Cbi vs . 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A1), on 31 July, 2013

[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A1), on 31 July, 2013

1
CBI case . No.28/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. : 28/11
Date of Institution : 05.07.2006
Date on which Judgment Pronounced : 23.07.2003
Date on which Order on Sentence announced : 31.07.2013

CBI case no. : 28/11
FIR no. RC AC2/2003/A 0003
CBI/SPE/ACUII/New Delhi

In the matter of:

CBI versus. 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A1),
The then Chairperson,
NDMC, New Delhi.

W/o Sh. Mandeep Singh,
R/o 7/17, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi.

2. Dr. G.S. Thind(A2),
The then MOH, NDMC,
New Delhi.

S/o Late Sh. B.S. Thind,
R/o Flat no. 1, Palika Kutumb,
4A, SP Marg, Chanakayapuri,
New Delhi110021.

3. Dr. R. Pal(A3),
The then Chief Medical Officer,
NDMC, New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Dhanna Ram,
R/o 5/5, Harish Chander Mathur lane,
Janpath, New DelhiI.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 1 of 210 pages
2
CBI case . No.28/11

4. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta(A4),
The then Sanitary Inspector,
NDMC, New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Kailash Nath,
R/o R288A, Ramesh Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92.

5. Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5),
(died on 23.10.2012 and proceedings
against him abated)
The then proprietor of
M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg,
New Delhi.

S/o Sh. L.C. Bhatia,
R/o 10Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi1.

.............Convicts

O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E

1. By this order, I shall dispose off the contentions, raised on

behalf of the parties, on the point of sentence.

2. In the present case, convicts, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh

(A1), Dr. G. S. Thind (A2), Dr. R. Pal (A3) and Raj

Kumar Gupta(A4), have been convicted for the offence

punishable under section 120B IPC read with section 420

IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, in addition, for the

offence under section 13 (1) (d) punishable under section

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 2 of 210 pages
3
CBI case . No.28/11

13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. It has been strongly contended on behalf of the State by

the Ld. PP for the CBI that this is a corruption case, in

which, the convicts have been convicted, as they were

involved in the conspiracy and that in pursuance to the

systematic and wellplanned conspiracy, they fraudulently

acted in connivance with K. L. Bhatia (since deceased), to

cheat the NDMC and by abusing their official position as

public servants, flouted the provisions of lease deed, rules

and regulations of building bye laws, Master Plan, Zonal

Plan and NDMC Act, which were required to be adhered to

issue the health licence. That the health licence was

cancelled by the NDMC (duly approved by the then

Chairperson on 21.2.2000) in the year 2000 as the premises

were reentered and vested with the President of India and

were being misused as a hotel in the premises meant for

residential group housing, on the letter dated 2.8.1999 of L

& DO. The present convicts fraudulently granted health

licence illegally on 15.1.2003 to the accused K. L. Bhatia

(since deceased), who was proprietor of Centre Point

Hotel, by falsely projecting part of the notification dated

7.5.1999, the earlier notings and their own notings right

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 3 of 210 pages
4
CBI case . No.28/11

under their nose. The accused K. L. Bhatia (since

deceased) cheated the NDMC for making personal huge

gains and all the convicts joined him to cause him big

pecuniary gains.

4. The State has further contended that the maximum

prescribed substantive punishment with fine be handed

over to all the convicts, so that enough and clear message

goes to one and all and especially to the potential

offenders, who are in the waiting to commit such like

crimes so that the punishment act as a deterrence and the

intent of the legislature is fulfilled.

5. Convict, P. M. Singh (A1), has prayed that a lenient view

be taken on the ground that she is a senior citizen and

retired from the service as Chairperson. That she was the

Financial Commissioner of Delhi State. That she has

unblemished record. That her both children are living

abroad. That she has an old mother of 88 years of age

residing in Chandigarh and nobody is in the family to look

after her. That the convict is afflicted with hypertension.

That her husband is also of old age, who retired from army

and is residing with her in Delhi. That she remained co

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 4 of 210 pages
5
CBI case . No.28/11

operative during the long trial of the case. She further

submitted that there is no case of illegal gratification of

money. That she is not the beneficiary of any gain. That

she is not a previous convict. She has prayed that a

lenient view may be taken.

6. Convict, Dr. G. S. Thind (A2) has submitted that he is

aged about 66 years. That he has attended the hearings

regularly during the long trial of seven years. That the

case is ten years old and period of ten years is a long

period. That he is not a previous convict. That he has

been afflicted with various diseases like blood pressure,

hypertension, diabetes and heart problem and he is under

regular treatment and medicines. It is further submitted

that this is not a case of demand and acceptance of bribe

but only relates to violation of certain rules and

regulations. He has prayed for a lenient view.

7. Convict, Dr. R. Pal (A3), has also prayed for a lenient

view. He has submitted that he was doctor by profession

and he has processed the file for the first time and put up

only two notes, wherein he mentioned the earlier notes.

That he was not a legal person. He further submitted that

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 5 of 210 pages
6
CBI case . No.28/11

he is senior citizen of 63 years of age. That he has two

daughters, one is in Bangalore and another is of

marriageable age and is with him. That he is the sole

earning male member of the family. That he is not

involved in any other case. That after his retirement, he is

working in CGHS as doctor. He prayed for minimum

sentence.

8. On behalf of convict, Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta(A4), it has

been submitted that he is still in service. That he is the

sole bread earning member of the family. That he is junior

most officer in the Department. That he is not previously

convicted. That he is afflicted with many diseases and

under treatment at Max Super Speciality Hospital and has

already undergone angioplasty. He has prayed that a

lenient view may be taken and minimum sentence be

given.

9. The above said convicts have, thus, prayed for taking a

lenient view.

10. The contentions, raised by the the convicts, have met stiff

and very strong opposition on behalf of the State. It has

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 6 of 210 pages
7
CBI case . No.28/11

been urged that convict, P. M. Singh, the then

Chairperson, has been convicted, as she had illegally and

dishonestly approved the health licence in respect of a

hotel by flouting the rules and norms of Building Bye Laws,

Master Plan, Zonal Plan and NDMC besides covenants of

the lease deed where the leassor was the Government and

the title vested in the President of India. That she affixed

her signatures on the notesheet despite having the

knowledge of reentry by L&DO and she later on scored

out her said signatures. It has, further, been stated on

behalf of the State that being a public servant at the

relevant time, convict P. M. Singh acted corruptly with full

vigour, in approving of health licence against the norms of

the NDMC. It has, therefore, been urged that this convict

deserves maximum punishment.

11. Regarding the convict, Dr. G. S. Thind (A2), it is stated

that he ignored the recommended note dated 9.12.2002

and intentionally, did not follow pre conditions for the

issue of licence and fraudulently put up a note dated

15.1.2003 and thereafter, he made interpolations in the

same. That he is not entitled to any mercy or compassion.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 7 of 210 pages
8
CBI case . No.28/11

12. Regarding the convict, Dr. R. Pal (A3) it is stated that he

appended two favourable notes dated 15.1.2003 and

approved the note put up by convict R. K. Gupta and

deliberately concealed the relevant conditions of the

notification dated 7.5.1999 for the grant of Licence for the

guest house mentioned in the notification. He is also not

entitled to any mercy or compassion.

13. Similarly, it is stated that convict R. K. Gupta (A4) was

involved in the conspiracy with other convicts and that in

pursuance to the systematic and wellplanned conspiracy,

he dishonestly processed the application for Health

Licence and put up a detailed favourable note, in which

dishonestly incorrect and twisted facts were incorporated

for renewal/grant of Licence to Centre Point Hotel. It is

stated that he is not entitled to any mercy or compassion.

14. It is further urged on behalf of the State that most of the

pleas taken by the convicts are routine and stock pleas

and in any case, in the case under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, these pleas taken are not considered as

mitigating circumstances. It has, therefore, been prayed

that exemplary punishment be awarded to the convicts

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 8 of 210 pages
9
CBI case . No.28/11

herein.

15. On behalf of the CBI, following case law have been cited:

(i) State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 261
(ii) Bikram Dorjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009
Supreme Court 2539
(iii) State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 391,
(iv) Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2009 Supreme Court 2609
(v) Ammavasai Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur, AIR 2000
SC 3644
(vi) State V A Parthiban, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51,
(vii) State V Ratan Lal Arora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2364
&
(viii) Ram Narain Poply Vs. CBI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court
2748
(ix) State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 611.
(x) State of Madhya Pradesh V. Sheikh Shahid, AIR 2009 SC
2951
(xi) Shiv Raj Singh vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC
1419.
(xii) State of A. P. Vs. S. R. Rangadamappa, AIR 1982 SC
1492

16. On behalf of the convicts, following case law have been

cited:

(i) Ram Lal Dogra Vs. State (CBI), 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 239

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 9 of 210 pages
10
CBI case . No.28/11

(ii) C. B. Rai Vs. CBI, 2013 (2) JCC 1241

17. At the very outset, it is observed that there is no quarrel

over the settled propositions of law discussed in the

aforesaid case law, cited by the parties.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as Dr.
Subramanyam Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, 2012,
AIR(SC) page 1185, has observed that :
"The magnitude of corruption in our public
life is incompatible with the concept of
socialistic secular democratic public. The
duty of the Court is that any anti
corruption law has to be interpreted and
worked out in such a fashion as to
strengthen to fight against corruption."

19. It has further been observed in the same case that "In a

situation where two constructions are eminently

reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to

eredicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate

it."

20. It has been held in case reported as Narendra

Champak Lal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat, 2012 (7) SCC

page 80 that:

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 10 of 210 pages
11
CBI case . No.28/11

"Corruption at any level does not deserve

either sympathy or leniency."

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law, reported as State
of Madhya Pradesh V Sheikh Shahid, AIR 2009 SC 2951,
has observed that :
"Justice demands that Courts should
impose punishment befitting the crime so
that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
of the crime. The Court must not only keep
in view the rights of the criminal but also
the rights of the victim of the crime and the
society at large while considering the
imposition of appropriate punishment."

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

Vs. Vinod Kumar, decided on, 18th May, 2012 (Criminal

Appeal No. 1887) reiterated the law laid down in State of

J&K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P 611, and observed

that superannuation of the convict and the pendency of

criminal trial for over a period of time cannot be treated a

special reason to reduce the sentence.

23. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases

reported as Jai Bhagwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2008

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 11 of 210 pages
12
CBI case . No.28/11

150 DLT 46 (Delhi) and Ravinder Kumar Arora Vs. CBI

Manu/DE/8816/2007 (Delhi) , that :

"It is a normal thing that 'trial' of the
person is considered a period of 'agony'
undergone by him. But we tend to forget
the agony of the society and the
complainant who dared lodge the
complaint. The entire purpose of the
legislature of sentencing the offenders
stands defeated and that is the one reason
that wages of corruption are considered
more attractive in this country. The
person caught is not always a firsttimer
corrupt. He may have been indulging
into corrupt activities / practices for a
long number of years. It is to his
advantage that the trial is prolonged. He
spends a fraction of amount, earned by
corrupt practices on litigation and
professionals to see that ultimately he
makes Criminal Justice System a
laughing stock. In this process, the entire
legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt
stands defeated.

24. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court in the

aforesaid case that :

"Accused facing trial since long; amount
allegedly misappropriated already been

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 12 of 210 pages
13
CBI case . No.28/11

deposited; undergone departmental
punishment; only bread earner in family;
wife and three children's dependence on
him are the circumstance which do not
constitute 'special reasons'."

25. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as State of M. P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar,

(2006) 8 SCC P 693, that :

"Corruption by public servant has become
gigantic problem. It has spread
everywhere. No facet of public activity has
been left unaffected by the stink of
corruption. Large scale corruption
retards the nation building activities and
everyone has to suffer on that count."

26. In the same appeal quoting 'M B Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 147' the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that:

"It is the defect of the system that longevity
of the cases tried under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is too lengthy. If that is
regarded as sufficient for reducing the
sentence mandated by the Parliament
legislative exercise would stand defeated."

27. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 13 of 210 pages
14
CBI case . No.28/11

reported as State of J & K Vs. Vinay Nanda, AIR 2001 SC P

611, that :

"Corruption at any level, by any person,
of any magnitude, is condemnable, which
cannot be ignored by the Judicial Courts,
when proved. No leniency is required to
be shown in proved cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which itself
treats the offences under it of a special
nature to be treated differently than the
general penal offences. The convicts of
the offences under the Act are to be dealt
with heavy hand and deterrant rod. No
populous or sympathetic approach is
needed in such cases."

28. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the

case reported as AIR 1961, Mysore P 49, that:

"Infliction of a lenient sentence will defeat
the purpose of the P. C. Act."

29. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case reported as State of T. N Vs. Kaliaperumal, (2005) 12
SCC 473 and State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590
that :
"Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders
Act specifically bars the offence under PC
Act from the purview of the Act."

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 14 of 210 pages
15
CBI case . No.28/11

30. The convicts, therefore, cannot be enlarged on
probation in this case relating to serious offences.

31. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case reported as State of M. P. Vs. Ram Singh, AIR
2000 SC 870, that:
"Corruption in a civilised society is a
disease like cancer, which if not detected
in time is sure to maliganise the polity of
the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as plague
which is not only contagious but if not
controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle.
Its virus is compared with HIV leading to
AIDS being incurable. The sociopolitical
system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble
under its own weight. Corruption is
opposed to democracy and social order,
being not only anti people, but aimed and
targeted against them. It affects the
economy and destroys the cultural
heritage."

32. Further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case law reported as Ankush Maruti Shinde

Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2609 that:

" The social impact of the crime e.g. where
it relates to offences against women,

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 15 of 210 pages
16
CBI case . No.28/11

decoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of
public money, treason and other offences
involving moral turpitude or moral
delinquency which have great impact on
social order, and public interest cannot be
lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm
to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and
society could not long endure under such
serious threats."

33. In the case of Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,

2006 IV AD (Cri.) (SC) 78, it was held that:

"undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the
justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and
society can no longer endure under such
serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of
every court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was executed
or committed etc."

34. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as Mohd. A Hussain Vs. Asstt. Collector, Custom

(Prevention) Ahmedabad, AIR 1998 SC 2143, that :

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 16 of 210 pages
17
CBI case . No.28/11

"If a given transaction constitutes two
offences under two enactments generally,
it is wrong to have consecutive sentences.
But this rule has no application if the
transaction relating to offences is not the
same or the facts constituting the two
offences are quite different. Sentencing
judge should try to ensure that the
totality of the sentences is correct in the
light of all the circumstances of the case."
"In arriving at an appropriate sentence,
the court must consider, and some times
reject, many factors. The court must
'recognise, learn to control and exclude'
many diverse data. It is a balancing act
and tortuous process to ensure reasoned
sentence."

35. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as A. B. Bhaskara Rao vs. Inspector of Police,

CBI, Vishakapatnam, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 290 (SC)

that :

"in the case of corruption by public
servant, long delay in disposal, quantum of
amount of bribe and that the delinquent
lost his job due to conviction etc., are not to
be taken as mitigating circumstances for
reduction of the sentence".

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 17 of 210 pages
18
CBI case . No.28/11

36. It was further held in the case law reported as Kishan

Dayal vs. State, 1958 Raj LW 596 that:

" A corrupt official is a menace to the
society and far from helping in the proper
functioning of the Government and
implementing of the laws, brings the
Government and the society at large into
disrepute. It is through the agency of the
public servants that the policy of the
Legislature as well as of the Government is
implemented. It is through the public
servants that crimes are detected and
offenders are brought to book. It is through
strictly honest and incorruptible public
servants that the welfare of the society can
be ensured. If such public servants are
open to corruption and coerce the public
into paying them illegal gratification, the
whole structure of the society would be
upset and the policy of the Government
and of the Legislature, howsoever,
beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer.
A public servant, therefore, once he is
found to be guilty of accepting or
obtaining illegal gratification, deserves no
soft corner or indulgence from the Courts
of Law."

37. It was held in the case reported as Madhukar Bhaskarrao

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 18 of 210 pages
19
CBI case . No.28/11

Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr. LJ 175(SC): that:

"When corruption was sought to be
eliminated from the polity all possible
stringent measures are to be adopted
within the bounds of law. One such
measure is to provide condign
punishment. Parliament measured the
parameters for such condign punishment
and in that process wanted to fix a
minimum sentence of imprisonment for
giving deterrent impact on other public
servants who are prone to corrupt deals.
That was precisely the reason why the
sentence was fixed as seven years and
directed that even if the said period of
imprisonment need not be given, the
sentence shall not be less than the
imprisonment for one year. Such a
legislative insistence is reflection of
Parliament's resolve to meet corruption
cases with very strong hand to give signals
of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of
sentencing of corrupt public servants. All
public servants have to face very serious
consequences. If on the other hand any
public servant is given the impression that
if he succeeds in protracting the
proceedings that would help him to have
the advantage of getting a very light
sentence even if the case ends in

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 19 of 210 pages
20
CBI case . No.28/11

conviction, its fallout would afford
incentive to public servants who were
susceptible to corruption to indulge in
such nefarious practices with immunity.
Increasing the fine after reducing the
imprisonment to a nominal period can
also defeat the purpose as the corrupt
public servants could easily raise the fine
amount through the same means."

38. I have thoroughly and carefully considered the rival

contentions. I have also examined the asserted mitigating

and aggravating circumstances, pointed out by the

parties. In this case, all the convicts blatantly flouted most

dishonestfully the preceding notings including their own

notings in the licence file. Convict R. K. Gupta, admittedly,

visited the premises for inspection and he, therefore,

knew that Centre Point Hotel ( a full fledged hotel) was

running at the spot illegally yet he presented it as a Guest

House fraudulently. Convict, Dr. R. Pal fraudulently

twisted and used notification dated 7.5.1999 and distorted

the facts falsely. Dr. G. S. Thind fraudulently overlooked

his own previous note dated 9.12.2002 and subsequently,

interpolated and distorted the record of the note sheet.

Convict, Smt. P. M. Singh is a convict in two cases. She

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 20 of 210 pages
21
CBI case . No.28/11

fraudulently approved the grant of health licence (instead

of prosecuting him) and subsequently, scored out her

signatures. All the convicts ruthlessly violated lease deed,

bye laws, Master Plan and sections 327, 331 & 333 of

NDMC Act besides earlier decision of the then

Chairperson dated 21.2.2000 in the same matter with the

sole purpose to illegally enable accused K. L. Bhatia (since

deceased on 23.10.2012) to make substantial pecuniary

gains. I am of the considered opinion that considering all

the aspects of the matter, the following sentence shall be

appropriate to meet the ends of justice :

(i) The convicts, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh (A1), Dr. G.

S. Thind (A2), Dr. R. Pal (A3) and Sh. Raj Kumar

Gupta(A4), herein are awarded sentence of three years

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees

ten thousands only), in default, two months simple

imprisonment, each, for the offence punishable under

section 120B IPC read with section 420 IPC and section

13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) The convicts, namely, Smt. P. M. Singh (A1), Dr. G.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 21 of 210 pages
22
CBI case . No.28/11

S. Thind (A2), Dr. R. Pal (A3) and Sh. Raj Kumar

Gupta(A4) are hereby awarded a sentence of four years

rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs25,000/, in

default, six months simple imprisonment, for the offence

punishable under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1)

(d) of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

39. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

40. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. is extended to the convicts.

41. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to
all the convicts, free of cost, forthwith.

42. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 31st July, 2013 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 22 of 210 pages
23
CBI case . No.28/11

IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CBI Case No. 28/11
Date of Institution: 05.07.2006
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 23.07.2003
Decision: Conviction

CBI case no. 28/11
FIR no. RC AC2/2003/A 0003
CBI/SPE/ACUII/New Delhi

In the matter of:

CBI versus. 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A1),
The then Chairperson,
NDMC, New Delhi.

W/o Sh. Mandeep Singh,
R/o 7/17, Delhi Admn. Flats,
Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi.

2. Dr. G.S. Thind(A2),
The then MOH, NDMC,
New Delhi.

S/o Late Sh. B.S. Thind,
R/o Flat no. 1, Palika Kutumb,
4A, SP Marg, Chanakayapuri,
New Delhi110021.

3. Dr. R. Pal(A3),
The then Chief Medical Officer,
NDMC, New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Dhanna Ram,
R/o 5/5, Harish Chander Mathur lane,
Janpath, New DelhiI.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 23 of 210 pages
24
CBI case . No.28/11

4. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta(A4),
The then Sanitary Inspector,
NDMC, New Delhi.

S/o Sh. Kailash Nath,
R/o R288A, Ramesh Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92.

5. Kasturi Lal Bhatia (A5),
(died on 23.10.2012 and proceedings
against him abated)
The then proprietor of
M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg,
New Delhi.

S/o Sh. L.C. Bhatia,
R/o 10Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi1.

.............Accused persons

JUDGMENT

1. This is a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed by the CBI, relating to fraudulent grant/renewal of health license pertaining to Centre Point Guest House/Hotel at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, in pursuance to well organized and systematic criminal conspiracy hatched amongst the accused persons.

2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that accused P. M. Singh(hereinafter referred to as 'A1'), the then Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 24 of 210 pages 25 CBI case . No.28/11 Council, along with other accused persons namely, accused Dr. G.S. Thind (hereinafter referred to as 'A2'), the then MOH {Medical Officer(Health)}, Dr. R. Pal(hereinafter referred to as 'A3'), the then Chief Medical officer, Raj Kumar Gupta(hereinafter referred to as 'A4'), the then Sanitary Inspector had entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves along with accused K. L. Bhatia (since deceased and hereinafter referred to as 'A5'), the proprietor of M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, and in furtherance thereto during the year 20022003, the aforementioned public servants while abusing their power and position showed gross undue favour to accused (A5), K.L. Bhatia(since deceased) by allowing his fraudulent claim by fraudulently granting/renewing a lodging house/hotel health license under the name and style of 'Centre Point' in the premises vested in the President of India and meant for use as a residential premises only and located in a residential area.

3. That accused (A1) had been posted as Chairperson, NDMC w.e.f 01.11.02 and during her tenure she had illegally got approved/approved grant of lodging house license to M/s Centre Point, which was located in an CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 25 of 210 pages 26 CBI case . No.28/11 unauthorized constructed premises on a plot of land, the title of which vested with the President. That on 15.01.03, she had approved grant of this license in favour of M/s Centre Point being run by accused (A5) in a residential location, which was blatant violation of the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi and the Bye Laws. That accused (A1) had appended her signatures on the note of the same date, which had been put up to her by accused (A2), Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Medical Officer (Health) where under she had approved the grant of this lodging house license and had marked the file back to MOH. That subsequently, accused(A1) had fraudulently scored out the said signatures and marking.

4. It is alleged that the Central Government, vide Gazette Notification no. H011017/7/91, DDIB, dated 07.05.1999, had made certain modifications in the Master Plan for Delhi inter alia allowing Mixed Land Use in residential areas in Delhi to the extent of operating Guest Houses, Boarding Houses, Lodging Houses, Nursing Homes and Banks in residential plots of minimum size of 209 sq. meters facing road of a minimum width of 19 meters subject to certain additional conditions i.e. for guest CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 26 of 210 pages 27 CBI case . No.28/11 houses a maximum of 3/4th of the floor area for conversion regardless of size of plot but with the stipulation that maximum of 15 guest rooms will be permitted in guest house; the maximum plot size for the above activities will be 1000 sq. meters; that no commercial activity in the form of canteen or restaurant will be permitted. That the grant of health/lodging house license was governed by the new Health Bye Laws, passed by NDMC on 30.08.2000 and subject to the adherence to the procedure as provided in Annexure 55(45) of the said bye laws, which included the submission of following documents i.e. proof of the legal occupation of the premises, clearance from CA, NDMC that no unauthorized construction is existing in the premises, NOC from L&DO regarding trades to be carried out/change of trade/change of ownership/mutation deed.

5. It is further alleged that during the period 19981999, accused (A5), proprietor of M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was having lodging house license, serial no. 42, book no. 28, dated 04.06.1998, issued by accused (A2), Dr. G.S. Thind, which was for keeping not more than 32 beds in 16 rooms and it was valid till 31.03.99. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 27 of 210 pages 28 CBI case . No.28/11

6. It is further alleged that on receipt of the application, accused(A4), R.K. Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector of M/s Centre Point reported that there was nothing objectionable in any of the 60 rooms i.e. 16 double bed rooms on ground floor and 22 each on 1st and 2nd floor and that he proposed for obtaining fresh NOC so that the pending request for additional rooms could be considered while issuing health license for the year 19992000.

