Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ganesh Choudhary on 30 June, 2025
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate -06 ,Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
GANESH CHAUDHARY
The accused has been apprised about the Legal Aid Facility
and the details of legal aid facility which is as under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.06.30
16:43:15
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 1 of 37 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate -06 ,Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
GANESH CHAUDHARY
CNR No. : DLCT12-001209-2019
CASE No. : 400/2019
FIR No. : 221/2017/E0007
Under Section : 420 IPC &
7 (1) of State Emblem Act
Name of Branch : CBI/SPE/EO-III,
New Delhi
Date of Commission of Offence : In the year 2015 & 2016
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Printendra Kumar,
OSD/PMO
Name, Parentage & Address of : Ganesh Chaudhary S/o
accused Sh. Narayan Chaudhary
Resident of Village
Rasalpur Paithan,
Post Chhatana PS Muffasil
District Samastipur,
Bihar-848134
Offence complained of : 420 IPC & 7 (1) of State
Emblem Act
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC
Date: 2025.06.30
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 2 of 37 16:43:20 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Date of institution of case : 06.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 30.06.2025
Final Order : Conviction
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Ms. Priya Gaur, Ld. PP for CBI.
For the Accused : Sh. Upendra Bahadur,
Ld. Counsel for accused.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused Ganesh Chaudhary has been sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 7 (1) of State Emblem Act.
FACTS
2. Brief facts of the case are that present FIR No. 221/2017/E0007 was registered against accused Ganesh Chaudhary who impersonated as Balram Kumar from Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and cheated innocent public under the garb of non-existent scheme of Ministry of Rural Development. Further, for committing the said offence the accused also used National Emblem on the fake letters. 2.1 During investigation, it was found that Smt. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.06.30
16:43:26
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 3 of 37 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
Kersensia Indwar received a letter on 28/01/2016 by post on the letterhead of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana for providing financial assistance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for BPL Families to be credited in the account of Mukhiya in which the name of the sender was Prem Kumar, Ministry of Rural Development, Old Secretariat, New Delhi. When she called the mobile number given on the letter head i.e. 9650668534, the person on the other side introduced himself as Balram Kumar from Ministry of Rural Development. Pursuant to the conversation, she further received some additional documents from Balram Kumar, Mohanpur Road, Samastipur, Nazdeeki Saloon ki Dukan, Dakghar Samastipur, Pin Code- 848101, Bihar. On directions of the said Balram Kumar, she forwarded the list of BPL families and other documents on the address provided by Balram Kumar vide speed post receipt no. EJ151177574IN dated 04.02.2016. After receipt of the said documents, when Balram Kumar demanded money from her in the name of expenses and faster processing, she refused to pay the money and wrote a letter to Prime Minister's Office seeking confirmation to the genuineness of the letter received by her. The same was forwarded by the PMO to CBI for investigation.
2.2 Investigation established that the above mentioned speed post was received by Rajgeer Thakur, a barber running Kolkata Hair Cutting Saloon, Mohanpur Road, Samastipur on behalf of Balram Kumar on 07.02.2016. Rajgeer Thakur NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 4 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:43:33 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY identified the photograph of accused Ganesh Chaudhary as Balram Kumar on whose behalf he had received the speed post articles from the local postman.
2.3 During the search of the residence of accused Ganesh Choudhary, four speed post receipts dated 26.12.2015 were recovered in which the name of the sender was Balram Kumar. Investigation established that two of the recipients of the said speed posts i.e. Smt. Prembai, Sarpanch, Phulkheda, MP and Smt. Ramvati Kashyap, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Koyenar, Chhattisgarh had also received letters from Balram Kumar on the letterhead of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Awas Yojana, 26, Tagore Town, Allahabad vide which they were asked to send applications to Balram Kumar for financial assistance of Rs. 75,000/- for each application. On contacting Balram Kumar over telephone, they received additional documents. Thereafter, on the directions of Balram Kumar, they deposited Rs. 13,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively for stationery and other expenses in the State Bank of India A/c No. 31694776695 which was found to be maintained in the name of accused Ganesh Chaudhary. One of the recipient, Mrs. Saikobai Ghamandi, Mukhia Gram Panchayat, Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh did not deposit any amount whereas the fourth recipient Dimal Illali, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tokapal Rajoor, Chhattisgarh could not be contacted during investigation.
2.4 Investigation further established that Sh. Chandrika Kumar
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 5 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30
16:43:37 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
Saw husband of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Napo Khurd, Hazaribagh, Sh. Deepak Kumar Das, Mukhia Gram Panchayat at Pandeypura and Sh. Suresh Paswan, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Pandeypura, Distt. Chatra, Jharkhand had had also received same letter as received by Mukhiya, Gram Panchay at Chiri, Jharkhand. They had also contacted on the mobile phone mentioned on the letter and the person who attended the call identified himself as Balram Kumar. They had also received additional documents through post after which Sh. Chandrika Kumar Saw and Sh. Deepak Kumar Das sent Rs. 25,000/- each through courier along with documents to Balram Kumar on 18.04.2016 whereas, Sh. Suresh Paswan sent Rs. 15,000/- along with documents to Balram Kumar in two installments of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on 14.04.2015 and 03.05.2016 respectively.
