH SHARMA
48. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present case, accused Jitender Singh Sharma, accused no.1 expired and Proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
49. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 40(Forty) witnesses. For the sake of convenience, the witnesses have been categorized in different groups. Although, the detailed testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be discussed herein after in the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 30 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 subsequent para's, wherever necessary, however, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of these witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has come on the record.
50. First Group is of the witnesses, whose names have been shown in the final list forwarded to DDA for allotment of land but they claimed that they were not the members of the society.
PW1 Sh. Jameel Anjum deposed that he never became a member of any society; Smt. Shahjahan Begum is his brother's mother in law and she asked him to become a member of some society but it was not materialized; His name is alias Kappu. He never filled any application form ExPW1/A, or any receipt ExPW1/B or affidavit ExPW1/C pertaining to Geetanjali CGHS.
PW1 Sh Jameel Anjum was not cross examined despite the opportunity.
PW3 Sh. Shakeel Anjum deposed that he never remained a member of Geetanjali CGHS. Regarding application Ex. PW3/A, he denied having executed such an application and disowned the signature and the address as mentioned in the application. He further deposed that he never deposited any amount of Rs. 110/- vide receipt Ex. PW3/B. He has also denied having executed any affidavit Ex. PW1/C at any point of time.
PW3 Sh. Shakeel Anjum was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused J.S. Sharma (A1) against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 31 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 dated 23.08.2021. Rest of the accused persons have not cross-examined him despite the opportunity.
PW8 PW8 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Bains deposed that he became a member of the Geetanjali CGHS in the year 1983 and stated that the application for membership of registration of cooperative society ExPW8/A bears his signatures at point X. PW8 further deposed that the intensive inquiry proforma ExPW8/B and Bye Laws ExPW8/C bears his signatures at the entries mentioned against his name. He further deposed that the affidavit ExPW8/D bears his signature but he had never executed another affidavit ExPW8/E and it does not bear his signature. He stated that the specimen signatures/writing ExPW8/F was given by him.
PW8 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 J.S Sharma against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021. PW8 was not cross examined by other accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW10 Sh. Amir Dehlvi deposed that he became the member of Geetanjali CGHS in the year 1999/2000 through Sh. Ajit Manrog and had made a payment of Rs. 100/- for becoming the member of the society but he resigned from the membership of the society later on. He admitted that the particulars as mentioned in the application Ex. PW10/A are correct. He stated that the signature appearing at point A are not of him and the date of his membership has also been mentioned incorrectly as 01.12.1995 because he became the member in the year 1999/2000;
PW10 Sh. Amir Dehlvi further deposed that he never executed any affidavit dt. 07.10.2002 Ex. PW10/C and also denied having made any signature thereon. He further deposed that specimen signatures were taken vide Ex. PW10/D; that he never attended any meeting of the society;
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 32 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW10 Sh. Amir Dehlvi was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused J.S. Sharma (A1) against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021. Rest of the accused persons have not cross- examined PW10 despite the opportunity.
PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali deposed that he never became a member of Geetanjali society and neer moved an application Ex. PW11/A. He has also denied having made any signature at point A, on that application; he has also denied having made any payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt Ex. PW11/B; PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali further deposed that his mother Shahjahan Begum never became a member of Geetanjali CGHS and did not make any payment towards that membership; PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali has denied the signature of his mother on the application Ex. PW11/C and also stated that his mother never made any payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt Ex. PW11/D. He also denied having executed any affidavit Ex. PW11/D and further deposed that it does not belong to him. He has also denied having executed any affidavit PW11/F by his mother.
PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW12 Sh. K.L Badan deposed that he took membership of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS prior to the year 2005-2006 on the asking of his friend Rakesh Kumar Bains and had paid Rs 7000/- by cheque for becoming a member of the society. PW12 Sh. K.L Badan has identified his signatures on application for membership of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW12/A but denied having executed a purported affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW12/C and stated that his purported signatures on the same are forged. PW12 K.L Badan stated that he does not know how his name is appearing at entry ExPW12/D in the final list (ExPW4/A) of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 33 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Geetanjali Vihar CGHS forwarded to DDA for allotment of land. He further deposed that he had given the sample signatures ExPW12/E(colly) to the IO during investigation.
PW12 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW13 Ikhtiar Ali deposed that he never took the membership of Geetanjali CGHS although he admitted that his signature on the application Ex. PW13/A but deposed that he had not filled the column of the said application and he had not applied for membership of the society through the said application. He has also denied having made any payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt Ex. PW13/B. He has also denied having executed any affidavit Ex. PW13/C and further deposed that he never submitted any affidavit. He further deposed that specimen signatures were taken by the IO and the same are Ex. PW13/D; During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused A1 Jitender Singh Sharma and A2 M.P. Bajaj, he replied that his wife had got the application form Ex. PW13/A signed by him at point A. PW13 Ikhtiar Ali was not cross-examined by the accused Subash Chand despite the opportunity.
PW14 Mehjabin deposed that she never became a member of Geetanjali CGHS at any point of time. After going through the application Ex. PW14/A, she has stated that she never submitted the said application and this application does not bear her signature and someone has forged the same. She further deposed that she had not made any payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt Ex. PW14/B. Her signature on affidavit Ex. PW14/C are not of her and somebody has forged the same. She stated that her specimen signatures were obtained by the IO and the same are Ex. PW14/D and she has also seen the specimen signatures on the sheets of her husband namely Sh. Amir Dehlvi which are correct and Ex. PW14/E (colly.); During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused A1 Jitender Singh Sharma and A2 M.P. Bajaj, she CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 34 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 replied that her mother Shahjahan Begum used to work as a property dealer in the area of Janak Puri, Delhi.
PW14 Mehjabin was also not cross-examined by the accused Subash Chand despite the opportunity.
PW17 Mohammad Aslam Khan deposed that he never took the membership of any group housing society. He stated that he had not made or moved any application Ex. PW17/A though the same bears correct particulars including name, address. The signatures are not of him and somebody has forged the same. He has also denied having made any payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt mark PW17/B; He has also denied having submitted any affidavit dated 07.10.2002 Ex. PW17/C and further deposed that signature appearing on that affidavit does not belong to him; PW17 Mohammad Aslan Khan stated that he has also seen specimen signatures S-37 to S- 41 consisting of five pages, were taken by the IO and the same are Ex. PW17/D (colly.).
PW17 Mohd. Aslam Khan was not cross-
examined by the accused despite the opportunity.
PW18 Ms. Nasima Begum deposed that her sister-in-law had obtained her signature on certain blank sheets to make her member. She stated that the photocopy of the application mark PW18/A is having the correct particulars but her house number is wrongly mentioned. She admitted of having made the signature at point A on the application but she denied having made any payment of Rs. 110/- qua membership fee of that society vide receipt mark PW18/B. PW18 Ms. Nasima Begum further deposed that she never submitted any affidavit dt. 07.10.2002 which is Ex. PW18/C and signature appearing at point A and point B does not belong to her. The specimen signatures sheets consisting of five pages are Ex. PW18/D (colly.).
PW18 Ms. Nasima Begum was cross-examined by the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 35 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW22 Sh. Anil Chander Sharma, deposed that he became a member of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd and had some fee towards membership. He deposed that he resigned from the membership of the society in 1995 and got back his membership fee/share money from the society through cheque. During his examination in chief PW22 admitted having signed application for registration of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd (ExPW8/A) vide encircled entry ExPW22/A, Intensive Inquiry Proforma (ExPW8/B) vide encircled entry ExPW22/B, Bye-laws of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd along with list of members (ExPW8/C) bears his signature at point B against his name and that of his father at point on the Bye-Laws ExPW8/C He further admitted having executed affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW22/C and having attended General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS, dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/F and General Body Meeting dated 29.1.1984 ExPW22/D, and putting his signatures as token of having attended the same. He deposed that he had received his land cost money from the society on 24.7.2002 vide cheque for a sum of Rs 2600/- ExPW20/D9. He deposed that the specimen signature card ExPW20/C bears his signature as office bearer of the said society. He further deposed that the approved list of members sent to DDA for allotment of land ExPW4/A contains his name and other particulars at the entry encircled in red.
PW22 further deposed that the signature on affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW22/E are not his signature and his name is wrongly mentioned as 'Amit Chand Sharma' and his address is incomplete. He denied his signatures on MC meeting dated 30.6.1999 Mark PW22/F-1, MC meeting dated 24.08.2000 mark PW22/F-2, MC meeting dated 16.2.2002 mark PW22/F-3, MC meeting dated 24.4.2002 mark PW22/F-4, MC meeting dated 10.07.2002 Mark PW22/F-5. PW 22 deposed that CBI had taken his specimen signature on 4 sheets ExPW22/G (colly).
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 36 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW22 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW23 Sh. Zulfikar Ali@ Alam Ali deposed that on the suggestion of his mother, he became the member of the society vide application Mark PW23/A which bears his signature at point A. He has denied of having received any receipt dated 01.12.1995 mark PW23/B for Rs. 110/-. PW23 Sh. Zulfikar Ali denied having made any signature on the affidavit dt. 07.10.2002 Ex. PW23/C. The specimen signatures and hand writings taken by the IO are Ex. PW23/D. He further deposed that his mother has asked him to give Rs. 50,000/- to K. Laxmi Naryanan and he would hand over certain documents. He handed over the said money to Sh. K. Laxmi Narayanan and received the documents. One Mr. Dabas sent some person to him along with money of 1 lakh and he received the money and gave him the documents.
PW23 Sh. Zulfikar Ali was also not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity given.
PW26 Sh. Sunil Madan deposed that Om Prakash Madan asked him to sign 1 or 2 papers for becoming a member of the society and he had simply signed the documents and given it to Sh. Madan. He further stated that he had not paid any fee for becoming a member of the society and he never attended any meeting of the society and had not filled any nomination form for becoming member of any managing committee. He further stated that he never worked as treasurer of the said society and he has denied having submitted the application Ex. PW26/A and denied having made any signature thereon. He has also denied making a payment of Rs. 110/- vide receipt mark PW26/B. He has also denied having executed any affidavit dt. 07.10.2002 Ex. PW26/C and his signature thereon. He has denied having made any signature in the general body meeting dt. 31.08.2002 mark PW21/E at point B. He has also denied his signature on the nomination form at mark PW21/D1. He CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 37 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 further deposed that nomination form PW21/D he had seen and he never proposed candidature of accused Subash Chand for the post of Vice-President and denied having made any signature on that nomination form. He further deposed that he did not propose the candidature of Pawan Kumar for the post of President in the nomination form Mark 26/D and deposed that signature appearing at point A on the said nomination form is not of him. He has also denied his signature in the list of members Ex. PW26/E of Geetanjali CGHS and deposed that he has been wrongly shown as a Treasurer of the society and he never worked as a Treasurer of the society. He further deposed that as per the freezed list of 62 members Ex. PW4/A he has been shown as a Treasurer of the society and the signature appearing at point A on each page of the said list are not of him. He has also denied having made any signature on the audit report for the period of 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 Ex. PW6/PX.
PW26 Sh. Sunil Madan was also not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW35 Sh. Jasbir Singh deposed that he did not fill any form for membership of any group housing society, he had not signed any affidavit and he never became President of any Geetanjali CGHS. He further stated that he never signed as a President on any document. He had visited one Smt. Noorjahan. She had made him sign a few papers at her house regarding the application Ex. PW35/A. He further deposed that signature appearing at point A on that document may be or may not be his signature. Regarding the affidavit dt. 07.10.2002 Ex. PW35/B he deposed that the signature appearing there may be or may not be his signature. Regarding the signature on certain documents Ex. PW35/C1 to C41 he stated that the same may or may not be his signatures.PW35 Jasbir Singh admitted his signatures on pages 41/C, 83/C, 105/C and 110/C on the documents Ex. PW35/D1 to D124.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 38 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 In the reply to one question as to why he signed on aforesaid pages when he was not the President of the society, He replied that Smt. Noorjahan obtained his signature on these papers as she could get him a flat cheaply. He again replied that Smt. Noorjahan made him sign these documents and he was not aware of all these documents. He does not know any Sukhbir Singh and he never authorized any Sukhbir Singh to represent the society. He has denied having made any signature on the letter in the capacity of President Ex. PW35/E1. He further deposed that he never sent any letter to the Assistant Register (South-West) regarding the letter Ex. PW35/E2 and stated that the signatures appearing at point X as president on this document may be or may not be of him. He has further denied having signed the affidavit Ex. PW35/E3, Ex. PW35/E4 and Ex. PW35/E5. He has also denied his signature on the summary of audit report Mark PW35/E6 and also on the balance sheet of Geetanjali CGHS Ex. PW35/E7. He has also denied the signature on the agenda notice Ex. PW16/A, nomination form Mark PW21/D1 to D4 and PW26/D. He further deposed that he never held any meeting of GBM of Geetanjali CGHS. He further deposed that he has signed minutes of Special General Body Meeting dt. 31.08.2002, already Mark PW21/E and admitted his signature as President on these documents. He further deposed that he has seen minutes of special general body meeting dt. 04.09.2002 and signature appearing at point X may be or may not be his which was Mark PW35/E8. He further deposed that he has seen photocopy of documents (Page5/C to 10/C) and signature appearing at points X as President are his signature. The said documents are marked PW35/E9 (Colly.).
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 39 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 He further deposed that he has seen minutes of proceedings dt. 30.06.1999, 24.08.2000, 16.02.2002, 16.10.1983, 20.04.1985, 20.06.1988, 28.08.1988, 10.10.1988, 20.11.1988, 16.06.1990, 20.06.1990, 16.08.1990, 23.12.1990, 31.07.1993, 30.11.1993, 06.01.1991, 21.01.1991, 21.12.1993, 01.07.1994, 25.10.1994, 25.03.1995, 09.04.1995, 11.05.1995, 07.06.1995, 01.10.1995, 10.11.1995, 27.07.1995, 25.03.1997, 24.04.2002 and 10.07.2002. Many of these minutes are already marked documents. Signatures appearing at points X as President on these documents may or may not be his signature. The said documents except already marked are now marked as Mark PW35/E10, E11, E12 & E13. He further deposed that list of members, already Ex. PW4/A are signed by him. He further deposed that the IO of CBI had taken specimens of his signatures as of his name and also as P.K. and Sunil Madan. He has seen specimen signatures from S-13 to S-18, consisting of 6 pages and these specimen sheets contained specimens of his signature which he had given to IO during investigation. The said sheets are Ex. PW35/F (colly.) He further deposed that signatures appearing in a brief summary of audit report along with annexures for the year 1997-1998 to 2001-02 may or may not be his. The said summary Ex. PW35/G (colly.).
Since PW35 Jasbir Singh was resiling from his previous statement, he was cross-examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI.
PW35 was not cross-examined by accused Jitender Singh Sharma( proceedings abated) and Mohinder Pal Bajaj, though he was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Subash Chand.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 40 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
51. Second Group is of the witnesses who were the promoter members of the society PW2 PW2 Dinesh Bhatia, deposed that he became a member of Geetanjali CGHS in the year 1983 and had paid Rs 100/- for becoming a member of the society. He further deposed that the affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW2/A was executed by him and it bears his signature at point A. PW2 has denied of having made any signature on the resignation letter dated 16.8.1990 and deposed that the address shown in the resignation letter has already been vacated by them in the year 1984 after retirement of his father. PW2 has denied the signature on the application PX 3 seeking registration of a cooperative society in the Union Territory of Delhi. He deposed that the signatures shown in the Intensive Enquiry Proforma, PX4 and Bye Laws of the society PX 5, are not his signatures. PW2 further deposed that the affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW2/B does not bear his signature.
PW2 Dinesh Bhatia was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 M.P Bajaj. During his cross examination, PW2 replied that he had not submitted application to become a member of the society except affidavit ExPW2/A . PW2 further replied that he had not given application for becoming member of the society but denied the suggestion that by not giving such application, he did not become the member of the society. During his cross examination, PW2 has shown his ignorance of Bye Laws of the Co-operative Society and working of the Managing Committee of the Society. He denied the suggestion that he did not make any correspondence with the society on account of not being its member. He replied that he had not stated to CBI that he had taken back Rs 100/- and had placed his signature as a token of such refund.
PW2 during his cross examination had admitted his signature on affidavit ExPW2/DA but denied the fact of refund of Rs 100/- and stated that it is incorrectly written.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 41 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 He replied that some members of the society had come to his shop at Nehru place and had taken his affidavit but he does not remember their names.
PW2 was not cross examined on behalf of accused Jitender Sharma (A-1) and Subhash Chand (A-3) despite opportunity.
PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami deposed that he along with his father late P.C Goswami had become member of the Geetanjali CGHS during the year 1984 and had paid Rs 110/- each for obtaining he membership. He further deposed that in the year 1988, the society had sent two cheques of Rs 100/- each but they did not encash the same. PW9 further deposed that the application for membership of registration of cooperative society ExPW8/A bears his signature as well as signature of his father against the serial number 19 & 38 respectively. PW9 deposed that the intensive enquiry report ExPW8/B, By-laws of the society ExPW8/C bears his signature as well as signature of his father. He admitted signatures of his father on affidavits dated 24.11.1983, ExPW9/A and ExPW9/B however, he denied the signature of his father appearing on affidavit dated 07.10.2002, ExPW9/C and stated that his father had already expired in the year 1985-86. He denied of having signed application of membership ExPW9/D, attested photocopy of letter dated 16.8.1990, regarding receipt of cheque of Rs 100/-, ExPW9/E and voucher dated 16.8.1990 regarding receipt of Rs 100/- by him, ExPW9/F. PW9 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 J.S Sharma against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021. PW9 was not cross examined by other accused persons despite opportunity.
PW15 Sh. Dharampal Bhatia deposed that he became a member of Geetanjali CGHS. He deposed that he had never resigned from the membership of the society and the resignation CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 42 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 letter dated 16.8.1990 ExPW15/E does not bear his signature. PW15 has admitted his signature on application for membership of registration of cooperative society( ExPW8/A), on intensive inquiry proforma (ExPW8/B), Bye-laws of the society (ExPW8/C) and affidavit dated 24.11.1983( EPW15/A). He also identified signatures of his father on ExPW8/C. PW15 further deposed that he had attended the general body meeting of the society only once and that the copy of proceedings of general body meeting dated 16/10/1983 ExPW15/F bears his signatures. PW15 deposed that the affidavit dated 07.10.2002, does not bear his signature and he had never executed the same. He also denied having signed or submitted any application dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/C, to the society for membership. He also denied having received any voucher dated 16.8.1990 ExPW15/D, regarding receipt of Rs 100 receipt Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that CBI took his specimen signature on four pages which are Ex. PW15/G(colly).
PW15 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A-1) against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, and Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). During his cross examination he replied that except for the membership fee of Rs 100, he had not paid any other fee/amount to the society and he is not aware as to who used to keep the records of the society. PW15 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite opportunity.
PW19 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bains deposed that he became a member of Geetanjali CGHS in October,1983 and resigned from the said membership in January,1985. He deposed that he had received back membership money which was around 100 Rupees. He further deposed that Mr. Prem Chand was President of the said society, Anil Chand Sharma was Vice President and he himself was the Secretary including other office bearers whose names he does not remember.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 43 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW19 admitted his signature on application (ExPW8/A) for registration of the society Geetanjali Vihar CGHS, encircled vide ExPW19/A, Bye-laws of the Geetanjali Vihar CGHS alongwith List of members (ExPW8/C) encircled vide ExPW19/B and Intensive inquiry Performa (ExPW8/B) encircled vide ExPW19/C. PW19 has also identified signature of his father on the Bye- Laws ExPW8/C. He further admitted having executed affidavit dated 30.11.1983 ExPW19/D and having attended General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS, dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/F and signing the said minutes of the meeting. He deposed that the statement of account of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW19/E bears his signature.
PW19 has denied having signed an application for becoming member of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW19/F and the fact that he had submitted the said application. He also denied having signed the purported resignation letter dated 16.8.1990 ExPW19/G and the fact that he had received any amount of Rs 100/- vide refund voucher dated 16.8.1990 ExPW19/H. PW19 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A-1) against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2). During his cross examination, PW19 replied that he had not made any other initial payment of Rs 100 or Rs 110/- and the same was refunded to him by the society.
PW21 Sh. Rakesh Puri, deposed that some person suggested him to become the member of group housing society so he made a payment of Rs. 100/- to that person to become the member of Geetanjali CGHS. Since, society was delaying the process, therefore, he resigned from the membership of the said society and he never attended any meeting of the said society and never became a member of the Managing CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 44 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Committee at any point of time. He admitted submitting the application form Mark PW21/A; He further deposed that it bears his signature at point A and he admitted the receipt mark PW21/B and the affidavit dated 01.10.2002 are Ex. PW21/C. He further deposed that the list of members of the society is Ex. PW4/A which bears his name at serial no. 62 but denied his signature on the photocopy of the nomination form for election of the said society. The said forms are Mark PW21/D1 to D4;
Since PW21 Rakesh Puri resiled from his previous statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, he was cross- examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI. During his cross- examination by the CBI, he admitted that his statement was recorded by the CBI which is Ex. PW21/PX. On asking whether he became a member of the society on the suggestion of the accused Subash Chand, PW21 Rakesh Puri replied that Subash Chand was not the person who suggested him to become the member of the society. He has denied the suggestion that he became the member through Subash Chand.
PW21 Subash Puri was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW25 Sh. Shyam Sharan deposed that he became a member of the society in the year 1983 and that the society was registered in 1984 by the name of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. PW25 admitted his signature on the application for registration of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd (ExPW8/A) vide entry encircled in red ExPW25/A, Intensive Inquiry Performa (ExPW8/B) vide entry encircled in red, Bye-laws of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd along with list of members(ExPW8/C). PW25 has also identified the signature of his father on the Bye-Laws ExPW8/C .
PW25 admitted having executed affidavit dated 24.10.1983 ExPW25/C and also attending General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar dated 16.10.1983, Mark CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 45 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW15/F (ExPW25/D).PW25 also admitted having received a cheque for Rs 12576/- ( PW20/D8) vide which he had received his land cost money from the society on 19.7.2002.
He deposed that the photocopies of proceedings Mark PW22/F-1, Mark PW22/F-2, PW22/F3 , PW22/F4, PW22/F5 and proceedings dated 31.07.1993, 30.11.1993, 21.12.1993, 1.7.1994, 25.10.1994, 25.3.1995, 09.4.1995, 11.5.1995,7.6.1995, 1.10.1995, 10.11.1995, 27.7.1996, and 25.05.1995 ( collectively Mark 25/E1 to E13) does not bears his signature.
PW25 deposed that the audit report for the year 1990-1991 to 1996-1997 ExPW5/PX, photocopy of resignation letter Mark 25/G and photocopy of cash voucher for Rs 12576/- vide which he got refund of share money mark 25/H, bears his signature.
PW25 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A-1), against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2). During his cross examination, PW25 replied that he had not made any complaint against the society or its executive members regarding his membership. He further replied that Sh. Laxmi Narayan was maintaining and keeping the records of the society.
PW30 Sh. K. Lakshmi Narayanan deposed that he became a member of the Geetanjali CGHS Ltd on 16.10.1983 and in the said year, he was posted as LDC in Directorate General of Inspection, Custom & Central Excise, New Delhi. He further deposed that in the said society Sh. Prem Chand was the President, Anil Chander Sharma was the Vice President, Rakesh Kumar Bains was General Secretary and Sh. V.S Sundaram was the Treasurer.
PW30 deposed that signatures appearing against his name on the application for registration of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW8/A CGHS Ltd ExPW8/A, on the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 46 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Intensive Inquiry Performa ExPW8/B and Bye-laws of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd alongwith list of members ExPW8/C are those of his brother K.Shankar Narayanan. He admitted having executed affidavit dated 21.10.1983 ExPW30/A. He also identified his signatures on the photocopy of minutes of first General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS, dated 16.10.1983 Mark PW15/F and Mark ExPW25/D. PW 30 deposed that Mark PW 30/C letter addressed to the President Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. regarding cancellation of his, membership from the Society bears his signature and was filled in the July,2002 by him but in the above Mark PW30/CThere appears to be overwriting on the date and date has wrongly been shown as 16.8.1990.
PW30 denied having signed a debit voucher dated 16.08.1990 for Rs. 1200/- Mark PW30/D and his signature on the audit report, along with enclosures for the year 1990- 1991 to 1996-1997 Ex. PW-5/PX. He deposed that he attended only some of the meetings on 20.06.1988, 23.08.1988, 10.10.1988, 20.11.1988, 16.06.1990, 20.06.1990, 16.08.1990, 23.12.1990, 31.07.1993, 30.11.1993, 21.12.1993, 01.07.1994, 25.10.1994 and 25.03.1995. (proceedings already Mark PW25/E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and E6) rest are Mark PW30/E1 to E8, and has signed the proceedings.
PW30 further deposed that the rest of the proceedings do not contain his genuine signatures and denied having signed proceedings dated 30.06.1999, 24.08.2000, 16.02.2000, 09.04.1995, 11.05.1995, 07.06.1995, 01.10.1995, 10.11.1995, 27.06.1996, 25.03.1997, 25.04.2002 and 10.07.2002 , Mark PW22/F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 and Mark PW25/E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12 and E13 respectively.
PW30 proved his specimen signature sheets ExPW30/F(colly) given to the CBI during investigation. He deposed that the list of members of the Society was not CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 47 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 approved by the office of RCS because the number of members were below the required limit i.e. 60 and the number of members of the Society remained below 60 even in 1988. He further deposed that he was elected as Treasurer of the Society and remained Treasurer till 2002. Record of the society was handed over to him by Sh.V.S Sundrama, after his retirement and the record remained with him till 2002. Thereafter, in July,2002, he handed over the record of the Society to one Mr. Alam Ali, son of Mrs. Noor Jahan as was decided by the Managing Committee of the Society.
PW30 further deposed that one Mayank Goswami had contacted him in 1998 and told him that he got to know about him from the office of RCS, Delhi and asked him to enroll new members in the Society. Mayank Goswami took him to above said Mrs. Noor Jahan in Laxmi Bai Nagar in 1998. He further deposed that in the same year i.e. 1998, the said Mayank Goswami gave him Rs. 3,85,000/- in cash but did not handover any applications for membership. Thereafter, there was no communication from the side of Mayank Goswami or Mrs. Noor Jahan. However, in October-November, 2000, Alam Ali son of Noor Jahan contacted him at his office and enquired about enrollment of new membership. PW30 further stated that he told Alam Ali that no applications were submitted and therefore new members were not enrolled. Alam Ali told him that he had given Rs. 8,00,000/- to Mayank Goswami for enrollment of new members. PW30 further deposed that when they came to know about this, they wanted to return Rs. 3,85,000/- but Alam Ali told them to handover documents of the Society or return Rs. 8,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Managing Committee decided to handover the documents to Alam Ali for running the Society. As such, the documents were handed over to Alam Ali by PW30 in July , 2002. At that time, Alam Ali paid a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- to them.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 48 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW30 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A-1) against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) but he was not cross-examined by the accused Subhash Chand.
52. Witnesses from the office of Registrar Cooperative Society.
PW5 Smt. Aruna Chaudhary was posted As Assistant Registrar, Audit, in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi during the period April 2006 to September 2008. PW5 deposed that every society has to be audited every year and the auditor is appointed by the audit branch from the penal of department auditors, however, if any society made a request for any chartered accountant, in that case, a chartered accountant out of the penal created for that purpose used to be appointed by AR Audit. She further deposed that the department auditor is appointed for conducting the audit for the period upto three years. PW5 has explained the mode and manner in which Audit of the society is conducted.
PW5 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A-1), against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021, and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2). PW5 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite the opportunity.
PW6 Sh. Dharambir Singh was posted as Head clerk in the office of RCS, Parliament Street, New Delhi during the period 1997-98 to 2003. During that period he had worked with the Audit Section and he is well conversant with the signatures of Sh. P.K Thirwani and J.S Sharma, as he had worked with them.PW6 identified signatures and initials of P.K Thirwani on the audit report in the file ExPW6/PX CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 49 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period 1997-98 to 2001-2002.
PW6 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW20 Sh. Anil Dalal deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as Clerk in Delhi State Co-operative Bank, South Extension branch, New Delhi. He deposed that vide seizure memo ExPW20/A, dated 22.02.2007, he had handed over statement of account of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. of SB A/c No. 123 for the period 01.02.1986 to 08.03.2006, photocopy of signature card in respect of A/c No. 123 of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. and photocopy of various cheques to CBI Inspector. He further deposed that certified copy of statement of account of A/c No. 123 of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. for the year February, 1986 to 08.03.2006, ExPW20/B(Colly) bears his initials and official seal of the bank. He deposed that the specimen signature card is Mark PW20/C. PW20 deposed that cheque no. 618679 , Ex.PW20/D1 was for Rs. 6501/- and was paid to Ramesh Sharma., cheque no. 618680 Ex.PW20/D2 was for Rs.1100/- and was paid to Varsha Jagiasi, cheque no. 618669 Mark PW20/D3 was for Rs.110/- and was paid to Ramesh Sharma, cheque no. 618661 Mark PW20/D4 was for Rs.7,000/- and was paid to K.L. Badhan, cheque no.618678 Ex.PW20/D5 was for Rs.16,323/- and was paid to Anita Pathak, cheque no.618677 Ex.PW20/D6 was for Rs.31,678/- and was paid to Anil Kumar Parsija, cheque no. 618675 Ex.PW20/D7 was for Rs.7,000/- and was paid to Radha Mehta, cheque no. 618676 Mark PW 20/D8 for Rs.12,576/- and was paid to Shyam S. Verma, cheque no. 018504 Ex.PW20/D9 was for Rs.2,600/- and was paid to Anil Chander Sharma, cheque no. 018506 as Ex.PW20/D10 was for Rs.4,846/- and was paid to K. Laxmi Narayanan, cheque no. 608360 Mark PW20/D11 was for Rs.40,000/- and was paid to CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 50 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 K.Laxmi Narayanan, cheque no.018505 Ex.PW20/D12 was for Rs. 10,688/- and was paid to Ramesh Sharma and cheque no. 018503 Ex.PW20/D13 was for Rs.1,200/- and was paid to Raman Bhandre .