7. It is further alleged that on 27.05.99, accused(A2) had requested the then Chief Fire Officer to grant NOC for 60 rooms to M/s Centre Point 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, for the year 19992000. However, in response, the then Deputy Chief Fire Officer, vide letter, dated 28.06.99, informed the Medical Officer (Health) NDMC to advice the party to approach DCP Licensing for the request of addition of rooms etc. That while the requisite NOC was not obtained by accused (A5) from DCP Licensing, New Delhi and the said lodging house was yet to be renewed for the year 19992000 on 04.08.2000, a letter dated 02.08.99 was received by the Chairman NDMC from the Deputy L &DO, conveying inter alia the fact that on receipt of a complaint, the premises at 13 KG Marg was inspected where it was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 28 of 210 pages 29 CBI case . No.28/11 noticed that the said premises was being misused as Centre Point Hotel, in violation of the Master Plan and Municipal Bye Laws and, therefore, the said premises had been re entered upon and the ownership was vested with the President of India. That NDMC was requested to take necessary action against the lessee for using the residential premises for a hotel. That the then MOH Lt. Col. AS Gurang observed that this was a case of gross violation and flouting of the Master Plan and also the Municipal Bye Laws and he, therefore, on 27.12.99, ordered cancellation of the then existing lodging house license of M/s Centre Point, which was duly approved by the then Chairperson, NDMC, on 21.02.2000 and vide letter, dated 02.03.2000, which had been sent to accused (A5), he had been informed about the orders for cancellation of lodging house license with immediate effect. That Deputy L&DO was also simultaneously informed about this cancellation action.

8. It is further alleged that on 01.11.02, the application in the prescribed format for renewal of lodging house license for the period 20022003 for 31 rooms/62 beds was received by accused (A2) from accused (A5), which was processed and put on the file by accused (A4) vide his note, dated CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 29 of 210 pages 30 CBI case . No.28/11 09.12.2002. That accused (A3) sought necessary advice from accused (A2), who in his note, dated 09.12.2002, advised certain action.

9. It is further alleged that another letter (undated) was then submitted by accused(A5) for grant/renewal of the license. That he had also enclosed a copy of the notification, dated 07.05.1999, wherein the Central Government had allowed mixed land use in residential areas, which letter was received by accused (A2) on 23.12.02 and marked it to CMO (Licensing), who further marked it to SIIV. That accused (A4) had processed this matter and put up a detailed typed note, dated 26.12.02.

10. It is further alleged that accused(A4) had specifically mentioned that he had inspected the said premises on 26.12.02. That the directions in the letter of accused (A2), dated 09.12.02, however, had not been complied with by accused (A4) and that no reply had been obtained from M/s Centre Point or from L&DO about the proceedings/court cases etc. That no clearance had also been obtained from DCP Licensing or from CA, NDMC. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 30 of 210 pages 31 CBI case . No.28/11

11. It is further alleged that instead accused (A4) had referred to the earlier clearance, dated 19.04.84 of DDA. That his note suggested that the L&DO's recommendation, dated 02.08.99, pursuant to which, the license had been cancelled was contrary to the NOC of the DDA, dated 19.04.84 and this note also mentioned that neither DDA nor L &DO had taken any further action after cancellation of the license. That accused (A4) instead of suggesting any penal action against accused (A5), for running a hotel even after the license was cancelled, intentionally and dishonestly recommended for renewal/grant of lodging house license for 31 rooms and 62 beds. That this note, dated 26.12.02 of accused (A4) was put up to accused (A3), who marked it for orders to the then MOH. That accused (A3) had appended his note, dated 15.01.2003 and he made a reference to the notification, dated 07.05.1999, which had been submitted by accused (A5) and he (A3) intentionally did not refer to the guidelines subject to which the modifications in the Master Plan had been made on 07.05.1999. That these guidelines were also given a goby accused (A2) who in his note, dated 15.01.2003 had recorded that this was a very old case and since the matter had been discussed in the chamber of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 31 of 210 pages 32 CBI case . No.28/11 accused (A1), the Chairperson and in view of the discussion with accused (A5), he had endorsed the views of accused (A3), the then CMO and recommended that the license be renewed.

12. It is further alleged that this file was then put up by accused (A2) to (A1) on 15.01.2003 wherein accused (A1) had affixed her signatures on the note sheet in token of her approval and marked the file back to MOH. That on 17.01.03, accused A2 had marked the file to CMO licensing. That the signatures of accused (A1), dated 15.01.2003 had thereafter, been scored out. That license was renewed under orders, dated 28.01.2003.

13. It has been further alleged that this evidence, which has been collected by the prosecution, clearly shows the conspiracy of all the accused persons to grant undue favour to accused (A5) in the renewal of this license of the lodging house of accused (A5) which was unauthorized and illegal.

14. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the year 19992003, accused persons namely, Smt. PM Singh, the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 32 of 210 pages 33 CBI case . No.28/11 then Chairperson, NDMC, Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH, NDMC, Dr. R. Pal, the then Chief Medical Officer, NDMC, Raj Kumar Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, NDMC (all public servants) during the period 19992004 abused their official positions as public servants and that they deliberately and intentionally did not follow and suppressed rules and regulations mentioned in the Master Plan of Delhi, 1999, notification and other bye laws of Delhi, which were required to be complied with to issue Health License. All the accused persons, thus, caused pecuniary advantage to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), owner of M/s Centre Point Hotel by issuance of health license, illegally. All the aforesaid accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence under section 13(i)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

15. It is further alleged that during the year 20022003, accused persons namely, Smt. PM Singh, the then Chairperson, NDMC, Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH, NDMC, Dr. R. Pal, the then Chief Medical Officer (CMO), NDMC, Raj Kumar Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, NDMC (all public servants), had entered into criminal CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 33 of 210 pages 34 CBI case . No.28/11 conspiracy with accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia(since deceased), the proprietor, M/s Centre Point at New Delhi to cheat NDMC and to issue Health License to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased) by abusing their official position and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy accused Smt. PM Singh had approved the issuance of license on 15.01.03 and dishonestly affixed the signatures on the note sheet despite having the knowledge of reentry by L&DO in the aforesaid premises, which she later on struck off. That in furtherance of such approval a license was granted to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) on 28.01.03 and the same was renewed for the year 20032004 also; that accused Dr. G.S. Thind, ignored the note, dated 09.12.2002 intentionally and did not follow pre conditions for the issuance of license and put up a note, dated 15.01.03 and thereafter, made interpolations in it; that Health License was ultimately renewed/issued under his signatures on 28.01.03 and the same was further renewed/issued for the year 20032004, vide his approval, dated 17.03.03, that accused Dr. R. Pal appended two favourable notes, dated 15.01.03 and approved the note put up by accused R.K. Gupta and concealed the relevant conditions for the grant of license mentioned in the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 34 of 210 pages 35 CBI case . No.28/11 Master Plan of Delhi, May 1999, notification, that accused R.K. Gupta dishonestly processed the application for Health License and put up a detailed favourable note wherein he dishonestly incorporated incorrect facts for renewal/grant of license to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased);that he remained in constant touch with accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) over phone, during the period 20022003 and he used to talk regarding the issuance of Health License; and that he put up a detailed favourable note on 26.12.02 by abusing his official position. That he had given a wrong and incorrect twist to the matter and he intentionally and dishonestly recommended for renewal/issuance of Health License for 31 rooms and 62 beds despite the fact that Health License was previously granted/renewed only for 16 rooms and 32 beds and which was already cancelled by NDMC on 21.02.2000; that vide this note, dated 26.12.02, he recommended for issuance of Health License, which resulted into issuance of Health License to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) thus, caused pecuniary gain to him; that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) submitted an application in the year 2002 to the NDMC by dishonestly suppressing the facts that the premises had CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 35 of 210 pages 36 CBI case . No.28/11 been reentered by L & DO and the Health License was already cancelled in the year 2000 and he continued to run hotel on the strength of the Health License procured fraudulently, thus, NDMC was caused to issue Health License on the basis of false and frivolous inducement and accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) wrongfully and illegally gained. That accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) remained in touch with accused R.K. Gupta over phone during the period 20022003 to get the Health License issued and got it renewed, on 28.01.03. Thereafter, he also got it further renewed for the year 20032004. All the aforesaid accused persons, thus, are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 120B read with 420 IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

16. It is further alleged that accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased) had submitted an application in the year 2002 to the NDMC by dishonestly suppressing the fact that the premises had been reentered by L&DO and the Health License was already cancelled in the year 2000 and he continued to run a hotel on the strength of the health license procured fraudulently and thus, NDMC was caused CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 36 of 210 pages 37 CBI case . No.28/11 to issue health license on the basis of deceitful inducement and accused K.L. Bhatia got wrongful gain. He was, thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC.

17. Primafacie, offences under section 120B read with 420 IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against all the accused persons and offences under section 13(i)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against all the accused persons except accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia and under section 420 IPC against accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia, were made out.

18. Charge, accordingly, was framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

19. During the course of the proceedings, accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia died and proceedings against him abated, as per law.

20. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its claim and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 37 of 210 pages 38 CBI case . No.28/11 contentions, examined as many as 55 witnesses, in all.

21. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C.

22. Defence has also produced five witnesses, in support of their defence.

23. The prosecution, has contended that the case of the prosecution has been squarely proved, in view of the documentary evidence, circumstantial evidence and other evidence that has appeared on record. That the prosecution witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution version beyond any pale of doubt.

24. On behalf of the defence, on the other hand, it has been stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

25. On behalf of the parties, written arguments have also been filed, which have been placed on the record.

26. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 38 of 210 pages 39 CBI case . No.28/11 over the propositions of law enunciated in the case law, mentioned in the written submissions filed by the parties. However, none of the contentions and the case law cited help or support the accused persons, in any manner, whatsoever, in view of the strong overwhelming prosecution evidence, circumstances and documents appearing on record, as against them.

27. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record and have given considered thought to the same. I have also considered the rival arguments that have been advanced, at the bar. My findings are as under:

28. PW1, Sh. M Venket Shastri was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of Chairman.

29. PW1 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/A(D86), movement register, pertaining to Centre Point 13, KG Marg Lodging House, was seized.

30. PW1 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid seizure memo, diary register, which is Ex.PW1/B was also seized. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 39 of 210 pages 40 CBI case . No.28/11

31. PW1 has identified entry no. 10053, at page no. 105 of register, Ex.PW1/B, in respect of Lodging House 13 KG Marg Centre Point, dated 17.01.2003, which was made by him at pt. X to X1 on Ex.PW1/C. He has further deposed that vide the said entry, the file was sent back to the MOH (Medical Officer of Health).

32. In reply to a specific court question, he has deposed that portions from X2 to X3 i.e. both sides of page 105 on Ex.PW1/C bears his handwriting.

33. PW1 has further identified and proved the noting at page 56 of file(D6), which was made by him in his own hand as Ex.PW1/D. After going through the words 'MOH', marked as 'Q3' on Ex.PW1/D in file(D6), PW1 has further deposed that it was marked to the then MOH and that the Chairperson had marked the file to the MOH. He, however, failed to recognize the signatures of the then Chairperson on the note, dated 15.01.2003. He has further deposed that words 'MOH' at 'Q3' on Ex.PW1/D in the file (D6) on noting page 56 appeared to be struck of and were not clear, however, words 'MOH' were still readable and that he did not know when the words at 'Q3' were struck CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 40 of 210 pages 41 CBI case . No.28/11 of. He, however, did not remember whether at the time of making the entry 'Q3', the words were struck of or not.

34. After going through Ex.PW1/D, PW1 has further deposed that where words 'MOH' at 'Q3' are struck off, there are signatures of MOH at point 'QB'. He has further deposed that in the same manner, words 'Chairperson' at 'X5' are struck of and there are signatures at point 'Q2' of the Chairperson on Ex.PW1/D and that as such, it was put up to the then Chairperson. He has failed to recognize the signatures at pt. 'Q2' on Ex.PW1/D, which were put up by the Chairperson. He has deposed that he did not recognize the signatures of Smt. PM Singh, the then Chairperson of the Municipal Council.

35. This witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI as he resiled from his previous statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C, dated 28.10.03.

36. In his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI, PW1 has admitted that he had entered the said file on 16.01.2003 and that at that time, there was marking on the same at mark 'Q3'. He has further admitted that similarly, the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 41 of 210 pages 42 CBI case . No.28/11 signatures, which are marked as 'Q2' were also there on the said file.

37. PW2, Sh. P.K. Sharma was working as Additional CMO, North, during the year 19981999. He has proved the file(D6), pertaining to Hotel Centre Point, as Ex.PW2/1(D6), which contains a note, dated 20.11.79, wherein it has been mentioned that there was a lodge named as Centre Point, which had 20 beds. He has deposed that the said lodge was owned by accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased), which was maintained by Sh. R.K. Seth.

38. PW2 has further proved the application, which was moved for renewal/grant of lodging house license in NDMC for 120 beds and 60 rooms with 2 beds each, as Ex.PW2/2.

39. PW2 has further deposed that the note sheet, dated 19.05.1999, which is at page nos. 44 & 45 of Ex.PW2/1 (D6), contains that at the relevant time, Raj Kumar GuptaI(who is not the accused) was the Sanitary Inspector, whose signatures have been duly identified by him at pt. A. The said pages i.e 44 & 45 have been proved CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 42 of 210 pages 43 CBI case . No.28/11 as Ex.PW2/3. He has further identified his signatures at pt. C, on the note made by him at pt. B to BI, wherein it has been mentioned by him "please discuss".

40. PW2 has further deposed that the file Ex.PW2/1(D6) was, thereafter, put up before accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH for signing the letter and for approval, vide his note, at portion D to D1 on Ex.PW2/3, which bears his signatures at pt. E, which have been duly identified by him. PW Dr. P.K. Sharma has further duly identified the words 'MOH' at pt. F thereon, which were written by him on Ex.PW2/3.

41. PW2 has further deposed that the letter at page 93 of file Ex.PW2/1(D6), bears the signatures of accused Dr. G.S Thind, the then MOH, which have been duly identified by him, copy of which has been proved as Ex.PW2/4.

42. PW2 has further deposed that the letter, dated 28.06.1999, which is available at page no. 104 of file, Ex.PW2/1(D6), was sent by the then Deputy Fire Officer to the then Medical Officer of Health, NDMC, requesting him to advise the party to approach the license issuing CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 43 of 210 pages 44 CBI case . No.28/11 department i.e. the DCP Licensing for addition of rooms, copy of which is Ex.PW2/5.

43. PW2 has further deposed that it has been mentioned in the letter, dated 02.08.1999, which is Ex.PW2/6 that the premises at 13, Curzon Road, New Delhi had been re entered and vested with the President of India. He has further deposed that as per page 94 of file Ex.PW2/1 (D6), Sh. D.K. Bajaj was the then Deputy Land and Development Officer.

44. PW2 has further deposed that the aforesaid letter, Ex.PW2/6, was put up before him as he was the CMO North, at that time and that he had further marked it to SI V, vide entry made by him at pt. A to A1, which bears his signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

45. PW2 has further deposed that at the relevant time i.e. on 09.08.1999, the then Sanitation Inspector CircleV, Sh. R.K. GuptaI made a note at page 46 & 47, which has been proved as Ex.PW2/7, which bears signatures of said Sh. R.K. GuptaI, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 44 of 210 pages 45 CBI case . No.28/11 him.

46. PW2 has further deposed that the above mentioned note, Ex.PW2/7, at point X to X1, does not find mention of premises no. 13, KG Marg, New Delhi i.e. 13 Curzon road, New Delhi, having been reentered and having been vested with the President of India.

47. PW2 has further deposed that he made a note, at pt. X2 to X3 after note Ex.PW2/7, which bears his signatures at pt. X4, which have been duly identified by the witness. He has further deposed that it has been mentioned in the said note that 'renewal of license be accorded only for 16 rooms and 30 beds' and that only then 'the new construction would be regularized only then the grant of license could be considered'.

48. PW2 has further deposed that in the letter, dated 06.10.99, which is available at page no. 45 of file(D51), Ex.PW2/8, it has been mentioned that the premises at Curzon Road, New Delhi, was stated to be 'now reentered and vested with the President of India'. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW2/9.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 45 of 210 pages 46 CBI case . No.28/11

49. PW2 has further deposed that the letter, dated 29.10.99, which is available at page no. 49 of Ex.PW2/8, was sent by Lt. Col. A.S. Gurang to Sh. Havaldar Singh, Centre Point Hotel, 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, requesting him to send the lease deed for the land use immediately of 13 Curzon Road or else the license of the said hotel would be cancelled. He has duly identified the signatures of said Lt. Col. Gurang at pt. A & that of Dr. V.N. Reu, who was looking after licensing, at pt. B, on the said letter, which has also been proved as Ex.PW2/9.

50. PW2 has further identified the note of Dr. V.N. Reu, dated 22.12.99, which is available at page no. 49/C of the Lodging House file, regarding Central Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at point X5 to X6, which bears his signatures at pt. A. He has further deposed that the said note pertains to the fact that the premises was re entered and vested with the President of India and that the use of premises was residential but the same was used as a hotel, in violation of Master Plan and Municipal Bye Laws. He has further deposed that the said file was marked to MOH & Secretary, who endorsed that 'they cannot renew the license and it must be cancelled'. He has duly identified the signatures of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 46 of 210 pages 47 CBI case . No.28/11 Lt. Col. A.S. Gurung on the said endorsement, at point X7 to X8.

51. PW2 has further deposed that the file of Lodging House of Centre Point Hotel, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, which is Ex.PW3/8, contains an application at page no. 105/C, which was filed by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) for renewal of Lodging House License of Centre Point Hotel, for 20022003, for 31 rooms & 62 beds, which was marked to Sanitary Inspector, Circle V by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH.

52. PW2 has further deposed that the note of Raj Kumar Gupta, dated 09.12.2002, at page 53/N, at pt. X 9 to X10, bears signatures of said Raj Kumar Gupta at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that the said noting refers to a letter to the then Deputy L&DO, after which the license of Centre Point was cancelled and requested for orders whether the request for renewal of health license should be processed or considered otherwise, which was submitted to the then CMO(Licensing and Malaria) on 09.12.2002, who forwarded it to the then MOH, accused Dr. G.S. Thind, for CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 47 of 210 pages 48 CBI case . No.28/11 advice.

53. PW2 has further identified the note of accused, Dr. R. Pal, the then CMO, at portion X11 to X12, which bears signatures of said Dr. R. Pal at point A, which have been duly identified by him.

54. PW2 has further deposed that accused Dr. G.S. Thind had also asked to obtain reply to L&DO letter and Reply of the L & DO proceedings/court case, if any, clearance from DCP License and notification of Ministry of Urban Development and clearance of Chief Architect, NDMC, before any action was taken, and thereafter, he had marked the file to accused Dr. R. Pal, vide his noting, at point X13 to X14, which bears signatures of accused Dr. G.S Thind, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

55. PW2 has further deposed that vide noting, dated 26.12.02, contained at page no. 54 and 55N, the then Sanitary InspectorV had recommended the renewal/grant of health license for 31 rooms and 62 beds, on the basis of an old letter of DDA, dated 19.04.84 and marked his noting to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 48 of 210 pages 49 CBI case . No.28/11 accused, Dr. R. Pal and MOH on 26.12.2003. The said noting, at point X15 to X16 bears the signatures of said Sanitary InspectorV, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused Dr. R. Pal had requested for orders on 03.01.03, vide his noting at point X17 to X18, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

56. PW2 has further deposed that accused Dr. R. Pal made another note, dated 15.01.03, wherein he has mentioned to have discussed the matter and that the matter was being dealt in the light of master plan of Delhi, modified in May, 1999, copy of said noting is at page no. 110111/C, at pt. X19 to X20, which bears the signatures of accused Dr. R. Pal, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

57. PW2 has further deposed that vide note, dated 15.01.03, which is available at page no. 56C, accused Dr. R.Pal had justified the request of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), for renewal of license, under the provisions of Master Plan of Delhi, modified in 1999 and recommended for restoring the license of Centre Point for 62 beds & 31 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 49 of 210 pages 50 CBI case . No.28/11 rooms.

58. PW2 has further deposed that accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH had agreed to the aforesaid views of accused Dr. R. Pal and renewed the license, vide his noting, marked as QA, encircled in red. The said noting of accused Dr. G.S. Thind, has been duly identified by him.

59. PW3, Sh. Vijay Kumar was posted as Under Secretary in Administrative Vigilance Division in the department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi, during February, 2006, where he used to deal with disciplinary matters of IAS Officers, including cases of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act.

60. PW3 has deposed that vide sanction order, Ex.PW3/A, he had accorded sanction for prosecution, in respect of accused Smt. PM Singh. He has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, on each page of the said sanction order, which is running into four pages.

61. PW4, Sh. B.P. Joshi was posted as Director Vigilance, at the relevant time. He has proved the file (D131), which CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 50 of 210 pages 51 CBI case . No.28/11 was maintained in their department, regarding renewal of health license in NDMC, as Ex.PW4/A.

62. PW4 has further deposed that in the file, Ex.PW4/A, there is noting, dated 19.01.99, at page no. 3, at pt. X, which shows that the meeting of the committee was held on 18.01.99, which bears the signatures of Sh. S.B. Gupta, the then Dy. Director, Vigilance, which have been duly identified by him.

63. PW4 has further deposed that in the file, Ex.PW4/A, there is another noting, dated 29.01.99, at page no.4, at pt. X, which bears the signatures of Sh. S.B. Gupta, the then Dy. Director, Vigilance, which have been duly identified by him.

64. PW4 has further deposed that in the file, Ex.PW4/A, there is another noting, dated 09.02.99, at page no.8, at pt. X, which contains the approval of the then Chairman. The said noting bears the signatures of Sh. B.P. Mishra, the then Chairman, which have been duly identified by him.

65. PW4 has further deposed that the minutes of the meeting CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 51 of 210 pages 52 CBI case . No.28/11 were sent to the concerned authorities, including MOH, vide letter, Ex.PW4/B, which bears his signatures, at point A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that as per the said meeting before grant of license, the Health Department was required to look into the health and hygiene, without prejudice to any other claim of NDMC and which should have been mentioned in the license itself.

66. PW4 has further deposed that letter, dated 16.03.99, which is Ex.PW4/C, was written by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH. The said letter bears the signatures of accused Dr. G.S. Thind at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that vide the said letter, accused Dr. G.S. Thind had requested that this has to be a policy matter for all times to come for grant of any new licenses to be decided by the council as per NDMC Act.

67. PW4 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.04.99, which is Ex.PW4/D was written by Sh. G.S. Marwah, the then CVO, informing the MOH to take action in compliance of the orders of the Chairperson. The said letter bears the signatures of said Sh. G.K. Marwah, at pt. A, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 52 of 210 pages 53 CBI case . No.28/11 which have been duly identified by him.

68. PW4 has further deposed that letter 2051, dated 13.07.99, which is Ex.PW4/E, was written by him to accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH, requesting him to send the action taken report in response to his earlier letter, dated 12.02.1999, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

69. PW4 has further deposed that office order no. 893, dated 18.03.99, copy of which is Ex.PW4/F was issued by accused Dr. G.S. Thind for streamlining the process of grant of licenses.

70. PW4 has further deposed that the minutes of the committee meeting held on 18.01.99, which are Ex.PW4/G, bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Dr. G.S. Thind at pt. B and that of Sh. Rajbir Singh at pt. C, which have been duly identified by him.

71. Similarly, PW4 has proved the minutes of the committee meeting held on 29.01.99, as Ex.PW4/H, which bears his signatures at pt. A and that of accused Dr. G.S. Thind & Sh. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 53 of 210 pages 54 CBI case . No.28/11 Rajbir Singh at points B & C, which have been duly identified by him.

72. PW5, Sh. Hoshiyar Singh was posted as Assistant Director in Vigilance Department during the relevant time. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 14.07.03, copy of which is Ex.PW5/A, seven files were seized from him, which is running into two pages, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

73. Similarly, PW5 has further deposed that vide seizure memos, dated 21.07.03 & 11.08.03, copies of which are Ex.PW5/B & Ex.PW5/C, files were seized from him. The said seizure memos bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

74. PW6, Sh. SP Satsangi was posted as Senior Architect in DDA, in September, 2004. He has deposed that in pursuance of letter, which was received from CBI, premises Centre Point, at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was inspected and a report/memorandum in this regard was prepared, copy of which is Ex. PW6/A(D20), running into three pages. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 54 of 210 pages 55 CBI case . No.28/11 on the same. He has further deposed that the inspection report of the inspection of the site in question, was also prepared, copy of which is Ex.PW6/B, consisting of four pages. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on each page of the said inspection report. He has further deposed that he had sent the said inspection report, dated 01.09.2004 to the then SP, ACUII, CBI, New Delhi, vide covering letter, copy of which is Ex.PW6/C, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

75. PW7, Sh. JB Khadkiwala was posted as Senior Architect, West Zone, Dwarka, on 01.09.04. He has deposed that he had inspected the premises i.e. Centre Point Hotel, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi along with PW Mr. S.P. Satsangi and Mr. Chaman Lal. He reiterated report, Ex.PW6/A and has duly identified his signatures, at pt. B, that of PW Sh. S.P. Satsangi, at pt. A and that of Sh. Chaman Lal, at pt. C, on the same. Similarly, he has reiterated inspection report, Ex.PW6/B and covering letter, Ex.PW6/C.

