Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Parmod Garg on 10 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
SPECIAL JUDGE: (PC ACT): (ACB-01):
RADC: NEW DELHI
CC No. 23/2019
CNR No.DLCT11-000197-2019
FIR No. : 44/2010
U/s : 420/467/468/471/120B IPC &
13 (2) & 13 (1)(d) of PC Act
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur
State VERSUS 1. Parmod Garg
S/o Sh. B.R. Garg
H. No. 427, Behra Enclave
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Bijender Singh
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o New Colony, Meerut
Road, near Jain Mandir,
Bagpat, UP.
3. Charan Singh Solanki
S/o Sh. Deeg Ram Solanki
R/o P-220, IGI Airport Road,
Raj Nagar Part-II, Sec.8,
Dwarka, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.04.2017
Date of Arguments : 10.07.2023
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the present case FIR was registered in compliance of order dated 09/02/2010 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. MM, Patiala House Court on the joint complaint filed by FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 1 of 60 complainants i.e. Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, Sh. B. N. Sharma, Advocate, Sh. K. L. Ahuja, Sh. Ankit Dixit and Sh. P. C. Manroy U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. against accused Parmod Garg, property dealer and corrupt officials of DDA, SDM, Notary Public and their associates who deliberately, malafidely and intentionally prepared forged documents in the name of deceased Smt. Ratni Devi and used same as genuine in order to grab plot no. B-17, Sector-8, Bagdolla, New Delhi. The gist of the complaint is that an alternative plot bearing no.17, Block-B, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Dwarka, New Delhi was finally allotted under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi w/o Late Sh. Amar Singh and mutated in her name vide letter dated 07.04.1992, after the death of her husband and completion of all formalities by the legal heirs. DDA also executed a perpetual lease in favour of Smt. Ratni Devi on 18.06.1992 and as per clause (5)(a), the lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the residential plot except with the consent in writing of the lessor. It is further stated that in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease, the said alternative plot was purchased by accused Parmod Garg from Smt. Ratni Devi through General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell dated 08.12.1995.
2. It is further alleged that Smt. Ratni Devi expired on 26.10.2004 and after her death, Parmod Garg hatched a conspiracy with the connivance of corrupt DDA officials, FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 2 of 60 SDM, Notary Public and their associates in order to grab the said plot and prepared forged documents in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi. The details of forged documents is as such that the SDM attested the thumb impression of deceased Smt. Ratni Devi on 28.11.2005 after her death in forged manner and a letter dated 28.11.2005 was also prepared after the death of Ratni Devi which was addressed to Dy. Director, DDA and another letter dated 02.02.2006 was also prepared on behalf of deceased Smt. Ratni Devi for submission of third copy of bank challan in respect of the said plot. It is further stated that another application vide Form no.87505 dated 13.02.2006 was also submitted by accused Parmod Garg seeking conversion of leasehold right to freehold right on the basis of forged document and DDA officials had deliberately and malafidely have not taken any action against the offender despite receiving of several complaints in order to help land grabbers and therefore, it was requested to take appropriate action against Parmod Garg and his associates.
3. During investigation, the death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi was verified from Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, Najafgarh Zone, MCD and certified copy of GPA executed by Smt. Ratni Devi in favour of Parmod Garg was also obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri. The admitted thumb impressions of Smt. Ratni Devi were also taken from her bank account maintained at Central Bank of India, Shahbad Mohammad Pur Branch. Sh Ram Kumar Khatri, Notary Public gave statement that FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 3 of 60 the Stamp paper/Undertaking allegedly attested by him was not signed/stamped by him. Accused Parmod Garg during the course of investigation handed over original GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and SPA of the plot which were seized. The original documents bearing thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi which were seized from DDA were sent to Finger Print Bureau for comparison with admitted thumb impression taken from bank account and DDA record. During the course of investigation, the specimen handwriting of accused Parmod Garg as well as of Sh. P.K. Sinha, SDM were also obtained and were sent for forensic examination and as per the report of RFSL, admitted signatures of Sh. P.K. Sinha, SDM verifying the signature of Smt. Ratni Devi did not match with the specimen signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Parmod Garg on 25.04.2017 as per which accused Parmod Garg being beneficiary had forged the thumb impressions of Ratni Devi and signatures of Sh. P.K.Sinha the then SDM(HQ) on the documents filed before DDA for the extension of time and thereby committed offence U/S 420/468/471 IPC. It is stated that no evidence under provision of POC Act has been established against any Government/Public Servant. However, chargesheet was prepared under section 420/467/468 IPC read with section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(1)(2) of POC Act in view of the directions of the then Ld. Special Judge dated 18.11.2014. Thereafter, FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 4 of 60 an application on behalf of DCP was filed seeking time to file supplementary chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet was filed on 27.08.2019 after obtaining sanction U/s 19 of PC Act against accused Bijender Singh and C. S. Solanki under section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC and Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of POC Act.