2.5 During investigation, it was established that the address mentioned on the letters received by the aforesaid Mukhias/Sarpanchs in the name of PM Awas Yojana and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Awas Yojana was fictitious and neither there was any office at 26, Tagore Town, Allahabad nor there was any such scheme for construction of houses in which amount would be credited directly in the accounts of Mukhias/Sarpanchs. Thus, it transpired during investigation that accused Ganesh Chaudhary committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of State Emblem Act, 2005.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 6 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30
16:43:41 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
2.6 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet
was filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dted 23.12.2017, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused Ganesh Choudhary as disclosed in the chargesheet. Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and 7 (1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,2005 were framed against accused on 29.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses in total. Their testimonies in brief are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Constable Pankaj Kumar Tripathi:- He visited Allahabad to verify the address found on the purported letterheads. He proved his report i.e. D-6 vide Ex. PW1/A and deposed that the address given on the letterhead was found to be a vacant plot.
(ii) PW-2 Rajgir Thakur:- He testified that in the year 2015, the accused visited his shop and introduced himself as a journalist and further stated that he had many connections in the government and can get him a house constructed in some government scheme. He identified accused Ganesh Choudhary as NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 7 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:43:46 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY Balram Kumar as represented by accused to him before the Court. PW-2 Rajgir Thakur further proved postal delivery slip pertaining to Balram Kumar which were received by him vide Ex. PW2/A (Part of D-7 which is original postal delivery slip) on behalf of accused bearing his signatures.
(iii) PW-3 Ms. Kersensia Indwar:- PW-3 deposed that she received Ex. PW3/A Letter no. 1470/2015 dated 30.10.2015 on 28.01.2016 pertaining to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana which was sent by one Prem Kumar, Allahabad U.P. PW-3 further proved Ex. PW3/B Letter no. 1472/2016 dated 06.02.2016 with respect to seizure of the documents by the CBI and Ex. PW3/C Letter dated 04.02.2016 and Postal receipts i.e. receipt memo dated 25.04.2017 as well as receipt memo dated 25.04.2017 vide Ex. PW3/D.
(iv) PW-4 Ratish Chandra Choudhary:- PW-4 Ratish Chandra Chaudhary deposed that Ex. PW4/A (D-7 i.e. a receipt memo dated 10.06.2017) was handed over by him to CBI official. He deposed further that he delivered speed post envelopes Ex. PW 2/A ( D-7) to PW-2 Rajgir Thakur which were addressed to Balram Kumar.
(v) PW-5 Sh. Deepak Kumar Das:- He proved letter dated 30.10.2015 received from Balram Kumar and agreement dated 18.04.2016 along with the list and annexures vide Ex. PW 5/A (Colly).
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Chandrika Kumar Saw:- He proved letter dated Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2025.06.30
16:43:50
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 8 of 37
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
30.10.2015 along with other documents vide Ex. PW 6/A (Colly).
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Suresh Paswan:- He proved official letter dated 30.10.2015 along with other documents vide Ex. PW7/A (Colly).
(viii) PW-8 Sh. Avinash Kumar Gupta:- He proved production- cum-seizure memo dated 24.07.2017 vide Ex. PW8/A pertaining to registered articles transferred to Sub-Account branch which was handed over by him to CBI official.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. Sanjay Kumar:- He is one of the search witness and deposed that he along with independent witnesses from the bank and CBI team went to the house of accused Ganesh Chaudhary at village Rasulpur, Chattauna, PS Muffasil, District Samstipur, Bihar. He proved the search list dated 14.06.2017 (D-
8) along with documents.
(x) PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar:- PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited proved letter dated 26.05.2017 (D-5) (Ex. PW10/A) vide which he had handed over to CBI official certified copies of Airtel prepaid enrollment form, CDRs from 01.04.2016 to 28.05.2017, from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016, from 01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016, 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 28.03.2017 and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to mobile no. 9650668534 vide Ex. PW 10/A (Colly).
(xi) PW-11 Sh. Pritendera Kumar:- PW-11 Sh. Pritendra Kumar proved the written complaint dated 20.05.2016 written by him to NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 9 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:43:55 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY Joint Director, Policy, CBI vide Ex. PW11/A.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Dinesh Manjhi:- PW Dinesh Manjhi deposed that he had never used or filled up any Customer Application Form along with his voter identity card forming part of Ex. PW10/A for issuance of mobile number 9650668534 and never applied for or used the said mobile number.