PW20 further deposed that as per specimen signature card Mark PW20/C, the authorized signatory to operate the account of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. in the year 1994 were Shyam Verma, President, Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Secretary and Sh. K. Laxmi Narayan, Treasurer and as per statement of account Ex.PW20/B (colly.), the last transaction had taken place on 27.08.2002.
PW20 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW24 Sh. Bhupender Singh was posted as Assistant Registrar (South-West) in the Office of RCS, Delhi, in the year 2006. He deposed that letter dated 08.02.2007, ExPW24/A was written by him and bears his signature and it was sent to Sh. D.Damodaran, Sub-Inspector, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi. He further deposed that vide said letter he had intimated the CBI that all the files/documents pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. had already been handed over/submitted to them and no further documents were available in their branch.
PW24 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW27 Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma was posted as LDC in the office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Delhi in the year 2006. He deposed that he had handed over audit report to Inspector CBI and the seizure memo dated 27.04.2006 ExPW27/A bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that vide said memo, he had handed over audit report for the period 1990-91 to 1996-97 in respect of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. to SI D.Damodaran. He further deposed that the seizure memo dated 01.08.2006 ExPW27/B bears his signature at point A and vide said CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 51 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 memo, he had handed over audit report for the period 1997- 98 to 2001-02 in respect of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. to SI D.Damodaran.
PW24 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW29 Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, was posted as Joint Registrar in the Office of RCS, Delhi from May, 2002 to December, 2003. He deposed that Sh. Narayan Diwakar was posted as Registrar of Co-operative Societies during that period and Sh. J.S. Sharma was one of the Assistant Registrar's. He deposed that noting dated 12.03.2003, ExPW29/A pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd was made by J.S. Sharma, AR (South-West) on the basis of noting of Dealing Assistant, wherein proposal for approval of list of 62 members for forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land. He further deposed that after making the note, the file was marked to him and thereafter to RCS. The RCS approved the said proposal for forwarding the list of approved members to DDA for allotment of land. He further deposed that pursuant to Letter dated 18.03.2003 ExPW29/B, vide which J.S. Sharma had enclosed the approved list of members to AR (Policy) for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land, Sh. Yogi Raj, AR (Policy) forwarded the approved list of 62 members (ExPW4/A) of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. to DDA for allotment of land vide letter dated 05.04.2003 Mark PW29/C. PW 29 was cross examined by the accused persons. During his cross examination he admitted that the Managing Committee(MC) of the society decides as to who will be members of the society and it also dealt with the resignations and enrollment applications. He further admitted that the freeze list is sent to DDA only to indicate strength of the members of the society and that members can be changed even after submission of freezed list to the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 52 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 DDA. However, the number of members in the freeze list cannot be changed. He further admitted that the freeze list was finally approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar, RCS.
PW-31: Sh. Virender Kumar Bansal worked in the office of RCS, Delhi from January, 2004 to May, 2008 as Assistant Registrar. He deposed that on 31.10.2005, he had forwarded some documents to CBI vide letter Ex.PW31/A. PW31 proved the photocopies of the documents which were sent along with the letter ExPW31/A as Ex.PW31/B (Colly.).
PW31 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
53. Sanctioning Authority PW33 Sh. Sanjeev Khirwar worked as Excise Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi during the year 2007.He deposed that he accorded sanction for prosecution against accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj on the basis of SP report along with documents and other materials sent by the CBI. He deposed that the above documents were put up before him for sanction. He deposed that he had gone through the SP report and accompanied documents and after applying his mind, accorded the sanction for prosecution of Mohinder Pal Bajaj U/s 19 of PC Act, 1988. He deposed that his detailed sanction order dated 27.02.2007 ExPW33/A bears his signature on every page at point A. He further deposed that he had granted sanction as he was the competent authority to remove accused Mohinder Pal Bajajwho was working as UDC in his office at the time of grant of sanction.
PW33 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused M.P Bajaj. PW33 was not cross examined by the remaining accused persons despite the opportunity.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 53 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
54. Witnesses from DDA PW4 Sh. Kishan Gopal Kashyap deposed that he was posted in DDA w.e.f 22.12.1967 and retired on 31.8.2009 as Dy. Director. He was posted as Dy. Director (GH) w.e.f 19.10.2004 to 31.8.2009 and before that he remained posted in the group housing branch as Assistant Director for three years. PW4 deposed that after receipt of the list of approved members from the office of RCS, land is allotted to the society as per its availability. Before 1991, the land was used to be alloted on the first come first come basis but after a decision in the case of Kavri CGHS, the land was started to be alloted on the basis of the seniority fixed by the RCS. PW4 has explained the procedure followed for the allotment of land till perpetual lease deed is executed between the DDA and the society. PW4 deposed that the letter dated 05.4.2003 Mark PX was issued under his attestation to the SP, CBI. He proved the list received along with letter Mark PX as ExPW4/A. PW4 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused M.P Bajaj. PW4 was not cross examined by the remaining accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW34 Sh. Virender Singh Verma, is the witness who was posted as Dealing Assistant in Group Housing Branch of DDA from 2001 to May, 2004. He deposed that Sh. S.S. Mathur was Assistant Director, Sh. M.C.Singhal was Deputy Director and Sh. K. G. Kashyap was Assistant Director in the said branch of DDA . He deposed that the letter ExPW4/A was received in the said Branch along with an approved list of members of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. And the same was marked to him by Sh. S.S. Mathur, He further deposed that letter dated 04.09.2003 alongwith list, Ex.PW31/B (colly.) bearing signature of Sh. D.P. Dwivedi, Director (Residential Land) was sent to Registrar (CS), Govt. of NCT, Delhi. The letter is regarding seeking CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 54 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 confirmation of recommendation made by RCS for allotment of land to the group housing societies according to the seniority of the registration number. PW 34 further deposed that list containing the name of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. figuring at serial no.29. PW34 proved the reply dated 24.9.2003, received from the Office of RCS 24.09.2003 (D-37) received in their Branch and marked to him by Sh. S.S. Mathur as Ex.PW34/A. He also deposed that the letter dated 08.08.2005 containing a list of group housing societies. vide which list of members of 44 societies was sent to CBI by Sh. K.G. Kashyap, Deputy Director is Mark PW34/B. PW34 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
55. Expert witness.
PW39 Sh. V.G.S. Bhatnagar is an expert witness and is said to have more than 40 years of experience in the field of examination of documents. He deposed that the original documents of this case were sent by SP CBI, New Delhi vide his forwarding letter no. 7550/RC.BD1/2005/E/0008-BS&FC dated 18.08.2006, ExPW38 /B colly, was received in Kolkata office on 21.08.2006 for examination and report. He further deposed that during 2006, he was working as Government Examiner of Questioned Documents in the office of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata and this case was allotted to him for examination and report. He examined all the original documents with the help of available scientific instruments in the Kolkata office.
PW 39 proved the opinion given by him as ExPW39/A and deposed that the Sh. S. Saha the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents of Kolkata had also examined the original documents of this case independently and agreed to the opinion ExPW39/A given by him. PW39 also CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 55 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 proved the forwarding letter no. DXC317/2006/1474 dated 30.08.2006 along with the original documents under my signature, ExPW39/B vide which the report was forwarded to SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi . He further proved the detailed reasons for his opinion Ex. PW39/C. PW39 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused Subhash Chand. During his cross examination, he admitted that the handwriting of a person may change over time but replied that these changes are called natural variations. He also admitted that there are changes in the handwriting of a person every time he writes but stated that the changes are not in the basic handwriting characteristics. He replied that they have been able to give a definite opinion by examining photocopies, however, in certain cases, photocopies may hinder expressing a definite opinion.
PW39 was not cross examined by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) despite opportunity and by accused J.S. Sharma (A1) ( proceedings already stands abated on 23.08.2021).
56. Witnesses from CBI PW 36 Sh. Vishal was posted as Sub-Inspector in CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi on 10.08.2005. He deposed that one preliminary enquiry was going on in their branch related to a group of co-operative group housing societies including Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd. Sh. S.K. Kashyap , the then Addl. SP, who was Verifying Officer orally directed him to bring some documents/files from CBI, EOW, New Delhi. Accordingly, he went to CBI, EOW, New Delhi and met Sh. S.L. Garg, Inspector, CBI, EOW and told him about the directions of Addl. SP and about the documents which were required. Sh. S.L. Garg handed over the said documents/files to him vide receipt memo dated 10.08.2005 ExPW36/A. PW36 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused J.S. Sharma (A1) ( against whom proceedings have CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 56 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021 ) and accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj. During his cross examination he replied that he had no personal knowledge regarding collection of these documents by Sh. S.L. Garg.
PW36 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite opportunity.
PW37 Rajesh Kumar Prasad was posted as Inspector in CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi in the year 2005.. He deposed that during this time a PE was being conducted on the orders of Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the matter of fraudulent allotment of land to group housing societies by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He further deposed that on the oral orders of Sh. S.K Kashyap who was the then ASP, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi, he collected certain files pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar CGHS from Inspector C.S. Prakash Narayanan, Inspector EOW, CBI, New Delhi. Accordingly, through receipt-cum-production memo he had taken over files pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar CGHS. The files were handed over to Sh. S.K. Kashyap, who was the verifying officer vide receipt-cum-production memo dated 09.08.2005 which bears his signature at point A on the second page of the receipt. The receipt is Ex. PW37/A. He also identified the signature of Sh. C.S. Prakash Narayanan at point B. he identified his signature as he was working as Inspector, CBI, EOW, New Delhi. He had been working with him and had seen him sign during the course of official work.
PW 37 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused M.P Bajaj. During his cross examination, PW37 replied that Sh. C.S Prakash Narayanan had taken the documents from the office of the RCS, New Delhi. He admitted that he did not have any written authority to collect the said documents from C.S. Prakash Narayanan. He replied that he handed over the documents on the same day but he had no document to show the same.
PW37 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite opportunity.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 57 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW38 PW38 Sh. D. Damodaran is the witness who was posted as SI of Police, BS&FC, Delhi during the period 2004 to 2007 and was entrusted with the FIR RC18(E).2005 CBI, BS&FC. He obtained the permission for conducting investigation of PC Act vide ExPW38/A. He is the IO of the present case. He deposed that this case was registered on 14.12.2005 u/s 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468, 471 IPC against Narayan Diwakar, Jitender Singh Sharma, Mohinder Pal Bajaj and other unknown persons on conversion of PE BD12005E0002 which was registered in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004 dt. 02.08.2005 directing CBI to conduct a thorough investigation in the whole matter relating to 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies. What happened to Narayan Diwakar, is it a typo or not, is to be checked) .
He further deposed that during the course of investigation, members of the society, which included the earlier members and the new members of the society, were examined, statement of several witnesses was recorded, specimen signatures of the witnesses and accused persons were also taken, documents related to the files maintained in RCS office relevant to this case and from Delhi State Cooperative Bank, DDA etc were collected and accordingly seizure memos were prepared. For the sake of brevity, the seizure memo's and the documents exhibited during the testimony of PW 38 are tabulated herein- under:
Particulars Nature of document Exhibit given Seizure Audit report of ExPW27/A memo dated Geetanjali CGHS for the 27.04.2006. period 1991 to 1996- 1997
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 58 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Seizure Audit report of ExPW27/B memo dated. Geetanjali CGHS for the 01.08.2006. period 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 Seizure Statement of Account of ExPW20/A memo dt. Geetanjali CGHS, 22.02.2007. Savings Bank Account No. 123 for the period 01.02.1986 to 08.03.2006, photocopy of specimen signature card and photocopies of few cheques Letter no. Addressed to ExPW38/B 7650/RCBD Government Examiner of 1/2005/E/00 Questioned Documents, 18-BS&FC Kolkata and signed by dt. Sh. M.K Bhatt SP ,CBI 08.08.2006 BS&FC, New Delhi The Sh. Subash Chand, Sh. Ex. PW38/C specimen Jasbir Singh, Sh. M.P. (colly.) signatures/wr Bajaj/A2, Sh. Mohd. itings taken Aslam, Mrs. Naseema in the Begum, Sh. Mukesh presence of Kumar Bains, Sh. Sh. R.S. Dharampal Bhatia, Sh. Rayat and Rakesh Dhawan, Sh. Sh. Tek Vinod Sharma, Sh. Chand. Sanober Ali, Sh. Sudhir Khosla, Sh. K. Laxminarayanan, Smt. Mehjabi, Sh. Amir Dhelvi, Sh. K.L. Badan, Sh. Ikhtiar Ali, Sh. Anil Chand Sharma, Sh. Dinesh Bhatia, Sh. Jameel Anjum, Sh. Alam CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 59 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Ali and Sh. Shakeel Anjum Forwarding Resignation letter and ExPW38/D letter dated photocopy of resignation 12.07.2006 letter , alongwith annexures send by Anil Chandra Letter dated Vide which photocopy of ExPW38/E 31.07.2006 letter dated 28.07.2006 regarding deposition of cheque no. 618669 dated 20.08.1998 for Rs. 110/- drawn on Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited on 20.10.1998 by Anil Chand Sharma.
PW 38 further deposed that he obtained the sanction for prosecution in respect of accused J.S. Sharma(A-1, proceedings already abated) and accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) from the competent authorities and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed in this case.
PW38 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) and Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-
2).
PW40 Sh.R.S Rayat was posted as Tehsildar at New Delhi on 21.06.2006.
Pursuant to the direction of SDM, he went to the CBI office on that date where he met the duty officer who further sent him to Inspector Damodaran. He proved the specimen signatures of Subash Chand as ExPW38/C(colly) and of Jasbir Singh as ExPW35/F(colly) stating that the same were taken in his presence and he was made a witness to taking such signatures. He has also proved the specimen signatures/handwriting of Nasima Begum as ExPW18/D ( colly) and of Mohammad Alam as ExPW17/D (colly) and deposed that the same CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 60 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 were taken on 25.04.2006, in his presence and he was the witness to the same.
PW40 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand. He was not cross examined by the other accused persons despite opportunity. During his cross examination, he replied that he had not received any notice to join the proceedings in the present case and stated that he had been verbally instructed by the SDM. He denied the suggestion that he had not attended any investigation or proceedings in relation to the present case at the CBI office or elsewhere or that he is a stock witness of CBI and have counter signed the specimen signatures sheets in the present case on the asking of the CBI despite the fact that no specimen signatures/writings having been taken in his presence.
57. Formal Witnesses PW7 Sh. Om Prakash Madan he is just a formal witness. He deposed that one Sunil Madan became the member of Geetanjali CGHS. Mr. Chawla suggested him to become the member of the society and on his suggestion PW7 Sh. Om Prakash Madan had recommended the name of Sunil Madan;
PW7 Sh. Om Prakash Madan was also not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW16 Sh V.D Dhingra deposed that he is having a utensil shop at 3/22, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and his residence is at 3/33 A Moti Nagar New Delhi. He had neither given his residence I.e 3/33 A on rent to any housing society nor any housing CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 61 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 society ever functioned or held meetings there at any point of time. He further deposed that no election programme was held at his residence as shown in agenda/notice of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS for the election of managing committee of the society (placed at page 20 of D-2) Mark PW16/A. PW16 was cross examined by the accused Subhash Chand but not by accused Mohider Pal Baja despite opportunity granted to him .
PW28 Sh. Rakesh Malhotra deposed that he is the co-owner of house bearing no. C-1/25, Janak Puri, New Delhi and has been residing there since 1971. He further deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Ajay Kumar Khanna and they have not let out any portion of our house since 1985.
PW28 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
PW32 Sh. Mayank Goswami deposed that he worked as Liaisoning Officer at M/s Goel Associates from 1995 to 2000 and he used to visit the Office of RCS, DDA, Delhi Urban Arts Commission etc. in connection with work. Sh.K.Lakshmi Narayanan was running a society namely Geetanjali CGHS Ltd and he met him in 1998. Mr. K. Lakshmi Narayanan was secretary or treasurer of the society. PW32 further deposed that Mr. Narayanan told him that the list of members of their society was not still approved as they were not having enough members. PW32 further deposed that he told K.Lakshmi Narayanan that he could get the list approved in the Office of RCS and that he knew one Insp. V.K. Behl of the Office of RCS. PW32 further deposed that to get a list of members approved was routine work. PW32 further testified that Mr. Behl introduced him to one Ms. Noor Jahan and told that she was having some members who could be enrolled in the society and the list could be approved. Thereafter, he arranged a meeting between Smt. Noor Jahan and K. Lakshmi Narayanan. After negotiation, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 62 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Sh. K. Lakshmi Narayanan and Smt. Noor Jahan agreed for enrolling members and she paid around Rs.3,85,000/- to Sh. Narayanan and he handed over to her various documents such as membership register, proceeding register etc. Smt. Noor Jahan had given Rs.10,000/- to PW 32 for rendering my services.
PW32 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused J.S. Sharma (A1) ( against whom proceedings have already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2021 ) and accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had taken Rs.8 Lacs from Smt. Noor Jahan and he gave only Rs.3,85,000/- to Sh. K. Lakshmi Narayanan. PW32 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite the opportunity.
58. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.8.2022, prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr PC
59. Statements of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj and Subhash Chand u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded on 12.10.2022, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
60. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj, the answers given by him were either " I have no CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 63 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 knowledge of the same. The witness has not deposed anything against me" or " I do not know, the witness had not deposed anything against me" except answers given differently to few questions which are reproduced as follows:
Q.169 It is in evidence against you that PW29 Rakesh Bhatnagar has deposed that he was posted as Joint Registrar in the office of RCS from May,2002 to December,2003. Narayan Diwakar was posted as Registrar of Co-operative Society and J.S Sharma was the Assistant Registrar during this period. He further deposed that he is conversant with the signatures of both as he had worked with them. What do you have to say?
Ans. I do not exactly remember the tenure of their posting. However, it is correct that at the relevant time they were posted in the office of the RCS.
Q.170 It is in evidence against you that PW29 Rakesh Batnagar has deposed that a noting dated 12.3.2003 reflected at page 43/N of D-1 was prepared by J.S Sharma, AR(SW) on the basis of notings reflected at page 39/N to 43/N of Dealing Assistant wherein proposal for approval of list of 62 members for forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land was presented. He has proved the said noting marked as ExPW29/A. PW 29 has identified his signature at point B, the signature of J.S Sharma at point A and that of RCS at point C. What do you have to say?
Ans. Noting is a matter of record.
Q.203 It is in evidence against you that
PW33 Sanjeev Khirwar has deposed that he was posted as Excise Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2007 and he accorded sanction for prosecution against you on the basis of SP CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 64 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 report along with documents and other materials sent by the CBI. What do you have to say?
Ans. He was not the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute me in the present case. Moreover, sanction was issued without application of mind and without perusal of any documents just in a mechanical manner by signing the draft order brought by CBI.
Q.204 It is in evidence against you that PW33 Sanjeev Khirwar has further deposed that the documents were received by the Excise Commissioner's Office and was dealt by the Vigilance Branch of the said Office. Thereafter, the same was put up before him for according sanction and after going through the SP report and accompanying documents, sanction under sanction 19 PC Act was accorded by him. He has proved the said sanction order dated 27.2.2007 placed in D-40 in D-40 as ExPW33/A bearing his signature at point A. What do you have to say? Ans. It is incorrect. There is nothing on record to show the documents, if any, were ever sent to PW33 for according sanction. Otherwise also, PW33 was not the competent person to grant sanction for prosecution against me in respect of the present case.
Q. 205 It is in evidence against you that PW33 Sanjeev Khirwar has further deposed that he had granted sanction as he was competent authority to remove you. He further deposed that you were working as UDC in his office at the time of grant of sanction. What do you have to say? Ans. It is incorrect. PW33 was not the competent authority to accord sanction. Further, he had wrongly stated that I was posted as UDC in his office. Instead, I was posted as Sub-Inspector, Grade III(DASS).
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 65 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
61. When accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj was asked why this case is against him (Q.255), he replied:
" This is a false case against me. Membership is the prerogative of the society. I was the lowest rank official to deal with the file. I was not the competent authority to approve the list of members of the society. Investigation was biased and I was falsely implicated.
62. In reply to the question whether he wants to say anything ( Q.258), he replied:
"The investigation is faulty and biased. I was falsely implicated in the present case. I am innocent and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to acquit me. "
63. Similarly, the answers given by accused Subhash Chand during the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, to most of the questions put to him were " I do not know", except for the answers given differently to few questions, which are reproduced as follows:
Q.160 It is in evidence against you that PW 26 Sunil Madan has further deposed that he had not proposed your candidature for the post of Vice President of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS nor the signature appearing at point B on the nomination form placed on page 16 of D-2 already Mark PW21/D4 belong to you. What do you have to say?
Ans. I do not know, I have never been a member of Geetanjali, CGHS. I have never CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 66 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 held any post in the said society nor contested for any election in the said society.
Q.241 It is in evidence against you that PW38 Sh. D.Damodaran has provided specimen signatures/writings from you, your co-accused M.P Banaj, Jasbir Singh, Mohd. Aslam, Naseema Begum, Mukesh Kumar Bains, Dharampal Bhatia, Rakesh Dhawan, Vinod Sharma, Sanober Ali, Sudhir Khosla, K. Laxminarayanan, Mehjabi, Amir Dhelvi, K.L. Badan, Ikhtiar Ali, Anil Chand Sharma, Dinesh Bhatia, Jameel Anjum, Alam Ali and Shakeel Anjum in the presence of witness Sh. R.S. Rayat and Sh. Tek Chand, as Ex. PW38/C (colly.).What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. My specimen signatures were never taken during the investigation of the present case by the Investigating Officer.
Q.247 It is in evidence against you that PW39 Sh.V.G.S Bhatnagaar has proved the opinion placed at page 113 in D-13 as ExPW39/A prepared by him. He stated that Sh. S.Saha, the then Asstt. GEQD had also examined the original documents of this case independently and agreed to his opinion. Thereafter the said report was forwarded to SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi vide forwarding letter no. DXC317/2006/1474 dated 30.08.2006 along with original documents under his signatures and proved the same as ExPW39/B. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. The GEQD report is a manipulated document obtained under the influence and instruction of the CBI.
Q.248 It is in evidence against you that PW39 Sh. V.G.S Bhatnagar has proved the reasons as ExPW39/C. What do you have to say?
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 67 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Ans. It is incorrect. The reasons
given by the witness are manipulated and have been given under the influence and instruction of CBI.
Q. 251 It is in evidence against you that PW40 Sh. R.S Rayat has identified the signatures on each page of specimen signatures sheets already ExPW38/C(Colly) and PW 38/F (colly) on which specimen signatures from S-1 to S-18 were taken. What do you have to say?
A. I do not know. My signatures are not there on ExPW38/C (Colly) and PW38/F (colly). My specimen signatures were never taken during the investigation of the present case by the CBI.
Q.253 It is in evidence against you that PW40 SH.R.S Rayat has identified his signatures on each page of specimen signatures sheets already ExPW17/D (Colly) and PW18/D (colly) on which specimen signatures from S-37 to S-46 were taken. What do you have to say?
Ans. I do not know. My specimen signatures were never taken during the investigation of the present case by the CBI.
64. In reply to the question why this case is made against him ( Q.254), he replied that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI to shield the real accused persons. Accused Subhash Chand opted to lead evidence in his defence and has examined one Deepak Jain, private handwriting and fingerprint expert, as DW1.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 68 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 DEFENCE WITNESS BY ACCUSED SUBHASH CHAND
65. DW1 Sh. Deepak Jain stated that he has done a certificate course in forensic science from Delhi University in the year 1987-88 and has also obtained two year practical training in all aspects of handwriting and fingerprint examination from the office of Mrs. R.K Vij, the examiner of the questioned document. He further stated that in the present case, he had examined the disputed signatures written as Jasbir and came to the conclusion that the dispute signatures marked Q 1 to Q 273 , Q 306, Q 307, Q 320 to Q416 are not written by writer of the comparative signatures marked S1 & S2. The detail of reasons and observations on the basis of which he have formed the aforesaid opinion are contained in his written report dated 09.11.2002 ExDW1/A . 331 enlarged photographs annexed with the report are ExDW1/B(colly) and certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is ExDW1/C.
66. During examination of DW1, a court question was put to the witness as to how he procured the disputed and comparative signatures, to which he replied that "
with due permission from the Court, I have examined the disputed and comparative signatures from the court record. I have taken the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 69 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 photograph of the disputed and comparative signatures from the court record under supervision of the Ahlmad".
67. DW1 Deepak Jain was cross examined by Ld. Substitute PP for CBI. During his cross examination, he replied that from the term " special studies" mentioned in his examination in chief, he meant study done on his own like reading books on handwriting and fingerprint science and admitted that he did not gain any qualification from the self study. He admitted that he had studied and collected photographs only of S1 and S2 and not of S3 to S12 but denied the suggestion that he did not consider S3 to S12 while examining the documents as S 3 to S 12, as they were not in favour of accused no.3 Subhas Chand. DW1 Deepak Jain during his cross examination by Ld. Subs PP for CBI, replied that there is no difference between natural variation and fundamental variation.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CBI
68. During the arguments, Ld. PP for CBI has made following submissions:
i. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that initially the society was registered with 62 promoter members having registered office at 1253,Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi 110 023 CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 70 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 and the list of the members of the society was not approved by the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies till 2003.
ii. After apprising about the brief facts of the case, she submitted that the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj and Subhash Chand alongwith their co-accused Jitender Singh Sharma( expired and proceedings already abated) entered into a criminal conspiracy and moved an application before the RCS for revival of the society on the basis of forged and false documents. iii. It is true that till date DDA has not allotted any land but the false list of the members was submitted to the office of RCS and that the list was processed for approval and for allotment of the land from the DDA. iv. She has taken me to the notings dated 07.4.1988, 23.1.1996, 06.10.1997,10.10.1997 and 12.5.1998, and submitted that various statutory requirements were not met and the society was at the verge of defunct and last order sheet was of the year 1998 and thereafter there was no proceedings but subsequently, a note was made by accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj in the year 2003, which indicates involvement of the accused persons for getting revival of the society by illegal means and subsequently for allotment of the land.
v. Ld. PP for CBI has taken me to the charges framed against accused no2 and 3 by the Ld. Predecessor this court and submitted that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj had conducted the audit of the Society for the period 1990-91 to 1996- 97 while working as Auditor in the Audit Section of the RCS and accepted the forged accounts papers submitted by the society for conducting audit which enabled to make the strength of the society at 62 members during 1998 whereas at that time society was not having 62 members.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 71 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 vi. By pointing out the report/opinion of the handwriting expert, who has been examined as PW39 in the present case, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that report would indicate that certain application forms/vouchers and resignation letters including the affidavits had been furnished on the basis of which a subsequent list was prepared. She has also taken me to the final list of the members submitted to the RCS office and pointed out that the name of accused no.3 Subhash Chand is mentioned at serial no.104. She stated that accused Subhas Chand was the main culprit and he forged the signatures of Shri Jasbir Singh on various records and manipulated the records which were submitted to the RCS office for approving the freezed list of the members of the society and forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land.
vii. She has taken me to the testimony of PW30 Sh.K Lakshmi Narayanan and PW25 Sh. Shyam Sharan and submitted that they have denied having made any signature on the Audit report ExPW5/PX. viii. Ld. PP for CBI also submitted that there is nothing on record indicating that as to on whose directions said Audit was carried out by accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj. In this regard she has referred to the testimony of PW5 Smt Aruna Chaudhary and stated that she could not locate the approval of RCS for conducting audit for more than three years in the file containing audit report ExPW5/PX.
ix. Ld PP for CBI further pointed out that in the year 2003 the address of the society has been shown as 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, whereas PW16 Sh. V.D Dhingra deposed that the above said address is his residential address and he had neither given his residence on rent to any housing society nor any housing society ever functioned or held meeting there at any point of time.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 72 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 x. She further pointed out that for getting the society revived, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have forged various affidavits/application forms/vouchers/resignation letters. She has also taken me to the list ExPW4/A forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land and pointed out that the list has a stamp of "GauravShali" instead of Geetanjali. xi. By referring to the provision of section 293 CrPC, she stated that a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert may be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings.
xii. Regarding the testimony of defence witness DW1 Sh.
Deepak Jain, examined by accused Subhash Chand, she stated that his testimony is not relevant as he could not produce any document in support of his experience; he has given the opinion merely on the basis of photographs of the documents and original documents were never with him; the opinion of the witness that there is no difference between natural variation and fundamental variation, is not tenable; he is a interested witness as he has given opinion only on S-1 and S-2 documents.
xiii. Ld. PP for the CBI has placed reliance upon following judgments:
a) Hema Vs State of Madras , Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2013, Date of Decision 07-01-2013
b) Murari Lal vs State of MP, 1980 AIR 531 SC
c) State of Police Inspector Vs. Sri T. Venkatesh Murthy, Criminal Appeal No.997 of 2004, Date of Decision 10-04-2004.
d) State of Bihar Vs Rajmangal Ram, Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2014, Date of Decision 31-03-
2014.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 73 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
e) L. Narayana Swami Vs State of Karnataka, Crl Appeal No. 721 of 2016, date of decision 06.09.2006.
f) Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State Criminal Appeal 19/2007,date of decision 27-08-2009 SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED MOHINDER PAL BAJAJ
69. Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj has made following submissions:
i. Ld. Counsel has taken me to the order on charge and actual framing of charges and pointed out that as per the charge framed against the accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj, the only allegation is that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in the year 2003. He submitted that the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj was lowest in rank in dealing with the present society. Whatever proposal was made by him, it was placed before the Assistant Registrar then before the Joint Registrar and lastly before the Registrar for final approval prior to sending the list to DDA. He pointed out that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj was not the final decision making authority and prosecution had booked him only on the basis of presumption and assumptions. ii. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that freezed list of the members pertaining to the society is prepared by the Managing Committee. Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution which could indicate that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj had received any pecuniary gain or any other benefit.
iii. He further pointed out that as per the story of prosecution, one Sukhbir Singh represented the society but it is not the case of the prosecution that Sukhbir Singh is fictitious person, therefore, his identity should CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 74 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 have been established. There is nothing on record that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj have contacted or ever was in touch with the accused no.3 Subhash Chand. Therefore, the question of entering into criminal conspiracy with accused no.3 Subhash Chand does not arise.
iv. He has taken me to the section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and by referring to the definition of "fact" and "relevant" submitted that the allegations made against the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj do not come under the said category and the same are irrelevant. v. By referring to the settled position of law that the prosecution was under obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, submitted that the said burden could not be discharged by the prosecution. vi. Ld. Counsel further submitted that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj may be little negligent in performing his official duties but it does not mean that he was corrupt and it was done for gaining pecuniary benefits. vii. By referring to the cross examination of PW38 Sh. D. Damodaran, who is the IO of the present case, Ld. Counsel tried to establish a case that the entire investigation carried out by the investigating agency has been done in a peculiar manner and in one direction only. He submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution other persons were involved in the alleged commission of the offence, but they were allowed to go free.
viii. One of the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel was that in the present case, supplementary report/charge sheet was filed pursuant to the directions of Ld. Predecessor of this Court whereby directions were passed to take action against the IO u/s 217 and 218 IPC. In that report, it has been mentioned that Joginder Pal Dabbas expired in the year 2004 and Noorjahan in the year 1999. By referring testimonies of PW7 Sh. Om CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 75 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Prakash Madan and PW18 Ms. Nasima Begum, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that there is a doubt about the factum that Noorjahan expired in the year 1999. ix. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that the prosecution has tried to prove its case on the basis of certain notings made in the office of RCS pertaining to the society in question. The said notings have not been proved and only certain documents have been shown to the IO. The said notings have not been proved as per law. He vehemently argued that only showing of the documents is not sufficient to presume that the documents stands proved.
x. By referring to the cross examination of PW29 Sh.