5. On 06.03.2020, Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed charges under Section 120B r/w Section 420/471 IPC & Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 420/467/468 r/w Section 120-B IPC and 471 r/w Section 467/468 IPC & Section 120-B IPC against accused persons i.e. namely Parmod Garg, Bijender Singh and Charan Singh Solanki.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 44 witnesses. The brief summary of the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as under:
7. PW-1 is ASI Pratap Singh, who deposed that on 22.02.2010, he was posted as duty officer at PS Kotla Mubarakpur and registered the present case FIR i.e. Ex.PW1/A on the basis of rukka and handed over the same to SI Rajesh Kumar after making endorsement i.e. Ex.PW1/B on the rukka.
8. PW-2 is Smt. Raj Devi, daughter-in-law of late Smt. Ratni Devi. She deposed that a plot was allotted in the name of her father-in-law Sh. Amar Singh, which after his demise came in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. in Bagdolla, Dwarka, Delhi having plot no.17, Block-B, FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 5 of 60 Sector-8. She further deposed that someone had illegally occupied their plot regarding which her sister-in-law Darshna Devi filed a complaint with DDA officials. PW-2 deposed that till date they have not received the said plot and she had come to know that someone had created forged documents in the name of her mother-in-law.
8.1. In her cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Parmod Garg, PW-2 admitted that she filed a civil case against accused Parmod Garg in Dwarka Court, which was decided against her and in favour of accused Parmod Garg and that she has not challenged the order of civil court in appeal.
9. PW-3 is Insp. Rajesh Kumar, who deposed that on 10.02.2010, SHO of PS Kotla Mubarkpur marked an order of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. MM, PHC dated 09.02.2010 vide which order for registration of FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was passed in case titled Prem Chand Manroy Vs State through SHO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur. He further deposed that on 22.02.2010, he endorsed the complaint received and prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR registered. PW-3 deposed that on the instructions of IO ACP Vikramjeet Singh, he got verified the death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi and handed over the same to IO i.e. Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that on the instructions of IO, he got verified a GPA executed by Smt. Ratni Devi from the office of Registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi and gave its report to the IO.
10. PW-4 is Insp. Avdhesh Kumar, who was posted in FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 6 of 60 Finger Print Bureau deposed that the present case was marked to him for expert opinion and on 05.06.2012, he received questioned documents i.e. Q1 to Q15 and admitted documents from A1 to A28. He further deposed that after careful examination and analysis of questioned thumb impressions i.e. Ex.PW4/B with admitted documents containing thumb impressions i.e. Ex.PW4/C, he concluded that the thumb impressions Q6 and Q7 were fit for examination and those were not found identical with any of the fit admitted thumb impressions and proved his detailed report as Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW-5 is Ms. Sarita Sharma, Senior Scientific Assistant (Document), FSL, Rohini, who deposed that from the year 2015 to 2018, she had worked in RFSL, Chanakyapuri, Delhi as Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents) and documents alongwith letter No.974-SO- ACP/DC Delhi/New Delhi dated 08.03.2016 related to present case FIR were received in the office of RFSL, Chanakyapuri, Delhi on 08.03.2016 and the same were marked to her for examination. She further deposed that the questioned documents i.e. Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C and the specimen documents were marked as Mark-S1 to S33 and admitted documents were marked as A1 to A4 by her. PW-5 further deposed that she examined the aforesaid documents with scientific instruments under different lighting conditions and opined that the person who wrote red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S3 and A1 to A4 i.e. of P. K. Sinha did not write the red enclosed FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 7 of 60 signature similarly stamped and marked Q16. She further deposed that regarding Q17, though some similarities were observed between the writing of Q17 and specimen writings marked S4 to S33 but all the characters and their combinations could not be found in standard writings and therefore, no definite opinion could be expressed. She further deposed that regarding Q18, it was not possible to express any opinion on the basis of materials at hand and therefore, some more admitted writings of contemporary period were sought and proved her detailed report as Ex.PW5/B.
12. PW-6 is Ct. Ved Prakash, who deposed that on 08.11.2011, he went alongwith IO/Insp. Ramphool to Central Bank of India, Shahbad Mohammad Branch, Delhi where Sh. Jasram Jatav, Branch Manager produced account opening form of old account no. 3337 (new account no. 1193382150 of late Smt. Ratni Devi w/o Sh. Umrao Singh) in original i.e. Ex.PW6/A and the IO seized all the aforesaid three original documents i.e. account opening form Ex.PW6/A, original specimen/thumb impression form Ex.PW6/B and account statement of aforesaid account from 03.02.2007 to 05.02.2011 Ex.PW6/C, through seizure memo Ex.PW6/D.