(xiii) PW-13 Smt. Varsha Tripathi:- PW-13 Varsha Tripathi proved pay-in-slip dated 12.01.2016 (D-19) Ex. PW13/A vide which Rs. 2000/- was deposited in the SBI Bank Account No. 31694776695 in the name of accused Ganesh Chaudhary as well as counter foil slip dated 12.04.2016 vide Ex.PW13/B (D-18).
(xiv) PW-14 Sh. Anil Kumar Anal:- He proved receipt memo dated 13.11.2017 (D-12) vide Ex. PW14/A. He deposed that he had handed over to CBI official Original e-KYC Certificate in the name of accused Ganesh Choudhary along with Ex. PW14/A (Colly). He identified D-11 i.e. forwarding letter dated 10.08.2017 signed by Branch Manager, SBI, ADB, Samastipur, Bihar along with certified statement of account in respect of SBI A/c. No. 31694776695 and certificate under Section 2A of Banker's Book Evidence Act vide Ex. PW14/B (colly) and also proved original account opening form of SBI A/c. No. 31694776695 (D-10) vide Ex. PW14/C. He deposed that he had verified from their Core Banking System and it was established that the said account no. 31694776695 was pertaining to their branch and was opened on 31.03.2011 and was standing in the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 10 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:43:58 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY name of accused Ganesh Choudhary.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Chander Prakash Meena:- He proved receipt memo dated 21.11.2017 (D-13) vide Ex. PW15/A for receipt of five original cash deposit vouchers for deposit of cash in the account no. 31694776695 in the name of accused Ganesh Choudhary. He deposed that he had handed over to CBI official the cash deposit vouchers of SBI Account no. 31694776695 in the name of accused Ganesh Chaudhary.
(xvi) PW-16 Sh. Binay Kumar:- He proved search list dated 14.06.2017 vide Ex PW9/A through which postal and courier receipts were recovered and seized during search of the residence of accused Ganesh Choudhary which were prepared in his presence.
(xvii) PW-17 Sh. Rajeev Bahal:- He proved letter bearing no. 1512/RC221/2017/E0007 dated 27.03.2017 vide Ex. PW17/A received from CBI against the queries from concerned Division of Ministry of Rural Development vide Office Memorandum dated 17.04.2017 as well as Office Memorandum bearing no. C- 31011/02/2017-vig. dated 20.04.2017 vide Ex. PW17/B. (xviii) PW-18 Sh. Dharamvir Arya:- PW-18 Dharambir Arya is the investigating officer in the present case and deposed about the steps taken by him during the investigation of the case. He proved FIR dated 17.03.2017 along with complaint as well as office memorandum already exhibited as Ex. PW17/B and photocopy of letter dated 27.03.2017 already exhibited as Ex.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 11 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30
16:44:02 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
PW17/A vide Ex. PW18/A (D-1). He received Ex. PW3/D (D-3) i.e. receipt memo dated 25.04.2017 related to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana from Ms. Kersenia Indwar, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Lohardaga, Jharkhand. He received Ex. PW10/A i.e. original letter dated 26.05.2017 from Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited along with certified copy of Airtel Prepaid Enrollment form of mobile no. 9650668534 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that Ex. PW1/A i.e. report dated 29.05.2017 was submitted by Pankaj Tripathi, regarding verification of address of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, 26 Tagore Town, Allahabad, U.P. He received Ex. PW4/A i.e. receipt memo dated 10.06.2017 from Gangesh Rajat, Post Master, Samastipur. He prepared Ex. PW9/A i.e. search list dated 14.06.2017 at the time of search of residential address of accused Ganesh Choudhary and 04 speed post receipts dated 26.12.2015 were seized from the premises of the residence of the accused. He received Ex. PW18/B i.e. receipt memo dated 28.06.2017 i.e. the certified copy of incoming and outgoing register containing the details about delivery of speed post number RF1812421521IN in the name of Sarpanch Prem Bhai Phulkhera. He received Ex. PW18/C i.e. original letter received from SBI along with original account opening form and KYC documents of account no. 31694776695 in the name of accused which was addressed to him. He received Ex. PW14/B i.e. certified statement of account no. 31694776695 pertaining to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.06.30
16:44:07
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 12 of 37 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
accused for the period from 01.06.2015 to 06.07.2017 along with the certificate under Section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act. He received Ex. PW14/A i.e. receipt memo dated 13.10.2017 regarding the seizure of original KYC application by accused for updating his address and age and the same was received from Anil Kumar Anal, Chief Manager, SBI, ADB, Samastipur. He also received Ex. PW15/A i.e. receipt memo dated 21.11.2017 regarding the receipt of 05 original pay slip / cash deposit vouchers for depositing cash in SBI account no. 31694776695 from SBI Garoth branch. He prepared Ex. PW18/D i.e. production cum seizure memo dated 28.06.2017 related to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Awas Yojana, original letter dated 05.05.2015 and original letter dated 15.12.2015 received from Balram Kumar and original letter having letterhead of Gram Panchyat Kaulaya received from Ram Chander Mangilalji Ralotia. He prepared Ex. PW5/A i.e. receipt memo dated 26.11.2017 vide which documents were seized from Deepak Kumar Das with original letter dated 30.10.2015 and original envelope containing the stamp paper dated 18.04.2016. He prepared Ex. PW6/A i.e. receipt memo dated 26.11.2017 vide which documents were received from Chandrika Kumar Saw, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Napokhurd, Jharkhand with original letterhead dated 30.10.2015 and original envelope containing the stamp paper dated 18.04.2016. He prepared Ex. PW7/A