76. PW8, Mr. Jawahar Lal was posted as Personal Secretary to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 55 of 210 pages 56 CBI case . No.28/11 the Chairman, NDMC, at the relevant time. He has deposed that he had never dealt with the daak register. He has identified the handwriting of Sh. M.V. Shastri, daak clerk on the entry no. 10053, at page no. 105, marked as X to X1 and X4, which is Ex.PW1/C. Similarly, he has identified the handwriting of said Sh. M.V. Shastri on the endorsement at mark X3 and X4 on Ex.PW1/D. His testimony goes unchallenged.

77. PW9, Mrs Sheela Sahota was posted as Senior Assistant in the office of MOH, NDMC at the relevant time. She has deposed that she had put the dispatch number at point 'X6' on Ex.PW1/D of file Ex.PW2/1, which was marked to the then Chairperson. After going through the endorsement at points X3 and X4, PW9 has deposed that the said file was returned from the office of Chairperson, on 17.01.2003. Her testimony also goes unchallenged.

78. PW10, Sh. Arun Kampani was posted as DCP, Licensing, in October, 2004. He has deposed that in pursuance of letter received by him from CBI, pertaining to certain queries about Hotel Centre Point, he gave reply, which has been proved as Ex.PW10/A, bearing his signatures at pt. A, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 56 of 210 pages 57 CBI case . No.28/11 which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that along with the said reply, he had enclosed certain documents, which are at page no. 2 to 36.

79. PW11, Sh. Mohit Mathur was working as Senior Architectural Draftsman in Architectural Department of NDMC on contractual basis during the period from 1999 to 2002. He has deposed that he did not remember anything about the file, pertaining to Centre Point, due to lapse of time.

80. PW11 has further identified his handwriting and signatures at pt. X to X on note, dated 08.12.1999, in file, Ex.PW2/1(D6), which has been proved as Ex.PW11/A. He has deposed that the letter, dated 02.08.1999, which is Ex.PW2/6, is the same letter, which has been mentioned in his note, Ex.PW11/A.

81. Similarly, PW11 has identified his handwriting and signatures at pt. X1 to X1 on note, dated 02.02.2002, in file D6, which has been proved as Ex.PW11/B.

82. PW12, Sh. Anil Kumar was working in the office of DCP CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 57 of 210 pages 58 CBI case . No.28/11 Licensing, at the relevant time. He has proved the document D21, which is a certificate of registration of Eating House, issued in the name of Havaldar Singh, dated 10.12.1985, as Ex.PW12/A. He has further deposed that said license was valid upto 31.12.1986, which continued to be renewed till the year 2000 and lastly, it was renewed on 29.12.2000 by the then Inspector Ram Kishan (Licensing).

83. PW13, Smt. Ruchi Rohilla was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of MOH, NDMC, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi, at the relevant time. She has identified the endorsement at pt. X3 to X4 of Ex.PW1/D of Lodging house File of Hotel Centre Point, Ex.PW4/1. She has also identified the endorsement made by her, which is encircled at pt. A on page 56/N of file, Ex.PW4/1.

84. PW13 was specifically asked as to whether she had seen the cutting on the signatures at point 'Q2' to which she replied that she would not have received the file, if she had seen the cutting on the signatures at pt. 'Q2'.

85. PW13 was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI. In her cross examination by CBI, she has admitted that she had stated CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 58 of 210 pages 59 CBI case . No.28/11 in her statement to the CBI, that accused Smt. PM Singh was the Chairman at the relevant time. She could not tell as to whether there was a cutting at pt. 'Q2', when she had received the file.

86. PW14, Sh. Raman Dhingra was posted as Junior Assistant in the Office of Chief Architect, Unauthorized Construction Cell, Palika Kandra, Parliament Street, New Delhi, during March, 2004.

87. PW14 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/B, diary register of unauthorized construction cell of NDMC for the period from 30.06.99 to 14.03.2000, containing 1 to 249 pages, was seized from him, which has been proved as Ex.PW10/A. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same. He has further deposed that the file, which is Ex.PW10/C (D9) is in respect of regularization of unauthorized construction at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi.

88. PW14 has further proved that file, Ex.PW14/A was lastly marked to Sh. Chandra on 18.03.02.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 59 of 210 pages 60 CBI case . No.28/11

89. PW14 has further deposed that the file, which is Ex.PW14/B, regarding GP Kedia vs. NDMC, was lastly marked to the then Assistant Architect (BPN) North.

90. PW15, Sh. R.P. Singh was posted as Assistant Settlement Commissioner in the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bahwan, New Delhi, during December, 2000.

91. PW15 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 17.10.03, Ex.PW15/A, files pertaining to the property no. 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, were seized. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A on the said seizure memo.

92. PW15 has further deposed that notification, which is Ex.PW17/A, was supplied by him to the CBI, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

93. PW15 has further identified the signatures of Mr. D.K Bajaj, at pt. A, on letter, dated 02.08.99 as he was his predecessor. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW11/B. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 60 of 210 pages 61 CBI case . No.28/11

94. PW15 has further deposed that the letter, which is Ex.PW11/C was sent by Mr. M.R. Mehmi, ACP, HQ, Delhi Police to Deputy Land and Development Officer. He has duly identified the signatures of Mr. Bajaj, at pt. A, on the said letter.

95. PW15 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW20/A, he had handed over files to CBI. He has duly identified his signatures at point A, on the same. He has also identified the signatures of Mr. S.L. Tejwani, the then L & DO, at point A, on letter, dated 03.02.1986, which is Ex.PW27/A5 and on note, dated 22.01.86.

96. PW15 has deposed that the file volume 20 (D46), which is Ex.PW11/D contains copies of sanction plans, which were sanctioned by NDMC, vide resolution no. 24, dated 15.02.85, in respect of property no. 13, KG Marg. He has further deposed that the file no. L19/134(II) volume no. 18 (M 450/2003), which is Ex.PW11/E contains note sheets. He has further deposed that file volume 10 (D45) also contains note sheets and correspondences. He has further deposed that file volume 6(D41), which is Ex.PW27/A4 contains perpetual lease deed, executed between Secretary CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 61 of 210 pages 62 CBI case . No.28/11 of Estate of India and Mr. MisbahUlIslam, Baratlaw, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He has further deposed that the files no. L19/134(II), volumes no. 7 and 8 which are Ex.PW11/G(D42) and Ex.PW11/H(D123) contain correspondences. Similarly, he has deposed that files no. L19/134(II)/99, 13 Curzon Road, reentered volume no. 9 and L1/9/134(II)/70, Volume 1, which are Ex.PW11/I (D44) and Ex.PW11/J(D40) also contain correspondences.

97. PW15 has further deposed that the aforesaid files were maintained in his office during the course of official business and were handed over to the CBI, on requisition.

98. PW16, Sh. Leela Ram was posted as Inspector (Licensing), Hotel Section in Delhi Police.

99. PW16 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/A(D117), license file of Hotel Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was seized, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 62 of 210 pages 63 CBI case . No.28/11

100. PW16 has further deposed that the file of Hotel Centre Point, which is Ex.PW16/B(D117) bears his signatures at pt. A, on the first and last page, which has been duly identified by him.

101. PW16 has further deposed that the provisional license, copy of which is Mark PW16/1, was issued to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased) on 30.10.87 for 32 beds in 16 rooms.

102. PW16 has further deposed that vide letter, dated 15.03.96, Ex.PW16/C, Hotel Centre Point had requested for renewal of guest house license.

103. PW16 has further proved the show cause notices, dated 22.08.97, 30.04.92 & 05.04.2000, as Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F, respectively.

104. PW17, Sh. A.K. Khanna was posted as Sales Tax Officer in Delhi Sales Tax Department, during the period from 20002005.

105. PW17 has deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW17/A, documents CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 63 of 210 pages 64 CBI case . No.28/11 running from 1 to 86 pages, which have been collectively proved as Ex.PW17/B were handed over to CBI through S.P. Tyagi (LDC).

106. PW17 has further deposed that Ex.PW17/B contains Registration Inspection Report by the Inspector concerned, which has been proved as Ex.PW17/C and a statement of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), which has been proved as Ex.PW17/D.

107. PW18, Sh. Rajesh Joshi was posted as Sales Tax Inspector during the period from 20012005.

108. PW18 has also reiterated documents, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D.

109. PW19, Sh. Rajesh Gola was working as an accountant in Centre Point Guest House, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

110. PW19 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW19/A, copies of guest register of Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, were seized from him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 64 of 210 pages 65 CBI case . No.28/11

111. PW20, Sh. R.K. Singh was posted as Nodal Officer in Bharti Cellular Ltd, at the relevant time. He has deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW20/A, he had provided mobile numbers along with the name and address of the subscriber. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on the same.

112. PW20 has deposed that the call details, copies of which are Ex.PW20/B(D54)(II), pertains to mobile no. 9810136312 w.e.f 01.12.2002 to 28.03.2003, which are running into 26 pages. He has duly identified his initials along with his official seal, at pt. A, on all the pages of the said call details.

113. PW20 has further proved the call details, pertaining to mobile no. 9818183806 w.e.f 01.12.2002 to 28.02.2003, which are running into 4 pages, as Ex.PW20/C. He has duly identified his initials along with his official seal, at pt. A, on all the pages of said call details.

114. Similarly, PW20 has proved the call details, pertaining to mobile no. 9810033033 w.e.f 01.12.2002 to 28.03.2003, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 65 of 210 pages 66 CBI case . No.28/11 which are running into 22 pages, as Ex.PW20/D, bearing his initials along with official seal, at pt. A, on all the pages, which have been duly identified by him.

115. PW21, Sh. Arvind Prakash had worked in the Luxury tax department for three months during August, 2004 till October, 2004. He has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW21/A, six luxury tax assessment files for the year 19961997 to 20012002 and luxury tax folder, in respect of Centre Point Hotel, were handed over by him to the CBI.

116. PW22, V.K. Kaushik was posted as Assistant Engineer in unauthorized construction cell from November, 1985 till September, 1988. He has deposed that he had never visited property no. 13 K.G. Marg, New Delhi.

117. PW22 has proved the note of P.K. Bajaj, the then JE, dated 16.08.1985, regarding inspection of premises no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, known as 'Centre Point Hotel, New Delhi', as Ex.PW22/1. He has duly identified the signatures of said Sh. P.K. Bajaj at pt. A, on the said note, as he had worked with him and was acquainted with his signatures and handwriting.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 66 of 210 pages 67 CBI case . No.28/11

118. PW22 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid note, Sh.

P.K. Bajaj had requested for approval to serve a notice, under section 195(a) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 upon Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia, attorney of 13 KG Marg, New Delhi.

119. PW22 has further deposed that in the aforesaid note, Mr. P.K. Bajaj had also mentioned about the unauthorized construction, which was carried out in the premises, without getting the plans sanctioned under the building bye laws. He has also identified the endorsement, at point X on the said note sheet, showing the service of notice on 19.08.1985.

120. PW22 has proved the note, dated 06.02.1986, which is available at page no. 12 of the file (D10), as Ex.PW22/2. The said note bears the signatures of Sh. Dharam Dutt, the then Administrator, NDMC, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned that 'whatever was out of the purview of the sanctioned plan, it had to be removed by the party, failing which NDMC ought to have carried out the job' and that whether the formal notices had been issued to the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 67 of 210 pages 68 CBI case . No.28/11 party'. He has further deposed that the said note was marked to the then Chief Architect on 06.02.1986, who marked the said file to the then Dy. Chief Architect, Sh. V.K. Bansal, on 14.02.1986.

121. PW22 has identified the handwriting & signatures of Sh.

V.K. Bansal, at pt. A, in the note, dated 14.02.86, which has been proved as Ex.PW22/3. He has further deposed that vide the said note, Sh. V.K. Bansal had specifically mentioned about the service of proper notice under section 195 & 220 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and that the aforesaid note was thereafter, put up before the then Chief Architect.

122. PW22 has identified the signatures of Sh. Jeet Malhotra, the then Chief Architect, at point A, on the note, dated 14.02.1986, wherein it has been mentioned that "should we call the party and inform it to find out if the party is willing to demolish the unauthorized construction on its own" and that "if the party agrees to do so, should we deal the case accordingly" and that he asked for examination and its report. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW22/4.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 68 of 210 pages 69 CBI case . No.28/11

123. PW22 has further deposed that aforesaid note was further marked to the then Assistant Architect (Building Plans, North) to do the needful by Sh. V.K. Bansal, on 17.02.86. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. V.K. Bansal, at pt. B.

124. PW22 has further deposed that the para wise comments, regarding writ petition (civil) no. 109/1986, which were filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bears his signatures pt. A and that of Mr. P.C. Dixit, the then Assistant Architect, (Building Plans, North) at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. The said notes have been proved as Ex.PW22/5.

125. PW22 has further proved the resolution no. 15, dated 06.11.85, which is running into two pages, as Ex. PW22/6.

126. PW23, Dr. V.N. Reu had joined NDMC as Assistant Surgeon, GradeI, during the year 1971. He was working as CMO (Headquarter) at Palika Kendra, New Delhi, during the year 2003 but not with the Licensing Department. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 69 of 210 pages 70 CBI case . No.28/11

127. PW23 has deposed that he was aware of the procedure of processing and grant/renewal of health licenses by the NDMC, which he explained in detail. He has further deposed that the property in question, fell within the jurisdiction of Sanitary Circle no. 5.

128. PW23 has proved the note of Sh. R.C. Kapoor, the then Sanitary Inspector, dated 20.11.79, as Ex.PW23/A. He has deposed that in the aforesaid note, it has been mentioned that during inspection of the area on 13.11.79, a lodge was found running in the name and style of Centre Point, at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, consisting of 10 rooms, having 20 beds, which belonged to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased). That the said lodge was being managed by Sh. R.K. Seth, without any license and as such, a notice in the name of Manager was submitted for signatures. He has further deposed that consequently, a notice, dated 04.12.79 was issued, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/B.

129. PW23 has further proved the note of the then Sanitary Inspector, dated 25.08.80, as Ex.PW23/C. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned by the said CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 70 of 210 pages 71 CBI case . No.28/11 Sanitary Inspector that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) had replied that he had already applied to the concerned authorities on 16.08.79 for grant of license in respect of guest house in the above mentioned premises.

130. PW23 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, the then Enforcement and Sanitary Officer, dated 08.06.82, as Ex.PW23/D, wherein it has been mentioned that the said case dealt with the issuance of no objection certificate, under the provisions of Health Bye Laws, in respect of Centre Point Tourist Home at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg.

131. PW23 has further proved the note, dated 11.11.82, as Ex.PW23/E, wherein it has been mentioned by Sh. K.L. Shukla, the then Medical Officer of Health that 'the case was discussed with Administrator along with CA and that it might be treated as a case of Guest House accommodation for the Asiad'.

132. PW23 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, dated 15.02.83, as Ex.PW23/F, wherein it has been mentioned by him that the 'Centre Point Tourist Home had to be tolerated for the duration of Asiad 82'. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 71 of 210 pages 72 CBI case . No.28/11

133. PW23 has further proved the note of the then Medical Officer of Health, dated 15.02.83, as Ex.PW23/G, wherein he had remarked "proceed as per rules".

134. PW23 has further deposed that letter, dated 28.08.80, was sent by Sh. S.S. Saini to accused Sh. K.L. Bhatia(since deceased), wherein it has been mentioned that the aforesaid premises i.e. 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg had been registered under the Sarai Act, 1867 with immediate effect under the name and style of 'The Centre Point' and that he was directed to maintain the register of visitors, certified from the Office of Deputy Commissioner before use and to inform the police, regarding any person of suspicious character and also to obtain license under section 421 of DMC Act, 1956, after fulfilling the licensing condition of Guest House. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW23/H.

135. PW23 has further proved the letter of DCP Licensing, dated 28.12.81, as Ex.PW23/J, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) had applied for license and that he was required to get the premises CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 72 of 210 pages 73 CBI case . No.28/11 inspected under intimation to their office, regarding suitability of person/owner/fitness of place/risk/danger or annoyance to the residence of locality. He has further deposed that copy of the said letter was forwarded to the then Health Officer, NDMC with the request to intimate if the premises were suitable and whether it was in conformity with the plan approved by MCD/NDMC and the number of bed which can be allowed as per yardstick or of bye laws for trade license.

136. PW23 has further deposed that the plans, copies of which are Ex.PW23/K, Ex.PW23/L and Ex.PW23/M bear the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that the said plans were not sanctioned by competent authority.

137. PW23 has further deposed that DCP Licensing had sent a letter, dated 22.02.82 to the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, requesting him to send the requisite report, positively within a fortnight. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW23/N. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 73 of 210 pages 74 CBI case . No.28/11

138. PW23 has further deposed that subsequently, reply to the aforesaid letter was sent by Sh. M.S. Chadha to the DCP Licensing, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/P, wherein it has been mentioned that a request for issuance of health license to run a guest house in the name of Centre Point was received from accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

139. PW23 has further proved the letter, dated 20.09.83, which was sent by Dr. A.L. Shukla to the then Director Health Services, mentioning therein that no license was issued by their department for running a guest house on plot no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg.

140. PW23 has further deposed that the letter, dated 25.05.83, copy of which is Mark PW23/X1 was sent by Sh. R.P. Mishra, the then DCP (Licensing) to accused, K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), mentioning therein that he had neither applied for registration of hotel nor any of his representative had attended their office in this regard and that he was advised not to use the premises till its registration.

141. PW23 has further deposed that letter, dated 12.05.83, was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 74 of 210 pages 75 CBI case . No.28/11 sent by Director Health Services to the Secretary, NDMC, which is Mark PW23/X2, vide which letter, dated 12.04.83, copy of which is Mark PW23/X3, received from L&DO, was forwarded for necessary action. He has further deposed that in the said letter, L&DO had requested Director General Health Services and the Director of Shop Establishment Department to intimate them the date of commencement of the tourist house and to intimate the date of issuance of license by his department. He has further deposed that in the said letter, it was also mentioned that the premises in question, was inspected on 21.11.79 & 25.04.81 and use of part of the building was reported as tourist home and regarding intimation of some unauthorized construction on the said premises, which constituted breach of terms of lease deed.

142. PW23 has further deposed that in the note, dated 22.06.83, it has been mentioned that the premises was registered under the SARAI Act, 1867 by the Commissioner of Police but the said department did not issue NOC and license as the party did not furnish requisite information/documents. He, however, could not identify the signatures and writing of the officer on said note, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 75 of 210 pages 76 CBI case . No.28/11 which is Mark PW23/X4.

143. PW23 has further proved the note of Sh. M.S. Chadha, the then EF & SO, dated 02.07.83, as Ex.PW23/R, bearing his handwriting and signatures, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that in the said note, it has been mentioned that as per their file, the guest house at 13, Kurzon Road, was started in 1979 and first inspection of the premises was carried out on 20.11.79 and that they did not issue any license as the Chief Architect, NDMC had not cleared this guest house from land point of view and approval was sought that no license was issued by the department. He has further deposed that the note, Ex.PW23/R was approved by the then Medical Officer of Health, Sh. K.L. Shukla, on 08.07.83, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing, during official course of his duty.

144. PW23 has further proved the letter, dated 02.03.2000, which was sent by Col. A.S. Gurang, the then Medical Officer of Health Licensing Authority to the then Deputy Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Urban CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 76 of 210 pages 77 CBI case . No.28/11 Development, informing about cancellation of license due to misuse, as Ex.PW23/S. He has duly identified the signatures of said Col. A.S. Gurang, at pt. A, on the said letter.

145. Similarly, PW23 has proved the letter, dated 02.03.2000, which was sent by Col. A.S. Gurang to the accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) as Ex.PW23/T, which bears the signatures of said Col. A.S. Gurang at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

146. PW23 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW23/U(D81), copies of documents, which are Ex.PW23/V & Ex.PW23/W{D82(i) &82(ii)} were seized.

147. PW23 has identified his signatures, at pt. A, on the documents, which are Ex.PW13/DA and Ex.PW23/X D83(i) and 83(ii), respectively.

148. PW23 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW23/U, document relating to technical instructions and bye laws for trade licenses, was also seized, (running into 12 pages), copy of which is Ex.PW23/Y colly, bearing CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 77 of 210 pages 78 CBI case . No.28/11 his signatures at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him. He however, could not identify his signatures on document, at page 33, which is Ex.PW23/Z (D49).

149. PW23 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW23/Z1, he had handed over book no. 6 to CBI, which bears his signatures at pt. A and that of the IO at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

150. PW23 has further deposed that the license, which contains original cancelled license of the premises M/s Centre Point, situated at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at serial no. 42, was handed over by him, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z2 (D101). He has identified his signatures on the back of cancelled license, at pt. A.

151. PW23 has further deposed that documents, which were handed over by him, vide Ex.PW23/U, also include certified copy of council's resolution, item no. 3 (XVI) of various trades, directly related to the Health of the Community and Technical Instructions and bye laws in respect thereof, which is Ex.PW23/Z3.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 78 of 210 pages 79 CBI case . No.28/11

152. PW23 has further deposed that noting, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z4 in the file, Ex.PW4/A is in respect of secret complaint that a large number of suppliers of food material in NDMC area were not granted Health License for movement in NDMC. The said noting bears the signatures of Sh. B.P. Joshi, the then Director (Vigilance) which, have been duly identified by PW23.

153. PW23 has further deposed that the note, which is Ex.PW23/Z5 was made by him, recommending that the license for the premises, situated at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as 13 Curzon Road, New Delhi, might not be renewed for the year 19992000. The said note bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

154. PW23 has further deposed that his aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the then MOH, Lt. Col. Gurang and Secretary, Mr. Marwah, on the note, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z5, bearing his signatures at pts. A and B, respectively, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 79 of 210 pages 80 CBI case . No.28/11

155. PW23 has further deposed that in the note, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z6, he has mentioned the reason for cancellation of renewal, which has been disclosed by the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, that 'the premises was reentered and vested with the President of India' and that the use of the said premises was residential but it was being used as Hotel, which was the violation of Master Plan & Municipal Bye Laws also' and that thereafter, the file was sent to MOH/Secretary/Chairman for information to the Chairman as well as for Ministry of Urban Development, regarding the action taken by NDMC. He has identified his signatures at pt. A, on the said note.

156. PW23 has further deposed that Lt. Col. Gurang had also made a note, which has been proved as Ex.PW23/Z7, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. The said note also bears the signatures of Mr. Marwah and that of Mr. B.P. Mishra, the then Chairperson, NDMC, at pts. C & D, respectively, which have also been duly identified by PW23.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 80 of 210 pages 81 CBI case . No.28/11

157. PW23 has further proved the letter, dated 28.01.86 as Ex.PW23/Z8, vide which, Dr. Sudhir Kumar, AMOH(LIC) NDMC, had informed accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to obtain a fresh no objection certificate from DDA, for further running the guest house for consideration of a case under the bye laws of NDMC.

158. PW23 has further deposed that the notification, which is Ex.PW23/Z9, was issued by Government of India in which the criteria for modification in respect of guest house etc, has been mentioned.

159. PW23 has further deposed that the license, which is Ex.PW23/Z10 was issued to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), proprietor of M/s Centre Point, situated at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, on 27.01.03 by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Licensing Officer, NDMC, which bears the signatures of said accused, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW23.

160. PW24, Sh. K.C. Dwivedi was posted as DCP, Licensing at Police Head Quarters, ITO, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 81 of 210 pages 82 CBI case . No.28/11

161. PW24 has proved the notification no. H11017/7/91DDIB, dated 07.05.1999, which contains the guidelines for issuance of licenses to the guest houses/lodging houses/hotels in residential areas, as Ex.PW24/A.