13. PW-7 is Sh. Deepak Soni, who deposed that he was working as a driver and on 14.05.2012, he had gone to police station where he had handed over the documents given to him by his employer accused Parmod Garg, to the IO which were seized through seizure memo i.e. FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 8 of 60 Ex.PW7/A. 13.1. PW-7 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he denied the suggestion that he alongwith accused Parmod Garg had gone to police station, who had handed over the documents i.e. original GPA, Agreement to Sell and SPA pertaining to plot no. B-70, Sector-8, Dwarka. He further denied that total eight pages of original documents were seized by the police.
14. PW-8 is Sh. Brahmanand Sharma, who deposed that one of the complainant Mr. Mukesh Sharma told him that he had seen a file belonging to Darshana Devi in which one letter dated 28.11.2005 sent to DDA for freehold the plot bearing No.17, Block-B, Sector-8, Bagdolla, New Delhi. He further deposed that the above said plot was originally allotted to late Sh. Amar Singh, husband of Smt. Ratni Devi who had expired in the year 1990 and thereafter, the said plot was allotted to Smt. Ratni Devi and possession was also given to her. PW-8 deposed that a letter was sent allegedly through Smt. Ratni Devi to DDA on 28.11.2005, whereas she had already expired on 26.10.2004 and then they came to know that some persons who were involved in land grabbing were getting the property freehold and transferred in their name in connivance with the officers of DDA. He further deposed that on 07.09.2010, he alongwith Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Sh. Ankit Dixit, Sh. K. L. Ahuja and Sh. P. C. Manroy had made a complaint i.e. Ex.PW8/A at PS Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. PW-8 deposed that Sh. Mukesh Sharma also told FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 9 of 60 him that one Parmod Garg and his associates alongwith some DDA officers and Notary Public, SDM forged some documents and submitted to DDA. He further deposed that Smt. Darshana Devi and Roma Devi had also filed a complaint to DDA regarding the above said plot, despite that DDA has not taken any action regarding the said plot. PW-8 further deposed that as per DDA rules, if any plot is sold to any person, he has to inform DDA, but in the present case, the said information was given by Smt. Darshana Devi and Smt. Roma Devi, but despite that no action was taken by the DDA in respect of the plot No.17, Block-B, Bagdolla, Delhi. He further deposed that the DDA officers in connivance with accused Parmod Garg have caused loss to DDA in crores. In response to a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-8 admitted that on 21.05.1992, the plot no.17, Block-B, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Delhi was given to wrong person instead of Smt. Ratni Devi by DDA and the said plot was purchased by Parmod Garg in violation of plot lease deed and forged applications dated 28.11.2005, 02.02.2006, 13.02.2006 and undertaking dated 28.11.2005 were also forged by Parmod Garg alongwith his associates and produced before DDA for getting the plot freehold. He further deposed that the possession of the plot was given by DDA official to accused Parmod Garg upon the forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on 21.05.1992. He further admitted that DDA officials have not done anything with respect to the letter No. DO No. FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 10 of 60 PA/DD/LAD(R)/MIAC/2005 dated 20.06.2005.
14.1. In his cross-examination PW-8 admitted that he is an advocate and primarily practicing in all district courts at Delhi. He further confirmed that the whole version of the story was told to him by Mukesh Sharma.
15. PW-9 is Sh. Ankit Dixit, who deposed that he alongwith Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Sh. K. L. Ahuja, Sh. B. N. Sharma and Sh. P. C. Manroy lodged the complaint Ex.PW8/A in PS Kotla Mubarakpur on 07.09.2010 against alternative plot scandal. He further deposed that late Sh. Mukesh Sharma who is one of the complainant in the matter told him that he saw documents belonging to Smt. Darshana Devi in which a letter was written to DDA officials on 28.11.05 for freehold the plot no.17, B Block, Sector-8, Bagdolla, New Delhi. PW-9 further deposed that the original owner of the said plot Sh. Amar Singh had already expired in the year 1990, thereafter, the said plot was alloted to his wife Smt. Ratni Devi and the possession of the said plot was also given to her, however, she had expired on 26.10.2004. He further deposed that he had seen the documents which were shown to him by Sh. Mukesh Sharma that accused Parmod Garg with the collusion of DDA officials, Notary Public and SDM prepared some forged documents to grab the aforesaid plot and in this regard a complaint was also lodged with the DDA by Smt. Roma Devi and Smt. Darshana Devi, but no action was taken by DDA officials. In response to leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-9 admitted FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 11 of 60 that on 21.05.1992, the plot no. 17, Block-B, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Delhi was given to wrong person instead of Smt. Ratni Devi by DDA and the possession letter dated 21.05.1992 was having forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi. He further deposed that the said plot was purchased by Parmod Garg in violation of plot lease deed and applications dated 28.11.2005, 02.02.2006, 13.02.2006 and undertaking dated 28.11.2005 were forged by Parmod Garg alongwith his associates and produced before DDA for getting the plot freehold and the possession of the plot was given by DDA officials to Parmod Garg upon the forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on 21.05.1992. He further admitted that DDA officials have not done anything with respect to the letter No.DO No. PA/DD/LAD(R)/MIAC/ 2005 dated 20.06.2005.