i.e. receipt memo dated 27.11.2017 received from Suresh Paswan, NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.06.30 Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 13 of 37 16:44:11 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Pandey Pura, Jharkhand with original letter dated 30.10.2015 along with original envelope containing two original Trackon Courier receipts. He examined Karsenia Indwar Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Ramchander Mangalji Ralotiya, Deepak Kumar Das, Chandrika Kumar Saw, Rajgir Thakur and Suresh Paswan and Sanjeev Kumar Singh. He submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation. (xix) PW-19 Tularam Kashyap:- He proved letter received from Balram Kumar, Mohanpur Road, Samastipur, Calcutta Salon Shop which was received by his wife regarding the allotment of house to BPL in Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Awas Yojana vide Ex. PW19/A. He deposed that he had deposited Rs. 3000/- twice and Rs. 5000/- once in the State Bank Account given by accused Ganesh Choudhary who made repeated demands on him. (xx) PW-20 Abhishek Abhinav:- PW-20 Abhishek Abhinav conducted part investigation in the present case. He deposed that he examined witnesses Avinash Kumar Gupta, Tularam Kashyap, Varsha Tripathi and Devender Kumar Vishwakarma. He received documents vide production cum seizure memo dated 31.07.2017 vide Ex. PW20/A from Tularam Kashyap, Koyenar Panchayat Block. He received original letter D-19 vide Ex. PW20/B from Tokapal Branch, District Bastar addressed to him containing the certified copies of cash deposit vouchers of SBI account bearing no. 31694776695 along with statement of account for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016. He NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 14 of 37 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:15 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY prepared production cum seizure memo dated 09.09.2017 vide Ex. PW20/C which contained the certified copy of voucher dated 07.01.2017 and statement of account no. 31694776695 for the period of 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016. He prepared production cum seizure memo dated 24.07.2017 vide Ex. PW8/A containing the attested copy of registered articles transferred to Sub-Account Branch, Tokapal, Rajur-494442 of Dimilli BO dated 04.01.2016 and Chingpal BO dated 04.01.2016.
4.2. After conclusion of the list of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 24.02.2025.
Statement of Accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 30.04.2025 wherein he denied all the allegations and stated that he has neither demanded any money nor sent any application. He is neither Balram nor Prem Kumar and the mobile number 9650668534 did not belong to him. He admitted that the account number 31694776695 belongs to him and the amount was deposited by his son as he was working as a labourer at that time. It was further stated by him that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Mukhiya due to old enmity as they belong to same village. He stated next that he is an innocent person and falsely implicated in the present case as he had contested election against Mukhiya Ramadhar Singh in the year 2016 of Gram Panchayat Mordibah and false evidence has been created and planted against him. He has preferred to NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 15 of 37 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:20 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Accused Ganesh Choudhary examined two witnesses in his defence.
6.1 DW-1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary is the son of the accused who deposed that his father is farmer and he came to know about this case from his neighbours residing in the village and they told him that in his absence police officials came to his home. His father is heart patient and having hernia, diabetes and hydrocele problem. His father is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He did not have any knowledge about the transactions done in his father's bank account. He did not have any knowledge what his father was doing. 6.2. Accused examined DW-2 Pramod Kumar is the other son of the accused who deposed that his father is not well and brought all the medical documents pertaining to his father. He deposed that his father was falsely implicated in the CBI case owing to Gram Panchayat Election. Owing to medical ailment, his father used to live in the village. He proved the medical documents pertaining to accused Ganesh Choudhary vide Ex.DW2/A (colly).
6.3 Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the accused was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard learned PP for CBI and learned counsel for NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 16 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:25 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY accused.
7.1. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the CBI /Prosecution. Learned PP on behalf of CBI argued that during the year 2015 and 2016, the accused Ganesh Chaudhary dishonestly and fraudulently sent fake letters using the name of Balram Kumar, Ministry of Rural Development to various Mukhiyas of villages all over India and thereby made them believe that these letters are from Ministry of Rural Development and thereby fraudulently induced them to deposit money in his bank account as well send the same through post/courier. The victims thus sent the money to the accused who gained unlawfully and thus caused unlawful loss to the victims. It is further argued that the accused also used the National Emblem on the fake letters to dishonestly and fraudulently create an impression upon the recipients of the said fake letters that the same were official documents of Central Government but the emblem was used without the prior permission of Central Government or such officer of that Government as may be authorized in this behalf. She has submitted next that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and the accused is liable to be convicted.