Rakesh Bhatnagar, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that PW29 has admitted that the feezed list was finally approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS and it was the prerogative of the Managing Committee to finalize the list and the members cannot change the number after matter is referred to the DDA for allotment of land.
xi. He has taken me to the testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh and submitted that there is serious doubt about the stand of the prosecution that Sukhbir Singh who allegedly represented the society before the accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj, on behalf of the president (PW35 Jasbir Singh) of the society is not believable. No material investigation has been done in this regard by the investigating agency.
xii. Ld counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has placed reliance upon following judgments:
(a) CrL Appeal No.131 of 2007 titled as A. Sivaprakash vs State of Kerala (SC), decided on 10.5.2016.
(b) CrL.Appeal No.1186/2017 titled as Madhu Koda vs State through CBI( DHC.) decided on 22.05.2020.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 76 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
(c) Order on charge dated 24.11.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court passed in a case titled as CBI Vs Vinod Gupta and Ors. (Sleuth CGHS)
(d) Judgment of the Ld. Predecessor of this court dated 30.11.2022, passed in another case titled as CBI vs Narayan Diwakar & Ors (CBSE CGHS).
xiii. By referring the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Madhu Koda (Supra), particularly para no.37,38 and 39, submitted that a public servant cannot be convicted for any erroneous decision and he can be punished only for corruption and further submitted that the mens rea is an essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under the provisions for which accused has been charged.
xiv. He has taken me to the judgment of A.Siva Prakash( Supra) and submitted that in the present case also nothing has been brought on record indicating that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has received any monetary benefits.
xv. By referring the order on charge in another case titled as CBI Vs Vinod Gupta and Ors ( Sleuth CGHS) and judgment in a case titled as CBI vs Narayan Diwakar & Ors (CBSE CGHS) passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, he pointed out accused M.P Bajaj being a dealing assistant only had taken all reasonable steps to carry out the verification of the documents and the sanction given by PW33 Sh. Sanjeev Khirawar is not a valid sanction as he had no authority to supervise the accused M.P Bajaj at the time when the alleged offence took place.
xvi. He submitted that in the present case, sanction has been given by PW33 Sh. Sanjeev Khirwar who was working in the Excise Department. He was never posted in the RCS office. By referring cross examination of PW33, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 77 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 wherein he has stated that he was not competent to remove accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj at the time of commission of the offence, the competent authority was the RCS to accord the sanction as he was the only person to remove the public servant as per section 19 of PC Act, 1988.
xvii. Ld. Counsel has also referred to the definition of word "Corrupt" as defined by Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary and submitted that by that definition accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj can not be treated as a corrupt person.
xviii. It was further submitted that one of the allegations against accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj is that he had given the Audit report on the basis of a forged and false record. By referring to the Audit Report ExPW5/PX and the receipt dated 22.07.1998, Ld. Counsel pointed out that period of audit has been mentioned and the audit report was given for that period only. Nowhere it has been alleged that the said audit report is fake. xix. Regarding freezed list sent to the DDA with the stamp "Gauravshali", Ld. Counsel pointed out that in a routine manner, 3 pages of the list were prepared by the society itself and the list was submitted to the RCS Office and one was forwarded to the DDA. On two pages a stamp of "Gitanjali" was put but by mistake or due to oversight on the list which was sent to the DDA stamp of "Gauravshali"was put. Ld. Counsel has taken me to the cross examination of PW38 D. Damodaran and submitted that the approved list of members was forwarded by Sh. Yogi Raj, the then AR Policy to DDA and DDA and DDA has not raised any objection regarding the wrong stamping.
xx. Last but not the least, Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj vehemently argued that in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 78 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 reasonable doubt. Irresistible conclusion is that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj is not guilty and evidence is not sufficient against him. No cogent explanation has been given by the prosecution with regard to the fact that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has not ever been contacted by other accused person or that he gained any pecuniary benefit or any meeting was held between accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj with accused no.3 Subhash Chand. He further submitted that notings relied upon by the prosecution have not been proved as per the Indian Evidence Act.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED SUBHASH CHAND
70. Ld. Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand made following submissions:
i. He vehemently argued that in the present case, prosecution has examined 40 witnesses but none of the witness has said anything against accused Subhash Chand. He has taken me to the testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh and submitted that even the testimony of this witness is not reliable. During the examination-in-chief PW35 Jasbir Singh has deposed that his signature on certain documents i.e affidavits, application forms, proceedings and minutes pertaining to the society may or may not bear his signatures and certain documents have been admitted by him.
ii. By referring to the GEQD report ExPW39/A, Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out that no specimen signature has been taken by the IO during the investigation pertaining to the accused Subhash Chand and if this report is read coupled with the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 79 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh, then this report cannot be believed.
iii. Ld. Counsel further argued that in the present case interestingly the reasons for such opinion were not given at the time when the charge sheet was filed through the report ExPW39/A was filed alongwith chargesheet but the reasons were not filed and later on when the case was pending before this court., CBI moved application u/s 311 CrPC, which was allowed and the witness was called with the reasons. At the time of examination of PW39 Mr.V.G.S Bhatnagar, Handwriting expert and officer of the GEQD, had given the exhibit mark to the reasons for giving such an opinion as ExPW30/C. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out that a bare perusal of that reasoning would suggest that it has been prepared later on by this witness as it has not been typed on any letterhead and no communication has been addressed to the Investigating Officer intimating him about the same. iv. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the reasons for the expert opinion should have been filed alongwith supplementary chargesheet. Accused has not been given an opportunity to go through that reasoning and all of a sudden when this witness was under
examination, before this court, a copy of this document was provided to the accused. Even the reasons given by the witness are silent about when these reasons were prepared, where it was prepared and no explanation has been given as to why it has not been filed alongwith the chargesheet. v. By referring judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in a case titled as Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar vs The State of Maharashtra, Manu/MH/1765/2021, Ld. The Defence Counsel pointed out that there is a process of taking such types of documents on record but that has not CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 80 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 been followed in the present case which also goes against the prosecution.
vi. Ld. Counsel has taken me to the testimony of PW 38 D. Damodaran who is the IO of the present case and by referring his examination-in-chief pointed out that as per the story of the prosecution, specimen signatures of accused Subhash Chand have been taken in the presence of two witnesses. One of the witness Mr. Rayat, who has been examined as PW40, although has deposed that specimen signature of accused Subhash Chand has been taken but surprisingly when that witness was present in the court, prosecution did not make any effort to get identified the accused from that witness in the background of the fact that when it is the case of the prosecution that the specimen signature of accused Subhash Chand was taken in his presence. vii. It was further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, accused Subhash Chand has been booked u/s 120 B r/w 420/468/471 IPC but the ingredients of section 420 IPC are not attracted as no money has been taken by the accused Subhash Chand. By referring to the provisions of section 293 CrPC, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the reliance placed by the CBI upon this section is not acceptable as this section comes into picture when the witness has not been examined and a report of an expert is available. But in the present case, the concerned witness has already been examined therefore, the provision of aforesaid section would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
viii. Last but not the least, Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out that in the present case, IO has been examined prior to examination of two witnesses i.e PW39 Sh. V.G.S Bhatnagar and PW40 Sh. R.S. Rayat and they CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 81 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 have been examined just to fill up the lacuna left by the prosecution in the present case. PW38 D. Damodaran,who is the IO of the present case, was not sure as to how two witnesses, who were allegedly present at the time of taking of specimen signatures of accused Subhash Chand, were present in the CBI office. It was also pointed out that no admitted signature or writings have been taken by the IO during the investigation.
ix. Ld. Defence counsel also pointed out that accused Subhash Chand has examined one Deepak Jain as DW1in his defence. DW1 has stated that the alleged disputed signatures marked Q 1 to Q 273, Q 306, Q 307, Q 320 to Q 416 were not written by the writer of the comparative signatures marked S1 & S2. Ld. Counsel submits that it is well settled law that equal weightage is to be given to the prosecution witness as well as to the defence witness.
x. Ld. Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(a) S.P.S. RATHORE Vs. C.B.I. and Ors, MANU/SC/1096/2016;
(b) Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/1641/2009;
(c) S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0550/1996;
(d) State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Dilbagh Rai and Others, 1984 SCC Online Del 277;
(e) State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Ors.AIR 1992 SC 2100;
(f) Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/2374/2013
(g) Siba Prasad Satpathy Vs. Republic of India, 2011 SCC Online Ori 262;
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 82 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
(h) Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 9 SCC 286;
(i) L.I.C. of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, MANU/SC/0170/2010
(j) Ramnish Geer and Ors. Vs. CBI and Ors., MANU/DE/4433/2022
(k) Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/1765/2021
(l) Sonu Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, MANU/DE/1894/2021 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
71. I have perused the record and heard the Ld. PP for CBI and the Ld. Counsels for accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj and Subhash Chand.
72. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that The Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was registered in the year 1983 with 62 promoter members. There was communication between the Society and the office of Registrar Co-operative Society till 1998 but there was no correspondence between them after 1998 till 2003. It is alleged that in the year 2003, all the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, made a deliberate attempt to make the society alive on the basis of forged and false documents so that they can get allotted the land from the DDA.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 83 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
73. That being so, the case of the prosecution can be divided into following three heads:
(A) The Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was registered in the year 1983 with 62 promoter members. (B) Whether in 2003, the aforesaid society which was dormant or at the verge of declaring defunct, was made alive and active on the basis of forged and false documents or not?
(C ) In case point 'B' is answered in affirmative, then what was the role of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) and Subhash Chand (A-3) ?
(A) The Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was registered in the year 1983 with 62 promoter members.
74. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, both the accused persons namely Mohinder Pal Bajaj and Subhash Chand have not taken any serious objection to the Registration and existence of the Society. The questions pertaining to the registration of the society were put to the accused persons. The reply given to those questions would indicate that they have simply stated that CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 84 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 they do not know about the same. Even otherwise, there is sufficient material available on record to hold that the society was registered with the office of Registrar of Co- operative Societies, as claimed by the prosecution.
75. It has come on the record that at the time of registration of the society certain statutory requirements are to be fulfilled and the persons seeking registration of the Society are supposed to file few documents alongwith the application. In the present case also the application ExPW8/A was moved for the registration of the society. At serial no.14 of that application, list of documents filed alongwith the application have been mentioned which includes:
1. Intensive inquiry performa.
2. Share receipt/certificate of Rs 6200/- original
3. Statement of Accounts.
4. 4 copies of Bye Laws
5. Applicant receipt copy.
6. Affidavits of 62 members.
76. In support of the fact that the Geetanjali Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was registered in the year 1983 with 62 promoter members, prosecution has examined following witnesses.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 85 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
77. PW8 Mukesh Kumar Bains, who was one of the promoter members of the society deposed that the application for membership of registration of cooperative society is ExPW8/A; his name is mentioned at serial no. 44 and it bears his signatures at point X. He further deposed that in the Intensive Inquiry Proforma ExPW8/B, his name appears against serial no.44 on page and bears his signature at point X and Bye Laws ExPW8/C has his name mentioned against Sl .No. 44 and his signatures at point X. PW8 had filed an affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW8/D, as required by the Bye Laws. He further deposed that affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW8/D bears his signature at point X.
78. PW8 was cross examined on behalf of the accused J.S Sharma (Proceedings against him already stands abated). PW8 was not cross examined by the rest of the accused persons despite opportunity.
79. PW2 Dinesh Bhatia is also one of the promoter members. He deposed that he became the member of the society in the year 1983; the affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW2/A was executed by him which bears his signature CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 86 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 at point A and he had made payment of Rs 100/- for obtaining the membership of the society;
80. Although, PW2 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj but as far as the fact that PW2 Dinesh Bhatia was the promoter member is concerned, the testimony of PW2 in this regard has gone unrebutted. Perusal of the cross examination of PW2 done on behalf of the accused no.2 would indicate that the testimony of PW2 has not been challenged on the aspect that he was the promoter member at the time of the registration of the Society.
81. PW2 during his cross examination stated that he does not know as to whether registration of the society took place in January 1984; he does not know as to whether he was a promoter member or whether he was enrolled as a member later on but stated that except affidavit ExPW2/A, he did not file any application to become a member; he has no knowledge about the rule 30 of the Delhi Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1973; no knowledge that the Managing Committee should have informed him requiring him to deposit the membership money and share money; he did not receive any such CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 87 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 written information from the society; except Rs 100/- which were charged on the initial stage, no further money was deposited by him; he has denied the suggestion that he did not make any correspondence with the Society on account of not being the member.
82. PW2 further replied that he had not stated to the CBI that he had taken back Rs 100/- and had placed his signature as a token of such refund. PW2 was confronted with the statement recorded during the investigation, but he clarified that the signature on the affidavit is correct whereas the fact of refund of 100 Rupees is incorrect. He further replied that he does not have any document to show that he became a member of the society.
83. PW9 Sh. Radha Mohan Goswami alongwith his late father Sh. Goswami were the promoter members of the society. PW9 deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society and at the initial stage they had made payment of Rs 110/- for obtaining the membership of the society; the application seeking registration of the Co-operative Society ExPW8/A bears his signature at point X against serial no.19 and that of his late father at point X against serial no.38; in the Intensive Inquiry CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 88 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Proforma ExPW8/B, his name has been mentioned against serial no.19 and that of his late father at serial no.38 and their signatures are at point X against their names: on the Bye-laws ExPW8/C, his name and that of his father appear at serial no. 19 and 38 and their signatures appear at point X: affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW9/A was executed by him and affidavit dated 24.11.983 ExPW9/B was executed by his father and their signatures are there at point X on these affidavits.
84. PW9 was also cross examined on behalf of accused no.1 J.S Sharma (proceedings against him already stands abated) but rest of the accused persons have not cross examined PW9 despite opportunity. Since, proceedings against accused J.S Sharma already stands abated, therefore, no purpose would be served by discussing the cross examination done on behalf of accused J.S Sharma. That being so, testimony of PW8 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged qua accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj and accused Subhash Chand.
85. PW15 Dharampal Bhatia is also one of the promoter members. He deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society. PW15 further CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 89 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 deposed that application seeking registration of society ExPW8/A bears his signature at point Y against serial no.46; Intensive Inquiry Perform filed alongwith said application ExPW8/B bears his signature at point A against serial no.46; in the Bye-Laws ExPW8/C, his name is mentioned at serial no.46 and bears his signature at points X & Y respectively, affidavit 24.11.1983 ExPW15/A bears his signatures at point A and B.
86. PW15 was cross examined on behalf of the accused J.S Sharma (proceedings already abated) and accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj. During his cross examination, PW15 replied that he is not aware as to who used to write proceedings of the society but admitted that he does not used to take interest in day to day affair of the society; except for membership fees for Rs 100/- , he had not paid any other amount to the society; he had not lodged any complaint or claim or case or before any court qua his membership of the society. PW15 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite opportunity.
87. Even the testimony of PW15 was not challenged on the point of registration of the society with the office of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 90 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Registrar Co-operative Societies vide application ExPW8/A, during the cross examination of PW15.
88. PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains is also promoter member of the society who deposed that the application seeking registration of the society ExPW8/A bears his signature at point A and the relevant entry is encircled in red as ExPW19/A; in the Bye laws along with list of members ExPW8/C, his signatures are at point A against his name at serial no.1 and the relevant entry is encircled in red and is ExPW19/B; in the Intensive Inquiry Performa Ex.PW8/B, his signature is at point A against his name and other particulars at serial No.1 and the relevant entry is encircled in red and is Ex.PW19/C; affidavit dated 30.11.1983 ExPW19/D, was executed by him while becoming member of said society and it bears his signature at point A and B;
89. PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains further deposed that first general body meeting of the society took place on 16.10.1983 and having attended General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS, dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/F at point A and his signature were taken in token of having attended the said meeting; the statement of account of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 91 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Geetanjali Vihar CGHS society ExPW19/E also bears his signature in the capacity of secretary.
90. PW19 was cross examined on behalf of accused no.1 and 2. During his cross examination, he replied that he does not remember what was the registration number of the society in which he became member; he has not made any initial payment of Rs 100/- or 110/- and the same was refunded to him by the society; he had not made any complaint against the office bearers of the society. He does not have any receipt showing that he made the payment to the society or that he had received a refund from the society.
91. PW19 was not cross examined by the accused Subhash Chand despite the opportunity. On the point of registration of society with the Office of RCS, even the testimony of PW19 has gone unbreached.
92. PW22 Anil Chander Sharma deposed that he became member of the Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd and had paid some fee towards the membership; he got back his membership fee/share money from the society through cheque; application for registration of society is CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 92 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 ExPW8/A and his signature is appearing at point B at serial no.21 against his name and other particulars and the relevant entry is ExPW22/A; Intensive Inquiry Performa ExPW8/B bears his signature at point A against his name and other particulars appearing at serial no.21 and relevant entry is encircled in red and is ExPW22/B; Bye-laws of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd alongwith list of members ExPW8/C bears his signature at point B against his name and that of his father's name at serial no.21; affidavit dated 24.11.1983 ExPW22/C as executed by him and it bears his signatures at point A and B; minutes of first General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS dated 16.10.1983, Mark PW15/F bears his signature at point B against his name at serial no.2 and he had put his signature at point B in token of having attended the said meeting; minutes of General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS dated 29.1.1984 Ex PW22/D bears his signature at point A at serial no.3 and he had put his signature in token of having attended the said meeting.
93. PW22 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity on the fact of registration of society, his testimony is also free from doubts in this regard.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 93 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
94. PW25 Shyam Sharan deposed that he became member of the society in 1983; application for registration of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd ExPW8/A bears his signature at point C at serial no.30 against his name and other particulars and relevant entry is encircled in red and marked as ExPW25/A; Intensive Inquiry Performa ExPW8/B bears his signature at point B at serial no.26 against his name and particulars and the relevant entry is encircled in red and marked as ExPW25/B; in the Bye- Law of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW8/C his signature is appearing at point C against his name and father's name at serial no.26; affidavit dated 24.10.1983 ExPW25/C was executed by him while becoming member of the said society and it bears his signature at point A and B; minutes of first General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/F bears his signature at point C appearing against his name at serial no.6 and he had put his signature in token of having attended the said meeting; General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar, CGHS dated 16.10.1983 bears his signature at point A against his name at serial no.26 ExPW25/D and he has put his signature in token of having attended the said meeting. PW25 was cross examined by accused no.1 and 2 but not by accused CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 94 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 no.3 despite opportunity. This witness PW25 has supported the testimonies of other aforesaid witnesses qua the registration of society.
95. PW30 K.Laxmi Narayan, deposed that he became a member of the Geetanjali CGHS Ltd on 16.10.1983. One Sh. Prem Chand was the President, Anil Chander Sharma was the Vice President, Rakesh Kumar Bains was General Secretary and Sh. V.S Sundaram was the Treasurer. He further deposed that the application for registration of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS ExPW8/A signatures at point A is that of his brother K. Shanker Narayan who had attended the meeting on his behalf; On the Intensive Inquiry Performa ExPW8/B his name and other particulars are mentioned at serial no.6 and the signature appearing at point A against his name is that of his brother Sh.K.Shankar Narayanan; in the Bye-laws of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd alongwith list of members ExPW8/C his name and other particulars are mentioned at serial no.6 and it bears signatures of his brother K.Shankar Narayanan is at point C; affidavit dated 21.10.1983 ExPW30/A was sworn by him on 21.10.1983 while becoming member of the said society and it bears his signature at point A and B ; minutes of first General Body CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 95 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS dated 16.10.1983 ExPW15/F bears his signature at point D appearing against his name at serial no.5 and he had put his signature in token of having attended the said meeting; General Body Meeting of Geetanjali Vihar, CGHS dated 16.10.1983 bears his signature at point B against his name at serial no.6 ExPW25/D and he has put his signature in token of having attended the said meeting; application dated 16.10.1983 Mark PW30/B for becoming member of the Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd (Page 15/C of D-3) bears signature of his brother Sh.K Shankar Narayana at point A who had signed the same upon his instruction.
96. PW30 was cross examined by accused no.1 Jitender Singh Sharma (proceedings already stands abated) and accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj but was not cross examined by accused no.3 Subhash Chand. The testimony of PW30 has also in a way supported the case of the prosecution that the society was registered and he was one of the promoter members of the said society.
97. From the testimonies of aforesaid prosecution witnesses namely PW2 Dinesh Bhatia, PW8 Mukesh Kumar Bains, PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami, PW15 CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 96 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Dharampal Bhatia, PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains, PW22 Anil Chander Sharma, PW25 Shyam Saran and PW30 K. Lakshmi Narayana, it stands established that they were the promoter members and they had signed the application seeking registration of the society and other statutory documents filed alongwith application i.e, Intensive Inquiry Performa, Bye-Laws and their affidavits. I have gone through all these documents. The documents bear the signatures and names of the aforesaid witnesses, as deposed by them which establishes that the society was registered with the office of RCS with 62 promoter members.
(B) Whether in 2003, the aforesaid society which was dormant or at the verge of declaring defunct, was made alive and active on the basis of forged and false documents or not?
98. From the records particularly, the application seeking registration ExPW8/A, Intensive Inquiry Performa ExPW8/B, Bye-laws ExPW8/C, and other proceedings available on record including the affidavits executed by the witnesses as stated herein above, it stands proved that the society was registered with the office of Registrar with the following 62 Promoter members.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 97 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
99. Out of these promoter members, following were examined during the trial of the present case.
(i) PW2 Dinesh Bhatia
(ii) PW8 Mukesh Kumar Bains
(iii) PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami
(iv) PW12 K.L Badan
(v) PW15 Dharampal Bhatia
(vi) PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains
(vii) PW22 Anil Chander Sharma
(viii) PW25 Shyam Saran and
(ix) PW30 K. Lakshmi Narayana
100. In the final list sent to RCS and then to DDA for allotment of land, the name of Sh. P.C Goswami is found mentioned. But during the examination of PW9 Sh. Radha Mohan Goswami, it has come on the record that Sh.P.C Goswami was his father and he was not alive at that time when his name was included in the final list.
101. In order to prove that in the year 2003, the aforesaid society which was dormant or at the verge of declaring defunct, was made alive and active on the basis of forged and false documents, the testimonies of the following witnesses are relevant.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 98 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
102. PW29 Rakesh Bhatnagar deposed that during the period from May 2002 to December 2003, he was posted as Joint Registrar in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Accused no.1 J.S Sharma (proceedings already stands abated) was one of the Assistant Registrar during that period. PW29 further deposed that in the noting dated 12.3.2003, made by J.S Sharma, accused no.1 (proceedings already stands abated) the then AR ( South West), proposal of approval of list of 62 members for forwarding the same to the DDA for allotment of land has been mentioned. He further deposed that the said proposal was prepared on the basis of noting of the dealing Assistant M.P Bajaj (accused no.2). Copy of the same is encircled and marked as ExPW29/A.
103. Here it is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid notice have not been disputed by the accused persons particularly, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj stated that the notings are matter of record.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 99 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
104. The record would indicate that accused no.2 M.P Bajaj in the capacity of dealing assistant made a noting dated 14.02.2003, which is reproduced as under:
" Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Authority of the society Appeared alongwith original record of the society.
Filed list of members, individual affidavit.
Secy's affidavit checked w.r.t the resignations/enrollment.
Asked to attach the copy of receipts share money in respect of member enrolled.
To come up on 17.02.2003 alongwith authority letter from the MC of the society ( initial ) 14.2.2003
105. In the noting dated 12.3.2003, prepared by accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj in the capacity of dealing assistant, it was mentioned that following 45 resignations took place in the society.
Sl. no Name
1) Rakesh Kumar Bains
2) Anil Kumar
3) Satish Chandera
4) Rajinder Prasad
5) K.Lakshmi
Narayanan
6) Bhagwan K. Sharma
7) Shadu Ram
8) Sunita Kanth
9) Prem Chand
10) Tipta Rani
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 100 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
11) Subash Biral
12) Darshan Lal
13) R.M Goswami
14) Harish Mathaj
15) V.S Sundaram
16) Shyam Sharma
17) Kaushyla Devi
18) R.Majumdar
19) B.K Nath
20) P.K Kansal
21) Suman Sharma
22) Urmila khanna
23) Veena Sharma
24) Rakesh Kr.
Aggarwal
25) Subhash Chand
Kapoor
26) Rajinder Kr. Verma
27) R.S Mandley
28) Darampal Bhatia
29) Dinesh Bhatia
30) B.K Mandley
31) Prem Chand
32) Ashok Kumar
33) Rakesh Kumar Sahu
34) Manmohan Bhandri
35) Kasturi Kumari
36) Rajinder Parshad
37) Vinod Sharma
38) Sulekha Sukhla
39) C.M Sukhla
40) Hemlata Thakur
41) K.Chopra
42) Rakesh Dhawan
43) Arun Chadha
44) Vinod Kr. Saini
45) Ashok Chand
Parshad
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 101 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
106. Out of the aforesaid alleged resignations, the members mentioned at serial no.1, 5, 28 and 29 namely Rakesh Kumar Bains (PW19), Sh.K.Laxmi Narayanan (PW30), Sh. Dharam Pal Bhatia (PW15) and Sh. Dinesh Bhatia (PW2), have been examined by the prosecution.
107. Although, PW19 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bains and PW30 Sh. K.Laxmi Narayanan have stated that they made a request to the society for cancellation/resignations from the membership of the society but PW2 Dinesh Bhatia, shown as resigned, categorically stated that he became a member of the society in the year 1983 and had filed an affidavit ExPW2/A for obtaining the membership but he did not resign from the membership of the society. He deposed that the photocopies of the application for membership Mark PX where his signature have been shown at point A, does not belong to him. Even the resignation letter dated 16.8.1990, mark PX1 is shown to have been signed by him at point A, but he denied that the signature on the said resignation letter belongs to him. After going through the refund voucher dated 16.8.1990, PW2 stated that the signature appearing at point A also does not belong to him.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 102 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
108. When PW2 was shown the affidavit dated 7.10.2002 ExPW2/B, he stated that said affidavit does not bear his signature at point A. Even during his cross examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the testimony of this witness qua the fact that he never resigned from the society. Not even a suggestion was put to PW2 that he had resigned from the society. Though during cross examination, he was confronted with the statement u/s 161 CrPC recorded by the CBI, where it is written that "I own my signature on the said affidavit refund of Rs 100/-" but PW2 clarified that signature on the affidavit belongs to him but the fact of refunding of Rs 100/- is incorrectly written. To this also, there is no suggestion put to this witness.
109. Similarly, PW15 Sh. Dharam Pal Bhatia deposed that he became a member of the society but never resigned from the membership of the society. He deposed that the purported affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW15/B does not bear his signature at point A and B and he had never executed the said affidavit. After going through the photocopy of the application for membership dated 16.10.1983, he submitted that no such application was moved by him and the signatures appearing at point A are CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 103 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 not those of him. He further deposed that the voucher also does not bear his signature; resignation letter dated 16.8.1990 also does not bear his signature .
110. PW15 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj. During his cross examination, he replied that it is correct that he did not take interest in the day to day work of the society. The testimony of PW15 that he never resigned from the society; he never executed that affidavit dated 07.10.2002; never moved an application dated 16.10.1983 for membership; did not signed voucher dated 16.08.1990 and resignation letter dated 16.8.1990, has gone un-rebutted and unchallenged.
111. Further, it is evident that the specimen signatures of PW15 Sh. Dharampal Bhatia on four pages S 51 to S- 54 were obtained by the IO during investigation vide seizure memo ExPW15/G(colly). The prosecution has examined PW38 Sh VGS Bhatnagar, an expert who has given his report ExPW39/A. The said report is going to be discussed in detail later on but the relevant portion of the report is being discussed here also. Para 5 of the said report says that the person who wrote the specimen CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 104 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 signature from S-51 to S-54 did not write the questioned document no. Q 55 A, Q56 A and Q 57 A.
112. The records would indicate that the questioned documents Q 55 A is an application form dated 16.10.1983 (mark PW15/C) , the questioned documents Q 56 A is the resignation letter ( Mark PW15/E) and the questioned document Q 57 A is the returning voucher (Mark PW15/D).
113. PW15 has categorically stated during his deposition that aforesaid documents do not bear his signatures. This all indicates that these documents particularly, application form, resignation letter and voucher purportedly belonging to PW15 were forged and it was falsely shown that these documents have been signed by PW15 Sh. Dharampal Bhatia.
114. It is further a case of the prosecution that following 14 members, whose names are figuring in the final list, proposed vide note dated 14.2.2003, have disowned their signatures appearing on the application forms and the affidavit shown in their names. Vide note dated 14.2.2003, prepared by the dealing assistant accused CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 105 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj, after verifying the details of the members who have resigned on the next page, the list of new 45 members have been mentioned and on the basis of which, the final list has been prepared. Out of those 45 members, above 14 persons stated that they never became a member of the society. The prosecution has not examined all the 14 persons as a witness. Out of those persons, prosecution has examined PW1 Jamil Anjum, PW3 Shakil Anjum, PW8 M.K Bains, PW10 Amir Dehhvi, PW11 Sanober Ali, PW12 K.L Badan, PW13 Ikhtyar, PW14 Mehzabeen, PW17 Mohd Aslam, PW18 Naseema Begum, PW22 Sh. Anil Chander Sharma, PW23 Zulfikar Ali @ Alam Ali, PW26 Sunil Madan, PW35 Sh. Jasbeer Singh .