15.1. In his cross-examination, PW9 has admitted that the whole version of story was told to him by Mukesh Sharma.
16. PW-10 is Sh. Khairati Lal Ahuja, who also put his signature on complaint Ex.PW8/A and deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW-9. In his cross-examination, PW10 has also admitted that the whole version of the story was told to him by Mukesh Sharma.
17. PW-11 is Sh. Gian Chand Sharma, who deposed that in the year 2012, he was working as Deputy Director (LAB), Residential, DDA. He further deposed that the plot No. B-17, Sector-8, Dwarka was allotted through draw of lot held on 31.07.1991 to Sh. Amar Singh and demand letter was sent on 10.09.1991. PW-11 deposed that on FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 12 of 60 receipt of information regarding death of allottee, the said plot was mutated in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi and the possession was handed over to her on 25.05.1992 and lease was also executed in her favour. PW-11 deposed that request for extension of time for construction was received on 16.03.2001 and demand for composition charges for extension of time upto 30.06.2001 was granted on 17.04.2001. He further deposed that a request for extension of time was again received on 26.12.2002 and the demand letter for Rs.16,707/- was issued on 31.12.2002 to Smt. Ratni Devi and a reminder for payment had been issued on 09.03.2005. PW-11 further deposed that a demand letter was again issued on 05.12.2005, however no payment was received till 11.01.2006. He further deposed that on 02.01.2006 Smt. Darshana Devi and Smt. Raj Devi represented that Smt. Ratni Devi had expired on 26.10.2004 and a payment of Rs.60,725/- was received in response to letter dated 05.12.2005. PW-11 deposed that on receipt of information regarding death of Smt. Ratni Devi, the issue of EOT for construction was stopped. He further deposed that on receipt of RTI application dated 18.02.2008 from Smt. Darshana Devi, the information had been supplied and a survey of the plot was conducted to assess the actual possession of the plot. PW-11 further deposed that a conversion application was received in this case but same had not reached at finality because of multiple court cases against the property and during survey, it was found that the property was in possession of FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 13 of 60 accused Parmod Garg. He further deposed that Smt. Darshana Devi vide letter dated 24.12.2005, had informed that her mother-in-law had sold the said plot to accused Parmod Garg who is in possession of the original documents and the plot.
17.1. In his cross-examination, PW-11 confirmed that accused Bijender Singh had followed the complete procedure as per the norms of the department.
18. PW-12 is Ombir Singh Rathi, who deposed that in the year 2012 he was working as UDC, Residential, DDA. He further deposed that plot No. B-17, Sector-8, Dwarka was allotted through draw of lot held on 31.07.1991 to one Sh. Amar Singh and the demand letter was sent on 10.09.1991. He further deposed that on receipt of information regarding death of allottee, the said plot was mutated in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi, widow of late Sh. Amar Singh to whom the possession was handed over on 25.05.1992 and the lease was also executed in her favour. He further deposed that a request for extension of time for construction was received in the year 2001 and demand for composition charges for extension of time was granted and a request for extension of time was again received in the year 2002 and letter for payment was issued to Smt. Ratni Devi and reminder was sent to her in the year 2005. PW-12 deposed that a request for demand was again issued in the year 2005 but no payment was received till January 2006. He further deposed that on 02.01.2006, Smt. Darshana Devi and Smt. Raj Devi represented that Smt. Ratni Devi FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 14 of 60 had expired on 26.10.2004 and payment of Rs.60,725/- was received in response to letter. PW-12 deposed that on receipt of information regarding death of Smt. Ratni Devi, the issue of EOT for construction was stopped and a survey of the plot was conducted to assess the actual possession of the plot. He further deposed that a conversion application was received in this case but same has not reached at finality because of multiple court cases against the property. He further deposed that during survey, it was found that the property was in possession of accused Parmod Garg and Smt. Darshana Devi had informed that her mother-in-law had sold the said plot to accused Parmod Garg who is in possession of the original documents and plot.
18.1. In his cross-examination PW-12 has also admitted that accused Bijender Singh had followed the complete procedure as per the norms of the department.
19. PW-13 is Sh. Vishnu Dutt Gautam, Assistant Manager, Central Bank, Shahbad Mohammad Pur, Delhi who had been authorized to depose in the present matter through authority letter Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that as per record, the original documents i.e. account opening form of account no. 3337(Old)-1193382150 (New) in the name of Smt. Ratni Devi W/o Sh. Umrao Singh Ex.PW6/A, her specimen thumb impression form duly attested by the Branch Manager Ex.PW6/B and the statement of the account Ex.PW6/C of the said account were seized by the IO on 08.11.2011 through seizure FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 15 of 60 memo Ex.PW6/D. PW-13 deposed that the said account was inoperative for 10 years and is closed as per the RBI guidelines.