162. PW25, Sh. Girish Chand Dwivedi was posted as DCP Licensing at the relevant time.

163. PW25 has reiterated notification, Ex.PW17/A.

164. PW25 has proved the notification, dated 19.12.1980, which is running into 21 pages as Ex.PW25/A(D63).

165. PW25 has proved the letter, dated 13.04.96, which was issued by Smt. Vimla Mehra, the then Addl. CP Licensing, Delhi, as Ex.PW25/A1.

166. PW25 has further proved the letter, dated 18.08.03, which was issued by him, as Ex.PW25/A2. The said letter was sent to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACUII, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW25.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 82 of 210 pages 83 CBI case . No.28/11

167. PW25 has further deposed that the letter, dated 30.09.03, addressed to Superintendent of Police, ACUII, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which is Ex.PW25/A3, was issued by PW25, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW25.

168. PW25 has proved the application, which was moved by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) for grant of license under Entertainment Regulation for guest houses in residential area, which was received in the office on 25.09.2000, as Ex.PW25/A4, bearing the seal of office, at pt. A, which has been duly identified by PW25.

169. PW25 has proved the letter, dated 16.09.02, which was received from Sh. R.P. Singh, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, L & DO as Ex.PW25/A5.

170. PW25 has further deposed that on the basis of aforesaid letter, dated 16.09.02, an order was passed by him, regarding which noting was made, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW25. The said note has been proved as Ex.PW25/A6. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 83 of 210 pages 84 CBI case . No.28/11

171. PW25 has further proved the note sheet at page no. 10 of the file (D62), as Ex.PW25/A7, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

172. PW25 has further proved the note sheet made by him, N35, dated 18.12.2002, as Ex.PW25/A8, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L Bhatia (since deceased) had appeared before him, submitted his reply and asked for grant of some more time. The said note sheet bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW25.

173. PW25 has further proved the note, dated 09.04.03, as Ex.PW25/A9, wherein it has been mentioned that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) had furnished documents along with copy of Trade License of NDMC, which was accordingly sent to L & DO for their comments. The said noting bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

174. PW26, Sh. Sunil Dutta, was working in the Guest House CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 84 of 210 pages 85 CBI case . No.28/11 Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

175. PW26 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 04.09.03, copy of which is Ex.PW26/A, documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 8 were handed over to CBI, The said seizure memo bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

176. PW26 has further deposed that the guest ledger no. 1 for the period 1st April to 20th May, 2000, which contains 1 to 100 pages, has been certified by the Accountant, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gola, whose signatures have been identified by him, at pt. A, on each page, being acquainted with his signatures. The copy of said register is Mark A.

177. Similarly, PW26 has identified the signatures of accountant, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gola, at pt. A, on guest ledger nos. 2 to 8, copies of which are mark B to mark H, respectively.

178. PW27, Sh. G.S. Rawat was working as Superintendent in LeaseII section of L &DO, during the year 2003. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 85 of 210 pages 86 CBI case . No.28/11

179. PW27 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 21.07.03, documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 20 were handed over by Sh. R.P. Singh, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, L & DO Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi to CBI. The said seizure memo, has been proved as Ex.PW27/A, which bears the signatures of said Sh. R.P. Singh, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by the PW27.

180. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 24.10.80, was written by Sh. R.L. Gupta, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner to Ganga Pd. Kedia and Ors, which is in respect of premises, situated at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Centre Point Tourist Road for Banquets, Meetings and Conferences. The copy of said letter is Ex.PW27/A1, on which PW27 has identified the signatures of Sh. R.L. Gupta, the then Assistant Settlement Commissioner, at pt. A, at page no. 105 in the file Volume7 (D42).

181. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.03.81, the copy of which is Ex.PW27/A2, was written by Sh. Swaran Singh, the then Assistant Engineer to Sh. Ganga CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 86 of 210 pages 87 CBI case . No.28/11 Pd. Kedia, wherein the name of Sh. ID. Gupta has been mentioned for inspecting the premises on 25.04.81. The said letter bears the signatures of said Sh. Swaran Singh, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW27.

182. PW27 has proved the inspection report, at page no. 109/C, dated 25.04.81, which is running into 3 pages, as Mark AX.

183. PW27 has further deposed that in the letter, dated 12.04.83, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A3, at pt. A, it has been mentioned that premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, Keeling Road, known as Tolstoy Marg and Kurzon Road now known as K G Marg corresponds to 13, KG Marg, was earlier leased out to M. Misbah Ul Islam.

184. PW27 has further deposed that the Perpetual Lease Deed, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A4, bears the signatures of Misbah Ul Islam, the lessee and that of the then Land & Development Officer, New Delhi.

185. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, at page 6 of Volume1(D40), copy of which is Mark PW27/AX1, is in connection with building at plot no. 11, Block No. 134, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 87 of 210 pages 88 CBI case . No.28/11 Kurzon Road, New Delhi.

186. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, at page no. 10, Volume1(D40), addressed to Narayan Dass, copy of which is Mark PW27/AX2, is in connection with plot no. 11, Block no. 134, New Delhi.

187. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 18.10.78, at page no. 89, Volume7(D42), which is addressed to heirs and executors of Estate of Late Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A5, was sent by the then Assistant Engineer, vide which, Sh. I.D. Gupta of L & D Office was deputed to visit the premises at 39, Kurzon Road, on 07.11.78, at 11.30am.

188. PW27 has further deposed that the inspection report, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A6, was prepared by Sh. I.D. Gupta, mentioning about the misuse of clinic by Dr. N.N. Barry.

189. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 26.03.81, which is addressed to Ganga Prasad Kedia & another at 13, Kurzon Road, New Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A7, was sent by Sh. Swaran Singh, vide which, it was informed CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 88 of 210 pages 89 CBI case . No.28/11 that Sh. I.D. Gupta of L & D Office was deputed to inspect the premises on 25.04.81, at 10.30am.

190. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 17.09.81, which is in respect of premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Kurzon Road, New Delhi, was sent by Sh. I.D. Sharma, which has been proved as Ex.PW27/A8. He has deposed that vide the said letter, Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia was asked to furnish documentary proof i.e. rent deed, duly certified in support of commencement of mis use and unauthorized structure to enable them to work out the charges.

191. PW27 has further deposed that a reminder, dated 07.10.82, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A9, was issued by Sh. I.D. Sharma.

192. PW27 has further deposed that the report of Sh. ID. Gupta, the copy of which is Ex.PW27/A10, is in respect of existence of misuse of property.

193. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 20.09.83, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A11, was sent by Sh. Dr. K.L. Shukla to the then Director, Health Services, Delhi CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 89 of 210 pages 90 CBI case . No.28/11 Administration, copy whereof was also endorsed to Land & Development Officer, informing that no license was issued by their department for running a Guest House at plot in question.

194. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 08.12.83, initialed by Land & Development Officer, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A12, was addressed to Ganga Prasad Kedia & Anr. He has deposed that vide the said letter, breaches of unauthorized constructions/misuse were notified and 30 days time was given to the party to remove the breaches from the date of receipt of the said letter.

195. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 12.11.83, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A13, was sent by Sh. BRK Bhatnagar to Land & Development Officer, requesting him to confirm if the building plan, submitted by Sh. R.K. Kedia, was in conformity with approved building plan.

196. PW27 has further deposed that vide letter, dated 28.12.83, which is addressed to Competent Authority, Urban Land (Sealing & Regulations Act, 1976), it was replied that the copy of plan attached with the letter was not correct plan CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 90 of 210 pages 91 CBI case . No.28/11 of whole premises and was not in conformity with the approved plan. Copy of said letter is Ex.PW27/A14.

197. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 31.12.83, copy of which is Mark PW27/AX3, was sent by Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia to the then Land & Development Officer, requesting him to depute Senior Most officer for inspection of the premises with prior appointment.

198. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 28.08.99, copy of which is Mark PW27/AX4, was sent by Dy. Commissioner of Police to Dy. Land & Development Officer, confirming that party had applied for renewal of license as the said license was valid upto 31.12.98.

199. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 28.08.80, copy of which is Mark PW27/AX5, is the another letter, annexed with the aforesaid letter, Mark PW27/AX4, vide which accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) was informed to obtain the license, under section 42 of the DMC Act.

200. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 03.02.86, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A15, was sent by Land & Development Officer, running into 3 pages, regarding CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 91 of 210 pages 92 CBI case . No.28/11 premises at plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as Kurzon Road, New Delhi and vide which a decision to reenter the aforesaid premises was taken.

201. PW27 has reiterated notification of Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Division, dated 07.05.1999, which is Ex.PW17/A.

202. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 06.10.99, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A16, was sent by L & DO Department to Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing), communicating that license might not be renewed beyond 31.12.98 as the property stood reentered. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been identified by him.

203. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 06.10.99, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A17, was sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L & DO to the then Licensing Officer, NDMC, requesting them to intimate as to how the license was issued and renewed every year, in violation of these terms. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 92 of 210 pages 93 CBI case . No.28/11

204. PW27 has further deposed that the letters, dated 27.03.2000 and 27.04.2000, copies of which are Ex.PW27/A18 & 19, respectively, were sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L & DO, vide which reminders were sent to DCP (Licensing) enquiring that whether the license had been cancelled or not as Medical officer of Health Licensing, NDMC had already cancelled the license. The said letters bear the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW27.

205. PW27 has further deposed that in the reply, which was received by Land & Development Officer from DCP (Licensing), vide letter, dated 09.05.2000, copy of which is also Mark PW27/AX5, it has been mentioned that a show cause notice for cancellation of license, in respect of premises no. 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, was issued to accused K.L. Bhatia(since deceased).

206. PW27 has further deposed that the letter, dated 02.03.2000, copy of which is Mark PW27/AX6, was sent by NDMC to Land & Development, Ministry of Urban Development, regarding cancellation of license for running the hotel. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 93 of 210 pages 94 CBI case . No.28/11

207. PW27 has further deposed that letter, dated 06.10.99, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A17, was sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L&DO to Licensing Officer, NDMC, requesting them to intimate as to how the license was issued and renewed every year, in violation of these terms. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been identified by PW27.

208. PW27 has further deposed that the letters, dated 27.03.2000 and 27.04.2000, copies of which are Ex.PW27/A18 & 19, respectively, were sent by Sh. D.K. Bajaj, the then Dy. L& DO and vide which reminders were sent to DCP (Licensing) enquiring that whether the license had been cancelled or not as Medical officer of Health Licensing, NDMC had already cancelled the license. The said letters bear the signatures of Sh. D.K. Bajaj at pt. A, which have been identified by PW27.

209. PW27 has further deposed that the letters, dated 03.07.2000, 22.09.2000, 09.04.2001, 21.09.2001, 16.09.2002 and 08.01.2003 of L & D Officer, copies of which are Ex.PW27/A20 to A25, respectively, were sent by Sh. D.K. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 94 of 210 pages 95 CBI case . No.28/11 Bajaj, Sh. R.P. Singh and Shalin Kabra, respectively, bearing their signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW27. He has further deposed that vide the said letters, police authorities were requested to intimate the present position.

210. PW27 has further deposed that the note, dated 01.08.84, is in respect of inspection of the property by Sh. C.S. P. Shastri & L & DO, on 09.03.84, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A26. He has identified the signatures of said Sh. C.S. P. Shastri, at pt. A, on the said note, which have been duly identified by PW27.

211. PW27 has further deposed that the note, dated 22.01.86, pertaining to reentry of the property, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A27,bears the signatures of Sh. S.L. Tejwani, the then L & DO, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW27.

212. PW27 has further proved the letter regarding inspection of the property bearing no. Plot no. 11, Block no. 134, known as 13, Curzon Road, which was written by him to Sh. Ganga Prasad Kedia, Rajender Prasad Kedia and Smt. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 95 of 210 pages 96 CBI case . No.28/11 Gindori Devi(Exlessee) as Ex.PW27/A28. He has duly identified his signatures at pt. A, on the same.

213. PW27 has further proved the inspection report, dated 22.08.2001, which is running into three pages (198/C200C), regarding inspection of plot no. 11, Block no. 134, 13 Curzon Road as Ex.PW27/A29. He has duly identified the signatures of Sh. S. R. Bhola, the then Technical Assistant, at pt. A and that of Sh. R.L. Singla, the then Building Officer, at pt. B, on the said inspection report, wherein misuse and unauthorized construction in the above mentioned plot, which was found by both the officers, has been mentioned.

214. PW28, Sh. Amit Kumar Dass was working as Joint Director (Planning), Monitoring Department, DDA, Vikas Minar, Delhi, at the relevant time.

215. PW28 has deposed that the plot no. 13, KG Marg was a part of residential land use, as shown, at pt. A, in the Zonal Development Plan of Zone D of Delhi Development Authority (D.31) (Text & Plan), which has been proved as Ex.PW28/A. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 96 of 210 pages 97 CBI case . No.28/11

216. PW29, Smt. Sindhushree Khullar was posted as Chairperson, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

217. PW29 has proved the sanction, dated 20.10.05, which was accorded by her against accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Medical Officer (Health) and Dr. R. Pal, the then Chief Medical Officer and R.K. Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, NDMC, as Ex.PW29/A, bearing her signatures at pt. A and initials at pt. B, which have been duly identified by her.

218. PW30, Sh. Brij Mohan Lal was posted as Sanitary Inspector in Circle no. V, Health Department, NDMC, at the relevant time.

219. PW30 has deposed that the file, Ex.PW2/1, which is relating to Centre Point Hotel, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi was processed by him during his tenure.

220. PW30 has identified his note, at pt. DX2, on page 42 of file, Ex.PW2/1, which was approved by accused Dr. G.S. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 97 of 210 pages 98 CBI case . No.28/11 Thind, on 12.05.98. He has duly identified signatures of said accused at pt. B, on page no. 43 of the said file. He has also identified the note of Sh. R.K. GuptaI, at page no. 44 and 45, which bears his signatures at point A and that of said Sh. R.K. GuptaI at points F to F, which have been duly identified by him.

221. PW31, Sh. Pravir Jain was posted in the Sales Tax Department, at the relevant time. He has reiterated letter, Ex.PW17/A.

222. PW31 has deposed that the note sheet, which is Ex.PW31/A and registration orders, which are Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW31/C, were prepared during the official course in his office.

223. PW32, Sh. P.C. Dixit was posted as Deputy Architect in the Design Section and Building Plan, NDMC, at the relevant time.

224. PW32 has proved the the resolution no. 24, dated 15.02.85, as Ex.PW29/A, vide which a proposal was made for addition/deletion, in respect of premises 13 KG Marg, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 98 of 210 pages 99 CBI case . No.28/11 through scheme no. 159, which was approved by the Building Plan Committee and Administrator for the construction of first floor on the main building, subject to certain conditions.

225. PW32 has identified his notings at points A on page no. 10 & 11, in the file Ex.PW14/B. He has further deposed that the property in question, was reentered by the L&DO.

226. PW33, Sh. Sanjib Sengupta, was posted as Chief Architect in the NDMC, at the relevant time. He has deposed that file, which is Ex.PW14/B, was being maintained in the NDMC in the official course of business.

227. After going through the record, PW33 has deposed that the area of the property in question, was more than 1000 square meters and that as per Building Bye Laws and Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, guest house was permitted only on a plot, measuring between 209 sq. meters to 1000sq. Meters and that the said property was re entered property by L & DO and that there were some unauthorized constructions and that the building bye laws, 1983 were applicable for the said area, at the relevant time. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 99 of 210 pages 100 CBI case . No.28/11

228. PW33 has proved the Master Plan for Delhi, 2001(D29), which was applicable for the said area during the relevant period as Ex.PW30/A.

229. PW33 has further proved the appendix Q of the Building Bye Laws, 1983 (D30), which contains that any construction beyond the permissible limit of FAR, ground coverage (on any floor), are not compoundable and the misuse of such building also are not compoundable, as Ex.PW30/B.

230. PW34, Sh. V.K. Singhal was posted as Junior Engineer at the relevant time. He has deposed that on 01.09.2004, he along with SP Satsangi, Sr. Architect, DDA, Vikas Minar, Delhi, Sh. JB Khadkiwala, Sr. Architect (WZND) DDA, Vikas Minar and Sh. Chaman Lal, Sr. Architect (R&N) DDA, Vikas Minar, had inspected the premises 13 KG Marg, New Delhi and a report in this regard was prepared, which has been proved as Ex.PW6/C(D80). He has identified his signatures at pt. D, on the said report. He has further deposed that a memorandum (D79) was also prepared by the IO SC Dandriyal in presence of aforesaid witnesses, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 100 of 210 pages 101 CBI case . No.28/11 which contains details of the inspection. The said memorandum has been proved as Ex.PW6/A, which bears his signatures at pt. D, which have been duly identified by PW34. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. R.K. Sharma, the then Chief Accounts Officer and Sh. Sunil Dutta, Front Office Manager of Hotel Centre Point, 13 KG Marg on the aforesaid memorandum, at points E and F, respectively, as they were also present throughout the inspection.

231. PW35, Sh. Karam Chand, was posted as Deputy Architect, Building Plan, NDMC, during the period from 198586. He has identified his note, at pt.A, on page no. 8 & 9 of file, Ex.PW14/B, which bears his signatures at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. He has deposed that the said note is regarding addition/alteration in respect of 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, known as Centre Point Hotel. He has identified another note of Sh. P.C. Dixit, at pt. A, on page 10 of the aforesaid file, which bears his signatures at pt. X, which have been duly identified by him.

232. PW35 has further deposed that the note at page no. 8 in the file Ex.PW10/C (D9) was made by Tribhuvan Singh, at CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 101 of 210 pages 102 CBI case . No.28/11 pt. A, who signed it at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. The said note was thereafter, dealt by accused Smt. P.M. Singh, whose signatures appears at pt. C, which have also been duly identified by PW35.

233. PW35 has further deposed that on 13.02.2003, Tribhuvan Singh again made a note, at pt. C, in the aforesaid file, which bears his signatures at pt. A and the said note was thereafter, signed by accused Smt. P.M. Singh, at pt. A. Signatures of both these accused persons on the said note, have been duly identified by PW35.

234. PW35 has further deposed that vide the aforesaid note, at pt. A, Tribhuvan Singh had recommended for compounding and approval of the plan, which was approved by accused, Smt. P.M. Singh, on 13.02.03, who signed at pt. E, which have been duly identified by him.

235. PW35 has further deposed that the compounding charges, regarding the property in question, were deposited vide receipts dated 13.03.03, vide Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B, respectively.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 102 of 210 pages 103 CBI case . No.28/11

236. PW35 has further deposed that a letter, dated 14.03.03/14.02.2003, was sent by Tribhuvan Singh for depositing penalty etc to Prem Lata Bhatia, which has been proved as Ex.PW32/C.

237. PW36, Sh. Chander Mohan has deposed that the memo, which is Ex.PW36/A was prepared, on 10.07.03, after carrying out the video graphy of house no. 10, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, in his presence as well as in the presence of his colleague, Sh. B.P. Sharma. The said memo bears his signatures at pt. A, that of Sh. B.P. Sharma at pt. B, that of Sh. Prem Nath, SI, CBI, who carried out the said video graphy, at pt. C and that of Sh. K. Babu, at pt. D, which have been duly identified by him.

238. PW36 has further identified the envelope, containing the above said video cassette, which has been proved as Ex.PW36/B.

239. PW36 has further deposed that video cassette, which was used to record the aforesaid videography, which is Ex.PW36/C bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. B.P. Sharma, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 103 of 210 pages 104 CBI case . No.28/11

240. PW37, Sh. R.S. Salariya was a witness, in whose presence as well as in presence of Sh. Taranjeet Singh, video graphy of premises Hotel Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was conducted. He has identified his signatures, at pt. A and that of his colleague, Sh. Taranjeet Singh, at pt. B and that of Sh. S.K. Sharma, Inspector, CBI, at pt. C, on the video graphy memo, which has been proved as Ex.PW37/A (D118). He has further deposed that the aforesaid video graphy was done by Sh. Prem Nath, SI, CBI, who also signed the said video graphy memo, at pt.D, which have been duly identified by him.

241. PW37 has further deposed that the video cassette, which was used to record the aforesaid videography, which is Ex.PW37/B bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Taranjeet Singh, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

242. PW37 has further identified the envelope, containing the above said cassette, which is Ex.PW37/C.

243. PW38, Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma was working as Chief CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 104 of 210 pages 105 CBI case . No.28/11 Accountant in Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

244. PW38 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 01.08.03, Ex.PW38/A (D16), documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 33 were seized, which bears his signatures, at points A1, A2 & A3 and that of Sh. S.C. Dandriyal, the IO, at pts. B1 and B2, which have been duly identified by him.

245. PW38 has identified his stamp and signatures, at pt. A, on each page of documents, which are Ex.PW38/B1 to Ex.PW38/B3 (D17 to D20).

246. PW38 has also identified his stamp and signatures on document D21, which is Ex.PW12/A.

247. PW38 has also identified his stamp and signatures on the documents D22 to D48, which are Ex.PW38/B4 to Ex.PW38/B30.

248. PW38 has further reiterated document, D49, which is Ex.PW33/Z and has identified his stamp and signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 105 of 210 pages 106 CBI case . No.28/11

249. PW38 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 17.07.03, Ex.PW38/C(D7), certified copy of sale register for the Centre Point for the period 11.09.2002 to 31.03.2003, was seized.

250. PW38 has further deposed that the certified computer print out of sale register of Centre Point Hotel, page 1 to 60 (D8), which are collectively, Ex.PW38/D, bear his signatures at pt. A along with his seal, which have been duly identified by him.

251. PW38 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 23.07.2003, which is Ex.PW38/E, documents mentioned from serial no. 1 to 4 were handed over to CBI, which bears his signatures at pts, A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by PW38.

252. PW38 has further deposed that copies of guest register of Centre Point i.e. D12 to D15, D53 to D60, D70 to D71, which are Ex.PW38/F1 to Ex.PW38/F14, respectively, bear his signatures at pt. A, along with his seal, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 106 of 210 pages 107 CBI case . No.28/11

253. PW38 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 11.08.03, which is Ex.PW38/G, copies of guest ledger of Centre Point, mentioned at serial no. 1 to 8 of this ledger, were seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at pts. A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by PW38.

254. PW38 has further deposed that the seizure memo, dated 11.11.03, which is Ex.PW38/H, bears his signatures at pt. A, on both the pages, which have been duly identified by him.

255. PW38 has further deposed that the documents D89 & D99, which are Ex.PW38/I1 to Ex.PW38/I11, bear his signatures & seal, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

256. PW38 has further deposed that the application, which is Ex.PW38/I12, bears the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

257. PW38 has further deposed that the letter, dt. 27.03.97, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 107 of 210 pages 108 CBI case . No.28/11 which is addressed to Dy. Commissioner Luxury Tax Department, is Ex.PW38/I13, vide which luxury tax in respect of Centre Point through pay order, mentioned therein, was forwarded. The said letter bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

258. PW38 has further deposed that letters, which are Ex.PW38/I14, Ex.PW38/I15 and Ex.PW38/I16, bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

259. PW38 has further deposed that vide aforesaid letter, Ex.PW38/I16, along with other things, copy of registration card was also sent, which is Ex.PW38/I17, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

260. PW38 has further deposed that copies of pages 92/C its enclosures, 47/C, 49/C, 50/C, 55/C, 56/C, 58/C, 59/C, 64/C, 65/C, 66/C, 69/C, 74/C, 77/C, 81/C, 82/C and 89/C, which are Ex.PW38/I18 to 34, bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 108 of 210 pages 109 CBI case . No.28/11

261. PW38 has further deposed that the copy of form no.3, which is Ex.PW38/I35 & copies of form no. 2, of the file, Ex.PW38/J, which are collectively, Ex.PW38/I47 were forwarded, vide letter, Ex.PW38/I16. The said forms bear his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

262. PW38 has further deposed that the form no. 8, at page 19 C of the file, Ex.PW38/J, which is Ex.PW38/I48, also bears his signatures at pt. A on its back, which have been duly identified by PW38.

263. PW38 has further deposed that the document, which is Ex.PW38/I49 and which is annexure of Ex.PW38/I48, also bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

264. PW38 has further deposed that the authority letter, which is Ex.PW38/I50 and letter, dated 03.02.97, which is Ex.PW38/I51, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. Ex.PW38/I50 also bears the signatures of accused K.L. Bhatia(since deceased), at pt. B1 and B2, which have also been identified by him. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 109 of 210 pages 110 CBI case . No.28/11

265. PW38 has further deposed that the note sheet at page 1 of the file, Ex.PW38/IK, which is Ex.PW38/K1 bears his signatures at pt. A, in token of having received the assessment order from the Luxury Tax Office, which have been duly identified by him.