115. PW1 Jameel Anjum deposed that Amir Dehlvi (PW10) is his brother and he has never became a member of the society; his brother's mother in law namely Shahjahan Begum had asked him to become a member of some society but it was not materialized; his alias name is Kappu; Particulars mentioned in the application ExPW1/A seeking membership are correct but the signature appearing at point A on ExPW1/A is not his signature; he had never deposited any amount to become a member of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 106 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 society at any point of time and the as shown vide receipt dated 1.12.1995 of Rs 110/- ExPW1/B; signature appearing at point A on affidavit ExPW1/C sworn to be in the name of Kappu, are not his signature and he had never executed such affidavit; he had given his specimen signatures on five sheets S-102-S-106 ExPW1/D to the CBI voluntarily and in the presence of one Tek Chand, whose signature he identified at point A on ExPW1/D. PW1 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
116. PW3 Shakill Anjum deposed that he never remained member of the Geetanjali GHS at any point of time and had never signed any document in respect of membership of Geetanjali CGHS; signatures appearing at point A on the photocopy of application for membership ExPW3/A are not his signatures and the address mentioned in the application form is not his address however his father's name and wife's name are correct; he never deposited any cash amount with the society as shown in ExPW3/B which is a cash receipt of Rs 110/- signatures appearing at point A on affidavit ExPW PW1/C are not his signatures and the address mentioned in the affidavit is not his address however, his father's CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 107 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 name is correct. PW3 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 J.S Sharma (proceedings against whom proceedings already stands abated) but not by the accused no.2 and 3 despite opportunity.
117. PW10 Amir Dehlvi stated that he became a member of the society in the year 1999-2000 through his neighbor Sh. Ajeet Manrog and he had paid Rs 100/- for becoming member of the society; that he inquired from Sh.Ajeet Manrog regarding allotment of flats but no satisfactory reply was given by him therefore, he resigned from the membership of the society; that the signature at point X shown on the application for membership ExPW10/A are not his signature; the date of his membership is shown as 1.12.1995 which is not correct as he had become member in the year 1999-2000 however the particulars mentioned in the said application are correct; that the receipt dated 1.12.1995 ExPW10/B is fake and same was not issued by him; that the affidavit dated 7.10.2002 ExPW10/C was never executed by him and the signatures shown in the said affidavit at point X are not his signature: his specimen signatures from S-78 to S-84 were given by him voluntarily to CBI and is ExPW10/D. PW10 was cross examined by the Ld. CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 108 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Counsel for the accused no.1 J.S Sharma (proceedings against whom proceedings already stands abated) but not by the accused no.2 and 3 despite opportunity.
118. PW11 Sanober Ali deposed that he never took membership of Geetanjali CGHS and never moved purported application Ex. PW11/A and the signature shown at point A on the said application are not his signature; he had not made payment of Rs 110/- towards membership fee of the aforesaid society as shown vide purported receipt ExPW11/B; his mother Shahjahan Begum never became member of Geetanjali CGHS and did not make any payment towards the membership of the society; the signature at point shown in the application Ex. PW11/C are that of his mother and his mother had never made any payment of Rs. 110/- as shown vide receipt Ex. PW11/D; He also denied having executed any affidavit Ex. PW11/E and the signatures shown at point A does not belong to him; the affidavit PW11/F was never executed by his mother and the signature shown at point A on the said purported affidavit is not that of his mother. PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 109 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
119. PW13 Ikhtyar Ali deposed that he is the husband of Shahjahan Begum and he had never taken membership of Geetanjali CGHS. He further deposed that although the purported application for membership of Geetanjali CGHS ExPW13/A bears his signature at point A but he had not filled in the columns of the said application nor had applied for membership of the society through the said application; he had not made any payment of Rs 110/- towards membership fee of the aforesaid society as shown vide photocopy of purported receipt of Rs 110/- Mark PW13/B; the purported affidavit ExPW 13/C was never submitted by him and the signatures appearing at points A & B does not belong to him. PW13 was cross examined by accused no.1 (J.S Sharma, proceedings against whom already stands abated) and accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj. During his cross examination, PW13 has only admitted that he has signed the application ExPW13/A upon asking of his wife . PW13 was not cross examined by accused no.3 Subhash Chand.
120. PW14 Mehjabin deposed that she never became member of Geetanjali CGHS at any point of time; the purported application for membership of Geetanjali CGHS ( placed at page no.51 of D-1(2)) ExPW14/A was CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 110 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 never submitted by her and it does not bears her signature at point A; she had not made any payment of Rs 110/- towards membership fee of the society as shown vide photocopy of purported receipt of Rs 110/-Mark PW14/B; purported affidavit ExPW14/C was never submitted by her and the her signatures shown at points A & B are not her signatures and forged one; her specimen signatures sheets consisting of three pages S-78 to S-80 ExPW14/D(colly) were obtained by the IO during investigation; specimen signatures sheets consisting of four pages S-81 to S-84 , ExPW14/E are of her husband Aamir Dehalvi and she identified the same to be correct. PW14 was not cross examined by accused no.3 Subhash Chand. Although she was cross examined by accused no.1 J.S Sharma (proceedings already stands abated) and accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj but no material cross was done on their behalf as well.
121. PW17 Mohd Aslam Khan deposed that he never took the membership of any group housing society; his sister Shahzahan Begum had suggested him to become member of a housing society on payment of membership fee and for this purpose she obtained documents pertaining to his identity and residential address however, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 111 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 he was never made member of any such housing society; the photocopy of purported application for membership of Geetanjali CGHS Mark PW17/A bears his correct particulars including his name and the address where he was residing at that point of time, however his signature shown at point A on the same are forged; the photocopy of receipt of Rs 110/- Mark PW17/B, is shown to be issued in his name by Jasbir as Secretary Geetanjali Vihar CGHS qua membership fee of the said society but he had neither made the said payment nor any such receipt was issued to him; purported affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW17/C bears his correct particulars including residential address at that point of time however, he never submitted any such affidavit to the aforesaid society and the signatures at point A & B are not his signatures; His specimen signatures S-37 to S-41 consisting of five pages ExPW17/D(colly) were taken by the IO. PW17 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite the opportunity.
122. PW18 Nasima Begum deposed that her sister-in-
law Ms. Shahzahan Begum had obtained her signatures on certain blank sheets to make the member; the photocopy of application in her name for membership of Geetanjali CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 112 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 CGHS ExPW18/A bears her correct particulars expect house no and it bears her signature at point A; the photocopy of receipt of Rs 110/- Mark PW18/B, shown to have been issued in her name by Jasbir as Secretary of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS qua membership fee of the said society but she had neither made the said payment nor any such receipt was issued to her; in the purported affidavit dated 7.10.2002 ExPW18/C her house number is wrongly mentioned and she had never submitted any such affidavit to the aforesaid society and signatures shown at point A and B does not belong to her; her specimen signature sheets ExPW18/D consisting of five pages S-42 to S-46 bears her signature.
123. PW18 was cross examined by the accused persons. During her cross examination by accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj , she replied that she had not given her specimen signature on ExPW18/D(colly) to the IO or CBI and her sister-in-law Shahzahan Begum had obtained the same. During her cross-examination by accused no.3 accused Subhash Chand, she replied that her signature on original membership form Mark PW18/A was obtained by her sister-in-law Shahzahan Begum.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 113 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
124. PW23 Sh. Zulfikar Ali @ Alam Ali deposed that in 1997-1998,prior to death of his mother in 1999, he and his brothers, sisters and other relatives had signed some forms for becoming members of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd at the instance of his mother Shahjahan Begum; photocopy of application form dated 1.12.1995 for becoming member of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd Mark PW23/A bears his signature at point A; the particulars mentioned in affidavit Mark PW23/A are correct however his only alias name Alam Ali has been written and he had only signed the said form, the particulars were not filled by him; the photocopy of receipt dated 1.12.1995 for Rs 110/- mark PW23/B was never issued to him by the said society; the affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW23/C does not bears his signatures at points A & B; PW23 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
125. PW26 Sh. Sunil Madan deposed that he had signed 1-2 papers for becoming a member of a housing society upon asking of Sh. O.P Madan, who is his father's friend, and handed over it to Sh. Madan. He further deposed that he had not paid any fee for becoming member of Geetanjali Vihar society; he had never CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 114 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 attended any meeting of the said society; neither he filed any nomination for becoming member of any Managing Committee nor he worked as Treasurer of the said society; the application for becoming member of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd ExPW26/A and the signature appearing at point A is not his signature; he had not made any payment of Rs 110/- towards membership fee of the aforesaid society nor society had issued receipt qua the same and the purported receipt of Rs 110/- Mark PW26/B; the purported affidavit dated 7.10.2002, ExPW 28/C was not submitted by him and the signatures appearing at points A & B are not his signatures; the signatures at point B against serial no.36 on the photocopy of minutes of General Body Meeting dated 31.8.2002 Mark PW21/E are not his signature; the nomination form Mark PW21/D1 for the post of member of Managing Committee of the said society was not filed by him and it does not bear his signature at point ; he has not proposed the candidature of Subhash Chand for the post of Vice President and the signature appearing at point B on the nomination form Mark PW21/D4 of Subhash Chand, is not his signature; he has not proposed the candidature of Pawan Kumar for the post of President and the signature appearing at point A on the nomination form Mark PW26/D of Pawan CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 115 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Kumar, is not his signature; he has never worked as Treasurer of the said society and in the list of members of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd his name is appearing at serial no 61 ExPW26/E and the signatures appearing at point A on all the pages are not his signature; in the freezed list of 62 members sent to DDA for allotment of land ExPW4/A , his name has been incorrectly shown as Treasurer of the said society; he never worked as treasurer of the said society and the signatures appearing at point A on each page of the said freeze list ExPW4/A are not his signatures.
126. PW 26 Sunil Madan was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 Jitender Singh Sharma ( proceedings against him already stands abated) and accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj. PW26 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand despite opportunity.
127. A careful examination of the record would indicate that the aforesaid witnesses, were not cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons except few witnesses to whom one or two questions were put which are not relevant to the present issue regarding whether they become members of the society or not. But CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 116 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 on the rest of the aspect, all the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated that they never become members of the society. The applications seeking membership were not moved by them and these applications do not bear their signatures, the receipt dated 1.12.1995 were also never issued to them and they also do not belong to them, the affidavits dated 7.10.2002 were never signed and do not bear their signatures. That being so, the only consequence is that all these documents were forged and used falsely for the revival of Society.
128. This is also the allegation of the prosecution that few members who though got a refund from the society, but in order to complete the list of 62 members, their names were fabricated. They are Anil Chand Sharma and K.L Badan , Anil Kumar Paschira, Anita Pathak and Ramesh Sharma. Out of aforesaid persons, prosecution has examined Anil Chand Sharma (PW22) and K.L Madaan ( PW12).
129. It has come on record during the examination-in chief of PW22 Anil Chand Sharma that he became member of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS Ltd; had paid some fee towards membership; he resigned from the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 117 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 membership of the society in 1995 and got back his membership fee/share money from the society through cheque.
130. It has also come on record during the examination in chief of PW12 K.L Badaan, he took membership of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS prior to the year 2005-2006 and had paid Rs 7000/- by cheque from his saving bank account no.6160 in Indian Bank, Mayur Vihar Phase I for becoming member of the society; he never resigned from the society but was returned back the amount of Rs 7000/- in his S/B account no.6160, Indian Bank through cheque by the society; that he does not know how his name is appearing at entry ExPW12/D in the final list (ExPW4/A) of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS forwarded to DDA for allotment of land.
131. PW12 K.L Badan and PW22 Anil Chand Sharma were not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity. Their testimonies are sufficient to believe that they had already resigned from the society as they were returned the membership fees and they were no longer members of the society. But despite that their names were found mentioned in the final list approved by CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 118 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 the office of the RCS and which was sent to DDA for allotment of land.
132. In this line, the last allegation of the prosecution is that in the final list the names of three persons namely Manmohan, Kaushlaya Devi and P.C Goswami have been indicated but they were dead at that time.
133. One Radha Mohan Goswami has been examined as PW9. He deposed that he and his father PC Goswami had become members of the Geetanjali CGHS during the year 1984 and had paid Rs 110/- each for obtaining he membership. He further deposed that in the year 1988, the society had sent two cheques of Rs 100/- each but they did not encash the same. PW9 further deposed that the application for membership of registration of cooperative society ExPW8/A bears his signature as well as signature of his father against the serial number 19 & 38 respectively. He further deposed that the affidavit dated 07.10.2002 ExPW9/C does not bear the signature of his father as his father has already expired in the year 1985-86.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 119 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
134. From the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that in the year 2003, for making the dormant society alive for the purpose of allotment of the land from DDA , following forged and false documents were created dishonestly and with malafide intentions:
(i) Various Letters/proceedings
(ii) Affidavits
(iii) Application Forms
(iv) Return vouchers and
(v) Resignation letters.
135. During the investigation, certain writings and signatures of prosecution witnesses as well as of the accused person were taken and the same were sent to GEQD. GEQD has already given its report. Before appreciating and to judge the admissibility of the aforesaid report, I think that the matter pertaining to the writings and signatures and opinion there upon can be judged on following four counts:
(i) Specimen writings and signatures were taken.
(ii) Such specimen writings/signatures along with questioned documents were sent to the Government examiner for examination.
(iii) Govt Examiner examined specimen signatures by comparing it with the questioned documents and submitted a report.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 120 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
(iv) value of such expert opinion/report as per the Indian Evidence Act.
(i) Specimen writings and signatures were taken.
136. The specimen signatures were taken of various prosecution witnesses and also of accused persons namely Subhash Chand and Mohinder Pal Bajaj. PW39 Sh.V.G.S Bhatnagaar is the Government examiner who has given opinion only on the following specimen signatures S-13 to S-18 given by Jasbir (PW35), specimen signature S-1 to S-12 given by accused Subhash Chand, specimen signature S-19 to S-36 given by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj, S-51 to S-54 given by Dharam Pal Bhatia (PW15) and S-60 to S-63 given by one Vinod Sharma (not examined as witness by the prosecution), specimen signature S-73 to S-77 given by Sh. K.Lakshmi Narayan (PW30).
137. The report ended with the narration that it is not possible to express definite opinion regarding the authorship of the rest of the writings based on the material in hand. That being so, no purpose is going to be served CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 121 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 by discussing the taking over of the handwritings and specimen signatures of the other prosecution witnesses because they have not been examined by the Government Examiner and there is no opinion on the same, as such. In these circumstances, I would be discussing the relevancy and admissibility of aforesaid writings and specimen signatures and the report of the expert there upon.
138. PW35 Sh Jasbir Singh in this regard deposed that "I have seen specimen signature sheets (from S-13 to S-18 of D-14, consisting of 6 pages) the specimen signature sheets contained specimens of my signatures which I had given to the IO during investigation. The specimen signature sheets are collectively marked as ExPW35/F (colly)."
139. PW35 was cross examined by accused no.-3 Subhash Chand. The taking over of the specimen signature of PW35 by the IO during the investigation has not been challenged PW35 was cross examined by accused no.3 Subhash Chand. The taking over of the specimen signatures of PW35 by the IO during the investigation has not been challenged by the accused persons. Not even a suggestion was put to the PW35 that CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 122 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 no such specimen signatures of him were taken by the IO. PW35 has not been cross examined by accused no.2 despite opportunity. Therefore, the testimony of PW35 in proving the fact that his specimen signatures were taken on six pages from S-13 to S-18, during the investigation has gone unchallenged and unrebutted.
140. The testimony of PW35 is corroborated by the testimony of PW38 Sh. D. Damodaran who is the IO of the present case. PW38 D. Damodaran deposed that he collected specimen signatures and writings from accused person and witnesses in the presence of witnesses Sh. R.S Rayat(PW40) and Sh. Tek Chand. He identified his signatures at point X on each page of the file ExWP38/C (Colly). He also identified signatures of R.S. Rayat at point Y and of Tek Chand at point Z. PW38 further deposed that he had called the aforesaid persons to be a witness of taking of specimen signatures.
141. PW38 was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused no.3 Subhash Chand and accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj, at length. During cross examination few Court questions were put to PW38 D. Damodaran to which he had replied as under:
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 123 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Court Question: How Tek Chand and R.S. Ryat were present there for purposes of taking specimen signatures/writings of witnesses/accused? Ans: I had directed my duty officer to arrange for the witnesses and he arranged the same. Court Question: Are you not supposed to know how your duty officer arranged the witnesses being the IO in the matter?
Ans: Yes.
Court Question: So are you aware how your duty officer
arranged the said witnesses on 21.06.2006?
Ans: No.
142. PW38 admitted that no admitted signature of accused Subhash Chand was collected during the investigation but he had taken the specimen signatures of the accused Subhash Chand. He has denied the suggestion that no specimen signature of accused Subash Chand was taken during investigation by him and that no persons have been made witness of taking specimen signatures of the accused Subash Chand. During his cross examination he denied that he had not taken the admitted signature of witness Jasbir Singh .
143. Testimony of PW38 on the point of taking specimen signatures and writings of the witness and accused has also gone unchanged and there is nothing to CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 124 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 disbelieve the same. During the examination, PW38 has stated that specimen signatures and writings of PW35 Jasbir Singh were taken in the presence of R.S Rayat, who has been examined as PW40.
144. PW40 R.S Rayat has deposed that on 21.6.2006, he was posted as tehsildar and upon the directions of SDM, he went to the office of CBI where he met the duty officer. He further deposed that there signatures of two people namely Subash Chand (accused) and Jasbir Singh (witness) were taken and he was made witness to the said taking of signatures. He further deposed that he had also signed on the pages on which signatures were taken. PW40 was shown specimen signatures S-1 to S-12 in respect of accused Subash Chand (D-14), Ex. PW38/C (colly.) and specimen signatures S-13 to S-18 in respect of Jasbir (D-14), Ex. PW35/F (colly.) and witness has identified his signatures on all the pages of at point Y.
145. PW40 R.S Rayat appears to be a witness to the taking over of specimen signatures and writings of some other prosecution witnesses as well but since there is no expert opinion on such specimen signatures, the testimony of PW40 in this regard is not being discussed further.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 125 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
146. PW40 was also cross examined by the accused no.3 Subhash Chand but not by accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj despite opportunity. During his cross examination also, PW40 stated that he had not received any notice to join the proceedings in the present case and he was verbally instructed by the SDM. He had gone to the CBI office on 21.6.2006 at 11:00 a.m. and was there till 4:00 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely and he had not attended any investigation or proceedings in relation to the present case at the CBI office. He further denied that he is a stock witness of CBI and has simply signed the specimen signatures sheets on the asking of the CBI despite no specimen signatures/writings having been taken in his presence.
147. Despite the fact that PW40 R.S Rayat was put to cross examination, his testimony could not be shaken to the effect that the writings/specimen signatures of accused no.3 Subhash Chand and Jasbir, were taken in his presence and he has corroborated the testimonies of PW35 Jasbir and PW38 IO D. Damodaran in this regard.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 126 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
148. Specimen signatures S-51 to S-54 belong to PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia. PW15 is stated to be one of the promoter members of the society. As per the allegation of the prosecution, he never resigned from the membership of the society but at the time of revival of the society in the year 2003, PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia was shown as 'resigned'. PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia deposed that his specimen signatures were taken on 4 sheets S-51 to S-54 by the IO during investigation and the sheets are ExPW15/G. PW15 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused no.3 Subhash Chand despite opportunity though, he was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused no.2.
149. Even accused no.2 has not disputed the taking of specimen signatures of PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia as no cross examination was done on that point. As stated herein above, PW38 D. Damodaran also deposed that he collected specimen signatures of accused and witnesses including Dharam Pal Bhatia.
150. Specimen Signatures S-60 to S-63 appears to be of one Vinod but he has not been examined as prosecution CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 127 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 witness. IO PW38 deposed that he had taken the specimen signature of Vinod.
151. Specimen signatures S-73 to S-77 belong to K.Lakshmi Narayanan (PW30). He deposed that he had given specimen signature sheets S-73 to S-77 containing his signature to the CBI during investigation and those sheets are Ex. PW30/F (Colly.). PW 30 was not cross examined by the accused persons. Therefore, the testimony of PW30 K. Laxmi Narayanan qua the fact that his specimen signatures/handwriting was taken by the IO during investigation and the same are ExPW30/F(colly) has gone unrebutted.
152. From the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses and documents on record, it stands proved that the following specimen signatures/writings were taken by the IO PW38 D. Damodaran during the investigation:
specimen signatures S-1 to S-12 in respect of accused Subash Chand Ex. PW38/C (colly.) specimen signatures S-13 to S-18 in respect of Jasbir (PW35)(D-14), Ex. PW35/F (colly).
Specimen signature S-19 to S-36 in respect of accused Mohinder Pal Singh Ex PW38/C (colly) Specimen signatures S-51 to S-54 ExPW15/G CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 128 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 belong to PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia.
Specimen signatures S-73 to S-77 belongs to K.Lakshmi Narayanan (PW30) ExPW30/F
(ii) Such specimen writings/signatures along with questioned documents were sent to the Government examiner for examination.
153. Second point is that the above specimen signatures/writings were sent to the Government Examiner for their opinion. PW38 Damodaran deposed that a letter no. 7650/RCBD1/2005/E/0018-BS&FC dt. 08.08.2006 addressed to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata was signed by Sh. M.K. Bhatt, SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi at point A and he identified his signature as he had worked under him and seen him signing the various documents. The said letter is now Ex. PW38/B. Even during his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused no.3 Subhash Chand, PW38 replied that he had sent original documents for comparison to GEQD, Kolkata through a special messenger; he had not recorded the statement of the said messenger and he was not cited as a witness; he had not filed any record to show that the special messenger had carried the original documents to GEQD, Kolkata. PW38 has denied the suggestion that no original documents were CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 129 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 sent to GEQD, Kolkata for the purpose of comparison and that no special messenger was ever entrusted for this purpose. He has also denied that without sending the original documents an opinion was sought just to implicate the accused Subhash Chand falsely.
154. During the cross examination of PW38 D. Damodaran, done by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj, not even a suggestion was put to this witness that no such communication was sent to the GEQD, Kolkata for examination of certain writings/specimen signatures.
155. Further, Sh. V.G S Bhatnagar (PW39) who is said to have examined the writings and specimen signatures, deposed that original documents of this case were sent by SP CBI, New Delhi vide his forwarding letter no. 7550/RC.BD1/2005/E/0008-BS&FC dated 18.08.2006 which was received in his Kolkata office on 21.08.2006 for examination and report. The forwarding letter is in four sheets along with the details of the questioned documents in annexure -I (2 pages), details of specimen signature/writing in annexure- II and admitted CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 130 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 signature in annexure- III. The forwarding letter is Ex. PW38/B.
156. PW39 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 Mohinder Pal Bajaj despite opportunity though he was cross examined by accused no.3 Subhash Chand. During his cross examination, PW39 admitted that no admitted writings of Jasbir Singh were supplied to him but denied the suggestion that he had never received any documents for examination from the CBI. Only one suggestion was put to PW39 that no such documents were received by him which is not sufficient to disbelieve the version of prosecution that specimen signatures/writings along with documents were sent to the GEQD, Kolkata for examination and expert opinion.
157. The forwarding letter ExPW38/B is of 4 pages, as deposed by PW39 and signed by Mr. M.K Bhatt, SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi and as deposed by PW38 D. Damodaran. That letter suggests without any doubt that certain original documents along with specimen signatures/writings and the questioned documents were forwarded to the Government Examiner, GEQD, Kolkata. Annexure-1 (2 pages) is questioned documents, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 131 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Annexure-II is details of specimen signature/writing and annexure-III is admitted signature, as deposed by PW39 V.G.S Bhatnagar, who is recipient of the aforesaid documents, for examination. In view of the above, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the specimen signature/writings along with documents, questioned documents and admitted documents were sent to the Government Examiner, GEQD, Kolkata with a request for soliciting expert opinion.
(iii) The Govt Examiner examined the specimen signatures by comparing it with the questioned documents and submitted a report.
158. PW39 V.G.S Bhatnagaar, Government Examiner of the questioned documents, deposed that during the year 2006, he was working as Government Examiner of Questioned Documents in the office of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata and this case was allotted to him for examination and report; he had examined all the original documents with the help of available scientific instruments in his Kolkata office; for the purpose of identification he have stamped and marked all the original documents examined by him; the questioned documents were marked in Q series and CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 132 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 encircled by red pencil; similarly, the specimen writings were marked in S series and encircled by blue pencil and the admitted writings were marked in A series and encircled by blue pencil.
159. He further deposed that after careful and thorough examination of the original documents, he prepared his opinion (D-13 at page no. 113) which was typed by a Government Stenographer named Subir Chatterjee which is in two sheets bearing no. DXC- 317/2006 dated 30.08.2006; the opinion is in two sheets which bear his signatures at point A respectively; the opinion is Ex. PW39/A which bears the signature of Sh. S.Saha the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents of Kolkata who had also examined the original documents of this case independently and agreed to the opinion given by him (PW39); he identified the signature of Sh. S. Saha at point B respectively, as Sh.S. Saha has worked with him for a long time and he had seen him signed during the course of such working; the report was forwarded to SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi vide forwarding letter no. DXC317/2006/1474 dated 30.08.2006 along with the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 133 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 original documents under his signature which is at point A and the forwarding letter is Ex. PW39/B.
160. PW 39 further deposed that the detailed reasons for his opinion prepared at the time of examination and typed later on are in three sheets which he produced on the day when his examination-in-chief took place and the reasons are Ex. PW39/C. During his examination in chief of PW39, it has come on record that the reasons were allowed to be taken on record on an application moved by the Ld. PP for CBI vide order dated 2.2.2022. That application appears to have been allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court after no objection was given by the Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons. therefore, the objections raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.3 Subhash Chand qua exhibition of the reasons was disposed of with the observation that "In any case exhibition of the document would not make it admissible if it is not so admissible by law".
161. PW39 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no.3 Subhash Chand. During his cross examination, he replied that handwriting of a person may change over time but these changes are called natural CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 134 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 variations; the mental condition of a person and the posture in which he writes may affect his basic handwriting characteristics or it may not; they have been able to give a definite opinion by examining photocopies however, in certain cases, photocopies may hinder for expressing a definite opinion; amongst pen lift, pen skipping, pen pressure and pen patching, only pen pressure cannot be made out in a xerox copy. PW39 denied the suggestion that apart from pen pressure the other three features are also not ascertainable in a xerox copy or that line quality of the stroke cannot be examined from a xerox copy.
162. PW39 further replied that the indented writing, speed of execution of strokes, retouching of strokes, execution of combination and connection strokes may also be found in the xerox copy. He also denied the suggestion that every successive copy shows some instant distortion from the original writing; successive copies may be distinguished if all the copies are available or that he is deposing falsely in this regard at the behest of CBI.
163. During his cross examination PW39 admitted that no admitted writing of Jasbir Singh was supplied to CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 135 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 him but stated that he did not see the necessity of having the admitted writing of Jasbir Singh. He denied the suggestion that the para no. 2 of the opinion Ex. PW39/A is not supported by any reasons in the Reasons Ex. PW39/C or that he had not examined any documents in the present case or that the reasons for the opinion have been prepared by him recently on the request of the CBI.
164. The testimony of PW39 is supported and corroborated by the IO PW38 D. Damodaran, who deposed that GEQD opinion DXC-317/2006 (D-13 at page no. 107 to 119) was received in the office by SP, BS&FC, New Delhi and was handed over to him. Even during his cross examination nothing could be extracted to show that no such opinion was forwarded by the office of Govt. Examiner of questioned documents to the office of CBI , as deposed by PW39.
165. Here, it is pertinent to mention that accused Subhash Chand has examined one Sh. Deepak Jain as DW1. DW1 deposed that he is working as a private handwriting and fingerprint expert and he has done certificate course in forensic science from Delhi University in the year 1987-88 and have also obtained two CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 136 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 year practical training in all aspects of handwriting and fingerprint examination from the office of Mrs. R.K Vij, the examiner of questioned document. He further stated that he has also made special studies in the field of handwriting and fingerprint examination.
166. DW1 further stated that in the present case, he had examined the disputed signatures written as Jasbir Q 1 to Q 143 from a file captioned as D-2, marked as Q 144 to Q 230 from a file captioned as D-1(2), and marked as Q 231 to Q 273 from a file captioned as D-5, marked as Q 306, Q 307 from file captioned as D-4, marked as Q 320 to Q416 from a file captioned as D-2 and compared the same with the comparative signatures written as Jasbir or Jasbir Singh marked as S1 and S 2; after examination and comparison, he came to the conclusion that the disputed signatures marked Q 1 to Q 273, Q 306, Q 307, Q 320 to Q 416 are not written by the writer of the comparative signatures marked S1 & S2; the detail of reasons and observations on the basis of which he have formed the aforesaid opinion are contained in his written report dated 09.11.2002 ExDW1/A; 331 enlarged photographs annexed with the report are ExDW1/B(colly) and certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is ExDW1/C. CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 137 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
167. During examination of DW1, a court question was put to the witness that how did he procure the disputed and comparative signatures, to which he replied that " with due permission from the Court, I have examined the disputed and comparative signatures from the court record. I have taken the photograph of the disputed and comparative signatures from the court record under supervision of the Ahlmad".
168. DW1 Deepak Jain was cross examined by Ld. Substitute PP for CBI. During his cross examination, he replied that from the term "special studies" mentioned in his examination in chief, he meant study done on his own like reading books on handwriting and fingerprint science and admitted that he did not gain any qualification from the self study. He admitted that he had studied and collected photographs only of S1 and S2 and not of S3 to S12 but denied the suggestion that he did not consider S3 to S12 while examining the documents as S 3 to S 12, as they were not in favour of accused no.3 Subhas Chand.
169. DW1 Deepak Jain during his cross examination by Ld. Subs PP for CBI, replied that there is no difference between natural variation and fundamental variation. He CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 138 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 denied the suggestion that the equipment used by him as noted in his report could have been used only in a lab.