20. PW-14 is Sh. Neeraj Yadav, Public Health Inspector, SDMC who proved the death certificate of Sh. Amar Singh Ex.PW14/A, according to which, he had expired on 18.01.1990. He has also proved the death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi as Ex.PW14/B, according to which she had expired on 26.10.2004. True copy of record of death certificate of Sh. Amar Singh is Ex.PW14/C and true copy of record of death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi is Ex.PW14/D.
21. PW-15 is Sh. Chaman Lal, Public Relation Executive (West), office of District Magistrate/DEO (West), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who proved the true copies certified by Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi i.e. (i) SPA no. 27285 dated 08.12.1995, Book No.IV, Volume no. 3598, Page no. 13 Ex.PW15/A, (ii) GPA no. 27286 dated 08.12.1995, Book No. IV, Volume no. 3598, page no. 14 to 16 Ex.PW15/B and (iii) Will no. 64864 dated 08.12.1995, Book No. III, Volume no. 2743, Page no. 13 Ex.PW15/C. He deposed that the volume number of GPA 27286 is wrongly mentioned as 3578 being a clerical error whereas the correct volume number is 3598.
22. PW-16 is Sh. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as Superintendent, GA Branch at Revenue HQ, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and in response to notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C., he FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 16 of 60 provided original copy of meeting notice dated 03.05.2005, original copy of letter of SDM dated 27.10.2005 and original copy of letter of SDM dated 11.11.2005 with covering letter dated 02.03.2016 i.e. Ex.PW16/A (colly), to the IO.
23. PW-17 is Sh. P.C. Manroy, who deposed that some people grabbed a plot in Sector-8, Bagdolla, Dwarka, Delhi which was in the name of a lady who had expired, by making some forged documents. He further deposed that Sh. Mukesh Sharma was his friend and he alongwith him, Sh. Ankit Dixit and some other persons had made a complaint Ex.PW8/A to SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur but he does not remember against whom they had lodged the complaint Ex.PW8/A. 23.1. PW-17 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he admitted that they had lodged the complaint against accused Parmod Garg and officials of DDA, SDM, Notary Public and their other associates. He further admitted that they had mentioned all the details and facts in the complaint Ex.PW8/A at that time in true manner. He further deposed that he never met accused Parmod Garg during investigation of the present case and therefore, he is unable to identify him.
23.2. In his cross-examination, PW-17 has also admitted that facts of present case were told to him by Sh. Mukesh Sharma. PW-17 denied the suggestion that he alongwith Late Sh. Mukesh Sharma and his other fellow advocates made this false complaint to extort money from Parmod FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 17 of 60 Garg.
24. PW-18 is Sh. Harsh Mani, who deposed that on 14.03.2017, while he was posted as Deputy CAO, Vigilance, DDA, Delhi, he provided the photocopies of CVC's directions contained in Chapter-III on preliminary enquiry/investigation at point No.1.8, through a forwarding letter dated 16.03.2017 Ex.PW18/A, in reference to letter No.2280 SO/ACP/Defence Colony dated 06.04.2015. He further deposed that the attachment with the forwarding letter i.e. document having title Chapter-III preliminary inquiry/investigation consisting of four pages is Ex.PW18/B (Colly).
25. PW-19 is SI Shiv Dev Singh, who deposed that on 08.03.2016, as per instructions of ACP Jagdish Yadav, he took the documents alongwith forwarding letter through RC no. 25/21/2016 for depositing the same at RFSL, Chanakyapuri and deposited the same there in intact condition. He further deposed that on return to PS, he handed over the acknowledgement.
26. PW-20 is Sh. Vinod Rohila, who deposed that he was working as a document writer in Sub-Registrar office building, Janakpuri Delhi since 1990. He further deposed that police had not shown him any property documents i.e. General Power of Attorney Ex.PW20/A, Will Ex.PW20/B and Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW20/C executed by Smt. Ratni Devi w/o Late Sh. Amar Singh in favour of accused Parmod Garg S/o Sh. B.R. Garg plot no. B-17 area measuring 120 Sq. Yards Bagdolla Dwarka Residential FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 18 of 60 Scheme Dwarka, New Delhi. During the course of his testimony after seeing the documents in the judicial file, he deposed that it is true that the aforesaid documents were prepared and typed in his office and Smt. Ratni Devi put her thumb impression on the said documents in his presence and thereafter the same were produced before the Sub-registrar-II, Jankpuri Delhi for registration of the said documents. He further deposed that the aforesaid documents were registered by the Sub-Registrar after verification and in the presence of witness. To a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-20 replied that it may be possible that those documents were shown to him during the investigation by the police.
27. PW-21 is Smt. Roma Devi, who deposed that Sh. Satish Kumar was her husband who had expired on 26.06.2008 and she had handed over the death certificate Ex.PW21/A of her husband to the police.