266. PW38 has further deposed that the note sheet, at page 1 of the file, Ex.PW38/L, which is Ex.PW38/L1, bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

267. PW38 has further deposed that the note sheets at page 1 & 2 of the file, Ex.PW38/M, which are Ex.PW38/M1 and Ex.PW38/M2, bear his signatures at points X1 and X2, which have been duly identified by him.

268. PW38 has further deposed that the notice, which is Ex.PW38/M3, also bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

269. PW38 has further deposed that the forms no. 8, which are Ex. PW38/M4 to Ex.PW38/M12, bear his signatures at pt. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 110 of 210 pages 111 CBI case . No.28/11 A, along with seal, which have been duly identified by him.

270. PW38 has further deposed that note sheet at page 1 of file, Ex.PW38/N, which is Ex.PW38/N1 bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

271. PW38 has further deposed that page nos. 57C and 58/C of file, Ex.PW38/N, which are Ex.PW38/N3 and Ex.PW38/N2 bear his signatures at pt. A, along with stamp, which have been duly identified by him.

272. PW38 has further deposed that the details at page no. 50C, which is Ex.PW38/N4 and authority letter, which is Ex.PW38/N5 along with its enclosures, which are Ex.PW38/N6 bear his signatures at pt. A and that of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) at pts. A1 and A2, which have been duly identified by him.

273. PW38 has further deposed that documents, which are Ex.PW38/N7 to Ex.PW38/N13, bear his signatures at pt. A, along with his stamp, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 111 of 210 pages 112 CBI case . No.28/11

274. PW38 has further deposed that document, at page 8/C, which is Ex.PW38/N14, also bears his signatures on its back side, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

275. PW38 was, however, declared hostile by the prosecution.

276. PW39, Sh. Vikram Dev Dutt was posted as Deputy Secretary in the Union Territory Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, at the relevant time.

277. PW39 has deposed that vide sanction order, Ex.PW39/A, he had accorded sanction for prosecution, in respect of accused Smt. PM Singh. He has also identified his signatures, at pt. A, along with his stamp at pt. B on the last page of sanction order. In cross examination several questions were put to him from the internal note put up by him while assessing the defence statement made by accused PM Singh to the CBI. Copy of the same was placed on record. A bare perusal of the same makes an interesting reading. It shows that accused PM Singh admits of signing the approval of health license on 15.01.03 & on second thought scoring it out. This shows her malafides. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 112 of 210 pages 113 CBI case . No.28/11

278. PW40, V.K. Kandpal was posted as Luxury Tax Officer in the office of Excise Entertainment and Excise Tax, department of NCT of Delhi, from 1996 to 2000.

279. PW40 has deposed that the file, which is Ex.PW40/A1 was maintained in respect of registration of hotel, Centre Point, 13, KG Marg, New Delhi, contains the application, which was moved for registration of Hotel Centre Point, at page 18/C to 14/C along with annexures from page 1/C to 13/C.

280. PW40 has deposed that the note containing recommendation of Mr. Deepak Virmani, which is Ex. PW40/A2, bears the signatures of said Deepak Virmani at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that the said note was marked to him for issuance of Registration Certificate for the hotel, Centre Point, 13, KG Marg, New Delhi.

281. PW40 has further deposed that registration certificate, dated 19.02.97, the copy of which is Ex.PW40/A3, was issued by him for the hotel, Centre Point, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, that of Mr. Deepak Virmani, who CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 113 of 210 pages 114 CBI case . No.28/11 signed in token of having allowed opening of another branch of hotel at E73, Kalkaji, New Delhi, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course.

282. PW40 has further deposed that report, regarding registration of the hotel Centre Point, at page 26/C of the file, Ex.PW40/A1, which is Ex.PW40/A4 bears the signatures of the then Luxury Tax Inspector, Sh. Adheswar Kant, at pt. A and that of Sh. Raj Pal Singh, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course.

283. PW40 has further deposed that during the processing of application, dated 09.01.97, which was moved for registration of Hotel Centre Point, a note was put by Raj Pal Singh, regarding forms and documents, submitted on behalf of Hotel to the concerned Luxury Tax Officer, which is Ex.PW40/A5. The said note bears the signatures of said Raj Pal at pt. A and that of Sh. S.S. Gill, the then Luxury Tax Officer, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW40 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 114 of 210 pages 115 CBI case . No.28/11 as he had worked with them and had seen them writing and signing, in the official course.

284. PW40 has further deposed that in file, Ex.PW38/J(D113A), relating to Hotel Centre Point, at page 1C, there is a notice for assessment for the year 19961997, which is Ex.PW40/A6. The said notice bears the signatures of Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW40 as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official course.

285. PW40 has further deposed that the assessment order, which is Ex.PW40/A7, bears the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, on both the pages, which have been duly identified by him as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official course.

286. PW40 has further deposed that at the time of assessment, the parties had produced L2 Register (at page 20C to 31C), L3 Register (at page 32C of file Ex.PW38/J), which bears the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW40 as he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing, in the official CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 115 of 210 pages 116 CBI case . No.28/11 course.

287. PW40 has also identified the signatures of Sh. Deepak Virmani, at pt. A, on the order sheet, dated 29.01.99.

288. PW40 has further deposed that the file of Hotel Centre Point for the assessment year 19971998, which is Ex.PW38/L contains a note, at pt. B, which is Ex.PW38/L1, bearing the signatures of PW40 at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

289. PW40 has further deposed that assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19971998, which is Ex.PW40/A8, bears his signatures at pt. A, on the second page, which have been duly identified by him.

290. PW40 has further deposed that the summary sales, which were submitted by the party and are available at page 36 & 37 of file Ex.PW38/L, are Ex.PW40/A9, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 116 of 210 pages 117 CBI case . No.28/11

291. PW40 has further identified his signatures at pt. A on the notice, dated, 18.02.2000, copy of which is Ex.PW40/A10.

292. PW40 has further deposed that the assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19981999, which is Ex.PW40/A11, bears his signatures at pt. A, on the second page, which have been duly identified by him.

293. PW40 has further deposed that the summary of sales, which are collectively, Ex.PW40/A12, pertains to Hotel Centre Point.

294. PW40 has deposed that at the time of assessment, copy of audit report, which is at page 85 to 87C, was obtained, which is Ex.PW40/A13.

295. PW40 has further deposed that assessment order, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 19992000, which is Ex.PW40/A14, was passed by the then Luxury Tax Officer, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, which bears the signatures of said Sanjeev Kumar, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by PW40.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 117 of 210 pages 118 CBI case . No.28/11

296. PW40 has further deposed that the notes, which are Ex.PW38/M1 and Ex.PW38/M2 bear the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, at points B, which have been duly identified by him.

297. PW40 has further deposed that the assessment file, which is Ex.PW40/A15, pertains to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 20012002.

298. PW40 has further deposed that the note sheet, which is Ex.PW40/A16, bears the signatures of Sh. C. Arvind, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

299. PW40 has further deposed that the file, pertaining to the Hotel Centre Point, for the year 20022004, which is Ex.PW40/A25 , contains the returns submitted by the said hotel, at pt. A, which are collectively, Ex.PW40/A17 to Ex.PW40/A24. The said returns bear the official stamp, which has been duly identified by PW40. He has further deposed that there is, however, no assessment order in the file, Ex.PW40/A25, showing that assessment was not done for these years.

300. PW41, Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatnagar was posted as Assistant CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 118 of 210 pages 119 CBI case . No.28/11 Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Circus, at the relevant time.

301. PW41 has deposed that vide seizure memo, dated 18.08.04, Ex.PW41/A, documents mentioned therein were handed over to the CBI, which bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

302. PW41 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW41/A, file (D110), which was maintained in regular course, pertaining to Centre Point Guest House at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was handed over, which has been proved as Ex.PW41/A1.

303. PW41 has further deposed that the letter, at page C33 of file Ex.PW41/A1, which is Ex.PW41/A2, was received from DCP Licensing.

304. PW41 has further deposed that in pursuance to the aforesaid letter, Ex.PW41/A2, inspection of the premises in question, was carried out and a report, regarding the same was submitted, which has been proved as Ex.PW41/A3. The said report bears his signatures at pt. A, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 119 of 210 pages 120 CBI case . No.28/11 which have been duly identified by him.

305. PW41 has further deposed that a note, regarding the report, Ex.PW41/A3 was made by him, at page 11 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, which bears his handwriting & signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

306. PW41 has further deposed that the letter, dated 27.05.99, which was received by him on 03.06.99, from NDMC for according NOC for renewal of license, in respect of Lodging House (Centre Point), 13, KG Marg, has been proved as Ex.PW41/A4. The said letter bears the signatures of the then Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Late Sh. Surender Kumar at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

307. PW41 has further proved his note, regarding inspection carried out by him, at page 12 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, as Ex.PW41/A5, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

308. PW41 has further deposed that his draft reply, which is CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 120 of 210 pages 121 CBI case . No.28/11 available at page C36 of the file, Ex.PW41/A1, is Ex.PW41/A6 which bears his initials at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

309. PW41 has further deposed that a reply was sent to the Medical Officer (Health)NDMC, vide letter, dated 28.05.1999, under the signatures of late Sh. Surender Kumar, the then Deputy Chief Fire Officer, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. The copy of the said letter, is Ex.PW41/A7.

310. PW41 has further deposed that the letter, dated 05.08.04, which is Ex.PW41/A8, bears the signatures of Sh. G.C. Mishra, which have been duly identified by PW41.

311. PW42, Lt. Col. S.K. Garg was posted as Medical Officer of Health in NDMC, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

312. PW42 has further deposed that annexure 55(45) of the Technical Instructions for Trade License, which are Ex.PW23/Z3(D84), contain the procedure and conditions, under which health licenses were issued, which has been proved as Ex.PW42/A1.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 121 of 210 pages 122 CBI case . No.28/11

313. PW42 has further deposed that the aforesaid guidelines were modified in the end of December, 2003, which are contained at page 20 of the file, Ex.PW2/1.

314. PW42 has further deposed that page no. 49 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears his signatures, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business.

315. PW42 has further deposed that page no. 52 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears the signatures of Dr. V.N. Reu at pt. A, and his own signatures, at pts. B1 & B2, which have been duly identified by him.

316. PW42 has further deposed that page no. 56 of file, Ex.PW2/1, bears the signatures of accused Dr. R.Pal, at pt. D, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of business.

317. PW43, Sh. Deepak was posted as Nodal Officer in Hutchison Essar Mobile Services Ltd, at the relevant time. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 122 of 210 pages 123 CBI case . No.28/11

318. PW43 has further deposed that letter, dated 10.06.05, which has been proved as Ex.PW43/A1(D126)bears the signatures of Sh. Gulshan Arora, the then Nodal Officer of Hudchison Essar Mobile Services, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen his specimen signatures, maintained in the records as well as in large number of documents, signed by him, during the course of his duties.

319. PW43 has further deposed that the letter, dated 10.10.03, which has been proved as Ex.PW43/A2(D125) bears the signatures of Major Satish, the then Nodal Officer of Hudchison Essar Mobile Services, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him as he had seen his specimen signatures, maintained in the records as well as in large number of documents, signed by him, during the course of his duties and that vide the said letter, call details in respect of mobile numbers 9811158441, 9811651611 & 9811134602 were sent to CBI.

320. PW43 has further deposed that vide letter, Ex.PW43/A2, call details in respect of mobile numbers 9811158441 & CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 123 of 210 pages 124 CBI case . No.28/11 9811651611, were sent, which have been proved as Ex.PW43/A3 & Ex.PW43/A4.

321. PW44, Sh. Deepak R. Handa was posted as Senior Scientific Officer, in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, at the relevant time.

322. PW44 has deposed that he had received a letter, which was forwarded by Sh. Arun Sharma, the then SP, CBI along with original document, Ex.PW1/D, marked as Q1 to Q3, which were further marked as QA, QB, QA/1, QD, QE, Q2 and Q3. The said letter has been proved as Ex.PW44/A, which bears the signatures of the then SP, CBI, Sh. Arun Sharma, at pt.A, which have been duly identified by PW44.

323. PW44 has further deposed that after examining the aforesaid documents with various scientific aids, report no. CFSL 2004/D0460, dated 14.09.04, was submitted, which has been proved as Ex.PW44/B. The said report, running into four pages, bears his signatures at pt. A, on each page and his stamp at pt. B, on the last page, which have been duly identified by PW44.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 124 of 210 pages 125 CBI case . No.28/11

324. PW44 has further deposed that aforesaid report, Ex.PW44/B was forwarded to Sh. Arun Sharma, the then SP, CBI, ACUII Branch, Delhi, through Director, vide letter, dated 27.09.04 (D132), which has been proved as Ex.PW44/C. The said letter bears the signatures of Dr. S.R. Singh, the then Director, CFSL, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by PW44.

325. PW45, Sh. Rajender Prasad was posted in Hotel Section, Licensing Branch, Delhi Police, at the relevant time. He has deposed that the file (D62), which is Ex.PW45/A relates to Hotel Centre Point at property no. 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, which contains 1/N to 14/N on noting side and pages 1/C to 81/C on correspondence side. He has further deposed that in the present case, the license was issued on 31.10.87 for 16 rooms and 32 beds and the same was renewed upto 31.03.96. That thereafter, license was not renewed and a show cause notice for cancellation of license to accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia was issued under the signatures of Keshav Dwivedi, the then DCP Licensing, Delhi on the ground that the premises in question was re entered. PW45 has identified the signatures of said Sh. Keshav Dwivedi on the said show cause notice. He has also CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 125 of 210 pages 126 CBI case . No.28/11 identified the original license, which was issued by the DCP Licensing in the year 1987 and the endorsement of renewal, at pt. A, at page no. 47 of file, Ex.PW16/B.

326. PW46, Sh. V.S. Sharma was posted as Section Officer in NDMC, New Delhi, during the period from 20032004. He has reiterated document, Ex.PW23/Z3, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. A, on each page. He has also reiterated document, Ex.PW42/A1, which bears his signatures at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

327. PW47, P.K. Chandra was posted as Junior Engineer in Planning Division of NDMC, at the relevant time.

328. PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW14/B (D10), which pertains to Unauthorized Construction Cell, NDMC as he had dealt with the unauthorized construction, relating to property i.e. 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. He has deposed that the said file contains note sheet pages 1 to 13 and pages 1 to 29 on correspondence side besides other papers/documents.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 126 of 210 pages 127 CBI case . No.28/11

329. PW47 has further reiterated file, Ex.PW40/A, which contains note sheets from 1 to 3 and correspondence side page 1 to 60.

330. Similarly, PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW2/1, which contains note sheet pages from 1 to 58 and correspondence side pages 1 to 122.

331. In the same manner, PW47 has reiterated file, Ex.PW10/C, which contains note sheets from page 1 to 9 and correspondence side pages 1 to 8.

332. PW47 has further deposed that an application was moved by him voluntarily, in the court, expressing his desire to make a statement, which has been proved as Ex.PW47/A, bearing his signatures at pt. A and B, which have been duly identified by him.

333. PW47 has further deposed that his statement was recorded, copy of which is Ex.PW47/B (running into 5 pages), bearing his signatures at pt. A, on each page and that of Ld. MM at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 127 of 210 pages 128 CBI case . No.28/11

334. PW47 has further deposed that another application was moved by him to become an approver, which has been proved as Ex.PW47/C, bearing his signatures at pt. A and that of his lawyer at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

335. PW47 has further deposed that vide order, dated 21.09.2006, he was allowed to become an approver and was pardoned. The said order has been proved as Ex.PW47/D, which bears his signatures at pt. B and that of Ld. Judge, at pt. A, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

336. PW48, Sh. D.S. Dagar was posted as Deputy SP in the Branch of CBI, ACUII, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

337. PW48 has deposed that on 01.09.2004, at 12.30pm, on the instructions of the then SP of the Branch, he had visited the premises at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, along with his team, IO S.C. Dandriyal, three architects from DDA namely, Sh. JB Khadkiwala, the then Sr. Architect, Sh. S.P. Satsangi, the then Sr. Architect and Chaman Lal, the then CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 128 of 210 pages 129 CBI case . No.28/11 Sr. Architect and V.K. Singhal, the then Jr. Engineer (Technical Cell), CBI, where measurement of the premises in question, was taken in presence of the two employees of the hotel in order to compare it with the sanctioned plan of the hotel. He has reiterated, memo, Ex.PW6/A, which was prepared by the IO, S.C. Dandriyal, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B.

338. PW48 has further reiterated seizure memo, Ex.PW21/A and files, Ex.PW38/J, Ex.PW38/K, Ex.PW38/M, Ex.PW38/N, Ex.PW40/A1, Ex.PW40/A15 and Ex.PW40/A25.

339. PW49, Sh. Vipin Kumar was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACUII, New Delhi, at the relevant time.

340. PW49 has further deposed that vide seizure memo, dt.

29.04.05, Ex.PW49/A, two documents from Sh. Desh Raj, the then Sub RegistrarIII, Delhi Government, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, were seized. The said seizure memo bears his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Desh Raj, at pt. B, which have been duly identified by him.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 129 of 210 pages 130 CBI case . No.28/11

341. PW49 has further deposed that vide aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A, GPA in respect of property no. 13A and 13 B (pages 1 to 6), copy of which is Ex.PW49/B, was seized. The said GPA bears the signatures of Sh. Desh Raj at pt. B on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

342. PW49 has further deposed that vide aforesaid seizure memo, Ex.PW49/A, catalouge register, copy of which is Ex.PW49/C, was also seized. The said register bears the signatures of Sh. Desh Raj, at pt. A on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

343. PW50, Sh. Prem Nath, was posted as Sub Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi, during the relevant time. He had conducted the video graphy of the premises in question, on 10.07.2003. He has reiterated, memo, Ex.PW37/A, on which he has identified his signatures at pt. D. He has further reiterated cassette, Ex.PW37/B and envelope, Ex.PW37/C.

344. PW50 has further deposed that on the same day, he had also conducted video graphy of premises i.e. House no. 10, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 130 of 210 pages 131 CBI case . No.28/11 Tolstoy Marg. He has reiterated, memo Ex.PW36/A on which he has identified his signatures at pt. C. He has further reiterated envelope, Ex.PW36/B and cassette, Ex.PW36/C on which he has identified the signatures of independent witnesses, at points A and B.

345. PW51, Sh. S.K. Pant was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Licensing Branch, Delhi Police, at the relevant time.

346. PW51 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW51/A (D61), documents were handed over by him to the IO, S.C. Dandriyal, on 18.08.2003, which bears his signatures at pt. A and B, which have been duly identified by him.

347. Similarly, PW51 has deposed that vide seizure memo, Ex.PW51/B (D73), he had handed over files to the CBI on 01.10.2003, which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

348. PW51 has further reiterated file, Ex.PW45/A, which was maintained in his department i.e. license in respect of Centre Point Hotel, 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 131 of 210 pages 132 CBI case . No.28/11 which contains note sheet page no. 1 to 14 and correspondence pages from 1 to 82.

349. PW51 has deposed that file (D74), which is Ex.PW51/C, relates to Eating Section of his department, pertaining to Hotel Centre Point (Eating House) 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, consisting of 1 to 24 pages.

350. PW51 has further deposed that the license was granted to the Centre Point Hotel on 30.10.87, which was renewed till 05.06.1996, copies of which are Ex.PW51/D and Ex.PW51/E, respectively. He has identified impression of his signatures on the same at points A and B.

351. PW52, Sh. P.K. Jain was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical Meters) in NDMC, New Delhi, during the relevant period.

352. PW52 has deposed that the file in respect of electric connection of premises at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, contains agreement form of K no. 64309, in favour of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) and other agreements and enclosures of documents, running into 1 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 132 of 210 pages 133 CBI case . No.28/11 to 51 pages, which has been proved as Ex.PW52/A, bearing his signatures and stamp, on each page, which have been duly identified by him.

353. PW53, Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACUII, ACI, New Delhi, at the relevant time. He has deposed that on 10.07.2003, he was deputed by the IO, S.C. Dandriyal for conducting videography of the premises in question. He has reiterated memo, Ex.PW37/A on which he has identified his signatures at pt. C. He has further reiterated cassette, Ex.PW37/B and envelope, Ex.PW37/C.

354. PW54, Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta was posted as Sanitary Inspector, Incharge Sanitary CircleV, NDMC, at the relevant time.

355. PW54 has reiterated file, Ex.PW2/1 (D6), which was being maintained in his department regarding issuance of license to Central Point, 13 KG Marg, Lodging House.

356. PW54 has further reiterated application received from accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), Ex.PW2/2, which CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 133 of 210 pages 134 CBI case . No.28/11 was processed by him, vide his note, mark F, at page no. 44/N and 45/N. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on Ex.PW2/3. He has also identified signatures of Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma, the then Chief Sanitary Inspector at pt.G and that of Sh. Baldev Raj Sharma, the then DSO, at pt. N.

357. PW54 has further deposed that thereafter, the file was put up to the then CMO(N), who wrote at pt. B 'Please discuss' with his initials, which have been duly identified by him. He has further deposed that thereafter, P.K. Sharma wrote an endorsement 'discussed' at pt. D to D and signed at pt. E, which PW54 duly identified. That thereafter, the file was marked to the then MOH i.e. accused Dr. G.S. Thind, who signed at pt. 'I', which have also been duly identified by PW54.

358. PW54 has further deposed that thereafter, he again wrote a note at page 46/N, marked as 'X', which bears his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. That thereafter, the said file was put up to then Chief Sanitary Inspector, Sh. Shyam Sunder, who signed at pt. B and marked the file to the then DSO (N), Sh. Baldev Raj Sharma, who vide his note at pt. C, marked the file to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 134 of 210 pages 135 CBI case . No.28/11 CMO(N), who again wrote for discussion at pt. D and again made a note at pts. X2, X3 and X4. That the said note was marked to the then MOH, A.S. Gurang, who signed at pt. E and F, which have been duly identified by PW54.

359. PW54 has further deposed that after the approval of grant of license, the file was received in the SI office, where the license fee was deposited, vide his note at pt. G, at page no. 48/N of the concerned file, on which he has identified his signatures. That thereafter, the license was prepared and then got signed from Col. A.S. Gurang, the then MOH, NDMC. That thereafter, the file was marked to License Clerk, whose signatures and endorsement at pt. H at page 48/N have been duly identified by PW54, whereby the license was renewed upto 31.03.2000.

360. PW54 has reiterated note of Dr. V.N. Reu, Ex.PW23/Z5 and has identified the signatures of said Dr. V.N. Reu at pt. A on the said note at page 49/N.

361. PW55, Sh. S.C. Dandriyal was posted as Inspector, CBI, at the relevant time.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 135 of 210 pages 136 CBI case . No.28/11

362. PW55 has proved the FIR as Ex.PW55/A, which bears the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, the then SP, at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

363. PW55 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had collected relevant documents. He has reiterated, memos Ex.PW1/A(D86), Ex.PW5/A(D5), Ex.PW5/B(D50), Ex.PW5/C(D9), Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW6/A(D79), Ex.PW15/A (D77), Ex.PW16/A(D116) Ex.PW19/A(D103), Ex.PW23/U(D81), Ex.PW23/Z(D100), Ex.PW26/A(D64), Ex.PW27/A(D122), Ex.PW38/A(D16), Ex.PW38/C(D7), Ex.PW38/E(D11), Ex.PW38/G(D52), Ex.PW38/H(D88), Ex.PW41/A(D109) and Ex.PW51/B(D73) on which he has identified his signatures at pt. B.

364. Similarly, PW55 has identified his signatures at pt. C on seizure memo, Ex.PW51/A(D61).

365. PW55 has further deposed that vide search list, Ex.PW55/B (D62), search was conducted at the residential premises of accused Smt. PM Singh by him in the presence of independent witnesses, which bears his signatures at pt. A CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 136 of 210 pages 137 CBI case . No.28/11 and that of other witnesses at pts. B and C, which have been duly identified by him.

366. PW55 has also identified his signatures at pt. A and that of Sh. Arvind Prakash at pt. B, on seizure memo, dated 31.08.04(D107), which has been proved as Ex.PW55/C.

367. PW55 has further reiterated letter, Ex.PW44/A on which he has identified the signatures of the then SP, Sh. Arun Sharma at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has further reiterated letters, Ex.PW44/B & Ex.PW44/C and inspection report, Ex.PW6/A (D79), which bears his signatures at pt. G, which have been duly identified by him.