170. First of all, let me discuss the value of the evidence given by DW1. He claimed to be a fingerprint expert and is having done his certification course in Forensic Science from the Delhi University. He further claimed that had obtained two years practical training in all aspects of handwriting and fingerprint examination from the office of Mrs. R.K Vij, the examiner of the questioned document and also made special studies in the field of handwriting and fingerprint examination but during his cross examination by Ld.PP for CBI, he replied that from the term "special studies" mentioned in his examination in chief, he meant study done on his own like reading books on handwriting and fingerprint science and admitted that he did not gain any qualification from the self study. In these circumstances, the claim of DW1 that he has done special studies in the field of handwriting and fingerprint examination, becomes doubtful and is liable to be rejected.
171. DW1 did not produce any certificate in support of his claim that he had done a certification course in CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 139 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Forensic Science from the Delhi University or that has undergone practical training, as claimed by him. There is nothing on record that he was a fingerprint writing or handwriting expert. Further, most importantly, DW1 has given the opinion only on the basis of photographs, taken from the judicial record. That being so, the report of DW1 would not be of any help to the accused Subhash Chand.
(iv) Value of the such expert opinion/ report as per the Indian Evidence Act.
172. In a case titled as Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, it was observed that :
7. In the first place, it may be noted that the appellant was at the material time a Guard in the employment of the Railway Administration with his headquarters at Agra and he had nothing to do with the train by which wagon No. SEKG 40765 was dispatched from Munda to Bikaner with the train which carried that wagon from Agra to Ludhiana. He was not a Guard on either of these two trains. There was also no evidence to connect the appellant with the theft of the blank Railway Receipt at Banmore Station. It is indeed difficult to see how the appellant, who was a small employee in the Railway Administration, could have possibly come into possession of the blank Railway Receipt from Banmore Station which was not within his jurisdiction at any time. It is true that B. Lal, the handwriting expert, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 140 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 deposed that the handwriting on the forged Railway Receipt Ex. PW 10/A was that of the same person who wrote the specimen handwritings Ex. PW 27/37 to 27/57, that is the appellant, but we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381 ) that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa [AIR 1963 SC 1728 , that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] where it was pointed out by this Court that experts evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 141 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 : ] and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and American courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands [1822 5 B and Ald 330] and Matter of Alfred Foster's Will [34 Mich 21] . The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last- mentioned case:
"Every one knows how very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship
-- Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil."
We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself from the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 142 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
173. In another case reported as Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy, (2019) 14 SCC 220 , it was held:
10. By now, it is well settled that the court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 4 SCC 596 .
11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v.
Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
12. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 143 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Evidence Act") expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 , without referring to Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, and stressed that the court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence.
13. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. Clearly, these observations in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 do not go against the proposition stated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence.
174. In another case titled as State of Bombay v.
Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1962) 3 SCR 10, it was held that :
10. "To be a witness" may be equivalent to "furnishing evidence" in the sense of making oral or written statements, but not in the larger sense of the expression so as to include giving of thumb impression or impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of the body by an accused person for purpose of identification. "Furnishing evidence" in the latter sense could not have been within the contemplation of the Constitution makers for the simple reason that -- though they may have intended to protect an accused person from the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 144 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 hazards of self-incrimination, in the light of the English law on the subject -- they could not have intended to put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions of parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. Furthermore it must be assumed that the Constitution-makers were aware of the existing law, for example, Section 73 of the Evidence Act or Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act (33 of 1920). Section 5 authorises a Magistrate to direct any person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken, if he is satisfied that it is expedient for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure to do so:"Measurements" include finger impressions and foot-print impressions. If any such person who is directed by a Magistrate, under Section 5 of the Act, to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken resists or refuses to allow the taking of the measurements or photographs, it has been declared lawful by Section 6 to use all necessary means to secure the taking of the required measurements or photographs. Similarly, Section 73 of the Evidence Act authorises the court to permit the taking of finger impression or a specimen handwriting or signature of a person present in court, if necessary for the purpose of comparison.
11. The matter may be looked at from another point of view. The giving of finger impression or of specimen signature or of handwriting, strictly speaking, is not "to be a witness". "To be a witness" means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral statements or statements in writing, by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a court or to a person holding an enquiry or investigation. A person is said "to be a witness" to a certain CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 145 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 state of facts which has to be determined by a court or authority authorised to come to a decision, by testifying to what he has seen, or something he has heard which is capable of being heard and is not hit by the rule excluding hearsay, or giving his opinion, as an expert, in respect of matters in controversy. Evidence has been classified by text writers into three categories, namely, (1) oral testimony; (2) evidence furnished by documents; and (3) material evidence. We have already indicated that we are in agreement with the Full Court decision in Sharma case [(1954) SCR 1077] that the prohibition in clause (3) of Article 20 covers not only oral testimony given by a person accused of an offence but also his written statements which may have a bearing on the controversy with reference to the charge against him. The accused may have documentary evidence in his possession which may throw some light on the controversy. If it is a document which is not his statement conveying his personal knowledge relating to the charge against him, he may be called upon by the court to produce that document in accordance with the provisions of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, which, in terms, provides that a person may be summoned to produce a document in his possession or power and that he does not become a witness by the mere fact that he has produced it; and therefore, he cannot be cross- examined. Of course, he can be cross-examined if he is called as a witness who has made statements conveying his personal knowledge by reference to the contents of the document or if he has given his statements in court otherwise than by reference to the contents of the documents. In our opinion, therefore, the observations of this court in Sharma case [(1954) SCR 1077] that Section 139 of the Evidence Act has no bearing on the connotation of the word "witness" is not entirely well-founded in law. It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against self-incrimination by an accused person. Self- incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 146 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of a document which is in his writing or which contains his signature or his thumb impression. The production of such a document, with a view to comparison of the writing or the signature or the impression, is not the statement of an accused person, which can be said to be of the nature of a personal testimony. When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a "personal testimony". The giving of a "personal testimony" must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression "to be a witness".
175. In another case titled as Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
12. Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") deal with opinion of experts and comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. Section 45 itself provides that the opinions are relevant facts. It is a general rule that the opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible. There was no challenge to the expertise of V.K. Sakhuja. He deposed to have testified in about ten thousand cases relating to disputed documents.
Though the employee highlighted certain adverse remarks, it cannot be lost sight of that they were about four decades back.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 147 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 But we need not go into that aspect in detail as no infirmity in the report acted upon by the authority in the present case was noticed or could be pointed out.
13. It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with the disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of the handwriting expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when an expert's evidence is not there, the court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. (See Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704 ).
176. In another case titled as Raghuvir Acharya, B. v.
CBI, (2014) 14 SCC 693 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
28. In Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704 ,this Court held that in scenarios where there is an absence of expert opinion, a second screening in the form of the court's assessment is essential to ascertain the authorship of document:
(SCC p. 712, para 12) CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 148 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 "12. ... There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 were cases where the Court itself compared the writings."
32. This Court in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326] has held that the premise of the witness claiming familiarity with the handwriting of the author must be tested: (AIR p. 1328, para 11) "11. Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case."
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 149 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
177. From the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, one may say that it is settled law that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration and this rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. but it is not always true. In few cases , such an opinion , may be acted upon without asking for further corroboration. In the case of Murari Lal (supra), as relied upon by Ld. PP for the CBI, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 150 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
12. The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which Judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and two [ Vide Correction slip No. F. 3/79 (Ed.J) dt. 21-8-80] voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar [AIR 1967 SC 1326] and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326 ] were cases where the Court itself compared the writings."
178. Now take the case in hand. In the present case expert opinion has been given by GEQD and the same is ExPW39/A. The report of the Expert is corroborated by the prosecution witnesses to the effect that certain documents/proceedings do not bear their signatures and CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 151 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 they have denied of having executed such documents etc. In these circumstances, it would be within the settled parameters of law, as narrated herein above, if the said report of the Expert ExPW39/A, is accepted and acted upon by this Court even without asking for further corroboration.
179. That being so, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that the society which was dormant or at the verge of declaring defunct, was made alive and active on the basis of forged and false documents .
(C ) In case point 'B' is answered in affirmative, then what was the role of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) and Subhash Chand (A-3) ?
180. In the present case, it has already been proved that society which was dormant and almost defunct, was made alive and active on the basis of forged and false documents. That being so, now, it is to be seen as to what was the role of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) and Subhash Chand(A-3) CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 152 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Role of accused Subhash Chand
181. Allegations against the accused Subhash Chand are that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of RCS for getting approved the freezed list of 62 fictitious members of the Society on the basis of false and forged documents which were created by him and were used for that purpose. As per the case of the prosecution, accused no.3 Subhash Chand has forged the signatures of Jasbir Singh (PW35) appearing on certain documents/proceedings.
182. In the present case, it has come on record that when present society was dormant and was almost on the verge of declaring defunct after 1998, in 2003, all of a sudden a communication dated ExPW35/E-2 was sent to the office of RCS, which reads as under :
" sub: Submission of final list of members and other documents for verification.
Sir, In this connection, as desired by you, the following documents are enclosed herewith for further necessary action.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 153 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
1. List of members, three copy.
2. Affidavit of President/Secretary/ Treasurer /Members. No. of 62.
3. Photocopy of Ration card of new members enrolled for proof of residence.
Thanking you.
Your faithfully
Sd/- Sd/-
President/Secretary
183. Another letter authorising one Sukhbir Singh to collect the authority letter of verification of the record is ExPW35/E-1. Both the aforesaid letters purportedly signed by PW35 Jasbir Singh in the capacity of President.
184. During the examination of PW35 Sh. Jasbir Singh, regarding the aforesaid two communications, he deposed that "I have never become the president of the society at any point of time and never signed any documents as President pertaining to the society". But when few documents were put to this witness, he stated that the same may or may not bear his signatures. Ultimately, the said witness was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for the CBI. But as far as aforesaid two communications are concerned, PW35 Jasbir Singh deposed that signature appearing on letter dated 'Nil' ExPW35/E-1 at point X CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 154 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 is not his signature but regarding the communications ExPW35/E-2, after going through the same, PW35 deposed that signature appearing at point 'X' as President may or may not be his signature. He further deposed that he might have been the president of the society. Little ahead, he stated that signatures appearing on certain proceedings as President belong to him. During his cross examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, when the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC was shown to him, he submitted that he cannot admit or deny that it was the same statement which IO of the CBI had recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had not signed the documents on which he admitted his signature during examination-in-chief.
185. During his cross examination done on behalf of accused no.3 Subhash Chand, he replied that one Smt. Noor Jahaan has obtained his signatures on documents many times and many times he had signed on blank papers also at the instance of Smt Noor Jahan without knowing the nature of the documents. A careful examination of testimony of this witness PW35 Jasbir Singh would make it clear that he tried to confuse the court. He was blowing hot and cold on this aspect. At first instance, he would say that certain documents do not bear CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 155 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 his signature but subsequently thereafter, he would say that same may or may not bear his signatures. In these circumstances, now the question arises how to deal with such a type of testimony in the background of the fact that this witness was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for the CBI.
186. At the very outset, I may mention that when a witness has turned hostile, as per settled position of law, even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.
187. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka ,(1980)1 SCC 30, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
" the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny.
188. In another case titled as Khujji v. State of M.P. , (1991) 3 SCC 627 it was held that:
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 156 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 "6. ... The evidence of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 4 Ramesh came to be rejected by the trial court because they were declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor as they refused to identify the appellant and his companions in the dock as the assailants of the deceased. But the counsel for the State is right when he submits that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and the part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon."
189. The above position in law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220, wherein the Court held that:
"31. The next aspect which requires to be adverted to is whether testimony of a hostile witness that has come on record should be relied upon or not. Mr Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that as PW 7 has totally resiled in his cross-examination, his evidence is to be discarded in toto. On a perusal of the testimony of the said witness, it is evincible that in examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution story in entirety and in the cross-examination, he has taken the path of prevarication. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389 , it has been laid down that even if a witness is characterised as a hostile witness, his evidence is not completely effaced. The said evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence."
190. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh may still be considered, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 157 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 if it is relevant and essential for the just decision of the case.
191. PW35 Jasbir Singh has categorically stated that documents/communications ExPW35/E-1 does not bear his signature. The documents ExPW3/E-1 is a communication purportedly signed by Jasbir Singh in the capacity of President of the society and was sent to the Assistant Registrar(SW), office of RCS. Vide aforesaid communication one Sukhbir Singh was authorised to collect the authority letter of verification of the record and list verification in respect of Geetanjali Vihar Co-op Society Ltd. This letter was never signed by Jasbir Singh (PW35) as deposed by him and it has come on record that it was signed by accused Subhash Chand.
192. PW39 VGS Bhatnagar has given the report ExPW39/A on the basis of specimen writings and signatures of the witnesses and also of the accused persons by comparing it with the questioned documents. Para 2 and 3 of the said report reads as under:
" 2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S13 to S18 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q152, Q154 to Q173, Q175, Q176, Q178 to Q183, Q185, Q186, Q188, Q189, Q191, Q192, Q194, Q195, Q197, Q198, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 158 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Q200, Q201, Q203, Q204, Q206 to Q273, Q306, Q307, Q320 to Q322, Q331 to Q336, Q338, Q341, Q345, Q348, Q351, Q355, Q358, Q361, Q362, Q 368, Q371,Q375, Q378, Q381, Q385, Q388 to Q406, Q411 and Q416.
3. The person who write the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S12 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q152, Q154 to Q173, Q175, Q176, Q178 to Q183, Q185, Q186, Q188, Q189, Q191, Q192, Q194, Q195, Q197, Q198, Q200, Q201, Q203, Q204, Q206 to Q 209, Q211, Q 212, Q214, Q216, Q217, Q219, Q221, Q223, Q225, Q227, Q229, Q231 to Q273,Q306, Q307, Q320 to Q322, Q331 to Q336, Q338, Q341, Q345, Q348, Q351, Q355, Q358, Q361, Q362, Q 368, Q371,Q375, Q378, Q381, Q385, Q388 to Q405,
193. Para no. 2 of the aforesaid report shows that persons who wrote blue writings and signatures stamped and marked S-13 to S-18 did not write certain questioned documents. It has come on record that writings and signatures marked S-13 to S-18 belong to PW35 Jasbir Singh.
194. Para no.3 of the said report shows that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-1 to S-12 also wrote the enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked on certain questioned documents. It is a matter of record that the specimen signatures and writings marked S-1 to S-12 belong to accused Subhash Chand.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 159 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
195. If the aforesaid two paras of the report ExPW39/A, are read together, the net conclusion would be that the questioned documents, as mentioned therein, were not written by PW35 Jasbir Singh and the same were written by accused Subhash Chand (A-3).
196. As stated herein above, PW35 Jasbir Singh turned hostile and remained uncertain about many questioned documents as he deposed that same may or may not bear his signatures. That being so, we have two options. Firstly, we can ignore those questioned documents which have been either admitted by PW35 Jasbir Singh having his signature and also the questioned documents for which PW35 deposed that the same may or may not bear his signatures. Secondly, we may rely upon even these questioned documents on the premises that PW35 Jasbir Singh was not sure that these questioned documents do not bear his signature as he has simply stated that " same may or may not bear his signature".
197. Be that as it may, keeping in mind that it's a fundamental principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and even if there is a slightest doubt on any piece of evidence or documents CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 160 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 produced by the prosecution in support of its case, the benefit should be given to the accused. This court is going to adopt the first option and the questioned documents which have either been admitted by PW35 or the questioned documents qua which PW35 Jasbir Singh has deposed that those documents may or may not bear his signature, are not being considered in deciding the present case. In these circumstances, for appreciating the opinion of the expert, the court would be considering only those questioned documents, which have not been admitted by PW35 Jasbir Singh and he has denied having signed or executed such documents.
198. Further, other witnesses have also admitted some of the questioned documents stating that the same bear their signatures.
199. PW12 Sh K.L Badan deposed that application form, Mark PW12/A (Q225), and Voucher dated Mark PW12/B (Q 226) bear his signatures.
200. PW13 Ikhtyar Ali deposed that application for membership ExPW13/A (Q 204), bears his signature.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 161 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
201. PW18 Naseema Begum deposed that membership application form dated 1.12.1995, ExPW18/A (Q 183) bears her signature.
202. PW21Sh. Rakesh Puri deposed that application for membership Mark PW21/A (Q144 and Voucher dated 6.4.2001 Mark PW21/B ( Q145 Mark) bears his signature.
203. PW23 Zulfikar Ali @ Alam Ali deposed that application form dated 1.12.1995, Mark PW33/A(Q 195) bears his signatures.
204. PW25 Shyam Sharan has deposed that application dated 16.10.2023 Mark PW25/F (Q95), resignation letter dated 10.7.2002 Mark PW25/G (Q 96) and voucher dated 19.7.2002, Mark PW25/H (Q 97) bear his signature.
205. PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan has deposed that application for membership dated 16.10.1983, Mark PW30/B (Q129) bears signature of his brother. He further deposed that the letter dated 16.8.1990 Mark P W30/C ( Q
130) and questioned documents from Q 245 to Q 254 Mark PW30/E-1 to PW30/E-8 bear his signatures. He further deposed that application for membership of Anil CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 162 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Kumar Pasrija, Mark PW30/H ( Q 214) bear signatures of Mr. Anil Kumar Pasrija and application for membership for Mrs Varsha Jagiasi dated 16.10.1983 mark PW30/G( Q221) bears signature of Mrs. Varsha Jagiasi.
206. Here I may mention that during the recording of the testimony of few prosecution witnesses, certain documents have been given 'Mark' and few documents have been given 'Exhibit Marks'. It is also evident that no objection was raised even from the side of accused persons regarding marking of the documents. The documents which have been given mark, were sent for examination by the handwriting expert. The report of the handwriting expert is positive about these documents. According to the prosecution these documents are forged there is no genuine author of these documents. That being so, the documents which have been even given 'Mark' during the examination of prosecution witnesses would be relevant as the same find support from the report of the handwriting expert and the same have gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
207. My aforesaid discussion for better understanding is being tabulated as under:
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 163 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 TABLE A STATUS OF THE QUESTIONS DOCUMENTS AS PER PARA 3 OF THE REPORT OF THE GEQD EXPERT Sl. No Questi Description of Purportedly Exhibit/Mark Signature oned Documents belongs to given to the admitted Docum document. (including ent where PW35 Jasbir Singh has stated "may or may not ") or denied by the prosecution witnesses
1. Q1 Application for Akash Chander Ex. PW35/D-1 Admitted by membership Parashar PW35 Jasir Singh
2. Q2 Voucher dt. 09.04.1995 --do- Ex. PW35/D-2 -do-
3. Q3 Resignation type letter --do- Ex. PW35/D-3 -do-
4. Q4 Letter addressed to Ashok Chander Ex. PW35/D-4 -do-
President reg. Prasad
Resignation from
membership no. 76
5. Q5 Application for Vinod Kumar Saini Ex. PW35/D-5 -do-
membership
6. Q6 Receipt Voucher dt. Vinod Kumar Saini Ex. PW35/D-6 -do-
21.12.1993
7. Q7 Letter dt. 19.06.1993 -do- Ex. PW35/D-7 -do-
cancellation of
membership
8. Q8 Receipt Voucher dt. Vinod Kumar Saini Ex. PW35/D-8 -do-
22.06.1990 of Vinod
Kumar Saini
9. Q9 Application for Arun Chaddha Ex. PW35/D-9 -do-
membership of Arun
Chaddha
10. Q10 Receipt Voucher dt. Arun Chaddha Ex. PW35/D-10 -do-
29.07.1994 of Arun
Chaddha
11. Q11 Letter addressed to Arun Chaddha Ex. PW35/D-11 -do-
Secretary reg.
Cancellation from
primary membership
of society of Arun
chaddha
12. Q12 Application for Rakesh Dhawan Ex. PW35/D-12 -do-
membership of Rakesh ( signed by Jashir CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 164 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Dhawan Singh)
13. Q12 A Application for Rakesh Dhawan Ex. PW35/D-12 -do-
membership of Rakesh Dhawan
14. Q 13 Resignation letter Contains signature of ExPW35/D-13 -do-
Jasbir
15. Q13A Letter address to Signature of Rakesh Ex. PW35/D-13 -do-
President reg. Dhawan
Resignation from my
membership no. 73 of
Rakesh Dhawan
16. Q 14 Voucher dt. 31.07.1993 Signature of Jasbir Ex. PW35/D-14 -do-
17. Q14A Voucher dt. 31.07.1993 Rakesh Dhawan Ex. PW35/D-14 -do-
of Rakesh Dhawan signature
18. Q15 Application for Mr. K. Chopra Mark PW35/1 -do-
Membership of Mr. K.
Chopra
19. Q16 Refund of Cash Mr. K Chopra Ex. PW35/D-15 -do-
Voucher dt. 01.12.1995
of Rs 1000/- of Mr. K.
Chopra
20. Q17 Letter dated 1.07.1995 Mr. K. Chopra Ex. PW35/D-16 -do-
reg. Resignation from
membership of society
of Mr. K. Chopra
21. Q18 Application for Mrs. Hemlata Ex. PW35/D-17 -do-
membership of Mr. Thakur
Hemlata Thakur
22. Q19 Letter dt. 25.10.1994 Mrs. Hemlata Ex. PW35/D-18 -do-
reg. Resignation from Thakur
membership of society
of Mrs. Hemlata
Thakur
23. Q20 Refund Voucher for --do- Ex. PW35/D-19 -do-
Rs 8100/- dt.
25.10.1994 Mrs
Hemlata Thakur
24. Q21 Application for Chander Mohan Ex. PW35/D-20 -do-
membership of Mr. Shukla
Chander Mohan
Shukla
25. Q22 Letter dt. 24.04.2000 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-21 -do-
reg full and final
settlement of account
with society of Mr.
Chander Mohan
Shukla
26. Q23 refund Voucher dt. --do-- Ex. PW35/D-22 -do-
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 165 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
24.04.2000 of Mr
Chander Mohan
Shukla
27. Q24 Application for Smt. Sulekha Shukla Ex. PW35/D-23 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Smt.
Sulekha Shukla
28. Q25 Letter dt. 23.08.1988 ---do- Ex. PW35/D-24 -do-
reg. full and final
settlement of account
with society ofSmt.
Sulekha Shukla
29. Q26 Refund Voucher dt. --do- Ex. PW35/D-25 -do-
23.08.1988 of Smt.
Sulekha Shukla
30. Q27 Application for Mr. Vinod Sharma Ex. PW35/D-26 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Mr.
Vinod Sharma
31. Q28, Letter addressed to --do-- Ex. PW35/D-27 -do-
Q28A President from V.K.
Sharma reg.
Resignation from
society dt. 16.08.1990
of Mr. Vinod Sharma
32. Q29, Refund Voucher dt. --do- Ex. PW35/D-28 -do-
Q29A 16.08.1990 of Mr.
Vinod Sharma
33. Q30 Application for Rajinder Parshad Ex. PW35/D-29 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Mr.
Rajinder Parshad
34. Q31 Refund Voucher dt. --do- Ex. PW35/D-30 -do-
13.01.1991
35. Q32 Letter dt.12.01.1991 --do- Ex. PW35/D-31 -do-
reg. Resignation from
society of Mr. Rajinder
Parshad
36. Q33 Application for Mrs Kasturi Kumari Ex. PW35/D-32 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Mrs
Kasturi Kumari
37. Q34 Refund Voucher dt. --d-- Ex. PW35/D-33 -do-
20.04.1985 of Mrs
Kasturi Kumari
38. Q35 Resignation letter --do-- Ex. PW35/D-34 -do-
dated 20.04.1985 of
Mrs. Kasturi Kumari
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 166 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
39. Q36 Application for Sh. Manmohan Ex. PW35/D-35 -do-
membership dt. Bhandari
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Manmohan Bhandari
40. Q37 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-36 -do-
Resignation cum
receipt of refund
amount
41. Q38 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 -do- Ex. PW35/D-37 -do-
of Sh. Manmohan
Bhandari
42. Q39 Application for Rakesh Kumar Sahu Ex. PW35/D-38 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Rakesh Kumar Sahu
43. Q40 Letter dated 16,8,1990 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-39 -do-
addressed to Secretary
Resignation from
primary membership
cum receipt of refund
amount
44. Q41 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-40 -do-
Secretary reg.
Resignation from
membership of Sh.
Rakesh Kumar Sahu
45. Q42 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do- Ex. PW35/D-41 -do-
46. Q43 Application for Ashok Kumar Ex. PW35/D-42 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Ashok Kumar
47. Q44 Voucher dt. 18.06.1985 ---do-- Ex. PW35/D-43 -do-
48. Q45 Letter addressed to --do Ex. PW35/D-44 -do-
Secretary reg.
Cancellation of
membership dt.
18.06.1985 of Sh.
Ashok Kumar
49. Q46 Application for Prem Chand Ex. PW35/D-45 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Prem Chand
50. Q47 Letter addressed to --do-- Ex. PW35/D-46 -do-
President reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
05.12.1993
51. Q48 Voucher dt. 05.12.1993 --do- Ex. PW35/D-47 -do-
of Sh. Prem Chand
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 167 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
52. Q49 Application for BalKishan Mandley Ex. PW35/D-48 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Balkishan Mandley
53. Q50 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-49 -do-
Secretary reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
16.08.1990 of Sh.
54. Q51 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do- Ex. PW35/D-50 -do-
55. Q52 Application for Dinesh Bhatia Mark PX PW2 Dinesh
membership dt. (PW2) Bhatia denied
16.10.1983 of Sh. having moved
Dinesh Bhatia(PW2) such
application and
signature
thereon
56. Q53 Letter of Sh. Dinesh ---do- Mark PX-1 Denied by PW2
Bhatia (PW2) Dinesh Bhatia
addressed to President
reg. Resignation from
membership dt.
16.08.1990
57. Q54 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ---do- Mark PX-2 Denied by PW2
Dinesh Bhatia
58. Q55 Application for Dharam Pal Bhatia Mark PW15/C PW15 Dharam
membership dt. (PW15) Pal Bhatia
16.10.1983 of Dharam denied having
Pal Bhatia (PW15) moved such
application and
signature
thereon
59. Q56 Letter addressed to --do- Mark PW15/E Denied by PW15
President/Secretary Dharam Pal
reg. Resignation from Bhatia
my membership dt.
16.08.1990
60. Q57 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do- Mark PW15/D Denied by PW15
Dharam Pal
Bhatia
61. Q58 Application for Ravi Shankar Ex. PW35/D-51 Admitted by
membership dt. MaMandley PW35 Jasbir
16.10.1983 of Ravi Singh
Shankar Mandley
62. Q59 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-52 -do-
Secretary reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
16.08.1990
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 168 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
63. Q60 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do- Ex. PW35/D-53 -do-
64. Q61 Application for Rajinder Kumar Ex. PW35/D54 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Rajinder Kumar
65. Q62 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-55 -do-
Secretary reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
16.08.1990
66. Q63 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 -do- Ex. PW35/D-56 -do-
67. Q64 Application for Satish Chander Ex. PW35/D-57 -do-
membership dt. kapoor
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Satish Chander Kapoor
68. Q65 Letter addressed to --do--(Subhash Ex. PW35/D-58 -do-
President reg. Chand kapoor)
Resignation from
membership dt.
16.18.1990
69. Q66 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 -do Ex. PW35/D-59 -do-
70. Q67 Application for Rakesh Aggarwal Ex. PW35/D-60 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh.
Rakesh Aggarwal
71. Q68 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-61 -do-
Secretary reg.
Resignation from
membership
72. Q69 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ---do- Ex. PW35/D-62 -do-
73. Q70 Application for Veena Sharma Ex. PW35/D-63 -do-
membership of Veena
Sharma
74. Q71 Letter 12.4.1995 --do Ex. PW35/D-64 -do-
addressed to Secretary
reg. Resignation from
membership
75. Q72 Letter dt. 17.01.1990 ---do-- Ex. PW35/D-65 -do-
requesting for
cancellation of
resignation and
submission of all
pending dues
76. Q73 Voucher dt. 11.05.1995 --do- Ex. PW35/D-66 -do-
refund of Rs 11200
77. Q74 Application for Urmila Khanna Ex. PW35/D-67 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Ms.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 169 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Urmila Khanna
78. Q75 Voucher dt. 03.06.1985 --do- Ex. PW35/D-68 -do-
79. Q76 Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW34/D-69 -do-
Secretary reg.
Refunding of money
80. Q77& Receipt voucher --do-- Ex. PW35/D-70 -do-
Q 78
81. Q79 Application for Suman Sharma Ex. PW35/D-71 -do-
membership of Suman
Sharma
82. Q80 Voucher dt. 10.11.1995 --do- Ex. PW35/D-72 -do-
83. Q81 Resignation Letter --do- Ex. PW35/D-73 -do-
addressed to Secretary
dt. 11.07.1995
84. Q82 Resignation Letter --do-- Ex. PW35/D-74 -do-
addressed to Secretary
dt. 17.01.1990
85. Q83 Application for P.K. Kansal Ex. PW35/D-75 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Sh. P.K
Kansal
86. Q84 Letter addressed to --do-- Ex. PW35/D-76 -do-
President reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
20.11.1988
87. Q85 Voucher --do-- Ex. PW35/D-77 -do-
88. Q86 Application for B.K Nath Ex. PW35/D-78 -do-
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of B.K
Nath
89. Letter addressed to --do- Ex. PW35/D-79 -do-
Secretary
90. Q87 Voucher --do-- Ex. PW35/D-80 -do-
91. Q88 Voucher dt. 16.10.1987 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-81 -do-
92. Q89 Application for R.Majumdar Ex. PW35/D-82 -do-
membership of Sh. R.
Majumdar
93. Q90 Voucher dt. 25.09.1997 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-83 -do-
94. Q91 Letter dt. 11.04.1984 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-84 -do-
addressed to Secretary
95. Q92 Application for Kaushalya Devi Ex. PW35/D-85 -do-
membership of
Kaushalya Devi
96. Q93 Letter dt. 16.10.1983 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-86 -do-
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 170 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
addressed to President
97. Q94 Voucher dt. 16.10.1983 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-87 -do-
98. Q95 Application dated Shyam Mark PW35/F Admitted by
16.10.1983 of Shyam Sharan(PW25) PW25 Shyam
Sharan (PW25) Sharan
99. Q96 Letter dt. 10.07.2002 --do-- Mark PW25/9 -do-
reg. Resignation from
society
100. Q97 Cash Voucher for a --do-- Mark PW25/H -do-
sum of Rs 12516/-
dated 19.07.2002
101. Q98 Application for V.S Sundaram Ex. PW35/D-88 Admitted by
membership of V. S PW35 Jasbir
Sundaram Singh
102. Q99 Letter addressed to --do-- Ex. PW35/D-84 -do--
Secretary dt.