28. PW-22 is Sh. Sunil Solanki, who deposed that late Smt. Ratni Devi was her grandmother who was allotted plot no.17, D-Block, Sector-8, Dwarka by the DDA. He further deposed that her grandmother Smt. Ratni Devi had never sold the aforesaid plot to anybody and a civil suit was also filed in Dwarka court with regard to the said plot. PW-22 deposed that accused Parmod Garg, property dealer had prepared forged documents of the plot in connivance with the DDA officials. He further deposed that despite complaints no action was taken against Parmod Garg.
28.1. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 19 of 60 Parmod Garg, PW-22 deposed that he does not know whether the civil suit Ex.PW22/DB was withdrawn by the counsel as he was not told about any such withdrawal.
29. PW-23 is Smt. Darshna Devi, who deposed that late Sh. Mahender Singh was her husband who died in the year 2005. She further deposed that she had given a complaint at Bhumi Niptan, DDA in the year 2008 wherein she had mentioned that her husband was having three brothers and DDA had acquired their land and had allotted a plot i.e. B- 17, B-Block, Sector-8, Dwarka which was measuring about 120 square yards in the name of her father-in-law Sh. Umrao Singh in lieu of the acquisition and after the death of Sh. Umrao Singh the said plot was allotted to Smt. Ratni Devi W/o Sh. Umrao Singh. PW-23 deposed that she had submitted one application to DDA on 31.08.2008 with request not to freehold the said plot. She further deposed that she had some information that somebody was trying to forge the documents of the aforesaid plot in connivance with the DDA officials and she had moved an application on 31.10.2006 to procure the photocopy of plot documents and had also deposited the requisite fee for obtaining the same and later on obtained the said file. PW-23 deposed that on 02.01.2006, she had also given a complaint to Assistant Director, LAB, Dwarka, Delhi and on 31.01.2008, she had given another complaint i.e. Ex.PW23/A to DDA officials to stop the freehold of the aforesaid plot.
29.1. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 20 of 60 Parmod Garg, she admitted that Civil Suit no. 204/2008 Ex.PW23/DA was withdrawn by her.
30. PW-24 is Sh. Yogesh Tyagi, Deputy Director, Building Section, Vikas Sadan, DDA, who produced the copy of reply dated 23.01.2018 Mark-X1, letter dated 11.01.2018 Mark-X2, letter dated 06.02.2018 Mark-X3 and letter dated 23.02.2018 Mark-X4 which were prepared by Sh. P.K. Dhamija who was posted as Deputy Director (Bldg)/Resdl. at the relevant time. He further deposed that original case file bearing no.F.325(386)2001/Bldg and F.325(06)2006/Bldg were handed over to the IO alongwith letter dated 06.02.2018.
31. PW-25 is Sh. Prafulla Kumar, Single Window Operator-B, Punjab National Bank, who produced the bank account opening form of accused Charan Singh Solanki having account no. 09352011007099 093510 INR CHARAN SINGH SOLANKI i.e. Ex.PW25/A.
32. PW-26 is Retired ACP Vinod Kumar, who deposed that while he was posted as ACP, Defence Colony, investigation of the present case was marked to him on 30.10.2010. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he issued notices to 10 persons on 30.11.2010 and Smt. Darshna Devi and Smt. Roma Devi produced the photocopy of death certificates of their husbands, which he had placed on file. PW-26 further deposed that he had collected the death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. Ex.PW14/B from MCD Office, Najafgarh Zone on 06.12.2010 and also obtained death certificate of FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 21 of 60 Sh. Umar Singh @ Amar Singh i.e. Ex.PW14/A on 24.12.2010. PW-26 deposed that on 18.02.2011, he had collected the original file of DDA i.e. Ex.PW26/B pertaining to property no. B-17, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Dwarka (330 pages and notesheet bearing 65/N) and seized the same through seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW26/A. He further deposed that later on, he also sent a notice to DDA officials to inform the names and addresses of the persons who did the correspondence after the death of Smt. Ratni Devi and accordingly, on 31.03.2011, DDA officials replied to the notice mentioning the names and addresses of those officials i.e. Sh. A.S. Jain, Retired Assistant Director, Sh. S.N. Gupta, Retired Assistant Director, Sh. K.C. Shah, Retired Assistant Director and Sh. Bharat Bhushan, LDC. PW-26 deposed that pursuant to the aforesaid replies, he issued notices to all the aforesaid four persons on 04.05.2011 and received the reply of Sh. A.S. Jain on 05.05.2011. The notice dated 24.03.2011 is Ex.PW26/C, reply dated 25.03.2011 is Ex.PW26/D and notice dated 04.05.2011 with reply is Ex.PW26/E.