7.2. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as nothing was found against him. It is further argued that there is no proof regarding cash alleged to be sent by the Mukhiyas by way of NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 17 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:28 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY courier. Furthermore, there is contradiction with regard to the amount of money sent by PW-7 Suresh Paswan as he deposed that he sent Rs. 10,000/- twice by way of courier. It is next argued that prosecution has not been able to connect Balram or Prem Kumar with the present accused. No identification parade has been conducted by the investigating officer in the present case and the identification of the accused has been done on the basis of photograph. It was next contended on behalf of learned counsel for the accused that phone connection is not in the name of accused person but in the name of one Dinesh Manjhi. It was contended that the search witnesses could not reveal the name of Sarpanch and the lady constable who accompanied them and that there are contradictions with regard to presence of wife and mother of the accused person at the time of search. It was next urged that no specimen signature of the accused was ever sent to FSL. Hence, it is prayed that the accused is liable to be acquitted as the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file.
8.1. The points of determination in the present case are as follows:-
1. Whether the accused Ganesh Choudhary impersonated himself as Balram Kumar from Ministry of Rural Development, NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 18 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:32 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY Government of India and cheated innocent public in the name of scheme of Ministry of Rural Development and thus liable for commission of offence punishable under section 420 IPC?
2. Whether the accused used the National Emblem on the fake letters and thereby liable for commission of offence under Section 7 (1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of proper use) Act, 2005 ?
8.2. Let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions attracted in the present case.
SECTION 420 IPC 8.3. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
8.4. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 19 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:36 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security.
8.5. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
8.6. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself. 8.7. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 20 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:40 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
8.8. In Arun Bhandari vs State of UP, 2013 (2) SCC 801 , it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that :-
"19 Before we proceed to scan and analyse the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is seemly to refer to certain authorities wherein the ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Another[8], a two-Judge Bench ruled that to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from a mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise.
20 In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Others [9], this Court has held thus: "7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay[10] a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 21 of 37 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:43 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B.[11] that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.
21. In S.N. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another[12], it has been laid down that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating".
8.9. Having discussed the relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncement, let us appreciate the facts of the present case. 8.10 At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the present case has been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by PW-11 Sh. Pritendra Kumar who proved the written complaint dated 20.05.2016 vide Ex PW11/A which was written by him to Joint Director, (Policy), CBI as he received a complaint from village Pradhan of Lohardaga, Jharkhand who expressed a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the letter received by her regarding construction of houses for the families of BPL and for providing Rs.1,00,000/- for the said purpose. A perusal of Ex. PW11/A shows that the complainant PW-11 stated therein that the letter sent to him along with the complaint seemed to be forged and that the concerned person misused the National Emblem and PMO's name which is a clear case of forgery. Nothing NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 22 of 37 NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:47 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY favourable to the accused could be elicited from the cross- examination of the said witness. PW-11 has duly proved the complaint which was regarding the misuse of the name of PMO as deposed by PW-11 in his examination-in-chief. He reiterated during his cross-examination that the complaint made was with respect to misuse of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. 8.11. Now, it is to be seen whether the letters alleged to be sent by the accused were fake or not. The original letters have been duly proved by the witnesses in their testimonies vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW7/A, all letters dated 30.10.2015 containing Emblem on top thereof on the letterhead of Prime Minister Awas Yojana and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Awas Yojana having main office at 26, Tagore town, Allahabad and bearing phone number of contact person as 09650668534. The said scheme is pertaining to construction of house for the families of BPL for which the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat was to construct permanent houses. The prosecution has duly proved that the address mentioned on the said letters received by the Mukhias/Sarpanchs in the name of Prime Minister Awas Yojana and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Awas Yojana was a fictitious address. In order to prove this fact, PW1 Constable Pankaj Kumar Tripathi deposed in the Court that he verified the address in Allahabad on the purported letterheads which was found to be a vacant plot and proved his report vide Ex. PW1/A accordingly. The factum of fictitious address and NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 23 of 37 by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:51 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY non-existence of any such scheme is further substantiated by PW-17 Rajeev Behl who categorically deposed that he received one letter dated 27.03.2017 from CBI against the queries from concerned Division of Ministry of Rural Development vide Office Memorandum dated 17.04.2017 vide Ex. PW17/A. This witness proved the Office Memorandum bearing no. C- 31011/02/2017 vide Ex. PW17/B. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India vide their letter dated 20.04.2017 (Ex. PW17/B) confirmed that there was no such housing scheme in the name of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana having its headquarters at 26, Tagore town, Allahabad under which village Mukhiya had been asked to submit application forms for construction of houses for BPL families and assistance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be provided by Department of Rural Development in the account of Mukhiya.Hence, from the cumulative reading of the testimony of PW1 and PW 17, it stands duly proved that the said letters carrying the emblem are fake and seems to have been sent for the purpose of deceiving Mukhiya/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats in order to induce them to part with their money under the garb of a non-existent scheme. Thus, the fake letters clearly establish the dishonest intention on the part of the person who sent the same.