13.02.1993
103. Q100 Voucher dt. 01.12.1993 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-90 -do--
104. Q101 Voucher dt. 01.12.1993 -do- Ex. PW35/D-91 -do--
105. Q102 Application for Harish Mathey Ex. PW35/D-92 -do--
membership of Harish
Mathey
106. Q103 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-93 -do--
107. Q104 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW35/D-94 -do--
108. Q105 Application dated Radha Mohan Ex. PW9/D PW9 Radha
16.101983 for Goswami(PW9) Mohan
membership of R.M. Goswami
Gosawami (PW9) denied having
moved such
application and
signature
thereon
109. Q106 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW9/E Denied by PW9
addressed to President
reg. Resignation from
society
110. Q107 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW9/F Denied by PW9
111. Q108 Application for Darshan Lal Ex. PW35/D-95 Admitted by
membership of PW35 Jasbir
Darshan Lal Singh
112. Q109 Voucher dt. 05.12.1993 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-96 -do-
113. Q110 Letter dt. 05.12.1993 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-97 --do--
addressed to President
reg. Resignation from
membership no. 18
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 171 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
114. Q111 Application for Subhash Birla Ex. PW35/D-98 --do--
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Subash
Birla
115. Q112 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-99 --do--
addressed to Secretary
reg. Resignation from
membership
116. Q113 Voucher dt. 16.08.1996 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-100 --do--
117. Q114 Application for Tripta Rani Ex. PW35/D-101 --do--
membership dt.
16.10.1983 of Tripata
Rani
118. Q115 Letter dt. 30.12.1990 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-102 --do--
reg. Resignation from
membership
119. Q116 Voucher dt. 30.12.1990 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-103 --do--
120. Q117 Membership Prem Chand Ex. PW35/D-104 --do--
Application of Prem
Chand dt. 16.10.1983
121. Q118 Voucher dt. 05.12.1993 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-105 --do--
122. Q119 Letter addressed to ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-106 --do--
Presdient by Prem
Chand dt. 05.09.1993
123. Q120 Application for Sunita Kainth Ex. PW35/D-107 --do--
membership of Sunita
Kuta dt. 16.10.1983
124. Q121 Letter ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-108 --do--
125. Q122 Voucher dt. 07.05.1995 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-109 --do--
126. Q123 Application for Sadhu Ram Ex. PW35/D-110 --do--
membership of Sadhu
Ram dt. 10.10.1983
Sadhu Ram
127. Q124 Voucher dt. 07.05.1995 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-111 --do--
128. Q125 Letter dt. 30.04.1995 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-112 --do--
addressed to President
129. Q126 Application for Bhagant Sharma Ex. PW3/D-113 --do--
membership Bhagant
Sharma dt. 16.10.1983
130. Q127 Voucher dt. 10.10.1988 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-114 --do--
131. Q128 Letter addressed to ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-115 --do--
Secretary dt.
20.08.1988 reg.
Cancellation of
membership
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 172 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
132. Q129 Application for K.Lakshmi Narayan Mark PW30/B Admitted by
membership of Laxmi (PW30) PW30
Naraiana dt. K.Lakshmi
16.10.1983 Narayan that
signature
belongs to his
brother
133. Q130 Letter 16.8.1990 ----do---- Mark PW30/C Admitted by
addressed to President PW30 K
reg. Cancellation of Lakshmi
membership Narayan
134. Q131 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Mark Pw30/D PW30 K.
Lakshmi
Narayan
denied having
received the
voucher and
signature
thereon
135. Q132 Application for Rajender Prasad Ex. PW35/D-116 Admitted by
membership of PW35 Jasbir
Rajender Prasad dt. Singh
16.10.1983
136. Q133 Letter dt. 20.08.1988 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-117 --do--
addressed to President
reg. Resignation for
membership no. 5
137. Q134 Voucher dt. 20.08.1988 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-118 --do--
138. Q135 Application for Satish Chander Ex. PW35/D-119 --do--
membership of Satish Sharma
Chandra dt.
16.10.1983
139. Q136 Voucher dt. 27.07.1996 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-120 --do--
140. Q137 Letter dt. 01.01.1996 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-121 --do--
addressed to Secretary
141. Q138 Application for Anil Kumar Ex. PW35/D-122 --do--
membership of Anil
Kumar dt. 16.10.1983
142. Q139 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-123 --do--
addressed to Secretary
143. Q140 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Ex. PW35/D-125 --do--
144. Q141 Application for Rakesh Kumar Mark PW19/F PW19 Rakesh
membership of Rakesh Bains (PW19) Kumar Bains
Kumar dt. 16.10.1983 denied having
moved such
application and
signature
thereon
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 173 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
145. Q142 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Mark PW19/9 Denied by
PW19
146. Q143 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ---do--- Mark PW19/14 Denied by PW19
147. Q144 Application for Rakesh Puri Mark PW21/A Admitted by
membership of Rakesh PW21 Rakesh
Puri dt. 01.04.2001 Puri
148. Q145 Voucher dt. ---do--- Mark PW21/B --do--
06.04.2001
149. Q146 Application for Sunil Kumar Ex. PW26/A PW26 Sunil
membership dt. Madaan (PW26) Kumar Madaan
01.04.2001 denied having
moved such
application and
signature
thereon
150. Q147 Voucher dt. 06.04.2001 ---do--- Mark PW26/B Denied by
PW26
151. Q148 Application for Pawan Kumar No marking was Not referred by
membership given any witness
152. Q149 Voucher dated ---do--- No marking was --do--
06.04.2001 given
153. Q150 Application for Subhash Chand No marking was --do--
membership (Accused no.3) given
154. Q 151 Voucher ---do--- No marking was --do--
dated06.04.2001 given
155. Q152 Application for Jasbir Singh Ex. PW35/A Admitted by
membership dt. (PW35) PW35 Jasbir
01.04.2001 Singh
156. Q154 Voucher dated. ---do--- Ex. PW35/C1 --do--
06.04.2001
157. Q155 Membership Sachin Ex. PW35/C2 --do--
application form of
Sachin dt. 01.12.1995
158. Q156 Voucher dt. 01.12.1993 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C3 --do--
159. Q157 Membership Rahul kapoor Ex. PW35/C4 --do--
application form of
Rahul Kapoor
160. Q158 Voucher dt. 01.12.1993 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C5 --do--
161. Q159 Membership Ajay Khanna Ex. PW35/C6 --do--
application form of
Ajay Khanna dt.
01.12.1995
162. Q160 Voucher dt. 01.12.1993 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C7 --do--
163. Q161 Membership Tipli Singh Ex. PW35/C8 --do--
application form of
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 174 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Tipli Singh dt.
01.12.1995
164. Q162 Voucher dt. 11.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C9 --do--
165. Q163 Membership Jitender Bahl Ex. PW35/C10 --do--
application form of
Jitender Bahl dt.
01.12.1995
166. Q164 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C11 --do--
167. Q165 Membership Navneet Sethi Ex. PW35/C12 --do--
Application form of
Naveen Sethi dt.
01.12.1995
168. Q166 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C12 --do--
169. Q167 Membership Ajit Manroy Ex. PW35/C13 --do--
Application form of
Ajit Nyanroy dt.
01.12.1995
170. Q168 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-14 --do--
171. Q169 Membership K.R Ranjan Ex. PW35/C-14 --do--
Application form
Ranjan dt. 01.12.1995
172. Q170 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-15 --do--
173. Q171 Membership Mrs. Mona Khanna Ex. PW35/C-16 --do--
Application form of
Mona Khanna dt.
01.12.1995
174. Q172 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-17 --do--
175. Q 173 Membership Mr. Shakeel (PW3) Ex. PW3/A PW3 denied
Application form dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application and
signature
thereon
176. Q175 Voucher dt. ---do--- Ex. PW3/B Denied by PW3
01.12.1995
177. Q176 Membership Mehjabin(PW14) Ex. PW14/A PW14
Application form of Mehjabin
Mehjabin dt. denied having
01.12.1995 moved such
application and
signature
thereon
178. Q178 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW14/B Denied by PW14
179. Q179 Membership Tahira Ex. PW35/C-18 Admitted by
Application form of PW35 Jasbir
Tahira dt. 01.12.1995 Singh
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 175 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
180. Q180 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-19 --do--
181. Q181 Membership Feroz Khan Ex. PW35/C-20 --do--
Application form of
Feroz khan dt.
01.12.1995
182. Q182 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-21 --do--
183. Q183 Membership Nasima Ex. PW18/A PW18 Nasima
application form of Begum(PW18) Begum denied
Nasima Begum dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application and
signature
thereon
184. Q185 Voucher dt. ---do--- Mark PW18/B Denied by PW18
01.12.1995
185. Q186 Membership Mohd Aslam Mark PW17/A PW17 Mohd
application form of Khan(PW17) Aslam Khan
Aslam Khandt. denied having
01.12.1995 moved such
application and
signature
thereon
186. Q188 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW17/B Denied by PW17
187. Q189 Membership Mr. Kappu ( its Ex. PW1/A PW1 Jameel
application form of jameel Anjum @ Anjum @
Kapdu dt. 01.12.1995 kappu PW1) Kappu denied
having moved
such
application and
signature
thereon
188. Q191 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW1/B Denied by PW1
Jameel Anjum
189. Q192 Membership Aamir Dehlvi Ex. PW10/A PW10 Amir
application form of (PW10) Dehlvi denied
Aamir Dehalvi dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application and
signature
thereon
190. Q194 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW10/B Denied by PW10
Amir Dehlvi
191. Q195 Membership Mr. Alam Ali Mark PW23/A Admitted by
application form of (PW23) PW23 Alam Ali
Alam Ali dt.
01.12.1995
192. Q197 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark 23/B PW23 Alam Ali
denied having
received
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 176 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
193. Q198, Membership Sanober Ali (PW11) Ex. PW11/A PW11 Sanober
application form of Ali denied
Sanober Ali dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application and
signature
thereon
194. Q200 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW11/B Denied by PW11
195. Q201 Membership Shahjahan Begum Ex. PW11/C PW11 Sanober
application form of Ali is son of
Shahjahan Begum dt. Shahjahan
16.10.1983 Begum and he
denied having
moved such
application by
his mother and
her signature
thereon
196. Q203 Voucher dt. ---do--- Ex. PW11/D --do--
01.12.1995
197. Q204, Membership Ikhtiar Ali (PW13) Ex. PW13/A Admitted by
application form of PW13 Ikhtia Ali
Ikhtiar Ali dt.
16.10.1983
198. Q206 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW13/B Denied having
received any
such voucher
199. Q207 Membership Kanu Priya Ex. PW35/C-22 Admitted by
application form of PW35 Jasbir
Kanu Priya dt. Singh
16.10.1983
200. Q208 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW35/C-23 --do--
201. Q209 Membership Dharampal Bhatia Ex. PW35/C-24 --do--
application form of s/o Vijay Pal
Dharmpal Bhatia dt. (PW15)
16.10.1983
202. Q211 Membership Hardeep Kaur Ex. PW35/C-26 --do--
and application form of and Ex. PW35/C-
Q212 Hardeep Kaur dt. 27
16.10.1983.
203. Q214 Application for Anil Kumar Pasrija Mark PW30/H Admitted by
membership of Anil PW30
Kumar Pasrija dt. K.Lakshmi
16.10.1983 Narayan
204. Q216 Application for Rajinder Kumar and Ex. PW35/C-30 Admitted by
and membership of Shalendra kumar and Ex. PW35/C- PW35 Jasbir
Q217 Rajendra Kumar and 31
Shalender Kumar
205. Q219 Application for Kamal Jeet Singh Ex. PW35/C-33 --do--
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 177 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
membership of Kamal Jomal
Jeet Singh Jomal
206. Q221 Application for Mrs Varsha Jagiasi Mark PW30/G Admitted by
membership of Varsha PW30
Jagiasi dt. 16.10.1983 K.Lakshmi
Narayan
207. Q223 Application for Drupti Ex. PW35/C-36 Admitted by
membership of Drupati PW35 Jasbir
208. Q225 Application for Kashmiri Lal Mark PW12/A Admitted by
membership of Badhan (PW12) PW12 K. L
Kashmiri Lal Badhan Badhan
209. Q227 Application for Radha Mehta Ex. PW35/C-38 Admitted by
membership of Radha PW35 Jasbir
Mehta dt. 16.10.1983 Singh
210. Q229 Application for Shanti Swarup Ex. PW35/C-40 --do--
membership of Shanti Singhal
Swarup Singhal dt.
16.10.1983
211. Q231, Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F1 Denied by
Q232 of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
and 30.6.1999 Chander
Q233 Sharma and his
signature
thereon
212. Q234 Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F2 Denied by
and of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
Q235 24.08.2000 Chander
Sharma and his
signature
thereon
213. Q236 Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F3 Denied by
and of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
Q237 16.02.2002 Chander
Sharma and his
signature
thereon
214. Q238, Photocopy of first ---- Mark PW35/E10 Admitted by
Q239, GBM held on PW35 Jasbir
Q240 16.10.1983 Singh
to
Q241
and
Q242
215. Q243 Photocopies of ---- Mark PW35/E11 Admitted by
and meeting proceeding PW35 Jasbir
Q244 dated 20.04.1985 and Singh
28.6.1985
216. Q245 Photocopy of Meeting ---- Mark PW30/E-1 Admitted by PW
and proceedings dated 30 K. Lakshmi
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 178 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Q246 20.06.1988 Narayan
217. Q247 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW30/E-2 --do--
proceedings dated
23.08.1988
218. Q248 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW30/E-3 --do--
proceedings dated
10.10.1988
219. Q249 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW30/E-4 --do--
proceedings dated
20.11.1988
220. Q250 Photocpy of executive ---- Mark PW30/E-5 --do--
committee meeting
dated 16.06.1990
221. Q251 Photocopy of ECM ---- Mark PW30/E-6 --do--
20.06.1990
222. Q252 Photocopy of ECM ---- Mark PW30/E-7 --do--
and 16.08.1990
Q253
223. Q254 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW30/E-8 --do--
proceedings dated
23.12.1990
224. Q255 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW35/E-12 --do--
proceedings dated
06.01.1991
225. Q256 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW35/E-13 --do--
proceedings dated
21.01.1991
226. Q257 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-1 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
31.07.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
227. Q258 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-2 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
30.11.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
228. Q259 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-3 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
21.12.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 179 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
229. Q260 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-4 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
01.07.1994 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
230. Q261 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-5 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
25.10.1994 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
231. Q262 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-6 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
25.03.1995 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
232. Q263 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-7 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
09.04.1995 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
233. Q264 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-8 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
11.05.1995 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
234. Q265 Photocopy of meeting ---- Ex. PW25/E-9 PW 25 Shyam
and proceedings dated Saran denied
Q266 07.06.1995 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
235. Q267 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-10 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
01.101995 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
236. Q268 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-11 PW 25 Shyam
and proceedings dated Saran denied
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 180 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Q269 10.11.1995 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
237. Q270 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-12 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
27.07.1996 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
238. Q271 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark PW25/E-13 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
25.03.1997 having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
239. Q272 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark 22/F-4 PW 22 Anil
proceedings dated Chander
24.04.2002 Sharma denied
having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
240. Q273 Photocopy of meeting ---- Mark22 F-5 PW 22 Anil
proceedings dated Chander
10.07.2002 Sharma denied
having attended
the meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
241. Q306 Affidavit of Jasbir ---- Ex. PW35/B Admitted by
and Singh dated PW35 Jasbir
Q307 07.10.2002 Singh
242. Q320 Authority letter ---- Ex. PW35/E1 Denied by PW
and addressed to AR 35 Jasbir
Q321 (south-west) from
Secretary authorising
Sukhbir Singh to
collect the authority
letter of verification of
the record and list
verification in r/o
society at 2/33 A, Moti
Nagar, Nagar.
243. Q 322 3) Letter addressed to ---- Ex. PW35/E2 Admitted by
AR (SW) from PW35 Jasbir
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 181 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
President/Secretary Singh
reg. Submission of
final list of members
and other documents
for verification.
244. Q331 5) Certificate ---- Ex. PW35/E5 Admitted by
Certifying that no PW35 Jasbir
Court case is pending Singh
against the society
245. Q332 Certificate Certifying ---- ExPW35/E4 Admitted by
that refund to all PW35 Jasbir
resigned members Singh
have been made by the
society
246. Q333 Carbon copy of ---- ExPW35/E-7 Denied by PW35
& balance sheets etc Jashbir Singh
Q344
247. Q 345 Carbon Copy of ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
Receipt and Payment was given any of the
account as on prosecution
31.03.2001 witnesses.
248. Q 348 Carbon Copy of Profit ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
and Loss Account was given any of the
prosecution
witnesses.
249. Q 351 Balancesheet statement ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
01.04.2000 to was given any of the
31.03.2001 prosecution
witnesses.
250. Q 355 Receipt and Payment ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
account as on was given any of the
31.03.2000 prosecution
witnesses.
251. Q 358 Profit and Loss ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
Account 01.04.1999 was given any of the
to 31.03.2000 prosecution
witnesses.
252. Q 361 Balance sheet from ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
01.04.1999 to was given any of the
31.03.2000 prosecution
witnesses.
253. Q 365 Receipt and Payment ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
Account as on was given any of the
31.3.1999 prosecution
witnesses.
254. Q 368 Income and ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
expenditure as on was given any of the
31.03.1999 prosecution
witnesses.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 182 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
255. Q 371 Balance Sheet as on ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
31.03.1999 was given any of the
prosecution
witnesses.
256. Q 375 Receipt and Payment ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
account from was given any of the
01.04.1997 to prosecution
31.03.1999 witnesses.
257. Q378 Profit and Loss ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
Account from was given any of the
01.04.1999 to prosecution
31.03.1998 witnesses.
258. Q381 Balance sheet as on ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
31.03.1998 was given any of the
prosecution
witnesses.
259. Q 385 List of Members as on ---- No Exhibit mark Not referred by
1997-1998 was given any of the
prosecution
witnesses.
260. Q388 Notice of Geetanjali ---- Mark PW16/A Denied by
CGHS related to PW16 V.D
election programme Dhingra and
PW35 Jasbir
Singh
261. Q389, 9) Photocopy of ---- Mark PW21/D1 to Denied by
Q390, nomination form for D4 PW35 Jasbir
Q391, election of society for Singh
post of Vice President
Proposing Sunil
Q392 Madan,Subhash Chad
and Pawan Kumar as
member of Managing
Committee and
Rakesh Puri for
President.
262. Q393 10) Nomination form ---- Mark PW26/D Denied by PW35
of Jasbir Singh as Jasbir Singh and
President. PW26 Sunil
Q394 Self declaration of Madan
Jasbir Singh
263. Q395, Photocopy of Special ---- Mark PW21/E Admitted by
Q396, GBM meetings PW35 Jasbir
Q397 31.8.2002 Singh
minutes( whereby
Jasbir Singh as
President
Rakesh Puri as Vice
President
and Pawan Kumar,
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 183 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Subhash Chand and
Sunil Kumar Madan
were elected as
Member Managing
Committee
264. Q398 12) Minutes of special ---- Mark PW35/E8 Denied by PW35
GBM dt. 04.09.2002 Jasbir Singh
265. Q399, 13) Photocopy of ---- Mark PW35/E9 Admitted by
Q400, documents (colly.) PW35 Jasbir
Q401, List of members with Singh
Q402, address for UPC.
Q403,
Q404,
Q405
208. In the aforesaid Table A only those questioned documents have been considered which have bearing in fixing the responsibility of the accused Subhash Chand. As per the para 3 of the report of handwriting expert ExPW39/A, above mentioned questioned documents were written by the Accused Subhash Chand. A careful examination of the aforesaid table would reveal that out of these above questioned documents, certain documents have been admitted by prosecution witnesses. There are few documents which have not been referred to by any of the prosecution witnesses, though there is a report on these documents by the handwriting expert. Rest of the documents are those documents which have been denied by the prosecution witnesses and as per the report of the handwriting expert these documents were signed or written by accused Subhash Chand. Therefore, as far as CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 184 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) is concerned, the last category of the document is relevant i.e the documents which have been expressly denied by the prosecution witnesses and there is positive report of the handwriting expert that these were written or signed by accused Subhash Chand. The details of such documents are as under:
TABLE B The final details of the documents which were written or signed by the accused Subhash Chand.
Sl. No Questi Description of Purportedly belongs to Exhibit/Mark Signature
oned Documents given to the admitted
Docum document. (including where
ent PW35 Jasbir
Singh has stated
"may or may not
") or denied by
the prosecution
witnesses
1. Q52 Application for Dinesh Bhatia (PW2) Mark PX PW2 Dinesh
membership dt. Bhatia denied
16.10.1983 of Sh. Dinesh having moved
Bhatia(PW2) such application
and signature
thereon
2. Q53 Letter of Sh. Dinesh ---do- Mark PX-1 Denied by PW2
Bhatia (PW2) addressed Dinesh Bhatia
to President reg.
Resignation from
membership dt.
16.08.1990
3. Q54 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ---do- Mark PX-2 Denied by PW2
Dinesh Bhatia
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 185 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
4. Q55 Application for Dharam Pal Mark PW15/C PW15 Dharam
membership dt. Bhatia (PW15) Pal Bhatia
16.10.1983 of Dharam denied having
Pal Bhatia (PW15) moved such
application
and signature
thereon
5. Q56 Letter addressed to --do- Mark PW15/E Denied by
President/Secretary PW15 Dharam
reg. Resignation from Pal Bhatia
my membership dt.
16.08.1990
6. Q57 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do- Mark PW15/D Denied by
PW15 Dharam
Pal Bhatia
7. Q105 Application dated Radha Mohan Ex. PW9/D PW9 Radha
16.101983 for Goswami(PW9) Mohan
membership of R.M. Goswami
Goswami (PW9) denied having
moved such
application
and signature
thereon
8. Q106 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW9/E Denied by PW9
addressed to President
reg. Resignation from
society
9. Q107 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 --do-- Ex. PW9/F Denied by
PW9
10. Q131 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Mark Pw30/D PW30 K.
Lakshmi
Narayan
denied having
received the
voucher and
signature
thereon
11. Q141 Application for Rakesh Kumar Mark PW19/F PW19 Rakesh
membership of Rakesh Bains (PW19) Kumar Bains
Kumar dt. 16.10.1983 denied having
moved such
application
and signature
thereon
12. Q142 Letter dt. 16.08.1990 ----do---- Mark PW19/9 Denied by
PW19
13. Q143 Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ---do--- Mark PW19/14 Denied by
PW19
14. Q146 Application for Sunil Kumar Ex. PW26/A PW26 Sunil
membership dt. Madaan Kumar
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 186 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
01.04.2001 (PW26) Madaan
denied having
moved such
application
and signature
thereon
15. Q147 Voucher dt. 06.04.2001 ---do--- Mark PW26/B Denied by
PW26
16. Q 173 Membership Mr. Shakeel Ex. PW3/A PW3 denied
Application form dt. (PW3) having moved
01.12.1995 such
application
and signature
thereon
17. Q175 Voucher dt. ---do--- Ex. PW3/B Denied by
01.12.1995 PW3
18. Q176 Membership Mehjabin(PW1 Ex. PW14/A PW14
Application form of 4) Mehjabin
Mehjabin dt. denied having
01.12.1995 moved such
application
and signature
thereon
19. Q178 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW14/B Denied by
PW14
20. Q183 Membership Nasima Ex. PW18/A PW18 Nasima
application form of Begum(PW18) Begum denied
Nasima Begum dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application
and signature
thereon
21. Q185 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW18/B Denied by
PW18
22. Q186 Membership Mohd Aslam Mark PW17/A PW17 Mohd
application form of Khan(PW17) Aslam Khan
Aslam Khandt. denied having
01.12.1995 moved such
application
and signature
thereon
23. Q188 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW17/B Denied by
PW17
24. Q189 Membership Mr. Kappu ( its Ex. PW1/A PW1 Jameel
application form of jameel Anjum @ Anjum @
Kapdu dt. 01.12.1995 kappu PW1) Kappu denied
having moved
such
application
and signature
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 187 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
thereon
25. Q191 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW1/B Denied by PW1
Jameel Anjum
26. Q192 Membership Aamir Dehlvi Ex. PW10/A PW10 Amir
application form of (PW10) Dehlvi denied
Aamir Dehalvi dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application
and signature
thereon
27. Q194 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW10/B Denied by
PW10 Amir
Dehlvi
28. Q197 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark 23/B PW23 Alam
Ali denied
having received
29. Q198, Membership Sanober Ali Ex. PW11/A PW11 Sanober
application form of (PW11) Ali denied
Sanober Ali dt. having moved
01.12.1995 such
application
and signature
thereon
30. Q200 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW11/B Denied by
PW11
31. Q201 Membership Shahjahan Ex. PW11/C PW11 Sanober
application form of Begum Ali is son of
Shahjahan Begum dt. Shahjahan
16.10.1983 Begum and he
denied having
moved such
application by
his mother and
her signature
thereon
32. Q203 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Ex. PW11/D --do--
33. Q206 Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ---do--- Mark PW13/B Denied having
received any
such voucher
34. Q231, Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F1 Denied by
Q232 of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
and 30.6.1999 Chander
Q233 Sharma and
his signature
thereon
35. Q234 Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F2 Denied by
and of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
Q235 24.08.2000 Chander
Sharma and
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 188 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
his signature
thereon
36. Q236 Photocopy of Minutes ---- Mark PW22/F3 Denied by
and of proceedings dated PW22 Anil
Q237 16.02.2002 Chander
Sharma and
his signature
thereon
37. Q257 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-1 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
31.07.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
38. Q258 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-2 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
30.11.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
39. Q259 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-3 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
21.12.1993 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
40. Q260 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-4 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
01.07.1994 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
41. Q261 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-5 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
25.10.1994 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
42. Q262 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-6 Denied by
proceedings dated PW25 Shyam
25.03.1995 Saran but
admitted by
PW30
K.Lakshmi
Narayan
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 189 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
43. Q263 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-7 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
09.04.1995 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
44. Q264 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-8 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
11.05.1995 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
45. Q265 Photocopy of meeting Ex. PW25/E-9 PW 25 Shyam
and proceedings dated Saran denied
Q266 07.06.1995 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
46. Q267 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-10 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
01.101995 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
47. Q268 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-11 PW 25 Shyam
and proceedings dated Saran denied
Q269 10.11.1995 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
48. Q270 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-12 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
27.07.1996 having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
49. Q271 Photocopy of meeting Mark PW25/E-13 PW 25 Shyam
proceedings dated Saran denied
25.03.1997 having
attended the
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 190 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
50. Q272 Photocopy of meeting Mark 22/F-4 PW 22 Anil
proceedings dated Chander
24.04.2002 Sharma denied
having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
51. Q273 Photocopy of meeting Mark22 F-5 PW 22 Anil
proceedings dated Chander
10.07.2002 Sharma denied
having
attended the
meeting and
his signatures
on the
proceedings.
52. Q320 Authority letter Ex. PW35/E1 Denied by PW
and addressed to AR 35 Jasbir
Q321 (south-west) from
Secretary authorising
Sukhbir Singh to
collect the authority
letter of verification of
the record and list
verification in r/o
society at 2/33 A, Moti
Nagar, Nagar.
53. Q333 Carbon copy of ExPW35/E-7 Denied by
& balance sheets etc PW35 Jashbir
Q344 Singh
54. Q388 Notice of Geetanjali Mark PW16/A Denied by
CGHS related to PW16 V.D
election programme Dhingra and
PW35 Jasbir
Singh
55. Q389, 9) Photocopy of Mark PW21/D1 to Denied by
Q390, nomination form for D4 PW35 Jasbir
Q391, election of society for Singh
post of Vice President
Proposing Sunil
Q392 Madan,Subhash Chad
and Pawan Kumar as
member of Managing
Committee
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 191 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019
Rakesh Puri for
President.
56. Q393 10) Nomination form Mark PW26/D Denied by
of Jasbir Singh as PW35 Jasbir
President Singh and
Q394 PW26 Sunil
self declaration of Madan
Jasbir Singh
57. Q398 12) Minutes of special Mark PW35/E8 Denied by
GBM dt. 04.09.2002 PW35 Jasbir
Singh
209. Now, take one of the documents ExPW35/E-
1( Q320 and Q321). This document purportedly has been signed by PW35 Jasbir Singh on behalf of the society in the capacity of President and was addressed to the AR(SW), Cooperative Societies , Parliament Street, New Delhi. Vide aforesaid letter dated Nil, one Sh. Sukhbir Singh has been authorized to collect the authority letter of verification of the record and list of verification in respect of " Geetanjali Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd". Said letter was given the questioned document Q 319, Q320 and Q 321, as it bears the purported signatures of said Jasbir Singh (PW35) at two places i.e at Q 320 and Q321 and that of Sukhbir Singh at Q 319. There is no report about the questioned signature at Q319 but there is a report of the handwriting expert about the questioned signature mentioned at Q 320 and Q 321. Even PW35 CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 192 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Jasbir Singh has deposed that this document does not bear his signature. As per report of PW39 Sh. VGS Bhatnagar, same has been signed by accused Subhash Chand as discussed herein about. Forgery regarding this document stands established.
210. Documents ExPW9/D, ExPW9/E and ExPW9/F have been given questioned documents as Q105, Q 106 and Q 107 respectively. Q105 ExPW9/D is an application dated 16.10.1983 purportedly moved by Radha Mohan Goswami (PW9) and Q 106 ExPW9/E is resignation dated 16.8.1990 shown to have been given by PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami and Q 107 ExPW9/F is voucher dated 16.8.1990. As per para no.3 of the report ExPW39/A of the handwriting expert, these three documents were also signed by accused Subhash Chand. The report of the GEQD expert found support from the testimony of PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami who has categorically stated that these documents do not bear his signatures. PW9 was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW9 in this regard. The report of the handwriting expert ExPW39/A and the testimony of PW9 Radha Mohan Goswami is sufficient to CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 193 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 declare that the aforesaid questioned documents Q105, Q106 and Q 107 are forged and same were forged by accused Subhash Chand.