33. PW-27 is Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director (Documents), RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi who had examined scientifically the exhibits i.e. Questioned/Q1 to Q13 (Q12 and Q13 are in xerox), standards specimen writings and signatures marked S1 to S62, admitted genuine writings and signatures marked A1 to A30 and gave his detailed report i.e. Ex.PW27/A alongwith forwarding letter i.e. Ex.PW27/B. FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 22 of 60
34. PW-28 is Sh. Rajender Kumar Puri, Retired Deputy Director, who deposed that 31.08.2016 he joined the Department of Residential Land of DDA on deputation. He further deposed that he prepared the reply i.e. Ex.PW28/A which was sent to Sh. Jagdish Yadav, ACP in response to his request letter which was received on 27.12.2016 regarding clarification of the points mentioned therein. PW-28 deposed that another request letter was received from ACP, Defence Colony regarding clarification of the points mentioned therein and he prepared the reply i.e. Ex.PW28/B and sent to Sh. Jagdish Yadav, ACP.
35. PW-29 is Sh. Arvind Rana, SDM Kotwali, Delhi, who deposed that on 14.03.2018, Sh. Akhil Kumar was posted as SDM Kotwali, who had prepared reply dated 14.03.2018 i.e. Ex.PW29/A and enclosed two letters i.e. Ex.PW29/B and Ex.PW29/C which were sent to ACP Sh. B.S. Rana. PW-29 identified the signatures of Sh. Akhil Kumar, SDM during the course of his testimony in the court.
36. PW-30 is Sh. Praveen Kumar Dhamija, Senior Architect, who deposed that in the year 2018 while he was posted as Deputy Director (Bldg.)(Resdl.), he prepared replies i.e. Ex.PW30/A, Ex.PW30/B, Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D and handed over the original case files bearing no.F.325(386)2001/Bldg i.e. Ex.PW30/E (colly) and F.325(06)2006/Bldg i.e. Ex.PW30/F (colly) to the IO.
37. PW-31 is Sh. Sushil Kumar, Fingerprint Expert, who FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 23 of 60 deposed that he received a letter no. 2092/R-ACP/PS Kotla Mubarakpur dated 31.08.2018 from ACP, Defence Colony alongwith enclosures i.e. (i) certificate of anticipated discharge waste water, form for specification of proposed building questioned thumb impression marked TH-1 to TH-7, (ii) Ten digit specimen impression slip of suspect Charan Singh Solanki S/o Deeg Ram Solanki marked S-1 to S-3 and (iii) Ten digit specimen thumb impression of Amit Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta marked S-4 to S-6, which were examined by him with the help of scientific instruments and opined that questioned prints marked TH- 2 to TH-7 are inter-se identical and these prints are not identical with any of the specimen impression on slips marked S1 to S6 and proved his detailed report as Ex.PW31/A.
38. PW-32 is Sh. Vishal Yadav, Junior Secretariat Assistant, DDA who produced the letters i.e. Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW32/B and Ex.PW32/C, written by Ms. Shabnam Kundra, the then Deputy Director, LA, Residential, whose signatures were identified by PW-32 during the course of his testimony in the court.
39. PW-33 is Sh. Tarun Kapoor, who deposed that in July 2019, he was posted as Vice Chairman, DDA and competent to take appropriate action of removing Bijender Singh from the service. He deposed that in response to a request letter dated 25.01.2019 i.e. Ex.PW33/A which was received in the office of Commissioner, Land Disposal, DDA for sanction of prosecution U/s 19 of PC Act against FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 24 of 60 accused Bijender Singh with draft chargesheet, statements of witnesses etc., he accorded sanction U/S 19(1)(c) of POC Act against accused Bijender Singh i.e. Ex.PW33/B and sent to IO through forwarding letter dated 08.07.2019 i.e. Ex.PW33/C.
40. PW-34 is HC Arogyam, who deposed that on the instructions of the IO, he had collected the account opening form i.e. Ex.PW34/B (colly) of account no. 9352011007099 of Sh. Charan Singh Solanki from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vijay Enclave Dabri on 26.02.2018 and handed over the same to the IO Insp. B.S. Rana who seized the same through seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW34/A. He also collected the account opening form i.e. Ex.PW34/D of account no. 4447000100046389 of Sh. Amit Gupta from Punjab National Bank, Sector-11, Dwarka on 15.03.2018 and handed over the same to the IO Insp. B.S. Rana, who seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW34/C.
41. PW-35 is ACP Ranbir Singh, who deposed that on 20.10.2018, while he was posted as ACP, Defence Colony investigation of the present case was marked to him and in July 2019, he collected the prosecution sanction against accused Bijender Singh and placed on file. He further deposed that he prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
42. PW-36 is Sh. T.V.S.R. Krishna Shastri, who deposed that he is a practicing advocate at Delhi and on 08.12.1995, GPA, SPA and Will i.e. Ex.PW36/A, Ex.PW36/B and FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 25 of 60 Ex.PW36/C were executed in his presence in favour of accused Parmod Garg and he had signed on these documents as a second witness.