9. It is next to be seen whether the said fake letters were sent by the accused person or not.
9.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the false letters have NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 24 of 37 NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:55 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY been sent by the accused Ganesh Choudhary by way of post under the name of Prem Kumar and Balram and that he has misrepresented the victims by talking to them on phone by impersonating as Balram from Ministry of Rural Development and thereby cheated the Mukhiyas/Sarpanchs by inducing them to part with their money under the garb of housing scheme. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW2 Rajgir Thakur and PW 4 Ratish Chandra Choudhary, Postal Assistant, Samastipur, Bihar. PW2 Rajgir Thakur deposed in the Court that he had been running a salon in his native district i.e. Samastipur, Bihar. He deposed specifically that in the year 2015, one person namely Balram Kumar visited his shop and introduced himself as a journalist. He told him that he had to visit frequently, therefore he requested him to collect the letters in the name of Balram Kumar. PW2 identified accused Ganesh Chaudhary before the Court when he was asked to identify Balram Kumar. He further proved the postal slips Ex. PW2/A pertaining to Balram Kumar. Nothing favourable to the accused was elicited from the cross- examination of this witness. Moreover, the said witness is an independent witness and was not inimical against the accused in order to falsely depose against him.
9.2. It was argued by learned counsel on behalf of the accused that no test identification parade of the accused was conducted in the present case. To my mind, there was no requirement of NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 25 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:44:59 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY conducting any test identification parade as the accused as Balram was already known to PW2 Rajgir Thakur. Moreover, the identification of an accused could have been done by the investigating agency by showing the photograph of the accused to the witness and it has been so done by the CBI in the present case from the said witness PW-2 who not only identified the accused during the course of the investigation on the basis of the photograph shown to him but also identified the accused as Balram Kumar in the court. No suggestion has been given by learned counsel of the accused with regard to any political rivalry as stated by him in his defence or if the said witness was influenced by any political party.
9.3. Further, PW 4 Ratish Chandra, Postal Assistant, Samastipur, Bihar proved D-7 i.e. a receipt memo dated 10.06.2017 vide Ex. PW4/A and deposed specifically that he delivered speed post envelopes Ex. PW 2/A (D-7) to PW2 Rajgir Thakur. This witness has categorically deposed that the said envelopes used to be addressed to Balram Kumar. Hence, from the testimonies of PW2 and PW4, it has become crystal clear that postal receipts were received by PW2 Rajgir Thakur on behalf of Balram who was none other than the present accused. 9.4. Moreover, the search witnesses have also proved postal receipts bearing the name of Balram Kumar which were recovered from the house of the accused Ganesh Chaudhary. PW-9 Sanjay Kumar, Manager, Union Bank of India, Samastipur NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 26 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:03 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY and PW-16 Binay Kumar were the independent witnesses of search of the residence of the accused Ganesh Chaudhary. Both the witnesses deposed that they visited the residence of accused in June, 2017 when accused was not present. They reiterated the same fact that during the search proceedings postal and courier receipts were recovered and seized vide Ex. PW9/A. A perusal of the postal receipts recovered shows that same have been sent from Balram Kumar to the Sarpanch Smt. Sauko Bai Ghamandi, Prembai Garauth, Rambati Kasap and Sarpanch Dimalillali. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused why the postal receipts containing the name of Balram Kumar were found in his house. Simply for the reason that the said search witnesses could not remember the name of the Sarpanch and the lady constable who accompanied them at the time of search is not sufficient to create a dent in the story of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove that it was in fact the present accused who had sent the fake letters by post to the Mukhiyas/Sarpanchs in order to commit fraud upon them.
9.5. Further, all the victims have uniformly deposed that money was demanded from them by one person namely Balram Kumar who had asked them telephonically to send money along with documents. In this regard, testimony of PW 3 Ms. Kersenia Indwar, Mukhiya Gram Panchyat, Lohardaga Jharkhand, PW-5 Deepak Kumar Das, Mukhiya Gram Panchyat Village Bada, PW 6 Chandrika Kumar Sah, PW7 Suresh Paswan, Mukhiya, Pande NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 27 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:07 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY Pura Khurd is relevant.