211. Questioned document Q146 ExPW26/A is an application dated 1.4.2001, for membership purportedly moved by Sh. Sunil Madan (PW26). As per report of handwriting expert ExPW39/A the questioned document Q146 was signed by accused Subhash Chand. The report of the GEQD finds support from the testimony of PW 26 Sh. Sunil Madan who deposed that the signature appearing at point A on ExPW26/A is not his signature. This also stands proved that this document is forged and it has been forged by accused Subhash Chand.
212. As per the report of the Expert ExPW39/A, questioned documents Q 52 Mark PX ( an application dt. 16.10.1983, for membership purportedly moved by Sh. Dinesh Bhatia(PW2) ), questioned document Q53 Mark PX1 (Letter of Sh. Dinesh Bhatia (PW2) addressed to President reg. Resignation from membership dt. 16.08.1990) , questioned document Q 54 Mark PX 2 ( Voucher dated 16.8.990), questioned document Q 55 Mark PW15/C (application for membership dated 16.10.1983 purportedly moved PW15Dharam Pal Bhatia) , questioned document Q56 Mark PW15/E (letter addressed to President/Secretary CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 194 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 reg resignation from membership dated 16.08.1990 purportedly moved by PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia), questioned document Q 57 Mark PW15/D ( Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 ), questioned document 131 Mark PW30/D ( Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 purportedly received by PW30 K. Lakshmi Narayan ) , questioned document Q141 Mark PW19/F (Application for membership dated 16.10.1983 purportedly moved by PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains ), questioned document Q 142 Mark PW19/9 (Letter dt. 16.08.1990 purportedly moved by PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains), questioned document Q 143 Mark PW19/14 (Voucher dt. 16.08.1990 purportedly received by PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains ), Q 173 ExPW3/A (an application dated 1.12.1995, for membership purportedly moved by PW3 Sh. Shakeel Anjum), Q 175 ExPW3/B (cash deposit receipt shown to have been deposited by PW3 Shakeel Anjum) , Q176 ExPW14/A (an application dated 1.12.1995 for membership purportedly moved by PW14 Mehjabin ), Q 178 Mark PW14/B (Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 purportedly received by PW14 Mehjabin), Q 183 Mark ExPW18/A ( Membership application form dated 1.12.1995 purportedly moved by Nasima Begum(PW18) ), Q 185 Mark PW18/B ( Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ), Q 186 Mark PW17/A (Membership application form dated 1.12.1995 of PW17 Mohd Aslam Khan ), Q 188 Mark PW17/B ( Voucher dt. 01.12.1995), were signed or written by accused Subhash Chand (A-3).
213. Similarly Q189 ExPW1/A (application dated 01.12.1995 for membership purportedly moved by PW1 Jameel Anjum @ Kappu), Q 191 ExPW1/B (cash deposit receipt shown to have been CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 195 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 deposited by PW1 Jameel Anjum @ Kappu) , Q192 ExPW10/A (application dated 01.12.1995 for membership purportedly moved by PW10 Sh. Amir Dehlvi), Q 194 ExPW10/B (photocopy of purported receipt of share money deposited by PW10 Sh. Amir Dehlvi) , Q 197 Mark PW23/B (Voucher dt. 01.12.1995 ), Q 198 ExPW11/A (application dated 01.12.1995 for membership purportedly moved by PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali), Q 200 ExPW11/B (photocopy of purported receipt of share money deposited by PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali) , Q 201 ExPW11/C (application dated 01.12.1995 for membership purportedly moved by Smt Shahjahan Begum mother of PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali) , Q203 ExPW11/D (photocopy of purported receipt of share money deposited by Smt Shahjahan Begum mother of PW11 Sh. Sanober Ali ), Q206 Mark PQW13/B ( voucher dated 1.12.1995 purportedly received by Shahjahan Begum ), were also written/signed by the accused Subhash Chand (A-3).
214. Further, Q231, Q232 and Q233 Mark PW22/F1 (Photocopy of Minutes of proceedings dated 30.6.1999 ), Q234 and Q235 Mark PW22/F2 (Photocopy of Minutes of proceedings dated 24.08.2000 ), Q236 and Q237 Mark PW22/F3 (Photocopy of Minutes of proceedings dated 16.02.2002), Q257 Mark PW25/E-1 ( Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 31.07.1993 ), Q258 Mark PW25/E-2 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 30.11.1993) , Q259 Mark PW25/E-3 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 21.12.1993), Q260 Mark PW25/E-4 ( Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 01.07.1994 ), Q261 Mark PW25/E-5 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 25.10.1994), Q262 Mark PW25/E-6 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 196 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 25.03.1995) , Q263 Mark PW25/E-7 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 09.04.1995), Q264 Mark PW25/E-8 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 11.05.1995) , Q265 and Q266 Ex. PW25/E-9 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 07.06.1995), Q267 Mark PW25/E-10 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 01.101995), Q268 and Q269 Mark PW25/E-11 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 10.11.1995 ), Q270 Mark PW25/E- 12 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 27.07.1996 ), Q271 Mark PW25/E-13 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 25.03.1997 ), Q272 Mark 22/F-4 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 24.04.2002 ), Q273 Mark22 F-5 (Photocopy of meeting proceedings dated 10.07.2002 ), Q320 and Q321 Ex. PW35/E1 (Authority letter addressed to AR (south-west) from Secretary authorising Sukhbir Singh to collect the authority letter of verification of the record and list verification in r/o society at 2/33 A, Moti Nagar, Nagar. ), Q333 & Q344 ExPW35/E-7 (Carbon copy of balance sheets etc ), Q388 Mark PW16/A (Notice of Geetanjali CGHS related to election programme ), Q389, Q390,Q391, Q392 Mark PW21/D1 to D4 ( Photocopy of nomination form for election of society for post of Vice President Proposing Sunil Madan,Subhash Chad and Pawan Kumar as member of Managing Committee Rakesh Puri for President.) , Q393, Q294 Mark PW26/D(Nomination form of Jasbir Singh as President self declaration of Jasbir Singh ) , Q398 Mark PW35/E8 ( Minutes of special GBM dt. 04.09.2002), were signed by accused Subhash Chand (A-3).
215. Prosecution witnesses have testified corroborating the report of the Expert ExPW39/A. PW1 Jameel Anjum @ Kappu, PW2 Dinesh Bhatia, PW3 CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 197 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Shakeel Anjum, PW10 Amir Dehlvi, PW11 Sanober Ali, PW14 Mehjabin, PW15 Dharam Pal Bhatia, PW17 Mohd Aslam, PW18 Naseema Begum and PW19 Rakesh Kumar Bains, during their examination have disowned their signatures on aforesaid documents i.e ExPW1/A, Mark PX, ExPW3/A, ExPW10/A, ExPW11/A, ExPW14/A, Mark PW 15/C, Mark PW17/A, ExPW18/A and Mark PW19/F, which are the applications for membership purportedly moved by them. The factum of moving membership application form dated 16.10.1983 by Shahjahan Begum(since deceased) was also denied by her son PW10 Sanober Ali.
216. The above mentioned prosecution witnesses have further denied of having deposited or received any money as shown vide purported receipts/vouchers ExPW1/B, Mark PX-2, ExPW3/B, ExPW10/B, ExPW11/B, Mark PW14/B, Mark PW15/D, Mark PW17/B, Mark PW18/B, Mark PW19/14, PW23/B, and Mark PW30/D respectively.
217. Questioned documents Q 231, Q 232, Q 233 (Mark PW22/F1), Q 234 and Q 235 (Mark PW22/F2), Q236 and Q237 (Mark PW22/F3), Q 257 to Q271 (Mark CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 198 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 PW25/E-1 to Mark PW25/ E-13), Q 272 (Mark PW22/F-
4), Q273 (Mark PW22/F-5), and Q 398 (Mark PW35/E) are the photocopies of the minutes of proceedings shown to have been attended by PW 22 Anil Chander Sharma and PW25 Shyam Saran but these witnesses have deposed that the above proceedings do not bear their signatures. Meaning thereby, they never attended the aforesaid meetings and the same have been forged. These two witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused persons on this aspect.
218. Questioned documents Q 333 & Q 334 ExPW35/E-7 are the carbon copy of balance sheets etc. purportedly signed by PW35 Jasbir Singh but PW35 has disowned his signatures on these documents.
219. Questioned document Q 388 (Mark PW16/A) is a notice/agenda related to conducting the election of Managing Committee of the Society but PW16 V.D Dhingra deposed that no such election programme took place on the dates and at the address as mentioned in the said agenda. PW35 Jasbir Singh has also denied the aforesaid agenda/notice stating that the signatures CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 199 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 appearing at point X as President on this document are not his signatures.
220. PW35 Jasbir Singh has further denied having signed questioned documents Q 389 to Q 392 Mark PW21/ D1 to D4 (photocopy of nomination form for election of society for post of Vice President and form proposing Sunil Madan, Subhash Chand and Pawan Kumar as member of Managing Committee and Rakesh Puri for the President ) and Q 393 and Q 394 Mark PW26/D (Nomination form of Jasbir Singh as President and self declaration of Jasbir Singh).
221. As per opinion of the Expert ExPW39/A, all these documents were signed by accused Subhash Chand. From the aforesaid discussion, it stands proved that accused Subhash Chand committed the forgery qua application forms, returning vouchers, resignation letters and also few proceedings pertaining to the society, which were submitted to the RCS.
222. Here I may mention that one may argue as to how the photocopies of the documents have been considered by this Court. At the cost of repetition, I may say that the documents in question are not genuine and they are the forged documents. There would not be any CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 200 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 genuine author available of forged documents. As per the report of the GEQD Expert, ExPW39/A, these documents have been signed by the accused Subhash Chand (A-3). Moreover, even if for the sake of argument, these documents, which are photocopies, are totally ignored, still there are other admissible documents which have been duly proved and it has come on the record that accused Subhash Chand (A-3) has committed the forgery qua those documents. In a criminal trial quality of the evidence is to be seen and not the quantity. Forgery is forgery, be it is of single document or hundred documents.
223. Another piece of evidence appearing against accused Subhash Chand indicating the motive on his part is that his name was mentioned at no.104 in the final list of the members pertaining to the society which was sent by the RCS office to the DDA for allotment of land.
224. PW4 Sh Kishan Gopal Kashyap, who was posted in DDA during the relevant time, after going through the attested photocopy of the letter dated 5.4.2003 Mark PX, deposed that said letter bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that vide aforesaid letter, list of three cooperative societies including Geetanjali CGHS CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 201 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 was received from the office of RCS and the list which was received along with that letter is ExPW4/A. During the cross examination done on behalf of the accused M.P Bajaj, PW4 admitted that ExPW4/A is the list of Geetanjali Vihar CGHS. PW4 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand(A-3).
225. Similarly, PW29 Rakesh Bhatnagar, who was posted as Joint Registrar in the office of RCS, deposed that pursuant to letter ExPW29/B of accused J S Sharma(A-1, proceedings already stands abated), Sh Yogi Raj, AR(Policy) forwarded the approved list of 62 members of the society to DDA for allotment of land vide letter dated 5-04-2003 Mark PW29/C. He further deposed that the approved list of members is ExPW4/A which bears the signature of Sh J S Sharma at point B on all pages and he identifies the same. PW 29 was cross examined just symbolically by accused M P Bajaj but not by the accused Subhash Chand. Meaning thereby, both the accused persons including Subhash Chand have not disputed this list of members ExPW4/A submitted to DDA for allotment of land.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 202 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
226. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, aforesaid documents were put to the accused Subhash chand. Vide question no.24, he was specifically asked about the letter dated 5.4.2003 Mark PX and the list of members ExPW4/A. Accused Subhash Chand simply replied that "I do not know". He has not disputed that his name is not there in the list. I have perused that list ExPW4/A. The name of the accused Subhash Chand with his particulars found mentioned at serial no.59 having membership no. 104.
227. A careful examination of the said list of members ExPW4/A would reveal that certain information regarding members of the society like name, age, father/husband name, address, occupation, date of application for membership, date vide which he was allowed to be a member, date of payments, the amount of share money, amount of admission fees, whether the affidavit has been filed or not etc., was furnished by the members. Accused Subhash Chand has simply stated that "I do not know". If he was not the member or his name was shown wrongly, he could have explained in detail at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC, which was not done for the reasons known to him only.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 203 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 This is a material incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the accused Subhash Chand establishing his involvement in the commission of the offences.
228. Another aspect of that list is that it bears the stamp of "Gauravshali Group Housing Society". It has not been plausibly explained by accused persons that how the stamp of another society was affixed when the fact of the matter is that the list belongs to Geetanjali Cooperative Group Housing Society.
229. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Subash Chand (A-
3) has forged the signatures of Sh. Jasbir Singh appearing on the documents as mentioned herein above in Table 'B'.
Role of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj.
230. The allegations against the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj are that he entered into a criminal conspiracy CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 204 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 with his co-accused persons namely accused Subhash Chand and Jitender Singh Sharma (proceedings already stands abated) and in furtherance of said conspiracy, while working as dealing assistant in the office of RCS, during the period from 2002 to 2003, and by abusing his official position as public servant dishonestly and fraudulently initiated a favourable note for getting approved the freeze list of 62 fictitious members of Gitanjali society and for that purpose he accepted and acted upon on forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents.
231. During the investigation of the present case, PW37 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Prasad, who is the initial IO of the present case, deposed that under the instruction of Senior officers, he collected certain files pertaining to Geetanjali Cooperative Group Housing Society from Inspector C.S Prakash Narayanan, Inspector EOW (CBI) through receipt cum production memo ExPW37/A dated 09.8.2005. He further submits that he identifies the signature of Sh. CS Narayanan at point B as he was working as Inspector, CBI, EOW, ND and PW37 had been working with him and he had seen him signing and writing during the official course of duties.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 205 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
232. PW37 was not cross examined by accused Subhash Chand(A-3) though he was cross examined by accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2). During his cross examination, PW37 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Prasad replied that Inspector C.S Prakash Narayanan had taken the documents from the office of RCS. He admitted that he did not have any written authority to collect the said documents from C.S. Prakash Narayanan. To one of the suggestions put to him he admitted that he did not investigate in the present matter except for collecting the said documents and handing them over as stated by him.
233. A careful examination of the entire testimony of PW37 would reveal that even accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has not disputed taking over of the documents by PW37 Rajesh Kumar Prasad from Inspector C.S Prakash Narayanan vide production receipt cum seizure memo dated 09.8.2005 ExPW37/A. Rather cross examination of this witness would suggest that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has admitted the fact that certain files were seized and received by PW37 Rajesh Kumar Prasad from Insp. C.S Prakash Narayanan and the same was handed over to senior officers.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 206 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
234. Records would indicate that as per the said receipt cum seizure memo ExPW37/A, file Vol. II pertaining to the society was also seized which is found mentioned at serial no. a(II). That file Vol. II is having the notings pertaining to the society maintained by the office of RCS. During the argument, Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj submitted that these notings have not been proved therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence. I am afraid that the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused cannot be accepted in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. During the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj while answering question no.170 has simply stated that notings are matter of record. It is true that he has stated so about the noting mentioned at pages no.38 to 43 and not prior to that but the aforesaid notings are in continuation of the earlier notings made by the public servant in discharge of his official duties. That file is a public document maintained by the government office. This fact has never been as such disputed on the ground that it does not belong to the RCS office pertaining to the society or the same have been forged or created by the CBI.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 207 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
235. Moreover, few notings of this file were assigned as questioned documents by the IO during the investigation and the same were also sent for examination to GEQD. Such notings are dated 25.11.997 (Q 310), dated 15.12.1997 (Q 311), dated 15.7.1998 (Q 312) and dated 24.7.1998 (Q 313). These questioned documents are basically the counter signatures of PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan. As per the report of the Expert ExPW39/A, Para 7, the aforesaid questioned were written/signed by PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan as the specimen signatures S 73 to S 77 belongs to him.
236. Subsequent notings dated 14.2.2003, 17.2.2003 then 4.3.2003 and 12.3.2003 and finally 17.3.2003 have not been denied even by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2), as discussed in preceding para's and same stands proved. .
237. PW29 Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar who was posted as Joint Registrar in the office of RCS during the relevant period deposed that he had seen the file pertaining to Geetanjali Vihar Ltd. In the said file at page no.43 there is a noting dated 12.3.2003 made by Sh. J.S Sharma , AR (SW) wherein proposal for approval of list of 62 members CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 208 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 for forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land. The said noting was given exhibit mark as ExPW29/A. PW29 deposed that said note bears signature of Sh. J.S Sharma at point A, his signature at point B and signature of the then Registrar at point C.
238. Further, in the note dated 12.3.2003, on 1st page placed at 39/N, not disputed by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj has referred the noting made at page 1 and 2/N under the heading 'Promoted Members' which reads "the society registered at serial no.1274 (GH) with 62 promoter members (reference at page 1 & 2/N ), hence the strength of the society may be treated at 62. List of the promoter members may please be seen at page P-1- 3/C (vol. 1)."
239. It is beyond the imagination of this court to believe that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj had no occasion to go through the file, rather it is crystal clear that he had the knowledge of previous deficiencies notified to the society and he deliberately and with malafide intention ignored the same for ulterior motives and wrongful gains.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 209 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
240. In these circumstances, nothing stops this court from taking into consideration the notings of a government record maintained by a government office in the normal course of duties in the background of fact that the same have not been disputed as such by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). Now I would be referring to some of the relevant Notings.
241. Noting dated 27.1.1987, says that the society in response to the show cause notice dated 09.10.1986, submitted the list of members but it was noticed that the same is not serially. Noting dated 07.4.1988, says that the final list of members for land has not been approved. The Secretary of the society has promised to produce the record on 3.7.1987. It was also proposed that the Secretary may also be called in the office for verification and approval of the list. It was also noted that the election of the society has been pending since long.
242. Noting dated 20.12.1989, says that the address of the society has changed from House no.1253 to 1249 in the same locality. It again says that the final list of the society is not yet approved and it was proposed that a final reminder by the registered post may be sent to the society.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 210 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Noting dated 12.3.1990 says that the last reminder issued received back with the report from the President of the society that in spite of several visits the concerned person could not be contacted and the president sought further time. Subsequently, the General Secretary of the society appeared who stated that there are 10 vacancies in the original list of members which will be filled up as and when new persons approach the society.
243. Noting dated 20.7.1990, says that audit of the society was conducted upto 30.6.1986 by the department Auditor Sh. N.K Negi and thereafter, there is no Audit. It was also proposed that AR(Audit) may be requested to depute an Auditor to conduct the latest Audit upto 31.3.1990 and thereafter the record may be verified for approving the final list. Noting dated 30.8.1990, speaks about a report submitted by Insp Chander Prakash, who had been appointed as an observer. As per his report GBM of the society was not held on 15.08.1990 and as and when the same took place, it will be informed to the office.
244. Noting dated 03.9.1990, talks about completion of the Audit for the period 1989-1990. noting dated CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 211 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 1.10.1993 recites that election of the Managing Committee was done on 18.4.1993, therefore, it was proposed to send a requisition u/s 30 (1) of DCS Act, 1972 for fresh election. Subsequent noting dated 24.10.1995, indicates that society has not given reply to the aforesaid requisition and no correspondence is done by the society after 5.2.1993. Therefore, a show cause notice u/s 30 (2) of the DCS Act, 1972 was proposed to be issued to the society. Noting dated 11.1.1996, says that aforesaid show cause notice issued to the society u/s 30 (2) of the DCS Act, 1972 returned back with the remarks "Left". It was also observed that Dinesh Chander Grade IV deputed for spot verification has not submitted his report. Noting dated 23.1.1996 has the reference about the same. It says that Dinesh Chander, Grade IV, after spot verification reported that no such type of society is functional there.
245. Noting dated 06.10.1997, which is most relevant reads as under:
"I summoned the file on complaint. It is a sad state of affairs that no action has been taken by the officer concerned after the show cause notice issued to the society on 15.4.1996. I will therefore, like the following:
(1) Inspection may be conducted immediately to know the status of the society and the position of the present management committee CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 212 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 in detail with reference to the election and Audit.
(2) Action may be taken against the officer concerned, who has not attended the case.
It may also be mentioned whether the society is defunct or liquidated.
RCS sd/-
246. Subsequent noting dated 7.10.1997, says that the society has not been found at its registered address at 1249, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi. However, a note was left at the house of the Treasurer of the society situated at 1151, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi. It further says that as per the order of RCS, some officer from the society appears to have visited the society at 1249, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi for inspection of record. But there he met one person namely 'Thomas', who stated that no such type of society is running from the said address. However, on enquiry, it was revealed that the society is functioning at 1151, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi which is the residence of the treasurer of the Society namely K. Lakshmi Narayan. Even the Treasurer of the society did not produce any record and stated that books and the records of the society are with the president and the secretary who are out of station.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 213 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
247. The noting dated 10.1.997 on page 27/N, reads that the freezed list of the society is not yet approved as the society fails to produce the record for verification. The last election and AGM of the society was held on 19.4.1992. No AGM register of the Managing Committee register was produced for inspection. The Audit of the society has been done upto 31.3.1990 and no compliance report of Audit remarks is submitted to the office. It was further observed and proposed that the society is lying defunct since 1992 and the freezed strength of the members is not yet approved. Accordingly, vide noting dated 10.10.1997, a show cause notice u/s 19(5) was proposed to be issued against the society.
248. Noting dated 07.11.1997 on page 29/N and 30/N reads as under:
"May kindly see PUCs which are reply to SCN Dt.21.10.97. The reply submitted by the Society are as under and submitted:
1. Constitution of the society is totally wrong. No change of Regd Address of the society has been communicated to the office as required under the provisions of Regd By-laws No.1 of the society.
Contact address gathered by the Inspectors of this office during spot verification at 1151, Laxmi Bai Nagar is the Residence of Treasurer of the Society Sh. Laxmi Narayan. Hence it can not be treated as the Regd.Address.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 214 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
2. As per para 2 of the letter last election in the society was held on 24.8.93 and thereafter no election was held in view of Show Cause Notice u/s 30(2) of the DCS Act 1972 which itself is an irregularity.
3. For verification of records of the society audit of Accounts/report also need to be examined and the society admitted that it could not submit the Audit report before the Inspector. Since Accounts were not written upto date hence it may be possible that Departmental Auditor Could not get Audit done.
4. Sh. S.C Bajaj, Inspector deputed for spot verification and inspection reported (on 26-27/n) that the Society did not produce any records for Inspection with the plea that the records was lying with President & Secretary of the Society who were out of the Station. It shows the non- cooperation of the Management to produce record for Inspection.."
Keeping in view the above and reply furnished by the Society requesting to verify the list, it is submitted for consideration of the request and for further order .
249. Noting dated 07.11.1997 further reveals that when above said noting was placed before AR(SW), he endorsed the same with a note that apparently the society has rather been defunct during all these years and is now trying to restore itself and put up the same before DR(SW) for further order. The said noting also contains endorsement of the then JR(SW) which says that " as per applicable provision what are the recommendations of DR ?". On 10.11.1997,the Then DR(SW) sent back the noting to AR(SW) seeking his recommendation in this regard.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 215 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
250. On 10.11.1997, AR(SW) resubmitted the note to DR(SW) for approval, proposing/recommending that in case the society produces all the relevant records for verification and also gets the audit updated and holds fresh elections early through an EO that way be appointed by the RCS, then the SCN may be withdrawn.
251. Subsequent noting dated 12.05.1998 says that the society had been given enough opportunity to produce records for verification of its freezed list but the society failed to file the same and also not produced any original records for verification of freezed list, therefore, before winding up order is issued, a final reminder to the society was proposed to be issued.
252. Noting dated 18.06.1998 reflects that in the meanwhile, the list of members for verification was received by the RCS and it was again proposed that before winding up order is issued, a final reminder to the society was proposed to be issued. The last noting in this line is dated 16-11-1998, which says that a letter sent to the society by regd post received back undelivered with the report 'left'. it further says if agreed, an inspector may be deputed for spot verification of the society.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 216 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
253. One may argue, as to how these notings are relevant for deciding the controversy in question or for fixing the responsibility of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) ? These notings are basically from the date of the registration of the society till 16-11-1998. The primary purpose of referring to these notings is simply to show that several communications were sent to the society by the office of RCS asking the society to meet the statutory requirements under the law. These notings indicate that society was not complying with the requirements of holding of elections, verification of documents, conducting the audit and also the change of the address of the society was not informed to the RCS office. Further, at two occasions when the communications were sent to the society by the office of RCS the same were received back with the report 'left'.
254. One of the noting as narrated herein above says that as per the bylaws, the society was under obligation to inform the office of RCS about change of the address but it was not done. Even the final list of the members was not approved by the office of RCS so that the same may be forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 217 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
255. This all was pending till 16th of November 1998 and the society was at the verge of declaring defunct and it was dormant. Rather it is evident that there were no proceedings after 1992, though last noting is dated 16.11.1998. But after a gap of around four years, all of a sudden a note dated 14 February 2003, was initiated by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). The said noting dated 14 February 2003, is in continuation of the last noting dated 16 November 1998. As stated herein above, certain statutory requirements were to be complied, but despite that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj ignored the previous notings and communications which took place between the society and the office of RCS, which was apparently available on record, and despite that he initiated the note dated 14th February 2003.
256. Noting dated 14 February 2003 indicates that Shri Sukhbir Singh authorized representative of the society appeared along with the original documents of the society on that day. That authority letter is Ex PW35/E1, purportedly signed by Jasbir Singh, president of the society. It has already proved that the said letter has been signed by accused Subhash Chand, which establishes that this authority letter is forged one.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 218 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
257. It is easy for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-
2) to say as to how he would come to know that Jasbir Singh had not authorised any person to appear before him on behalf of the society. There was more than sufficient material available on record, which a prudent man could have easily inferred that on face of it that letter is not genuine, that is too in the background of the deficiencies already notified to the society which remained unfulfilled. I may point out a few such indications.
258. Firstly, generally communications on behalf of the society were sent to different offices including the office of RCS on the letter head of the society but the alleged authority letter ExPW35/E-1 is typed on plain paper and it is without any date.
259. Secondly, in the said authority letter ExPW35/E-
1, the address of the society has been shown as "3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi", which is not the registered address of the society. There is no communication to the office of the RCS about change of the address. As per Bye Laws 1 of the society, as and when there is change of address the same is required to be notified to the Registrar, which is missing in the present case. Rather the records CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 219 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 indicate that on two occasions when the communications were sent to the society, the same received back undelivered with the report 'left'. This aspect was ignored by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) for the reasons best known to him only. It is not that the previous record pertaining to the society was lying in some other file. It was very much available in the same file on which he initiated the note dated 14-02-2003. Noting date 16-11- 1998 is available on the back page of the noting dated 14- 02-2003. It is hard to believe that he did not see those notings. This all establishes the involvement of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2)in the commission of the offence.
260. Further, PW16 V. D. Dhingra deposed that he is having a utensil shop at 3/22 , Moti Nagar, New Delhi and his residence is at 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. He has categorically stated that he had neither given aforesaid residence on rent to any housing society nor any housing society ever functioned or held meetings at any point of time at the said address. Although PW16 was cross examined by accused Subhash Chand(A-3) but he was not cross examined by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) despite the opportunity given to him. Meaning thereby CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 220 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) has not disputed the aforesaid facts as deposed by PW16.
261. Regarding the wrong address of the society which was accepted by the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2), another interesting fact came to light. After the noting dated 14 February 2003, the freezed list was approved falsely and it was proposed that it is to be sent to the DDA for allotment of land. Records would indicate that subsequent to that noting dated 14-02-2003, a letter dated 'Nil' ExPW29/B appears to have been sent by the then Assistant Registrar Shri JS Sharma (A-1, proceedings already stands abated) to the Assistant Registrar (Policy) mentioning therein that "please find enclosed here with a list of 62 members(in duplicate) as approved by the competent authority for onward transmission to the DDA for allotment of land" . Copy of this letter was also directed to be sent to the President/Secretary of the society and the address mentioned is as '1253 Laxmibai Nagar New Delhi'.
262. For the sake of argument even if it is accepted that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) had reasons to accept the authority letter wherein the address of the society has been shown as '3/33A ,Moti Nagar ,New CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 221 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Delhi' then in the subsequent communication which originated from the same office, should have the same address i.e. 3/33A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi but instead of Moti Nagar address, the letter was directed to its original address at which the society was registered. It also goes against the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2).
263. Another incriminating evidence against accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) is the alleged audit conducted by him. PW5 Smt Aruna Chaudhary who was working as Assistant Registrar(Audit) in the office of RCS during the relevant time, deposed that the society has to be audited every year and the auditor is appointed by the Auditor Branch from the panel of Department Auditors; the departmental auditor is appointed for conducting the audit for the period upto 3 years; the Auditor is duty bound to visit the office of the society for the purpose of conducting Audit; therefore, Auditor goes to the office of the Society and conducts the Audit by seeing the accounts of the society, members of the society and incoming and outgoing members.
264. During her cross examination on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2), PW5 was asked if the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 222 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Audit of the Society for the year 1990-1991 to 1996-1997 was conducted in a single year after the RCS permitted for the same to which she replied " I have seen the Audit file ExPW5/PX. I have been unable to find the approval of RCS for conducting Audit for more than 3 years in this file containing Audit Report. It is correct that at page no.50, column no.73, under the head "main audit objections/suggestions', there are 7 objections raised by Sh. M.P Bajaj Auditor at that time."
265. From the testimony of PW5 Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, it has come on the record that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) conducted the Audit of the Society without any permission or authority of RCS which itself is sufficient to believe the version of the prosecution that it was done in furtherance of the above mentioned criminal conspiracy.
266. The file pertaining to the audit report is ExPW5/PX. It is not the case of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) that he did not conduct the aforesaid audit. The said Audit report indicates that the audit of the society was commenced on 06.7.1998 and was completed on 10.7.1998 and the period of audit has been shown as CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 223 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 1990-91 to 1996-97. But the noting file maintained by the office of RCS pertaining to the society is silent about the aforesaid audit. There is nothing on record indicating that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) was ever authorised by the Competent Authority for conducting such an Audit.
267. Further, the said Audit Report is shown to have been signed by PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan also at point A in the capacity of Treasurer. But PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan has categorically stated that the above mentioned signatures are not his signatures. This has been supported and corroborated by the report of Expert ExPW39/A also wherein in para 8, it is mentioned that the above signatures (which were assigned as Questioned Documents) were not made by PW30 K.Lakshmi Narayan.