368. PW55 has also identified the signatures of Sh. D.S. Dagar on the seizure memo, Ex.PW21/A (D112).

369. PW55 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, Sh. P.K. Chandra was granted pardon by the competent court, vide documents, Ex.PW47/A, Ex.PW47/B & Ex.PW47/C. He has further deposed that he had moved an application dated 17.11.04, which is CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 137 of 210 pages 138 CBI case . No.28/11 Ex.PW55/D, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him. He has reiterated application dated 17.11.04, Ex.PW5/E, which was moved by him before the Hon'ble High Court, bearing his signatures at pt. A, which have been duly identified by him.

370. The prosecution evidence discussed herein above has, thus, established the case of the prosecution.

371. Now, I come to the version put forward by the defence witnesses.

372. DW1, Sh. Harish Chandra brought the summoned record i.e. challan receipt book. He has proved the challan receipt no. 84/13, vide which fine was received as Ex.DW1/A. He has admitted that said receipt does not bear the property number, which was in the joint name of Mr. R. Babu & accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) and that the said receipt was in connection of not having license for Centre Point KG Marg, which was running a hotel, without health license. The said receipt book has also been proved as Ex.DW1/B.

373. In cross examination by Ld. Special PP for the CBI, DW1 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 138 of 210 pages 139 CBI case . No.28/11 has agreed that the aforementioned receipt does not bear official seal or stamp or name of the concerned court, however, New Delhi Municipal Council, has been mentioned on the same. He has denied the suggestion that he had produced the manipulated record. He could not identify the signatures/initial on the aforesaid receipt. He has also admitted that the receipt, Ex.DW1/A does not bear the date of payment and progressive total of the day. He also could not state as to whether the payment of fine was made or not.

374. DW2, Sh. Rakesh Kumar had also brought the summoned record of NDMC, pertaining to receipt of file, regarding requisition of file page no. 1 to 58/N and correspondence pages 1 to 122C, regarding lodging of M/s Centre Point 13 KG Marg, New Delhi. He has admitted that the said file was received on 10.04.03 from the office of accused Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, NDMC, vide reference no. 41/PA/MOH/D on 10.04.03 at serial no. 751, which has been proved as Ex.DW2/A.

375. In cross examination, DW2 has deposed that there is an entry, showing that the file was sent to Director (Vigilance) CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 139 of 210 pages 140 CBI case . No.28/11 on 10.04.03 and that the entry on Ex.DW2/A was made when the file was received from accused Dr. G.S. Thind. He could not tell when, how and from where the file went to accused Dr. G.S. Thind. He has further deposed that since the file came in a sealed cover, he could not tell what noting was there in that file. He has denied the suggestion that he had forged and fabricated entry and that the file never came to him and that it kept on rotating amongst higher officers. He did not know who was the Chairperson, NDMC, at the relevant time as he used to deal only with Director (Vigilance)/CVO. He has admitted that at serial no. 752 and 753, there is no mention of details of the file and date of receiving and sending of the file.

376. DW3, Dr. R.N. Singh is the Chief Medical Officer in Health Department, NDMC, New Delhi. He has admitted that publications were made in the leading newspapers, inviting suggestions from the public, under the proposed rules. He had brought the attested copies of advertisements, dated 10.01.07 in Hindi and English, which were published in leading newspapers, including Hindustan Times and in the year 2006, which are Ex.DW3/A, Ex.DW3/B, Ex.DW3/C and Ex.DW3/D. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 140 of 210 pages 141 CBI case . No.28/11

377. DW3 had also brought the attested copies of health licenses, which were issued in favour of M/s Costa Coffee, Plot no. 7, Shop no. 49, Bengali Market, New Delhi and M/s Nathu Pastry Shop 1213, Bengali Market, New Delhi, which are Ex.DW3/E and Ex.DW3/F.

378. DW3 had also brought the list of documents, which is Ex.DW3/G.

379. DW3 could not depose as to whether the aforesaid documents pertain to any property, which has been re entered by L & DO.

380. In cross examination by Ld. Special PP for CBI, DW3 could not tell the details as to under what circumstances and how the health licenses referred to above, were issued. He has identified the signatures of accused Dr. G.S. Thind, marked as 'QB', dated 15.01.03 and 'B', dated 17.01.03, at page no. 56 of note sheet, dated 15.01.03, contained in the file, Ex.PW2/1. Similarly, DW3 has identified the signatures of accused Dr. G.S. Thind on the note sheets at page nos. 57 & 58 of file, Ex.PW2/1, which are Ex.DW3/PX & CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 141 of 210 pages 142 CBI case . No.28/11 Ex.DW3/PX1.

381. DW3 was specifically asked by the court as to whether he ever granted health license to a premises, which is a re entered property by L & DO, to which he replied that he had no authority to issue health license and same is issued by MOH. He was further asked as to in how many cases, health license in respect of re entered properties were issued by MOH to which the witness replied that he did not have knowledge about this.

382. DW4, Sh. Satish Kumar, clerical Assistant from Estate II, NDMC had appeared. He had brought the attested copy of notice, dated 27.01.2011, which is Ex.DW4/A. The said notice was issued to Sh. Naresh Kumar of M/s Costa Coffee Shop no. 49, Plot no. 7, Bengali Market, which property was re entered by the L &DO. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Tilak Raj, Section Officer, EstateII and his official seal at pt. A on the said notice.

383. DW4 had also brought the attested copy of notice issued to Dr. Anoop Gupta of M/s Nathu Pastry shop no. 12 & 13, Plot no. 4, Bengali Market, which was also a re entered CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 142 of 210 pages 143 CBI case . No.28/11 property. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Tilak Raj, Section Officer, EstateII and his official seal at pt. A on the said notice, which is Ex.DW4/B.

384. In his cross examination by Ld. Special PP for CBI, DW4 has deposed that he did not know about the facts of the papers, produced by him. He has agreed that the loose papers kept on the upper portion of the policy file, which is Ex.DW4/PY1 are unserialed leaves of papers (60 in number). He could not state as to whether loose papers stated above, which are collectively Ex.DW4/PY2 form part of the said policy file. He further could not say as to whether the above said file and papers are forged or fabricated. He has denied the suggestion that the documents were not attested in his presence.

385. DW5, Sh. R.P. Bhoria, Deputy Director Establishment Health, from NDMC, New Delhi had brought the summoned record, relating to various resolutions of New Delhi Municipal Committee, regarding appointment/promotions of accused Dr. G.S. Thind. He has proved the resolutions, vide which accused Dr. G.S. Thind along with other doctors was appointed with the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 143 of 210 pages 144 CBI case . No.28/11 approval of NDMC as Ex.DW5/A, Ex.DW5/A1, Ex.DW5/A2, Ex.DW5/A3, Ex.DW5/A4 and Ex.DW5/A5.

386. DW5 had also brought the resolution, dt. 15.02.1988 and copies of minutes of meetings, resolution and office order, which are Ex.DW5/A6 to Ex.DW5/A9.

387. DW5 has further deposed that vide the office order, dated 06.09.02, accused Dr. G.S. Thind had taken over the charge of MOH from Col. A.S. Gurang, copy of which is Ex.DW5/A10. He has further deposed that vide order dated 04.11.03, accused Dr. G.S. Thind was relieved from the post of MOH, copy of which is Ex.DW5/A11.

388. DW5 had also brought the order in respect of cut of pension of Dr. H.S. Bindra, wherein it was held by the appellate authority that chairperson, NDMC was not the competent authority, copy of which is Ex.DW5/A12. He has identified his signatures at pt. A on all the aforesaid copies, in token of having attested the same.

389. In cross examination, DW5 has deposed that prior to 1994, the removing authority in case of accused Dr. G.S. Thind CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 144 of 210 pages 145 CBI case . No.28/11 was New Delhi Municipal Committee. He, however, did not bring any document in support of his deposition as to who was the relevant/competent authority to remove accused Dr. G.S. Thind. He has admitted documents, Ex.DW5/A to Ex.DW5/A12 do not bear the signatures of issuing authority.

390. After going through the copy of bound book containing original orders and resolutions, DW5 has deposed that at first page, there are signatures against Chairperson at pt. A, dated 23/03, which he could not identify and that on the margin side of the said document, Ex.DW5/P1, there is a diary no. 13, dated 24.03.03, which is Ex.DW5/P2. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to save accused Dr. G.S. Thind.

391. None of the defence witnesses, has brought anything to contradict, disprove or otherwise establish that the health license in this case was not issued fraudulently or that sanctioning authority in respect of any accused was not competent to accord the sanction. On the other hand, prosecution witnesses and a number of documents proved on record (including the notings & correspondence CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 145 of 210 pages 146 CBI case . No.28/11 portions of file, Ex.PW2/1 and the notification, dated 07.05.1999 regarding mixed land use) have clearly brought out and established that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to flout the law, norms, bye laws, Master Plan, terms of lease deed, NDMC Act etc and cheated the government and caused huge pecuniary gain to the accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

392. CBI registered FIR in this case in July, 2003 against Smt. PM Singh, IAS, the then Chairperson and other officials of NDMC on the alleged irregularities, pertaining to regularization of huge unauthorized construction at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi and also for fraudulent grant of lodging house license in favour of M/s Centre Point Hotel, being run by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) at the said location. The present case relates to the fraudulent grant of health license to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

393. The notings in the file, Ex.PW2/1 proved by the prosecution witnesses, clearly show the fraudulent grant of health license in this case to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to give him huge pecuniary benefits. Unfortunately, accused K.L. Bhatia died on 23.10.2012, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 146 of 210 pages 147 CBI case . No.28/11 during the course of trial and proceedings against him abated.

394. In the file, Ex. PW2/1, at page 49, there is a note, Ex. PW 23/Z5, of Dr. V. N. Reu to the effect that "Now a letter has come from the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, saying that the premises is now re entered and vests with President of India. The use of this premises is residential but it is used as a hotel, which is the violation of Master Plan and Municipal Bye Laws also." The note, Ex. PW 23/Z5, proved by the prosecution on record, contains as under:

" Sub : Premises situated on Plot No. 11 Block No. 134 known as 13 Curzon Road, New Delhi.

First license was issued to this premises for 32 beds from 8485. The temporary license was renewed for 1992 93 after detail discussion between then L. O. MOH and Administrator. Photocopy of the brief facts relating to this case and the orders of Administrators are attached. (Flag B) Since then temporary licenses were issued upto 199899.

Now a letter has come Ministry of Urban development, Nirman Bhawan saying that the premises is now reentered and vests with President of India. The use of this premises is residential but it is used as hotel which is the violation of Master Plan and Municipal bye laws CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 147 of 210 pages 148 CBI case . No.28/11 also.

If approved the license may not be renewed for the year 1999 - 2000. Submitted for information & orders pl.

sd/ 22.12.99 ( Dr. V. N. REU) CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER(HQ) We cannot renew this license & it must be cancelled. For inflo. pl.


                 MOH/SECRETARY 
                                                                                   Sd/
                                                                                   23.12

                                   MOH                                               Sd/   
                            Pl. cancel License.                                   27.12

                            LC 1                 Sd/
                                                  27.12.99
                                                  CMO (HQ)  "

395. Ex. PW 23/Z6 & Ex.PW23/Z7 are as under :

Ex. PW 23/Z6 "The case of the plot No. 11 Block No. 134 known as 13 Curzon Road was sent to MOH for renewal of license for 30 beds in 16 rooms for the year 19992000. This was done on 27999 the payment was made on 30.9.99. The original license was not issued till 141299 to the party.

A note was received from Architect Department on 161299 with the letter from Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan (at Flat 'A') stating that the premises is being used for commercial purposes instead of residential which is not permitted.

The file was again sent to MOH/Secretary for cancellation of the license for the said premises CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 148 of 210 pages 149 CBI case . No.28/11 which was done on 251299. If approved the file may be sent to Chairman for his information and then the letter can be sent to Ministry of Urban Development intimating the action taken by N.D.M.C. in this regard.

Sd/ (DR. V. N. REU) CHIEF MEDICALOFFICER(HQ) MOH SECRETARY (Ex.PW23/Z7)

1. First license issued to the premises 198485

2. Renewed after detailed discussion between, the then MOH, LO, (A & Administrator in 1992 in 1992 (Page 32 of Noting)

3. Urban Development Ministry vide the letter no. L & DO/L 19/134 (11)/981428 dt. 2.8.99 has stated that the leased land vests with President of India.

4. This now becomes a case of Gross Violation and flouting of the Master Plan and also the Municipal Bye Laws.

5. I have ordered for cancellation of the license which has been agreed by the Secretary.

6. I would also like the file to be put up to Chairperson before we communicate to the party & Ministry of Urban Development for information please.

                                                                            Sd/
                                                                       11.02.2000
                                                                       MOH 

                            Secretary                                  Sd/   
                                                                       19.02.2000



 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors.                                                   149 of 210 pages
                                                          150
                                                                            CBI case . No.28/11 

                            Chairperson                                Sd/
                                                                       21.04.2000"

396. Dr. V.N. Reu on this basis, recommended that the license may not be renewed for the year 19992000. He submitted the afore said note to MOH/Secretary. MOH (Medical Officer Health) in response wrote "We cannot renew this license and it may be cancelled." This was approved by the then Secretary also. Thereafter, it was sent to the then Chairperson, who too confirmed this.

397. Subsequently, a letter of cancellation of health license in respect of the premises in question to the party i.e. accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased) was issued on 2.3.2000.

398. PW23, Dr. V.N. Reu deposed on the procedure regarding grant of health license. He has proved the most vital notes, Ex.PW23/Z6 & Ex.PW23/Z7 and notification, Ex.PW23/Z9, which clearly demonstrates the fraudulent issuance of license in this case. Ex.PW23/Z10 is the license dated 27.01.2003, duly signed by accused Dr. G.S. Thind. That vide letter Ex.PW27/A15, which is dated 03.02.1986, the property was re entered. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 150 of 210 pages 151 CBI case . No.28/11

399. PW27, Sh. G.S. Rawat has proved the inspection report, Ex.PW27/A29, which is dated 22.08.2001, which shows misuse and unauthorized construction in the premises, in question. The inspection was carried out by Sh. S. R. Bhola, the then Technical Assistant and Sh. R.L. Singla, the then Building Officer.

400. The file, Ex.PW2/1 proved by the prosecution fully proves the allegations of criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons, the way they cheated the NDMC and the government and the criminal misconduct of the accused public servants in this case. It contains a note at page 54 of the note portion, written by accused R. K. Gupta, whose signatures at point A, have duly been proved by the prosecution. In this note it was written by him that "since DDA has not taken any action against the owner of the premises in question in response to the cancellation of the license by the Health Department in the last more than two years and the premises still continue to run as a lodging house", he recommended that the license may be renewed or granted to the lodging house with 31 rooms and 62 beds on temporary basis. He further mentioned that "he CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 151 of 210 pages 152 CBI case . No.28/11 has inspected the premises on 26.12.2002 and was found from health point of view." His this note was dishonestly written to favour and benefit accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) as grant of license in this case was contrary to Master Plan, Bye Laws and the decision already taken and approved by the then MOH & Secretary on 02.03.2000. Further, he did not mention a word about hygiene and sanitation in the building which are also the essential parameters to be considered before granting health license. It was obviously, omitted dishonestly.

401. That accused R.K. Gupta remained in touch with accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) over telephone, as is proved from the record produced by PW43, vide letter, Ex.PW43/A2 and call details, Ex.PW43/A3 & Ex.PW43/A4.

402. This note of R.K. Gupta, was further dishonestly processed by Dr. R. Pal, Dr. G. S. Thind and ultimately, the license was granted with the approval of the Chairperson, accused P. M. Singh on 15.1.2003. The signatures and marking by the Chairperson were subsequently, scored off. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 152 of 210 pages 153 CBI case . No.28/11

403. The assertion of the prosecution, is that Medical Officer (Health) NDMC, ordered cancellation of health license, issued to Centre Point Hotel on 27.12.1999 and vide letter dated 2.3.2000 informed accused K. L. Bhatia (since deceased) that the license for Centre Point Hotel had been cancelled with immediate effect. The Dy. L & DO was also informed about cancellation of the license.

404. It is further contended that on 23.12.2002, the Medical Officer (Health), NDMC received a letter from Late Shri K. L. Bhatia for grant of a license for 62 beds in 31 rooms in respect of the Centre Point Guest House/Lodging House. Accused Dr. R. Pal, Chief Medical Officer, (M&PH), NDMC, submitted a note dated 15.1.2003 briefly stating about the cancellation of the license to Centre Point in view of the L & DO letter dated 2.8.99. Dr. R. Pal in his note dishonestly mentioned that as per the relevant notification contained in the Master Plan of Delhi modified in May, 99, Nursing Home, Guest House and Bank shall be allowed in Residential Plot of minimum size of 209 Sq. meters(without mentioning that maximum size of the plot should be 1000 sq. meters), that the request of Shri Bhatia was justified and the case for CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 153 of 210 pages 154 CBI case . No.28/11 restoring the license of the Guest House for 62 beds in 31 rooms may be considered. He had dishonestly mentioned that in the past health license for 62 beds in 31 rooms was granted. As per the Master Plan of Delhi/Building Bye Laws, a premises used for lodging 15 persons or more is described as 'Hotel' and does not come under the definition of 'Guest House'. Hence, Dr. R. Pal dishonestly branded the premises, actually being run as a Hotel as a 'Guest House' and fraudulently did not mention the entire notification, dated 07.05.1999 with a view to fraudulently permit misuse in the residential plot of more than 5000 sq. meters. Dr. G. S. Thind, Medical Officer (Health), NDMC readily and dishonestly agreed to the proposal of Dr. Pal on the same day dishonestly ignoring his earlier queries made and submitted the file to the then Chairperson, NDMC, Smt. P. M. Singh, who too approved the proposal dishonestly without cross checking the notification dated 07.05.1999 and the background of the case so apparently available in the file, Ex.PW2/1 and had put her signatures in token of approval on the same day i.e. 15.1.2003, even though the intention of the party to run a Hotel in the premises was quite apparent and writ large on the face of it and which was the very reason for the earlier CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 154 of 210 pages 155 CBI case . No.28/11 cancellation of the license consequent upon the L & DO letter dated 2.8.99. That it is clear that all this was done clandestinely in pursuance to a well organized conspiracy to bestow a huge illegal pecuniary benefit to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to run the hotel illegally on the strength of fraudulent health license granted to him.

405. The above contentions have merit. The Note, written by accused R. K. Gupta on 26.12.2002, available at page 54 of file, Ex.PW2/1 in which processing of grant of license to Centre Point was dealt with is as under :

"HEALTH DEPARTMENT Subject : Renewal/Grant of license to Centre Point at 13 K. G. Marg to run Lodging House:

On perusal of the license file of Centre Point at 13 K. G. Marg, it is revealed that the last license renewed for the Lodging House for 16 room with 32 beds upto the year 19992000 (31st March). Thereafter Shri K. L. Bhatia, the owner of the said premises had applied for renewal of the license for the year 200001, 200102 and 200203. But, based on the report of Dy.

Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development vide his office letter No. L & DO/LI9/134 (11)/981428 dated 2.8.99 as on page 95/c the license of the said premises was cancelled by the then MOH with prior approval of the Secretary/Chairman, NDMC which may kindly be seen on page 49 to 51/N. In pursuance to the remarks CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 155 of 210 pages 156 CBI case . No.28/11 of the MOH on page 53/N, Shri K. L. Bhatia had already submitted his request which is self explanatory as on page 106 to 109/c and has also requested to reconsider his request of health license. Keeping in view the contents of the letter received from DDA as on page 54/c and another letter from DCP(L) as on page 55/c based on which the said premises was granted health license, and also taking into consideration the requests submitted, the following facts are brought out for your kind perusal:

1. The above said premises stand licensed upto 19992000 (31st March). This was based on the reports received from DDA and DCP(Licensing) as mentioned above.

Thereafter, the said license of the said premises stand cancelled which is also based on the report submitted by L & DO in their above mentioned letter.

2. The L&DO vide their letter No. L& DO/LI9/134(11)/981428 dated 2.8.99 had informed that the said premises is being misused/used as Centre Point Hotel and the use of a residential premises for hotel is a violation of Master Plan and Municipal Bye laws also, but the said letter is in contradiction to the NOC issued earlier by Dy. Director (MP) of DDA vide letter No. F.10(9)/84MP/2764 dated 19.4.1984 as on page 54/c based on that the temporary license was granted and continued to be renewed till 19992000. Though NDMC had cancelled the license on the basis of the recent above mentioned letter under intimation to the L & DO, but it is very sorry to inform that L & DO has not taken any action in the last more than two years and the premises is still continue to be used by Shri K. L. Bhatia for running Lodging House. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 156 of 210 pages 157 CBI case . No.28/11 Keeping in view of the NOC which already stands submitted by the DDA vide their letter No. F. 10(9)/84 MP/2764 dated 19.4.1984 at the time of initial grant of license, and since DDA has not taken any action against the owner of the said premises in response to cancellation of the license by the Health Department in the last more than two years and the premises still continue to run as Lodging House, it is, therefore, recommended that we may renew/grant health license to this Lodging House with 31 rooms and 62 bes on temporary basis till such time some final decision is taken by the DDA/L&DO on the said premises. The premises was inspected by me on 26.12.02 and was found from health point of view.

Sd/ 26.12.

                                                                 (R. K. GUPTA)
                                                                   SIV
                     CMO (Lic.)                       Submitted for orders Pl.

                                                                 Sd/
                                                                                           
                                                                 03.01.2003
                                                                  M.O.H

Discussed. The matter is being now dealt in the light of the master plan of Delhi modified in May 1999. Copy placed on page 110 - 111/C. Sd/ 15.1.2003 See page 56/N"

406. In the file, Ex.PW2/1, at page 56, the note written by the accused Dr. R. Pal, CMO and further containing the notings of others is as under :

"Subject : Renewal/Grant of license to Centre Point at 13 K. G. Marg to run Lodging House.

On perusal of the license file of Centre Point at 13 K. G. Marg, it is revealed that the last license CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 157 of 210 pages 158 CBI case . No.28/11 renewed for the Lodging House for 31 rooms with 62 beds upto the year 19992000 (31st March). Thereafter, Sh. K. L. Bhatia, the owner of the said premises had applied for renewal of the license for the year 200001, 200102 and 200203. But, based on the report of Dy. Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development vide his letter No. L & DO/LI9/134 (11)/981428 dated 2.8.99 as on page 95/c the license of the said premises was cancelled by the then MOH with prior approval of the Secretary/Chairman, NDMC which may kindly be seen on page 49 to 51/N. Now, Sh. K. L. Bhatia has submitted his request as on page 106 to 109/c alongwith the master plan for Delhi modified in May, 1999 as on page 110 & 111/c stating that his license was cancelled on the ground of furnishing wrong information by Dy. Land and Development Officer vide their letter No. L& DO/LI9/134 (11)/981428 dated 2.8.99. Based on this clarification on the matter Sh. Bhatia has requested to reconsider his request for restoring the license of his guest house.

In view of the clarification as per the relevant para contained in master plan of Delhi modified in May, 1999 as on page 110 & 111/c "Nursing Home, Guest House and Bank shall allowed in Residential Plot of minimum size of 209 Sq. Mtr. Facing a minimum road width of 18 Mtrs Wide (9 Mtrs. in Special area) and 13.5 Mtrs. in rehabilitation colonies subject to the conditions laid down in the guidelines issued in this regard" the request of Sh. Bhatia is justified and can be considered under the provision of the said modification. Thereafter, the case for restoring the license of the above guest house for 62 beds in 31 rooms may be submitted for kind information and approval of the Chairperson.

Sd/ 15.1.2003 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 158 of 210 pages 159 CBI case . No.28/11 (Dr. R. Pal) Chief Medical Officer (M&PH) M.O.H. (note of Dr. Thind ) "This is a very old problematic case wherein various additions/ alteration /modification have been carried out authorizedly/ unauthorizedly. Matter was discussed in the Chamber of Chairperson in view of discussion with Mr. K. L. Bhatia.

Note of CMO above is self contained factual. I agree with the views of CMO (L). May kindly like to see for kind information, if approved please, further action be taken and the license is renewed. Submitted for kind orders.