9.7. PW-3 Ms. Kersenia Indwar, Mukhiya Gram Panchyat, Lohardaga Jharkhand deposed that by way of Ex. PW3/A (D-4 i.e. a receipt memo dated 25.04.2017), she had handed over documents to CBI official. It is further deposed by her that she received Ex. PW3/A Letter no. 1470/2015 dated 30.10.2015 on 28.01.2016 pertaining to Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana which was sent by one Prem Kumar, Allahabad U.P. She received Ex. PW3/B Letter no. 1472/2016 dated 06.02.2016, Ex. PW3/C Letter dated 04.02.2016 and Postal receipts. She deposed that she sent the list of BPL Card holders to Prem Kumar.She further deposed that she received phone call from Balram Kumar who told her that the last date of sending the application form has already expired and that she can send the application forms on the new address. She again received a telephonic call from Balram who asked her to send the application money on his address due to which she became suspicious and wrote a letter to PM Office Letter No. PM Delhi/300/2016 dated 08.02.2016 about the authenticity of letters received by her vide Mark A. 9.8. PW-5 Deepak Kumar Das, Mukhiya Gram Panchyat Villaae Bada deposed that by way of Ex. PW5/A (D-15 i.e. a receipt memo dated 26.11.2017), he had handed over to CBI official one letter dated 30.10.2015 and agreement dated 18.04.2016 along with the annexures. He testified that he received a telephone call from Balram Kumar and he asked him NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 28 of 37 NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:11 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY to pay Rs. 1000/- per form to him. There were 200 forms which were to be sent to him and he couriered filled forms and Rs. 25,000/- in cash and received calls from Balram Kumar and Prem Kumar in respect of the same.
9.9. PW 6 Chandrika Kumar Sah deposed that by way of Ex. PW6/A (D-16) i.e. a receipt memo dated 26.11.2017), he had handed over to CBI official letter dated 30.10.2015 along with other documents. He deposed specifically that he received phone call from Balram Kumar that he was the in charge of the scheme and further instructed him to provide the list of persons to whom dwelling units were required to be given. He deposed clearly that Balram Kumar asked him to pay the amount spent by him in conveyance upon which Rs. 25,000/- was sent by him along with the list from Hazari Bagh.
9.10. PW7 Suresh Paswan, Mukhiya, Pande Pura Khurd deposed that by way of Ex. PW7/A (D-17) i.e. a receipt memo dated 27.11.2017, he had handed over to CBI official letter dated 30.10.2015 along with other documents .He received one letter sent by Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Allahabad, Ex. PW6/A which assured to give dwelling units to the person from BPL families. He deposed that he was telephonically instructed by Balram Kumar to provide the list of persons to whom dwelling units were required to be given along with money. Accordingly, he sent Rs. 10,000/- twice by way of courier from Hazari Bagh to Samastipur Bihar. Hence, all these witnesses have deposed on NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 29 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:15 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY similar lines that they were induced to part with their money on the direction of Balram Kumar.
9.11. It was argued by learned counsel of the accused that it cannot be believed that the said Mukhiyas sent the cash by courier as there is no proof of sending the same by way of courier. To my mind, the said contention is meritless as the said witnesses have not been cross examined on this aspect whether the cash was actually not received by the accused person. 9.12. It was further contended by the learned counsel of the accused person that it is the case of the prosecution that the victim Suresh Paswan had given Rs. 15,000/- whereas, during his testimony he has stated that he has sent Rs. 10,000/- twice by way of cash. Clearly, there seems to be contradiction with respect to the amount of money sent by PW Suresh Paswan, however it is not disputed in the cross examination if money was not received by the accused person. Hence, the said contradiction is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9.13. Moreover, on the analysis of the CDRs of the mobile numbers mentioned on the fake letters, it has been established that the same mobile handset was used with two other mobile numbers in the name of Rajesh Chaudhary, son of accused. To prove the said fact, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited and PW-12 Dinesh Manjhi. PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited deposed that by way of Ex.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC
Date: 2025.06.30
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 30 of 37 16:45:19 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
PW10/A (D-5) i.e. letter dated 26.05.2017, he had handed over to CBI official certified copies of Airtel prepaid enrollment form, CDR and certificate under section 65-B of Evidence Act of mobile no. 9650668534. He deposed that the said prepaid connection was issued in the name of Dinesh Manjhi on 06.08.2015 and has been continuously used for the relevant period in Bihar and Jharkhand as per CDRs. PW-12 Dinesh Manjhi deposed that he had never used or filled up any Customer Application Form along with voter identity card (Ex. PW10/A) for issuance of mobile number 9650668534 and never applied for or used the said mobile number. Hence, it stands duly proved that the mobile number 9650668534 was used in Bihar. 9.14. Further, PW-13 Varsha Tripathi, PW-14 Anil Kumar Anal and PW-15 Chander Prakash Meena proved that SBI A/c No. 31694776695 is maintained in Agriculture Development Branch, Samastipur, Bihar in the name of Ganesh Chaudhary. The accused could not explain who made the payments in the said bank account. He simply stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the amount has been deposited by his son. However, DW-1 showed his ignorance regarding the transactions done in his father's account. 9.15. The accused took a defence that he has been falsely implicated due to Gram Panchyat election but no villager has been examined to depose if the accused contested election, if any. There is not an iota of evidence to substantiate the defence NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 31 of 37 NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:23 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY of the accused. Hence, the defence seems to be afterthought. 9.16. From the above discussion, it stands established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Ganesh Chaudhary as he sent the fake letters to the Mukhiyas i.e. PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 in order to cheat them under the garb of housing scheme and believing the same, they parted with their money (except for PW3) thus causing wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the Mukhiyas. Hence, all the ingredients of Section 420 IPC stand fulfilled.