268. The net result of my aforesaid discussion is that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that pursuant to the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) the then Dealing Assistant dishonestly and fraudulently allowed one Sh. Sukhbir Singh to represent the society on the basis of forged authority letter purportedly signed by Sh. Jasbir CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 224 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Singh (PW35), President of Society, initiated the note dated 14.2.2003 on the basis of forged and false documents and did not consider the following irregularities (i) the order of the then Assistant Registrar (South-West) who had deputed an Inspector to conduct spot investigation of the society as the letters sent to the last known address of the society received back with the remarks "left" (ii) He did not make any enquiry about the change of address of the society shown in the authority letter (iii) there was no correspondence between the office of the RCS and the society after 1998 till 2003, (iv) did not check the record of the society as regard to the genuineness of the list of members submitted for approval
(v) did not obtained compliance report of the audit conducted till 2002 and (vi) did not confirm the identity of the authorized representatives or the President of the society, proceedings were started.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED MOHINDER PAL BAJAJ
269. Now I will deal with the arguments made on behalf of the accused persons. First argument made on CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 225 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) is that he was lowest in rank and he was not the final authority to take a call for approving the freezed list. After his approval, the matter was placed before the then AR, then before deputy registrar and finally it was approved by the registrar Mr Diwakar but only accused Mohinder pal Bajaj has been made an accused. In this regard, Ld. Counsel heavily relied upon the testimony of PW38 D. Damodaran, who is the IO of the present case and by referring the same vehemently argued that the investigation was not fair and few persons were not made the accused and were allowed to walk free.
270. I find some force in the above submission made on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). In the present case, it is not denied that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) was working as dealing assistant only at the relevant time and after his noting, the matter was processed and it was approved by the then Assistant registrar namely Sh. J.S Sharma who was one of the accused in the present case and against whom proceedings have already been abated, then before Deputy Registrar Rakesh Bhatnagar and finally before the Registrar. It is evident that the freezed list was finally approved by the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 226 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Registrar. I failed to understand how the investigating officer of the present case came to the conclusion that only the dealing assistant Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) was responsible for everything and not other officers senior to him. Surprisingly J S Sharma, the then AR, was arrayed as an accused against whom proceedings have already been abated, but other Senior Officers who had also approved the note dated 12th of March 2003, were allowed to walk free for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. I could not understand what type of 'Magic Stick' the IO was having to take a call that the offence in question had been committed by a dealing assistant and AR and not by other senior persons.
271. Now the question arises, can the benefit of defective investigation carried out by IO be a ground to acquit the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2)? In my considered opinion the answer is 'No' and it can not be a ground for acquittal of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2).
272. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 227 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 "5.....In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquittin g an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective....."
273. Similarly in the case of C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial....."
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 228 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
274. In a case 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1497 Saroj Bhola v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2021, it was held that :
22. It is well settled that the defective investigation cannot itself be a ground for discharge. If negligent investigations and calculated omissions or lapses become the basis for acquittals/discharge, the faith and confidence of people on the criminal justice administration will be eroded. It is well settled that where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agencies or omissions either negligently or with a design to favour the accused, then it becomes the obligation of the Court to ensure that proper investigation is carried out. The Courts must not close its eyes to the fact that it is the victim who knocks the doors of the Court and seeks justice must not left high and dry with the feeling that the accused have escaped due to the perfunctory/faulty/defective investigation.
275. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, has observed as under:
"18. It is clear that a fair trial must kick off only after an investigation is itself fair and just. The ultimate aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that those who have actually committed a crime are correctly booked, and those who have not are not arraigned to stand trial. That this is the minimal procedural requirement that is the fundamental requirement of Article 21 of the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 229 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Constitution of India cannot be doubted. It is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21 over CrPC that must needs inform the interpretation of all the provisions of CrPC, so as to ensure that Article 21 is followed both in letter and in spirit."
276. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, even if, investigation itself was not fair and just and found to be defective, it cannot be a ground for acquittal. As discussed herein above, there is sufficient evidence against accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) as well to hold him guilty.
277. The contention of Ld Counsel that despite the order of this court dated 13-10-2008, whereby CBI was directed to get a case registered against the Investigating Officer of the CBI under section 217 & 218 IPC and to get the matter investigated further, certain persons were allowed to go free by the IO, would not be of much help. Firstly,the directions regarding registration of case against the IO, were set aside by Hon'ble High Court observing "the directions contained in the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 directing the CBI to register a case against the petitioner is hereby set aside. It is clarified that the impugned order remains unaffected as regards the other CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 230 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 portions. It is however open to the accused persons to seek whatever remedies are available to them in law". Secondly, the further status report filed by the IO in response to the said order, was accepted by Ld Predecessor of this court observing " Sufficient evidence does not exist to connect K.Laxmi Narayanan, Mayank Goswami and Alam Ali except their own statements. In case these persons are summoned as accused, even their own statements would not be read in evidence, the same being confessional in nature. Therefore, if these persons are summoned as accused, it would be a case of no evidence against them and they will have to be discharged. So far as Sukhbir Singh is concerned, during investigation, his identity could not be established. In these circumstances, I accept the final report filed by CBI in respect of accused Sukhbir Singh, Mayank Goswami, Alam Ali and K.Laxmi Narayanan and dismiss the application of accused Jitender Singh Sharma(A1)" . Both the aforesaid orders being final are binding on the parties and they can not be allowed to agitate it again.
278. Next argument made on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) was that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution which could indicate that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) had ever received CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 231 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 any pecuniary gain or any other benefits. He further submitted that there is no evidence indicating that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) ever met co-accused Subhash Chand(A-3) though he is facing trial for criminal conspiracy also.
279. This will also not extend any benefit to accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) for the simple reason that hardly any direct evidence is available in case of conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence. The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are:
1. an agreement between two or more persons.
2. agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
280. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 232 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 the applicability of Section 120-B IPC, it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
281. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540 held:
"9. The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-
conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 233 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 : thus:
'The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, 1860, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 234 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable.' We are in respectful agreement with the above observations with regard to the offence of criminal conspiracy."
282. In another case Saju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378 : , it was held:-
8. In a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. It is a settled position of law that act or action of one of the accused cannot be used as evidence against another. However, an exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in the case of conspiracy. To attract the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons had conspired together for committing an offence. It is CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 235 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 only then that the evidence of action or statement made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. This Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 has held : (SCC pp. 649-51, para 45) "Section 120-A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and Section 120-B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. Section 10 reads:
'10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.--Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 236 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.' This section mainly could be divided into two :
the first part talks of where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, and it is only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the subsequent part of the section comes into operation and it is material to note that this part of the section talks of reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired together and this evidently has reference to Section 120-A where it is provided 'when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done'. This further has been safeguarded by providing a proviso that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy. It will be therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10. The second part of section talks of anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 237 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose for proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It is clear that this second part permits the use of evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person. It is well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other. But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of the section is clearly established i.e. there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language of Section 120-A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682 : Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra] Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) analysed the provision of Section 10 and made the following observations : (SCR pp. 389-91) CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 238 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 'This section, as the opening words indicate, will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the others, not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression "in reference to their common intention" is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of" in the English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only "as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 239 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 that any such person was a party to it". It can only be used for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. In short, the section can be analysed as follows : (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it can only be used against a co- conspirator and not in his favour.' "
283. It was further held : (SCC pp. 734-35, paras 278-
80) "278. From an analysis of the section, it will be seen that Section 10 will come into play only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence. There should be, in CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 240 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 other words, a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirator. Once such prima facie evidence exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others. It is relevant not only for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy, but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. It is true that the observations of Subba Rao, J., in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682 :sub nom Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra] lend support to the contention that the admissibility of evidence as between co-conspirators would be (sic more) liberal than in English law. The learned Judge said :
(SCR p. 390) 'The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression "in reference to their common intention" is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of" in English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 241 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it.'
279. But, with respect, the above observations that the words of Section 10 have been designed used to give a wider scope than the concept of conspiracy in English law, may not be accurate. This particular aspect of the law has been considered by the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor [AIR 1940 PC 176 : at p. 180, where Lord Wright said that there is no difference in principle in Indian law in view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
280. The decision of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar case [AIR 1940 PC 176 : has been referred to with approval in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 747, 760 : where Jagannadhadas, J., said : (SCR p. 193) 'The limits of the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases under Section 10 of the Evidence Act have been authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor [AIR 1940 PC 176 :] . In that case, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that Section 10 of the Evidence Act must be construed in accordance with the principle that the thing done, written or spoken, was something done in carrying out the conspiracy and was receivable as a step in the proof of the conspiracy. They notice that evidence receivable under Section 10 CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 242 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 of the Evidence Act of "anything said, done, or written, by any one of such persons" (i.e. conspirators) must be "in reference to their common intention". But their Lordships held that in the context (notwithstanding the amplitude of the above phrase) the words therein are not capable of being widely construed having regard to the well-known principle above enunciated.' "
9. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80] this Court reiterated that the essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. After referring to the judgments in Noor Mohd. Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696 : and V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 665 :] it was held in S.C. Bahri case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : as under : (SCC p. 134, para 96).
"[A] cursory look to the provisions contained in Section 120-A reveals that a criminal conspiracy envisages an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act which by itself may not be illegal but the same is done or executed by illegal means. Thus the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 243 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact-
situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions in such a situation do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B since from its very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may be frustrated and it is common experience and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 244 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately drawn."
284. In view of the above mentioned principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. This court is satisfied that accused persons have conspired together to commit the offences in question. There is sufficient evidence proving that the accused persons were party to the conspiracy. The common intention of the accused persons in the present case was to get the land allotted from DDA on the basis of a false list of members which was prepared on the basis of forged documents. In such a situation, even if there was no contact or meeting between one conspirator with another conspirator, still it would not make any difference.
285. Pertinent to mention that there is no doubt about the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 245 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Supreme Court in the case of A. Sivaprakash (Supra) as relied upon by Ld Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2), that it is the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy that accused had taken any monetary or pecuniary advantage by abusing his position. In the present case accused persons have been charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy also and not under section 34 IPC as it was in the above case. In case of criminal conspiracy direct evidence of any pecuniary or monetary benefits , is hardly available and the same is to be inferred from the circumstances. Pecuniary or monetary advantage may come in innumerable forms making it difficult for the prosecution to establish it but it does not mean that accused persons have not received any such benefits.
286. Next argument made on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj was that he may be little negligent in performing his duty but it does not mean that he is corrupt and action done by him was done for gaining any pecuniary benefit. He further submitted that any erroneous action cannot be taken as a criminal act on his part.
287. It is true that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a public servant under the Prevention of CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 246 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Corruption Act merely for passing a wrong order, without any material to demonstrate that such order was deliberately passed by him for extraneous considerations or on oblique motives. But in the present case there is sufficient material to hold that the action of the accused Mohinder Pal(A-2) was deliberate and well planned. Without considering the proceedings pertaining to the society which have been noted in the file maintained by the office of RCS, he initiated the note dated 14.2.2003 and accepted the forged documents. He abused his official position for extraneous considerations. The action of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) can not be termed as only erroneous decision by any stretch of the imagination. That being so the accused can not take any benefit from the decision passed in the case of Madhu Koda (supra).
288. Next argument made on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj was that the allegations leveled against the accused do not come under the category of "Fact" and "Relevant" as defined under section 3 of Evidence Act. For the sake of convenience the relevant extract of section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, is reproduced as under:-
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 247 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
3. Interpretation clause.--In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:
"Fact".--"Fact" means and includes--
(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
"Relevant".--One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.
289. The expression "fact" as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act includes not only the physical fact which can be perceived by the senses but also the psychological CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 248 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 fact or mental condition of which any person is conscious and that it is in the former sense that the word used by the Legislature refers to a material and not to a mental fact. (H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249).
290. The Law of Evidence revolves around two cardinal things: facts and proof. It is these two things that combine to form evidence, which the court may or may not accept as showing the merit or otherwise of a party's case.The term "fact" may be used in three different senses
(i) the information provided by the witness and other evidence;(ii) the conclusion drawn by the court from the information presented in Court as to what actually happened; and (iii) the legal concepts, facts in issue, that must be established if a particular party to legal proceedings is to succeed.
291. In the present case, this court has already given a verdict on one of the facts in issue, as noted earlier, that the prosecution has been successful in proving the allegations made against the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2). The Court has come to the said conclusion on the basis of information given by the prosecution witnesses and other evidence produced by the prosecution. It is a CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 249 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 relevant Fact that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) accepted the forged and false documents and on the basis of the same, fraudulently and dishonestly, initiated the note proposing for approval of a false list of members of the society which was forwarded to DDA for allotment of land.
292. Next argument of Ld. Counsel was that as per the definition of word "Corrupt" as defined by Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) can not be treated as a corrupt person. Even as per the aforesaid dictionaries as referred to, the meaning of word 'corrupt' is a person who is willing to use his power to do dishonest or illegal things in return for money or to get an advantage or dishonestly using his position or power to get an advantage, especially for money. The actions of accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) in accepting forged and false documents for making a false list of members forwarded to DDA for allotment of land, squarely come under the said category. There is not even iota of doubt that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-3) used his position to do dishonest things in return to get an advantage.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 250 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
293. Next argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) is that PW 33 Sanjeev Khirwar who was working in the excise department has never worked in the RCA office therefore he was not competent to remove accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) as accused had worked in the office of RCS during the relevant time. That being so, the sanction granted by PW 33 Sanjeev Khirwar has no value in the eyes of law and solely on this basis accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) is entitled for acquittal.
294. Since the requirement of obtaining sanction is contained in Section 19(1) of the PC Act, it would be proper to reproduce the same. For our purposes, reproduction of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the PC Act shall suffice which I reproduce herein below:
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013--
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 251 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."
295. As is clear from the plain language of the said section, the court is precluded from taking "cognizance" of an offence under certain sections mentioned in this provision if the prosecution is against the public servant, unless previous sanction of the Government (Central or State, as the case may be) has been obtained. What is relevant for our purposes is that this section bars taking cognizance of an offence.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 252 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
296. The public policy behind providing immunity from prosecution without the sanction of the State is to insulate the public servant against harassment and malicious prosecution. This protection is only to ensure that a public servant serves the State with courage, confidence, and conviction. Statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either under Section 19 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of protecting a public servant. These protections are not available to other citizens because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect them. However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices. The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a sanction by the appointing authority.
297. In the case of L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 9 SCC 598, as relied by Ld PP for CBI, one of the questions referred to was "Whether a public servant who is not on the same post and is transferred (whether by way of promotion or otherwise to another post) loses the protection under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, though he continues to be a public servant, albeit on a different post"? In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors. (Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 253 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 "21. It clearly follows from the reading of the judgments in Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI, (2011) 7 SCC 141 and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 that if the public servant had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which he was holding on the date when cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. It is also made clear that where the public servant had abused the office which he held in the check-up period, but had ceased to hold "that office" or was holding a different office, then sanction would not be necessary.
Likewise, where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held at the time of taking cognizance, there will be no necessity to take the sanction. However, one discerning factor which is to be noted is that in both these cases the accused persons were public servants in the capacity of Member of Legislative Assembly by virtue of political office. They were not public servants as government employees. However, a detailed discussion contained in these judgments would indicate that the principle laid down therein would encompass and cover the cases of all public servants, including government employees who may otherwise be having constitutional protection under the provisions of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution."
298. In the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 , it was held:-
49. It is said that Section 6 envisages that the authority competent to remove a CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 254 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 public servant from the office should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office exists. Section 6 applies only in cases where there is a vertical hierarchy of public offices and the public servants against whom sanction is sought from the sanctioning authority. Where the office held by the public servant is not a part of vertical hierarchy in which there is an authority above the public servant, then, Section 6 can have no application. We have been referred to the observations of Desai, J., in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183 "That competent authority alone would know the nature and functions discharged by the public servant holding the office and whether the same has been abused or misused. It is the vertical hierarchy between the authority competent to remove the public servant from that office and the nature of the office held by the public servant against whom sanction is sought which would indicate a hierarchy and which would therefore, permit inference of knowledge about the functions and duties of the office and its misuse or abuse by the public servant. That is why the legislature clearly provided that that authority alone would be competent to grant sanction which is entitled to remove the public servant against whom sanction is sought from the office."
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 255 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
50. With the utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the above observations. It seems to us that these observations were not intended to lay down the law that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office of the public servant exists. That was not the issue in that case. The observations therefore, are not meant to be and ought not to be regarded as laying down the law. It has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that judgments are not to be read as statutes. In our opinion, it is not necessary that the authority competent to give sanction for prosecution or the authority competent to remove the public servant should be vertically superior in the hierarchy in which the office of the public servant exists. There is no such requirement under Section 6. The power to give sanction for prosecution can be conferred on any authority. Such authority may be of the department in which the public servant is working or an outside authority. All that is required is that the authority must be in a position to appreciate the material collected against the public servant to judge whether the prosecution contemplated is frivolous or speculative. Under our enactment the power has been conferred on the authority competent to remove the public servant. Under the British CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 256 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906 the power to give consent for prosecution for an offence under that Act has been conferred upon the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
299. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 257 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under
an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.
300. Nothing has been brought on record indicating that sanctioning authority had not considered the evidence and the material placed before it before giving the sanction for prosecuting the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2). PW33 Sh. Sanjeev Khirwar who had accorded the sanction in the present case, deposed that " I had gone the SP report and the accompanied documents and after applying my mind, I accorded the sanction for prosecution for accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj under section 19 of PC Act, 1988". Although PW33 was cross examined on behalf of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) but even during his cross examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the testimony of PW33.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 258 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
301. Moreover, in the present case, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of L. Narayan Swami( Supra), even if there is no sanction to prosecute the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2), it would not affect the case of prosecution as accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) had abused the office and position while working in the office of RCS during the relevant time but when the cognizance of the offence was taken, he had ceased to hold that office and was holding a different office.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED SUBHASH CHAND(A-3)
302. This takes me to the argument advanced by Ld counsel for the accused Subhash Chand(A-3).
303. First argument of Ld counsel for the accused Subhash Chand (A-3) is that around 40 witnesses have been examined but none of the witnesses has said anything against the accused Subhash Chand. He has taken me to the testimony of PW 35 Jasbir Singh and submitted that this witness turned hostile and during his examination he has stated that certain documents like affidavit, application forms proceedings and minutes CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 259 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 pertaining to the society, may or may not have his signatures. In these circumstances the opinion of the expert coupled with the testimony of PW 35 Jasbir Singh has no value in the eyes of law.
304. The evidentiary value of the testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh has already been discussed in detail and noted by this court while fixing the responsibility of accused Subhash Chand(A-3). At the cost of repetition, I may say that when a witness has turned hostile, as per settled position of law, even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.
305. At this stage,it would be apt to take note of certain principles relevant for a decision in a criminal trial. Needless to observe, such principles have evolved over the years and crystallized into 'settled principles of law'. These are: (a). Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. (b). Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.:(i) Wholly reliable;(ii) Wholly CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 260 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 unreliable;(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
306. The testimony of PW35 Jasbir Singh comes under category (iii) i.e. Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Therefore his testimony has been considered, wherever found to be relevant and essential for the just decision of the case as it was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and report of GEQD/ Expert.
307. Next argument made on behalf of the accused Subhash Chand is that reasons for expert opinion were not given at the time when the chargesheet was filed and the same was filed at the time of examination of PW 39 and the same was taken on record, Which is against the law.
308. Here I may mention that the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) are not tenable. Record would indicate that on 27.04.2022, CBI CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 261 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 moved an application under section 311 CRPC with the following prayer:-
" i) Sh. VGS Bhatnagar, GEQD Expert, and Sh.S Saha, Asstt. GEQD Expert, Kolkata, may kindly be summoned on behalf of the prosecution;
ii) Sh. VGS Bhatnagar and Sh. S Saha, may be directed to bring/produce reasons of the GEQD Report No. DXC/317/2006 dated 30.8.2006."
309. That said application was allowed by Ld Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2022, observing that there was no objection from the accused persons. for the sake of convenience the relevant extract of the order dated 02.05.2022, is reproduced as under:-
"..Copies supplied to both the Ld. Counsel. Both the Ld. Counsel have gone through the application and although the application is highly belated, both the Ld. Counsel have gracefully stated that they have no objection to the GEQD experts being summoned....."
310. It is pertinent to mention that in the order sheet dated 02.05.2022, of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, presence of one Sh. Ravinder Mann, Ld. Counsel for A-3 Subhas Chand has been marked. A perusal of the record reveals that the vakalatnama on behalf of accused Subhash Chand(A-3) is already on record wherein Sh. Ravinder Mann and Sh Vikram Singh Panwar alongwith 4 other Ld. Counsel have been appointed by him. That being so CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 262 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 learned counsel for the accused Subhash Chandra cannot take an objection that the reasons have been filed later on. At the time of examination of PW 39 the reasons were taken on record.
311. Even if for the sake of argument said reasons are ignored still it would not make any difference. There is no such obligation or prohibition that the opinion of an expert cannot be read in evidence in the absence of the reasons. Further it is true that such type of documents should have been filed by way of supplementary chargesheet and not the way the aforesaid reasons were filed before this court however as stated herein above, Ld Predeceasor of this court has already taken on record the said reasons and at that time no objection was taken. At the most it may be mere an irregularity and that cannot be a ground to reject the case of prosecution and the report of an expert.
312. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) was that in the present case IO PW38 D.Damodaran has been examined prior to PW39 Sri VGS Bhatnagar and PW 40 Siri RS Rayat. He stated that the both witnesses namely VGS Bhatnagar and RS Rayat have been examined just to fill up the lacuna in CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 263 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 the case of prosecution. In this regard,I may mention that there is no prescribed sequence in which witnesses are to be examined. Which witness is to be examined and when, is generally prerogative of the prosecution. It is not the case that the names of these witnesses have emerged all of a sudden. It is a matter of fact that certain specimen signatures and questioned documents were sent for examination to GEQD. The report of that examiner was received and it was filed along with the charge sheet. As far as PW40 R.S Rayat is concerned, he was summoned pursuant to the application of CBI moved under section 311 CrPC which was allowed by the Ld Predecessor of this court. vide order dated 02.05.2022. That order has not been challenged and the same is final and binding on all the parties. Even if PW39 Sh. VGS Bhatnagar and PW 40 Sh R.S Rayat have been examined after the examination of IO PW 38 Sh.D. Damodaran, it would not make any difference because no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused by adopting such a sequence by the prosecution.
313. Next argument advanced by Ld Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) is that it is the case of prosecution that specimen signatures of accused Subhash CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 264 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 Chand were taken in the presence of Mr R S Rayat PW40, but no efforts were made by the prosecution to get identified the accused in the court by PW 40 Mr R S Rayat. It is true that at the time of examination of PW40 Mr R S Rayat, opportunity was available to prosecution to get identified the accused in the court by him, which was not done, but at the same time it can not be be material dent in the case of prosecution when there is sufficient material available on record to bring the guilt home as against the accused Subhash Chand(A-3).
314. The evidence of identification of an accused by the prosecution witness, is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence It is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The identity of the accused can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also. (Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180)
315. Adverting to judicial pronouncements as relied upon by Ld Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand(A-3), at the very outset, I may mention that nobody can deny the propositions of law as laid down by these authorities.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 265 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 According to the Ld Counsel first seven judgements namely S.P.S. Rathor ,Ramesh Chandra Agarwal; S. Gopal Reddy; State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Dilbagh Rai; State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Ors.; Ramakant Dubey and Siba Prasad Satpathy (supra) , are on the point that "Science of handwriting comparison is a weak piece of evidence and accused ought not to be convicted on the uncorroborated opinion of a handwriting expert". This has already been discussed in detail by this court in preceding paras under the heading "value of Expert Evidence". There can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself generally form the basis for a conviction. However , in the case of Murari Lal (supra) as relied upon by CBI, Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 266 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
316. In the present case, it is not denied that the material evidence available against the accused Subhash Chand is the opinion of GEQD Expert. But at the same time, it can not be ignored that he was a party to the conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy his name was found mentioned at serial No. 59 against the membership No. 104 in the false list of members Ex PW4/A,which was sent to DDA for allotment of land, proving beyond reasonable doubt his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.
317. In the case of Keshav Dutt (supra) as relied upon by him, it was held that whenever the court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert , it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the said expert. But in the present case, handwriting expert Sh V G S Bhatnagar has been examined as PW39. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Subhash Chand(A-3). Therefore,this authority also is of no help to him.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 267 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
318. Regarding the proposition of law that "mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof", Ld Counsel has placed reliance on two cases namely L.I.C. of India and Ramnish Geer (supra). This is a settled principle of law which requires no further discussion. But in the present case only those documents have been relied upon ,which have either been proved or not disputed. Pertinent to mention that there are different modes of proving a document .Document may be public or private. The primary way of proving the documents is by author of the said document but in case of forged document , as is in the case in hand, there is no genuine author and such document is purportedly shown to have been executed or signed by a particular person, has already been denied by that person. In that eventuality, the opinion of an expert to the effect that said document has been signed by a particular person and such opinion accepted by the court, would be sufficient to hold that document has been proved.
319. Next judgment relied upon by Ld Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand (A-3) is Bhagyashree case (supra). In that case it was held that "additional documents could be produced by following the procedure CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 268 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 of further investigation as contemplated under section 173(8) of Cr PC. It is true that during the trial of a case, if additional documents are to be filed by the prosecution or investigating agency, the same should be by way of a supplementary charge sheet. In the present case, the above contention has already been dealt by this court in para 306 onwards observing that the additional document i;e; reasons in support of the expert opinion, were taken on record as there was no objection from the side of the accused. That order can not be reviewed now. Even otherwise also, at the most that may be mere an irregularity on the part of the investigating agency, which can not be a ground to reject the case of prosecution on this aspect.
320. The last judgment as relied upon by Ld Counsel for the accused Subhash Chand(A-3) is the case of Sonu (supra). In this case it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of prosecution". In the present case accused Subhash Chand(A-3) has examined only one witness namely Sh Deepak Jain as DW1. Testimony of DW1 has already been discussed in para 170 onwards. No discrimination at all has been made in appreciating the CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 269 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 testimony of this defence witness. But the same was found to be of no help to the accused for the reasons mentioned there.
CONCLUSION
321. Both the accused persons namely Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) and Subhash Chand(A-3) were charged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court for the offences under section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13( 1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 15 read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) and substantive offences u/s 420/511468/471 IPC against accused Subhash Chand(A-3).
322. As far as the charge under section 120 B IPC is concerned, this court has already decided, as noted in para 284 of this judgment, that accused persons have conspired together to commit the offence in question and there is sufficient evidence proving that accused persons were party to the conspiracy.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 270 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
323. In addition to that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) is facing the charges for the substantive offences u/s 15 read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, also.
324. Prior to amendment of section 13 of PC Act, 1988, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or (ii) or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
325. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the above mentioned three clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of criminal misconduct under section 13(1) (d). Undoubtedly, all the above three clauses are independent, alternative and disjunctive.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 271 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
326. In the present case, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) has been charged for attempt u/s 15 of the PC Act,1988 also. The case of the prosecution against him is of attempt and not of the main offence which was observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court while framing the charges against the accused persons.
327. Further, while deciding the role of the accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2), this court has already reached at a conclusion that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) in furtherance of the above mentioned criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently allowed one Sh. Sukhbir Singh to represent the society on the basis of forged authority letter purportedly signed by Sh. Jasbir Singh (PW35), President of Society, initiated the note dated 14.2.2003, on the basis of forged and false documents and ignored certain irregularities. It is not denied that accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) was a public servant at the relevant time. The above actions of Mohinder Pal Bajaj (A-2) squarely come under the ambit of section 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w section 15 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 272 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
328. Accused Subhash Chand (A-3) is facing charges for the substantive offences also u/s 420/511/468/471 IPC apart from the offence of criminal conspiracy.
329. The offence of cheating has been defined u/s 415 IPC and whosoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person shall be punished as provided under section 420 IPC. For bringing the actions under the aforesaid provision of law, there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning.
330. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for committing the forgery for the purpose of cheating. The term forgery has been defined u/s 463 IPC. The basic element of forgery are the making of a false document or part of it and such making should be with such an intention as is specified in the Section.
331. Section 471 IPC says that whosoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses a genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to be believed to be forged shall be punished as provided in the section.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 273 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
332. Section 511 IPC has been added as the case of the prosecution was of attempt only and not of main offence. Section 511 IPC is a general provision dealing with attempts to commit offences not made punishable by other specific sections. It makes punishable all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment and not only those punishable with death.
333. In the present case, it has already come on the record that accused Subhash Chand (A-3) has forged the signatures of Jasbir Singh (PW35) on various documents and proceedings which were submitted to the office of RCS for getting approved the false list of members of the society, so that same is forwarded to DDA for allotment of land. The aforesaid forged documents were used and submitted to the office of RCS for getting the society revived which was dormant and almost at the verge of declaring defunct. The cumulative effect of the actions of accused Subhash Chand(A-3), as noted earlier, is covered by the provisions of law under section 420/468/471 IPC. It is an admitted fact in the present case that no land has been alloted by the DDA that's why the prosecution came CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 274 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019 up with a case of attempt only and Section 511 IPC was added.
Decision
334. In view of my aforesaid discussions, accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) and Subhash Chand(A-3) are convicted as under:
a) Accused Mohinder Pal Bajaj(A-2) is convicted for the offences under section 120 B read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 15 read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 (prior to the amendment).
b) Accused Subhash Chand(A-3) is convicted for the offence u/s 120 B IPC read with section 420/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act,1988 and also for substantive offences u/s 420/511/468/471 IPC.
335. Both the above convict persons shall be heard separately on the point of sentence.
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 275 of 276 ) CBI No. 102/2019 CNR No. DLCT110004302019
336. Copy of this Judgment is being provided free of cost to each of the Convicts today itself.
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2023.04.25
GOEL 14:23:57 +0530
(Rajesh Kumar Goel)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/25.04.2023
Announced in the Open Court
today : 25.4.2023
CBI Vs. Jitender Singh Sharma & Ors.
(Geetanjali CGHS) Date of Judgment 25.04.2023 (Page 276 of 276 )
CBI No. 102/2019
CNR No. DLCT110004302019