Sd/ 15.1.2003 Chairperson sd 15.1.2003 MOH sd 17.1.2003 CMO (Lic.) sd 17.1.2003"

(Accused P. M. Singh signed above and then struck it off)

407. The application at page 105 of the file, Ex. PW2/1, was admittedly, moved by accused K. L. Bhatia. A bare perusal of this document shows that this application is undated and contains false and fraudulent particulars regarding last year's License No. & Date or cash receipt No. & Date inasmuch as particulars of the license pertaining to 1998 in the year 20022003 are contained in column 11 of the said application. Column 14, 15, 16, 17 & 20 were left blank, despite all this, the application was blindly, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 159 of 210 pages 160 CBI case . No.28/11 favourably and dishonestly taken up soon after accused took over as Chairperson on 01.11.2002 and was allowed by the accused persons by processing it dishonestly in quick succession in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to benefit the accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

408. Further, Ex. PW 39/D3 are the Bye laws for the Licensing and Regulating Lodging Houses admittedly operating withing the limits of NDMC. The ByeLaw 5 provides as under :

"5. An application for a license shall be accompanied by a plan showing the dimensions of all rooms in a lodging house and the purpose for which each room or part of the premises instead to be used shall be stated."

409. This byelaw was fraudulently flouted by the accused persons as the application seeking license was not accompanied by a plan showing the dimension of all the rooms and the purpose for each room and part of the premises was to be used, was not enclosed admittedly with the application made by accused Kasturi Lal Bhatia (since deceased).

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 160 of 210 pages 161 CBI case . No.28/11

410. Ex. PW 38/B1 is the Certificate of Registration showing that the accused K. L. Bhatia, proprietor of Centre Point at 13 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, was the registered hotelier under section 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, w.e.f. 9.1.1997. The said certificate was issued, obviously, at the instance of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to get him assessed for Luxury Tax. This document clearly shows that accused K. L. Bhatia was running Centre Point as a hotel at 13 K. G. Marg, New Delhi and was periodically assessed for luxury tax. He was thus, grossly misusing the residential leased out government property to G.P. Kedia & Ors for commercial purpose and for huge gains, despite the fact that he had no legal title to the premises in question.

411. It is, therefore, proved that the public servants, accused persons herein, as a part of the criminal conspiracy abused their official power and position and fraudulently granted the health license to accused K.L. Bhatia to illegally run Centre Point Hotel.

412. As per Master Plan for Delhi, 2001, a lodging house in a premises can be used for lodging less than 15 persons. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 161 of 210 pages 162 CBI case . No.28/11 The lodging house being run by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) was not covered within the definition of lodging house, as per Master Plan of Delhi, 2001.

413. The notification, dated 07.05.1999, permitting mixed land use clearly provided that guest house could be permitted to operate in a residential area, provided the minimum size of plot is 209 sq. meters and the maximum plot size for these activities would be 1000 sq. meters. Further, no commercial activities in the form of canteen or restaurant was permitted. The relevant extract of the notification is reproduced as under :

"Notification No. H11017/7/7/91DDIB, dated 7th May, 1999 regarding permissibility of Nursing Homes, Guest Houses etc. in Residential Plots.

...........................................................................

Guidelines for allowing Mixed Land use namely Nursing Homes, Guest Houses and Banks in Residential Areas Master Plan for Delhi has been modified, vide Notification, dated 7th May, 1999 allowing Guest House, Boarding House, Lodging House, Nursing Homes and Banks in residential Plots of minimum size 209 sq. meters facing roads of minimum width 18 meters (9 meters in special areas and 13.5 meters in rehabilitation colonies) subject to the following conditions:

(i).....................................

(ii)....................................

(iii) The maximum plot size for the abovementioned activities will be 1000 sq. meters.

(iv) ...............................

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 162 of 210 pages 163 CBI case . No.28/11

(v) ...............................

(vi)...............................

(vii)................................

(viii)..............................

(ix).................................

(x).................................

(xi)................................

(xii)............................... Based on the above guidelines, the local bodies will ensure that all existing premises are regularized after fulfilling the conditions laid down herein within next 6 months. Monthly status report may be sent to the Government. Local bodies will also ensure that the mixed land use facilities being permitted through these guidelines are implemented in the proper spirit so that the residential character of such areas is maintained."

414. In this case, admittedly, the area of the property exceeded 5000 Sq. meters and therefore, no guest house could operate from the property in question even in view of the modified Master Plan and Building Bye Laws. The grant of health license in this case was, therefore, fraudulent and was just to overreach the law. The said health license could not have been legally issued.

415. It obtains on record that all of a sudden the queries raised in December, 2002 itself (page 53 of the notes in file, Ex.PW2/1) by accused Dr. G.S. Thind (MOH) were ignored by all the public servants, accused herein, bye laws were CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 163 of 210 pages 164 CBI case . No.28/11 flouted and the health license was fraudulently issued to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased). Accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH submitted file for approval of Chairperson on 15.01.03. The then Chairperson, accused Smt. PM Singh affixed her signatures on the same date in token of approval and marked the file back to MOH. All this is evident from the notings contained in Ex.PW1/D in file, Ex.PW2/1. Thereafter, accused Dr. G.S. Thind on 17.01.03 marked the file back to Chief Medical Officer (License), who in turn marked the file to SIV. That it appears that signatures of accused Smt. PM Singh, dated 15.01.03 and the marking 'MOH' written by her were scored out, which appears to have been done subsequently by accused Smt. PM Singh herself. Accused Dr. G.S. Thind also interpolated by elaborating his note later as is evident from the note, Ex.PW1/D in file, Ex.PW2/1 and which is corroborated by the report of the forensic expert proved on record. The aforesaid manipulation seems to have been done by accused PM Singh & Dr. G.S. Thind after the matter flared up and got exposed.

416. The Ld. Defence counsel for accused PM Singh while CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 164 of 210 pages 165 CBI case . No.28/11 conducting cross examination of PW39, Sh. Vikram Dev Dutt, the sanctioning authority, referred to from the file summoned by the defence from Home Ministry the internal notings recorded by this witness in the said file on 13.01.2006 while considering defence statement submitted by accused PM Singh to the CBI, a photocopy of which was retained in the court for appreciation of evidence (and was exhibited in CC no. 27/11 as Ex.PW45/DA). It makes an interesting reading. It obtains from the said notings that accused Smt. PM Singh in her defence statement submitted to CBI contended that the unauthorized property was regularized by her under the bonafide belief on meeting of the prescribed parameters of regularization after having discussed the same with the then Chief Architect. She contended that she was not aware that the said building was being used for commercial purpose and that neither preceding notes in the file were mentioned nor any objection or action by L &DO was informed to her by the then Chief Architect during discussion. That she was not shown the earlier files on the subject. She further claimed that had she been aware and would have been informed that hotel or commercial activity was functioning from the premises in question and that the L CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 165 of 210 pages 166 CBI case . No.28/11 &DO had re entered the property, she would not have accorded her approval for renewal of health license or for regularization of unauthorized construction. She has further stated that she appended her signatures on the note of MOH on 15.01.03 (appearing in note Ex.PW1/D in file Ex.PW2/1) and had marked it to MOH but on second thought as she was not comfortable with the proposal, she immediately struck out her signatures. She further stated that since she had not passed any order, she was under impression that if her approval was needed, the official concerned of NDMC would come back to discuss with her. The prosecution ought to have relied and placed this note to show the false stand taken by accused PM Singh, subsequently. However, the defence while cross examining PW39 had thankfully and fairly brought the said notings of PW39 in the Ministry's file summoned by them to the notice of the court.

417. It is clear that the plea of accused Smt. PM Singh that she struck out her signatures on the note, dated 15.01.03 for renewal of health license on the same day holds no ground as she neither passed any order nor sought any clarification from MOH. In addition, there is evidence by CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 166 of 210 pages 167 CBI case . No.28/11 witnesses namely, Jawahar Lal, Sh. M Venket Shastri, Ruchi Rohilla about the fact that her signatures were not struck off when the file came back from the office of the then Chairperson to the office of MOH, which shows that her signatures were struck off by her at a much later date, which proves her malafide. Accused PM Singh, being Chairperson, was all powerful to have any access to any file of NDMC at any time during her tenure in the NDMC even without any entry being recorded as none of her subordinate could dare question her supremacy in NDMC at the relevant time.

418. It is asserted by the State that it is inconcievable that accused Smt. PM Singh being a very senior IAS Officer, who had worked in various top level positions before taking the charge of Chairperson, NDMC was so gullible that she did not consider it necessary to cross check the facts submitted to her before according her approval. Accused Smt. PM Singh taking note from the facts, obtaining on record so clearly, should have called for relevant details/reasons as to why the health license was cancelled and was not renewed at the time when it actually expired. Had she raised these common sense CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 167 of 210 pages 168 CBI case . No.28/11 questions, NDMC officials would have been forced to submit the true facts. All this, however, was deliberately avoided by her in pursuance to a well hatched conspiracy to give huge illegal benefits by grant of health license fraudulently to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

419. All this shows that she was well aware of the background of the case and knew that if the details were brought in the notings, she would not be able to approve the proposal in a lawful manner.

420. M/s Centre Point Hotel had been temporarily granted health license till 19981999 and the health license was only for 16 rooms and 32 beds.

421. In the year 19992000, accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) submitted his application for renewal of health license, which was not granted for the reasons that there was deficiency in the supporting documents and that the premises had been re entered by L &DO for breach of lease conditions and that L &DO vide their letter, dated 02.08.1999 had duly informed NDMC about the re entry and the mis user of the premises as a hotel i.e. the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 168 of 210 pages 169 CBI case . No.28/11 residential premises earmarked for Group Housing was being misused for commercial purpose as a hotel by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) to make huge profits.

422. Consequently, NDMC cancelled the health license of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased). The refusal to renew license was approved and endorsed by the then Chairperson, vide his note, dated 21.02.2000. The communication in this regard was also made to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), vide letter dated 02.03.2000.

423. The most important prosecution witnesses examined in this case are PW1M.V. Shastri, who has proved the file movement to and from Chairperson to MOH; PW2Sh. P.K. Sharma, who has proved the file Ex.PW2/1 and the letter, dated 02.08.99 received from L&DO, addressed to administrator, Ex.PW2/6 . It was marked to MOH (Medical Officer Health) and CA (Chief Architect) also; PW3Sh. Vijay Kumar, who has accorded valid and legal sanction under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in respect of accused PM Singh; PW8Sh. Jawahar Lal, PW9 Sheela Sahota and PW13 Ruchi Rohilla, who have proved the file movement to and from Chairperson to MOH; CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 169 of 210 pages 170 CBI case . No.28/11 PW23Dr. V.N. Reu, who has proved several notings and signatures of accused persons in file, Ex.PW2/1; PW29 Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, who has accorded valid sanction Ex.PW29/A in respect of accused persons Dr. G.S. Thind, Dr. R. Pal and R.K. Gupta; PW33 Sh. Sanjib Sengupta, Sr. Architect (HQ) CPWD deposed that as per Building Bye Laws & Master Plan, 2001, Guest House is permitted between 209 Sq. Meters to 1000 Sq. Meters plot (as a mixed land use in residential areas). He was not cross examined by accused Smt. PM Singh, Dr. G.S. Thind, Dr. R. Pal and R.K. Gupta. His testimony thus goes unchallenged; PW39Sh. Vikram Dev Dutt has proved sanction, Ex.PW39/A with respect to accused Smt. PM Singh under section 197 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination defence extracted from him that he wrote office note in the file of MHA, copy of which was retained in this file; PW40 V.K. Kandpal has proved the Luxury Tax registration certificate of Hotel Centre Point file, Ex.PW40/A1 to prove that it was operating as hotel. The registration certificate is Ex.PW40/A3 showing registration of accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) as a hotelier under section 8 of Delhi Luxuries Act, 1996; PW44Sh. Deepak R. Handa has proved the expert's report, which is Ex.PW44/B and PW55 Sh. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 170 of 210 pages 171 CBI case . No.28/11 S.C. Dandriyal deposed as IO of the case.

424. From the documentary evidence led by the CBI, it obtains that on 20.11.02, after accused Smt. PM Singh had already joined NDMC as Chairperson, accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) submitted his application for renewal of lodging house license in the year 20022003, Ex.PW1/2, which was received by accused Dr. G.S. Thind and the same was marked to accused R.K. Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, who vide his note, dated 09.12.2002, page 53 of the notings in Ex.PW2/1 processed this application. This note mentioned the earlier decision of NDMC not to renew the health license and was endorsed to accused Dr. R. Pal. Accused Dr. R. Pal forwarded the said note to accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH and accused Dr. G.S. Thind, vide his note, dated 09.12.2002 sought certain queries and asked for necessary documents i.e. reply to L &DO lettter, report of L &DO, clearance from DCP (Licensing) and the clearance from CA (Chief Architect) NDMC. The file was reverted back to accused Dr. R. Pal (page 53 of the notings in file, Ex.PW2/1).

425. Undated, not fully filled up and with false facts CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 171 of 210 pages 172 CBI case . No.28/11 application, Ex.PW1/2 for license was again submitted in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy after accused PM Singh had joined NDMC as Chairperson on 01.11.2002 by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) along with notification, dated 07.05.1999(D78) for issuance/renewal of lodging house license, which was received by accused Dr. G.S. Thind on 23.11.02 and was marked to accused Dr. R. Pal, who in turn marked it to accused R.K. Gupta. Accused R.K. Gupta, then wrote a favourable note, dishonestly, which is dated 26.12.02 (page 54/55 of the notings in file, Ex.PW2/1) by giving wrong and incorrect twist to the matter, ignoring altogether the earlier directions, given by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, seeking necessary documents to be obtained from accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) before any action could be taken on the application for renewal of health license (page 53 of the notings in file, Ex.PW2/1).

426. Accused R.K. Gupta did not take into consideration any of the aforesaid requisitions and dishonestly recommended the renewal of health license for M/s Centre Point for 31 rooms and 62 beds, i.e. for enhanced capacity instead of recommending the prosecution of accused K.L. Bhatia CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 172 of 210 pages 173 CBI case . No.28/11 (since deceased) and bringing out the blanks, infirmities and non compliance of bye laws in application, at page 105 of Ex.PW2/1). He did not bring out to notice section 252 of NDMC Act to show that accused K.L. Bhatia was misusing the residential property without written permission of the Chairman, as commercial property.

427. Accused Dr. R. Pal appended two favourable notes, both dated 15.01.2003, giving dishonest and misleading naration to favour and give undue pecuniary advantage to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased). He deliberately suppressed the guidelines/pre conditions and flouted the Master Plan of Delhi i.e. notification, Ex.PW17/A dated 07.05.1999 so that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) gets the health license, fraudulently.

428. Accused Dr. G.S. Thind dishonestly endorsed the note of accused Dr. R. Pal, dated 15.01.2003, Ex.PW1/D, ignoring his earlier note, dated 09.12.2003 and that accused Dr. R. Pal had presented false information that the party was earlier granted health license in respect of 31 rooms and 62 beds for the year 19981999. Accused Dr. G.S. Thind flouting the requirement of necessary documents having CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 173 of 210 pages 174 CBI case . No.28/11 been placed on record by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), forwarded his note while approving the grant of health license to accused Smt. PM Singh, the then Chairperson on 15.01.2003 itself for her approval and information.

429. That as per Ex.PW1/D in file Ex.PW2/1 on 15.01.2003 itself, accused Smt. PM Singh appended her signatures in token of approval of the renewal of health license, fraudulently, to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased). Subsequently, as approved, health license was issued to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

430. The record indicates that subsequently, to save her, accused Smt. PM Singh scored out her signatures on the note of approval, Ex.PW1/D. This is squarely proved by the deposition of PW1, Sh. M Venket Shastri. He has proved his signatures at pt. A, on the seizure memo, Ex.PW1/A. He has also deposed that the diary register D87 was handed over by him to CBI, vide Ex.PW1/A. The register is Ex.PW1/B. He has also proved the entry at page 105 made on 17.01.2003 in the register, Ex.PW1/B, which is entry no. 10053 in respect of lodging house 13 K.G. Mark, Centre CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 174 of 210 pages 175 CBI case . No.28/11 Point and which entry was in his own handwriting at pt. X to X1.

431. PW1 has further deposed that since the entry no. 10053 talies with the entry made in Ex.PW1/C, file D6 (Ex.PW2/1) is supposed to be the file for which entry no. 10053 had been made in Ex.PW1/C. He has further admitted that the date '16.01' at point X4 on page 56 of file D6 exhibited in Ex.PW1/D is in his handwriting. He has further deposed on seeing the words 'MOH' marked as 'Q3' on Ex.PW1/D in file D6, that the file was marked to 'MOH' and that normally the Chairperson marks the file to MOH. That in this case also, the Chairperson had marked the file to MOH.

432. This witness having turned partially hostile, was allowed to be cross examined by the State. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had diarised the file in question, on 16.01.2003. He has futher stated that the signatures marked as 'Q2' in Ex.PW1/D were of the then Chairperson, who was supposed to be accused Smt. PM Singh, the then Chairperson. Similarly, he deposed that it is correct that if Smt. PM Singh was the then Chairperson, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 175 of 210 pages 176 CBI case . No.28/11 then the signatures marked as 'Q2' would be of Smt. PM Singh and of no other official.

433. PW1 has further deposed that it is correct that when he diarised the file on 16.01.2003, the signatures at mark 'Q2' were there in the file and the official, who signed at mark 'Q2' was available and only because of this, the file was marked to the official, whose signatures appears at 'Q3'.

434. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Dr. G.S. Thind, PW1 has admitted that he used to maintain the file movement register and used to make entries in the said register. That the marking at pt. 'X3' on Ex.PW1/D is in his handwriting and that this entry is regarding receipt and dispatch of the file. That the file was marked to the Chairperson, as per entry at point 'X3'. He volunteered that the file was submitted to the Chairperson before his diarising the same.

435. PW1 has further deposed that when he made endorsement at pt. X3, the file came to him from the office of the Chairperson. That the file was marked to MOH, vide endorsement at pt. 'X3'. He further admitted that if the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 176 of 210 pages 177 CBI case . No.28/11 file was not having the signatures of the Chairperson, he would not have sent the file to MOH. This witness has, therefore, clearly demonstrated that the file was put up to the Chairperson, who was accused Smt. PM Singh, at the relevant time, admittedly.

436. "Evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution. The fact that the witness was declared hostile furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. In a criminal trial, credible evidence of even a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction" was held in the case law reported as Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura, 2011 AIR(SC) 3753 and State vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450 & 2012 AIR(SC) 1979.

437. Dealing with the evidentiary value of a hostile witness, in the case of Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs. State of M.P., 2012 II AD (CRI.) (SC) 305, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"Now, we shall discuss the effect of hostile witnesses as well as the worth of the defence put forward on behalf of the appellant/accused. Normally, when a witness deposes contrary to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 177 of 210 pages 178 CBI case . No.28/11 the stand of the prosecution and his own statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, the prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, can pray to the Court for declaring that witness hostile and for granting leave to cross examine the said witness. If such a permission is granted by the Court then the witness is subjected to crossexamination by the prosecutor as well as an opportunity is provided to the defence to crossexamine such witnesses, if he so desires. In other words, there is a limited examinationin chief, cross examination by the prosecutor and cross examination by the counsel for for the accused. It is admissible to use the examination inchief as well as the crossexamination of the said witness in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution. It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records, it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Section 154 of the Act enables the Court, in its discretion, to permit the person, who calls a witness, to put any question to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party. The view that the evidence of the witness who has been called and cross examined by the party with the leave of the court, cannot be believed or disbelieved in part and has to be excluded altogether, is not the correct exposition of law. The courts may rely upon so much of the testimony which supports the case of the prosecution and is corroborated by other evidence. It is also now a settled cannon of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 178 of 210 pages 179 CBI case . No.28/11 criminal jurisprudence that the part which has been allowed to be crossexamined can also be relied upon by the prosecution."

438. It has further been held by the apex court that "Court while appreciating evidence should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution" {Thoti Manohar vs. State of AP, 2012(7) SCC 723}.

439. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "variations in the statements of witnesses which are neither material nor serious enough to affect the case of the prosecution adversely are to be ignored by the courts"{2012 AIR (SC) 2986, Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan}.

440. PW8, Mr. Jawahar Lal corroborated that entry no. 10053 at page no. 105, marked as 'X4' and entry at pt 'X' to 'X1' are in the handwriting of PW1. The said entry is Ex.PW1/C. He has further proved that the endorsement at mark 'X3' & 'X4' on Ex.PW1/D are in the handwriting of PW1. PW8 was not cross examined by the defence. His testimony, as such, goes unchallenged.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 179 of 210 pages 180 CBI case . No.28/11

441. Similarly, PW9, Mrs Sheela Sahota was examined and she proved disptach number at pt. 'X6' on Ex.PW1/D of file, Ex.PW2/1, which was written by her. She has further proved that the file returned from the office of the Chairperson on 17.01.2003, as per endorsement at pt 'X3 and 'X4'.

442. PW13, Ms. Ruchi Rohilla was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of MOH and proved endorsement at pt. 'X3' & 'X4' of Ex.PW1/D in file, Ex.PW2/1. She has also proved endorsement at pt. A in red ink on page 56/N of file Ex.PW2/1, put up by her. She has further deposed that she would not have made the receipt entry if there was no signatures of the Chairperson. That there was cutting of the signatures, which might have been the signatures of the Chairman. She has also deposed that she would not have received the file if she had seen the cutting of the signatures at pt. 'Q2'. On the point of identity of the Chairperson, she was cross examined by the State. In cross examination, she admitted that she had stated to CBI that the then Chairperson was Smt. PM Singh. She was examined in the year 2009 where as the case relates to the year 2003 and therefore, regarding lapse of memory, some CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 180 of 210 pages 181 CBI case . No.28/11 concession has to be given to her.

443. PW44 was examined as Handwriting Expert from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, MHA, New Delhi. He has proved his report as Ex. PW44/B (D111), on which he has identified his signatures at point A. The report is in four pages. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused G. S. Thind, nothing came out in cross examination indicating that report of the Handwriting Expert qua him goes unchallenged. The said report, therefore, squarely proves the subsequent interpolations/manipulation by accused Dr. G.S. Thind.

444. In his crossexamination by Ld. counsel for accused P. M. Singh, he has admitted that interpolations at the portion marked as "QA" was subsequently added. He also admitted it to be correct that portion "QA" on Ex. PW1/D is an interpolated portion and portion "QA" was subsequently added. Regarding opinion at point "Q2" and "Q3" in comparison with record to ink comparison he stated that both the inks are of same origin. He could not give the age of the writing at point "Q2" and "Q3". It is well settled that the age of the writing cannot be proved, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 181 of 210 pages 182 CBI case . No.28/11 as handwriting experts science has not grown up to this extent. The expert's report clearly corroborate and support the prosecution version and show complicity of the accused persons in the alleged crime.

445. The note, Ex. PW 1/D, admittedly was typed written and was signed by accused Dr. R. Pal. It was put up to Dr. G. S. Thind, who put his signatures at point "QE". The file was, then, marked to Chairperson and was sent to her. The same was diarized and through diary number, recorded at point "X6", went to the Chairperson. After the Chairperson signed, it was sent back to MOH vide diary number, recorded at point 'X3' and 'X4'. This fact has been clearly proved by PW 1 M. Venket Shastri, who was posted in the Chairman Office as Junior Assistant at the relevant time.

446. From the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that in the official course, the file was sent to the Chairperson. It was entertained by her and was signed by her and then was returned to MOH. The scoring out of her signatures and MOH was done subsequently. It is immaterial who scored it out and when it was scored out. So far as the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 182 of 210 pages 183 CBI case . No.28/11 putting up of file to Chairperson and its exit from her chamber with her approval and sending it back to MOH is concerned, it stands clearly proved by the prosecution.

447. It is proved beyond any doubt that the note recorded in Ex. PW 1/D was put up to the then Chairperson, accused P. M. Singh. She was party to the grant of health license fraudulently in this case to accused K. L. Bhatia (since deceased) even though MOH was competent to grant the health license. It appears that since all the accused persons were acting unitedly in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy hatched amongst themselves, MOH thought it apt to involve chairperson as well. Further, since the cancellation of health license was approved by Chairperson in the year 2000, to show justification, the note might have been put up to the chairperson for approval by accused Dr. G.S. Thind (MOH). Under Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act, a presumption can be raised that official acts are presumed to be done properly. This presumption has not been rebutted by accused P. M. Singh by showing that notes were not put up in the manner the same appear in Ex.PW1/D. There cannot, therefore, be any manner of doubt that she was party to CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 183 of 210 pages 184 CBI case . No.28/11 the fraudulent grant of health license, which was approved by accused Dr. R. Pal, G. S. Thind and by her on 15.1.2003.

448. It has been held authoritatively that "presumption under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act regarding judicial & official acts having been regularly performed would continue to operate in favour of an official till such time that material on record suggests that the accused had not performed his duty regularly" {Sridhar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2012(6) RCR (Criminal) Patna}.