SECTION 7 OF STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT, 2005
10. Let us first reproduce the relevant sections of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Same reads as under:-
Section 3. Prohibition of improper use of emblem:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall use the emblem or any colourable imitation thereof in any manner which tends to create an impression that it relates to the Government or that it is an official document of the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government, without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of that Government as may be authorised by it in this behalf. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a former functionary of the Central Government or the State Governments. Section 4. Prohibition of use of emblem for wrongful gain:-
No person shall use the emblem for the purpose of NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 32 of 37 NAGAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:45:27 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY any trade, business, calling or profession or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed. xxxxx Section 7. Penalty:-
7(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both or, if having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, is again convicted of any such offence, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 4 for any wrongful gain shall be punishable for such offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Section 8 Previous Sanction for Prosecution:-
No prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of any officer authorized in this behalf by general or special order of the Central Government.
10.1. Regarding Section 7 (1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, Ld. PP has relied on original sanction letter dated 15.02.2018. A perusal of the file shows that the IO Dharamvir Arya moved an application to place on record sanction for prosecution of accused under Section 7 (1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.06.30 Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 33 of 37 16:45:31 +0530 CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY 2005 received from MHA vide letter dated 15.02.2018 and also requested to make entry of name of Sh. Deepak Kumar, US (Public), MHA (Public Section) in the list of witnesses.
However, the sanctioning authority namely Deepak Kumar was never examined by the prosecution.
10.2. It was argued by learned counsel for accused that the sanction letter dated 15.02.2018 has remained unproved on record due to non-examination of the sanctioning authority and the accused is therefore liable to be acquitted under Section 7 of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. 10.3. To my mind, the sanction letter dated 15.02.2018 stands duly proved as the original thereof is on record and there is no requirement to prove the same by calling the competent sanctioning authority as no objection was raised by learned counsel on behalf of the accused during the trial that the sanction is not accorded by the competent authority. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment titled as Md. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of AP 1979 CrLJ 633 (SC) and in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. A.K. Dutta AIR 1981 SC wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the requirement of proving the sanction can be done in any two ways-either by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 34 of 37 Date: 2025.06.30
16:45:35 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
10.4. Similarly in the case law of Babarali Ahmedali Sayed Vs. State of Gujarat 199 Cr.LJ 1269 (Guj), it was held that if facts appear on the face of sanction then there is no question of proving it by leading evidence of authority who has accorded sanction to prosecute. No separate evidence is required to be led to show that relevant facts were placed before the authority. If the facts are not appearing on the face of the sanction, then it can be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority. 10.5. In the case of State Vs K. Narasimhachary (2006 Cr.LJ 518 SC ), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the prosecution sanction order being a public document, there may not be a need to summon sanctioning authority as prosecution witness provided the prosecution proves that all the relevant material was placed before the sanctioning authority and the sanction was accorded thereafter.
10.6. Furthermore, Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act also allows for presumptions about the existence of certain facts. Same reads as under:-
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations The Court may presume-
xxxxx
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 35 of 37 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2025.06.30
16:45:39 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
(e) that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
xxxxx"
10.7. Hence, it can be concluded that in the presence of the original sanction letter on record and the factum of presence of Emblem on the fake letters duly established by the prosecution coupled with the fact that no objection has been raised by learned counsel on behalf of the accused with regard to the sanction, to my mind, there was no requirement for the prosecution to summon the sanctioning/signing/authenticating authority to prove the validity of sanction. The prosecution has thus duly established on record that the Emblem on the false letters has been used by the accused Ganesh Choudhary thus attracting the ingredients of Section 3 of State Emblem Act (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 which is liable to be punished under under Section 7(1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
CONCLUSION
11. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Ganesh Choudhary is thus held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7(1) of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and is accordingly convicted for the same.
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 36 of 37 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2025.06.30
16:45:44 +0530
CBI 400/2019 CBI VS. GANESH CHAUDHARY
12. Copy of judgment be given to the accused free of cost.Digitally signed by NEETU
Announced in the open NEETU NAGAR
court today i.e. 30.06.2025 NAGAR
Date:
2025.06.30
(This Judgment contains 37 pages 16:45:53
+0530
signed by the undersigned)
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
30.06.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:30.06.2025 Page 37 of 37