449. The movement of the file and the endorsement proved by the prosecution witnesses, discussed above, clearly show that the file in the official course of business was put up to the Chairperson and after her signatures, came out form her office.

450. The contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution did not prove the signatures of accused Smt. PM Singh and scoring out of these signatures by any handwriting expert's evidence or that no one saw her scoring out of her signatures. It is also stated that the prosecution has failed to prove that the same were scored CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 184 of 210 pages 185 CBI case . No.28/11 out by accused Smt. PM Singh as after she was transferred she had no access to this file.

451. All these contentions are bereft of merit, in as much as, a bare perusal of the document Ex.PW1/D indicates that the file was marked to the Chairperson by MOH. It did go to the Chairperson and came out from her office in regular course of business. The diary register has been proved, in this regard. It is not possible that the Chairperson would sign or score out her signatures in the presence of an eye witness. She was the most senior IAS officer in NDMC, who being the Chairperson must be dealing with the files exclusively in her chamber in person. It is admitted that she neither wrote the dissenting note nor protested as to why the file had been put up to her, when MOH himself was competent to issue health license? Apart from this, there was no bar to bring anything occurring/happening in the NDMC to the notice of the Chairperson. Further, section 252(2) of NDMC prohibits any person to change the user of the land or building without written permission of the Chairperson. Since the grant of health license to Centre Point Hotel was in fact a change of use of the residential premises in contravention to the covenants of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 185 of 210 pages 186 CBI case . No.28/11 the lease deed to commercial hotel, bringing the misuser to the notice of the chairperson was not only desirable but compulsory.

452. The circumstances established on record clearly indicate that the file was put up to accused PM Singh, as on earlier occasion, the health license was cancelled by NDMC with the approval of the Chairperson. Since she was a party to the conspiracy, the other accused persons having done the fraudulent act, had put the file to her so that they may not be blamed exclusively at a later date.

453. Sanction against accused Dr. G.S. Thind, Dr. R. Pal and R.K. Gupta has been proved as Ex.PW29/A. There is nothing in the cross examination of PW29 or otherwise to show that PW29 was not competent to accord sanction or that there was non application of mind while according sanction in respect of these accused persons. The sanction order is, therefore, valid.

454. The sanction orders of accused Smt. PM Singh are Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW3/A. These sanction orders suffer from no infirmity and are valid and legal. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 186 of 210 pages 187 CBI case . No.28/11

455. It has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court that "if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be said to be suffering from non application of mind". Kiran Pal Singh vs. State, 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 489(Delhi).

456. Where upon examination of the statement of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted, the sanction was held valid {Kootha Perumal vs. State, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 278(SC) is relied upon}.

457. In the case law reported as State of Maharashtra Tr. C.B.I. vs. Mahesh G. Jain, Criminal appeal no. 2345 of 2009, decided on 28th May, 2013, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Minor irregularities or technicalities in the sanction order are not to be given Everstine status".

458. PW33, Sh. Sanjib Sengupta has deposed that as per record, the area of the property in question, was more than 1000 square meters and that as per Building Bye Laws and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 187 of 210 pages 188 CBI case . No.28/11 Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, guest house is permitted on a plot, measuring between 209 sq. meters to 1000sq. Meters. To run the guest house in the premises in question was, therefore, per se illegal and no health license could have been issued in a legal manner.

459. From the material, successfully adduced in evidence by the prosecution on record and as discussed herein above, it is thus clearly established that :

(i) As per Master Plan for Delhi2001 and Modified Delhi Building Bye Laws 1983 (as amended), the termsguest house, hotel and restaurant have to confirm to the definition as under:

Guest House is the premises for housing the staff of Government, SemiGovernment, Public undertaking and private limited companies for short duration.

Hotel is a premises used for lodging of 15 persons or more on payment with or without meals.

Restaurant is a premises used for serving food items on commercial basis including cooking facilities. It may have covered or opened space or both for sitting arrangements. The Centre Point thus was clearly being run as a hotel.

(ii) That the Central Govt. vide Gazette Notification No. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 188 of 210 pages 189 CBI case . No.28/11 H11017/7/91DDIB, dated 07.05.1999, made certain modifications in the Master Plan for Delhi, interalia, allowing Mixed Land Use in residential areas in Delhi, to the extent of operating Guest Houses, Boarding Houses, Lodging Houses, Nursing Homes and Banks in residential plots of minimum size of 209 sq. meters facing road of minimum width of 19 meters (9 Meters in special areas and 13.5 Meters in rehabilitation colonies) subject, however, to certain conditions including the following:

(i) For Guest Houses a maximum of 3/4th of the floor area for conversion regardless of size of plot, but with the stipulation that maximum of 15 Guest Rooms will be permitted in Guest House.

(ii) The Maximum plot size for the above activities will be 1000 Sq.

Meters.

(iii) No commercial activity in the form of canteen or restaurant will be permitted. Catering will be allowed only for the residents of the Guest House. The area of plot of the premises in question exceeded five thousand square meters and thus, no guest house could operate from there.

(iii) That as per the above Notification, the existing premises being under Mixed Land Use in residential areas were required to be regularized after fulfilling the relevant conditions within six months, which admittedly was not done in this case.

(iv)That grant of Health/Lodging House license, is governed by the new Health ByeLaws passed by NDMC CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 189 of 210 pages 190 CBI case . No.28/11 on 30.08.2000 and is subject to the submission of the following documents:

(i) Proof of the legal occupation of the premises.

(ii) Clearance from CA, NDMC that no unauthorized construction is existing in the premises.

(iii) NOC from L&DO regarding trades to be carried out/change of trade/change of ownership/mutation deed.

Even according to the previous Bye Laws applicable in NDMC, the application for health license was required to be accompanied by a Plan showing dimension of each room etc, which too was not complied in this case.

(v) That during the period 199899, accused K.L. Bhatia, Proprietor, M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, was having Lodging House License, Sl. no. 42, Book no. 28, dated 04.06.1998 issued by Dr. G.S. Thind, Medical Officer (Health), NDMC, New Delhi. This license was for keeping not more than 32 beds in 16 rooms, and it was valid till 31.03.1999.

(vi) That on 17.05.1999, accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Medical Officer(Health), NDMC, New Delhi, received an application in prescribed proforma from accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), proprietor of M/s Centre Point, 13 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 190 of 210 pages 191 CBI case . No.28/11 KG Marg, New Delhi, for grant of license for 120 beds in 60 rooms. Accused K.L. Bhatia also submitted a letter, inter alia, to the effect that he was running a Lodging House in the name & style of M/s Centre Point at 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, with a license for 32 beds in 16 rooms and that the license be renewed with 60 double rooms i.e. with additional 44 rooms at Ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor, besides 16 rooms for which the earlier license was granted.

(vii) That on receipt of the above application, R.K. Gupta (not the present accused), earlier Sanitary Inspector conducted the inspection of the premises of M/s Centre Point and referring to the earlier NOC dated 20.08.1997 for 16 rooms issued by Delhi Fire Services, he proposed for obtaining fresh NOC so that the pending request for additional rooms could be considered while issuing Health License for the year 19992000.

(viii) That consequent to the above, Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Medical Officer (Health), NDMC, New Delhi, on 27.05.1999 requested the Chief Fire Officer, New Delhi, to grant NOC for 60 rooms to M/s Centre Point, 13 KG Marg, New Delhi, for the year 19992000. However, in response, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 191 of 210 pages 192 CBI case . No.28/11 the Dy. Chief Fire Officer, vide letter dated 28.06.1999, informed the Medical Officer (Health), NDMC, to advice the party to approach DCP(Licensing) for addition of rooms etc.

(ix) That while the requisite NOC was not obtained by accused K.L. Bhatia from Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing), New Delhi, and the said Lodging House License was yet to be renewed for the year 19992000, on 4th August, 2000, a letter dated 02.08.1999, Ex.PW2/6 was received by the Chairman, NDMC, from the Dy. Land & Development Officer, Government of India, New Delhi, conveying, interalia the fact that on receipt of a complaint, the premises at 13 Curzon Road (KG Marg), New Delhi, was inspected, where it was noticed that the said premises was being mis used as Centre Point Hotel in violation of Master Plan and Municipal Bye Laws and that, therefore, the said premises has been reentered, and the ownership vests with the President of India. NDMC was requested to take necessary action against the lessees for using the residential premises for a hotel.

(x) As per notings in the file proved as Ex.PW2/1, it was CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 192 of 210 pages 193 CBI case . No.28/11 observed by Lt. Col. A.S. Gurung, the then MOH, that this was a case of gross violation and flouting of the Master Plan and also the Municipal ByeLaws, and he, therefore, on 27.12.1999, ordered cancellation of the then existing Lodging House License of M/s Centre Point. The above action was taken on 21.02.2000 duly approved by the then Chairperson, NDMC and letter dated 02.03.2000 was sent to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), conveying the orders for cancellation of Lodging House License with immediate effect. Dy. L & DO was also simultaneously informed about the above cancellation action.

(xi) That on 20.11.2002, after accused Smt. PM Singh took over as Chairperson, NDMC, on 01.11.02, an application in the prescribed format for renewal of lodging house license for the period 20022003, for 31 rooms/62 beds, was received by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, the then MOH from the said accused K.L.Bhatia. It was processed and was put up on the file by accused R.K. Gupta, Sanitary Inspector, vide his note dated 09.12.2002. In this note, submitted by accused R.K. Gupta to CMO(Licensing), he had also mentioned about the earlier decision not to renew the license in view of L &DO communication dated CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 193 of 210 pages 194 CBI case . No.28/11 02.08.1999. Accused Dr. R. Pal, CMO (Licensing) sought necessary advice from Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, who vide his note dated 09.12.2002 duly proved in file, Ex.PW2/1 (D6) advised as below: 'Please obtain from the party before any action is taken:

(a) Reply to L &DO Letter.

(b) Reply of L &DO proceeding/Court case, if any.

(c) Clearance from DCP(Licensing)

(d) Notification of Ministry of Urban Development, and

(e) Then clearance of CA, NDMC.'

(xii) That, thereafter, accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) submitted another application available at page 105 in file Ex.PW2/1 (undated and partly unfilled in material particulars and containing false particulars) for grant/renewal of the license. He also enclosed a copy of notification dated 07.05.1999 where the Central Government had allowed Mixed Land Use in residential areas, in Delhi. That he dishonestly did not enclose the guidelines/conditions, subject to which Mixed Land Use was allowed in residential areas. Accused R.K. Gupta, SI V, processed this matter and put up a detailed but dishonestly twisted typed note dated 26.12.02. In this note, he has intentionally mentioned various false facts to project a favourable case of renewal/grant of license for 31 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 194 of 210 pages 195 CBI case . No.28/11 rooms/62 beds. He has specifically mentioned that he had inspected the said premises on 26.12.2002. However, accused R.K Gupta, Sanitary Inspector did not comply with the aforementioned directions dated 09.12.2002 of Dr. G.S. Thind. No reply was obtained from Centre Point or from L & DO. Further, no clearance was obtained from DCP(Licensing) nor from CA, NDMC, instead accused R.K. Gupta, Sanitary Inspector, mischievously referred to the earlier clearance dated 19.04.1984 of DDA. He further sought to bring out a case that the L & DO's recommendation, dated 02.08.1999, Ex.PW2/6 based on which the license was earlier cancelled, were contrary to the NOC dated 19.04.1984 of DDA. He has also mentioned that neither DDA nor L &DO had taken any further action after cancellation of the license. Simultaneously, he has mentioned that the premises still continued to be used by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), for running lodging house. After giving a wrong and incorrect twist to the facts.

Accused R.K. Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, instead of suggesting penal action against accused K.L. Bhatia for running a hotel, even after the license was cancelled, intentionally and dishonestly recommended for renewal/grant of lodging house license and that too for 31 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 195 of 210 pages 196 CBI case . No.28/11 rooms and 62 beds, purely an illegal act being contrary to the permissible user of the residential property earmarked for Group Housing.

(xiii) That the note dated 26.12.2002 of accused R.K. Gupta, Sanitary Inspector was seen by Dr. R.Pal, CMO and marked for orders to MOH. Before the file was seen by the MOH, Dr. R. Pal further appended a note dated 15.01.03 as below: 'Discussed. The matter is being now dealt in the light of the Master Plan of Delhi, modified in May, 1999. Copy placed on page 110111/C."

{This reference is to the copy of Notification dated 07.05.1999 submitted by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased)}.

(xiv) That accused Dr. R. Pal further recorded dishonestly yet another note dated 15.01.03 wherein he has mentioned about the claim of accused K.L. Bhatia that earlier license was cancelled on the grounds of furnishing of wrong information by Dy. L &DO. Dr. Pal has, thereafter, referred to only a part of modification in the Master Plan of Delhi as made in May, 1999, to the CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 196 of 210 pages 197 CBI case . No.28/11 following effect: 'Nursing Home, Guest House and Bank shall be allowed in Residential Plot of minimum size of 209 sq. meters facing a minimum road width of 18 meters wife (9 meters in Special area) and 13.5 meters in rehabilitation colonies subject to the condition laid down in the guidelines issued in this regard."

(xv) That, while Dr. R. Pal sought to take cognizance of the aforementioned modification in the Master Plan, he intentionally and dishonestly chose not to refer to the guidelines, subject to which the aforementioned modifications were made. These guidelines allow running of guest houses in residential plots subject to various conditions including the following:

(i) A maximum of 15 guest rooms will be permitted in guest houses;

(ii) The maximum plot size for the above mentioned activities will be 1,000 sqm.

(iii) No commercial activity in the form of canteen or restaurant will be permitted. Catering will be allowed for the residents of the guest house/nursing homes.

(xvi) That fulfillment/compliance of the above guidelines/stipulations was also not ensured but intentionally and dishonestly given a goby, by Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, who manipulated and interpolated the following note dated 15.01.03.

CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 197 of 210 pages 198 CBI case . No.28/11 "This is very old problematic case wherein various additions/alterations/modifications have been carried out authorizedly/unauthorizedly. Matter was discussed in the chamber of Chairman, in view of the discussion with Mr. K.L. Bhatia. Note of CMO above, is self contained and factual. I agree with the views of CMO(L). May kindly like to see for information, if approved, further action is taken & the license is renewed. Submitted for kind orders."

(xvii) That on 15.01.03 itself, the file was marked by accused Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, to the Chairperson, accused Smt. PM Singh, who affixed her signatures on the note sheet in token of her approval, the same day i.e. on 15.01.2003 and marked the file back to MOH. Thereafter, accused Dr. G.S. Thind on 17.01.03 marked the file back to CMO(Licensing). In turn, accused Dr. R. Pal, CMO(Licensing) further marked the file to SI5, accused R.K. Gupta.

(xviii) That the signatures dated 15.01.03 of Smt. PM Singh and the marking 'MOH' written by her, had been scored out, subsequently. Unquestionably none else could have scored out the signatures and marking 'MOH' than accused PM Singh as none had any interest to do so. (xix) That pursuant to the above decision, fee of Rs.186/ CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 198 of 210 pages 199 CBI case . No.28/11 was deposited by accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) on 18.01.03. License was, thereafter, renewed under orders dated 28.01.03 of accused Dr. G.S. Thind. The license was further ordered to be renewed for the year 20032004, vide approval dated 17.03.03 of accused Dr. G.S. Thind, MOH, as is evident from page 58/N of file, Ex.PW2/1.

460. Undisputedly, Plot no. 13, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, was located in a residential area and specifically earmarked for Group Housing in the Master Plan for Delhi. Further, in accordance with the provisions of Master Plan for Delhi, 2001, NDMC Act, 1994, and Bye Laws made thereunder, Central Government issued Gazette Notification no. H11017/7/91DDIB, dated 07.05.1999, and contrary to the conditions & covenants of the Perpetual Lease dated 08.04.1932, the accused persons herein, who were public servants functioning in NDMC, New Delhi, could not have granted or recommended the grant of the aforementioned health license to run a guest house/hotel to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), proprietor of M/s Centre Point, especially for the following reasons:

(i) That, the said public servants were very much aware of CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 199 of 210 pages 200 CBI case . No.28/11 the fact that accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) did not have any legal title of ownership in respect of the said premises for which the license was granted (the title vested in Ganga Prasad Kedia and others) and also that the said property had already been re entered upon by L&DO and after reentry it vested in the President of India.

(ii) That, the license was illegally granted without obtaining relevant documents/clearances to effect that there did not exist any unauthorized construction in the said premises and NOC from Chief Fire Officer besides NOC from L&DO permitting change of use.

(iii) That, at the behest of accused K.L.Bhatia, the concerned public servants intentionally and dishonestly supported his fraudulent claim that he was entitled to have the Lodging House License in respect of M/s Centre Point. That he did not fulfill the prerequisite conditions, subject to which the relaxations for mixed land use were made vide the notification, dated 07.05.199.

(iv) That the accused public servants had intentionally and dishonestly violated the rules/Master Plan stipulations while granting or recommending grant of health license. CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 200 of 210 pages 201 CBI case . No.28/11

(v) That whereas the license was cancelled in March, 2000, but the business for lodging house in M/s Centre Point continued almost uninterrupted a fact very well within the knowledge of accused persons officials of Health Department NDMC, as is borne out from the file, Ex.PW2/1. No prosecution was recommended or launched against accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) on the contrary health license was fraudulently issued to him.

(vi) That where the Chief Fire Officer had issued the last NOC in 1992 for 16 rooms, the captioned license granted in January 2003, illegally covered 31 rooms. Earlier during 1999 when accused K.L. Bhatia applied for license, increasing the number of rooms from 16 to 60, accused Dr. G.S. Thind himself had sought clearance from Delhi Fire Services, who advised him to direct the applicant to first obtain NOC from DCP(Licensing). However, during January 2003, no such clearances were obtained, notwithstanding the fact that the initial note of Dr. G.S. Thind itself mentions about obtaining of the said clearances. Hence, it was not the case of ignorance or negligence but that of deliberate, well conspired, CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 201 of 210 pages 202 CBI case . No.28/11 dishonest and malafide intentions.

(vii) That the records of Luxury Tax Department placed and proved on record showed existence of 60 guest rooms in use in this Hotel, since at least 1997, whereas in NDMC records, the sanctioned license capacity was 16/31 rooms only. Accused R.K. Gupta, therefore, presented fake and false report without actually inspecting the premises.

461. The prosecution by adducing cogent evidence, has clearly sustained without any pale of doubt that all the accused persons were all out and out, by hook or crook, in pursuance to a well organized conspiracy under the leadership of accused PM Singh to grant fraudulently health license to accused K.L. Bhatia (who died on 23.10.2012) and in a totally illegal and clandestine manner being in utter disregard to the covenants of lease deed and flouted mercilessly the Building Bye Laws, Master Plan, Zonal Plan and NDMC Act. They refused to see their own record and notings and turned a blind eye to the specific decision having been taken by NDMC to cancel the health license way back in 2000 of the same party on account of misuser and reentry of the property in CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 202 of 210 pages 203 CBI case . No.28/11 question. Accused persons namely, R.K. Gupta, Dr. R. Pal and Dr. G.S. Thind had further granted health license to the party in the following year i.e. 20032004 as is evident from the file proved as Ex.PW2/1. All the accused persons while fraudulently granting health license in question, in this case, were laying foundation and were paving way for accused K.L. Bhatia to perpetuate the fraud in the following year to continue to have health license and also to press for regularization/compounding of unauthorized construction of the hotel illegally which in fact was demonstrated also, as is evident from the notings at page no. 105 of file, Ex.PW2/1.

462. It is well settled that criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and no direct evidence may be possible. Circumstantial evidence can always prove it. Section 10 of the Evidence Act can also be invoked to infer existence of conspiracy in this case.

463. In the case law reported as State of M. P. V Sheetla Sahai, 2009, Cr. LJ 4436 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"Often criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for proving the offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained. An offence of criminal CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 203 of 210 pages 204 CBI case . No.28/11 conspiracy can also be proved by circumstantial evidence."

464. In the case law reported as Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

"Essence of conspiracy is unalwful combination and the complicity of the accused has to be decided after considering all the circumstances proved, before, during and after occurence. Agreement between the conspirators may also be proved by necessary implication."

465. In the case law reported as R. K. Dalmia V The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :

"It is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy."

466. In the case law reported as Hashim (K) 2005 Cri LJ 143 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "for an offence punishable under section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree do to or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication".

467. In the case law reported as (2001) 4 Crimes 247 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 204 of 210 pages 205 CBI case . No.28/11 be direct communication between each conspirer and every other but the criminal design alleged must be common to all".

468. It has been held in the case law reported as Firozuddin Basheeruddin (2001) 7 SCC 596 that "the rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interest of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his coconspirators. An agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of what lies in their minds".

469. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that "Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator, made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is admissible against each co conspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions. Thus conspirators are liable on agency theory for statements of co conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their confrers".

470. It has been asserted by the defence during the course of arugments that there are defects in the investigation. It is true that the present case has not been very effectively and CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 205 of 210 pages 206 CBI case . No.28/11 professionally investigated by the Investigating Officer. Had it been investigated effectively much more could have come on the surface. However, so long as case of the prosecution on the basis of circumstances and documents, established and available on record is concerned, the defect, if any, in the investigation does not help the defence at all. It is well settled that witnesses may tell lie but the documents will not. In this case, the prosecution has placed and proved on record sufficient documents which clearly establish the guilt of the accused persons.

471. In the case law reported as 2007 Cri LJ 758(SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'Defective investigation may discredit the prosecution, but prosecution evidence may not necessarily be discarded on the ground. If the evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, the court may convict the accused. Reminiscence of investigating officer will not ipso facto weaken the case of the prosecution'.

472. In the case law reported as State vs. Santosh Kumar Singh, 2006(4) Crimes 782 (Del), the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'Courts should not be influenced by suspicious roles played by the investigation officer during investigation and criminal justice should not be made CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 206 of 210 pages 207 CBI case . No.28/11 a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers.'

473. In the case law reported as Dhanraj Singh 2004 Cri LJ 1807 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to plying into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed defectively. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party. Then the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice'.

474. It was held by the Apex Court that "Criminal justice system cannot be made a casualty for wrongs committed by investigation officers"{Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State, 2011(10) SCC 192}.

475. It has also been held that "fact that there were lacunas in investigation does not mean that incriminating, evidence, if any, appearing against accused persons has to be ignored"{2012(6) RCR(Criminal) 798 Delhi (DB), Tejpal CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 207 of 210 pages 208 CBI case . No.28/11 vs. State}.

476. From perusal of the evidence, established on record, it appears that accused PM Singh (A1), Dr. G.S. Thind (A2), Dr. R. Pal (A3) and R.K. Gupta (A4) have committed the alleged offences, by abusing their official position as public servants after having hatched a criminal conspiracy and executed with precision the same amongst themselves and private person, accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased), and as a result thereof, they caused substantial undue pecuniary gains to the said accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased) who cheated the NDMC.

477. To attract provisions of section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, public servant should obtain for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage (i) by corrupt or illegal means or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant or (iii) without any public interest.{R. Sai Bharathi vs. J. Jayalalitha (2004) 2 SCC 9}.

478. Accused PM Singh was appointed to protect the interest of Central Government and NDMC. She has mischievously CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 208 of 210 pages 209 CBI case . No.28/11 betrayed both the Central Government and NDMC by dishonestly allowing issuance of health license fraudulently to accused K.L. Bhatia (since deceased).

479. The proved acts of commission and omission of accused persons namely, accused (A1) Smt. PM Singh, the then Chairperson, NDMC, accused (A2) Dr. G.S. Thind, the then Medical Officer (Health), accused (A3) Dr. R. Pal, the then Chief Medical Officer and accused (A4) R.K. Gupta, the then Sanitary Inspector, NDMC, New Delhi, constitute offences punishable under section 120B read with 420 IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under section 13(i)

(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

480. As such, the accused persons namely, Smt. PM Singh (A1), Dr. G.S. Thind(A2), Dr. R. Pal (A3) and R.K. Gupta (A4), the then Sanitary Inspector, NDMC, New Delhi, are, therefore, hereby held guilty and are convicted of the commission of offences punishable under section 120B IPC read with 420 IPC and under section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors. 209 of 210 pages 210 CBI case . No.28/11 section 13(i) (d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

481. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence on 27.07.2013.


            

Announced in the open court                                   ( N. K. Kaushik )
on 23.07.2013                                              Special Judge, PC Act CBI
                                                         Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.




 CBI vs. Smt. PM Singh & Ors.                                                 210 of 210 pages

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A­1), on 31 July, 2013

Cbi vs . 1. Smt. P.M. Singh(A1), on 31 July, 2013