43. PW-37 is ACP Ramphool Meena, who deposed that he was posted as ATO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur in 2011 and was assisting IO/ACP Mehar Singh, who was conducting investigation of the present case. He further deposed that on 08.11.2011, he alongwith Ct. Ved Parkash had visited Central Bank of India, Shahbad Branch, Delhi and collected the Account Opening Form i.e. Ex.PW4/C, Specimen Thumb Impression Form i.e. Ex.PW6/B and Account statement of Smt. Ratni Devi w.e.f. 03.02.2007 to 05.02.2011 i.e. Ex.PW6/C, which were seized through seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW6/D. PW-37 deposed that on 09.05.2018, he had served notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW37/A-1 to Director, LAB (Res), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and received reply dated 06.06.2018 i.e. Ex.PW37/A-2 alongwith two original documents i.e. original conveyance deed executed on 21.03.2006 in favour of Smt. K.K. Thakkar W/o Sh. A.S. Thakur, Plot no. 72, Block-B, Sector-12A, Dwarka and original noting sheets i.e. Ex.PW37/A-3 (colly). He further deposed that on 01.03.2018, he had moved an application i.e. Ex.PW37/C in the court for obtaining specimen signature/handwriting and fingerprints of Sh. Amit Gupta and accused Charan Singh Solanki which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor on 01.03.2018. The specimen handwriting and signature of Charan Singh Solanki is Ex.PW37/A FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 26 of 60 (colly) and specimen handwriting and signature of Sh. Amit Gupta is Ex.PW37/B. He further deposed that on 17.03.2018, he had obtained specimen handwriting/ signature of Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma i.e. Ex.PW37/D pursuant to application moved by him in the court which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor.
44. PW-38 is Sh. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector-10, Dwarka, who proved the original account opening form of Sh. Amit Gupta alongwith supporting documents i.e. copy of electricity bill, PAN card and voter I-Card as Ex.PW34/D (colly). He deposed that account no. 4447000100046389 was opened on 05.10.2007 and was allotted to Sh. Amit Gupta.
45. PW-39 is Retired ACP Jagdish Yadav to whom investigation of the present case was entrusted on 14.12.2015, deposed that on 18.12.2015, he had issued notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW39/A to SDM, Headquarters-III, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi for providing documents i.e. four numbers of routine documents having signature, stamp and office stamp of Sh. P.K. Sinha for the period between October 2005 to December 2005 and in response to which, letter Ex.PW16/A was received alongwith the three documents i.e. Ex.PW5/C (colly). He further deposed that on 23.12.2015, he had obtained specimen handwriting of accused Parmod Garg i.e. Ex.PW39/B (colly) after obtaining permission from the court. PW-39 further deposed that he sent the application for extension of time on behalf of Smt Ratni Devi as filed FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 27 of 60 by the accused Parmod Garg and also the bank challan already Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C alongwith specimen handwriting of accused Parmod Garg and three documents collected from Revenue Department, Sham Nath Marg to RFSL for comparison and examination and got collected the FSL result regarding the aforesaid exhibits, as per which the stamp and signatures of Sh. P.K. Sinha, SDM, Headquarters were forged.
46. PW-40 is Sh. R.K. Khatri, Advocate, who deposed that he was appointed as Notary Public in 1997 and remained as Notary Public till 2015 through his Registration no.740. He further deposed that on 14.12.2011, he joined the investigation of the present case. During the course of his testimony, PW-40 had been shown document i.e. undertaking having no. 02AA 221691 i.e. Ex.PW4/B and he after seeing the stamp and signature deposed that neither the signature at point X were put by him nor the stamp at point Y belongs to him or affixed by him. He further deposed that on 03.10.2012, IO came to his office and had shown same document which he reaffirmed that the said document bears his forged signature and stamp.
47. PW-41 is Sh. Tanuj Kumar, Assistant Director, LAB (Residential), Vikas Sadan, DDA, who had been summoned to produce the dispatch register by which letter no. F22 (363)88/DDA/LAB(R)/817 dated 13.02.2006 was issued by LAB(Residential) Branch. However, he deposed that the aforesaid dispatch register is not traceable despite FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 28 of 60 his best efforts. He further deposed that the dispatch register from the month of May 2006 is available in their office but the aforesaid dispatch register through which letter dated 13.02.2006 was issued, is not traceable.
48. PW-42 is Sh. R.C. Meena, Deputy Director, Land Pooling, Pitampura, who deposed that he was posted as Assistant Director, LAB (Residential) in the year 2018 and had furnished three replies i.e. (i) reply dated 09.05.2018 i.e. Ex.PW42/A with copy of dispatch register showing relevant entries dated 13.02.2006 i.e. Ex.PW42/B, (ii) reply dated 11.05.2018 i.e. Ex.PW42/C with copy of dispatch register dated 13.02.2006 i.e. Ex.PW42/D and
(iii) reply dated 06.06.2018 i.e. Ex.PW42/E with documents i.e. Ex.PW37/A3. He further deposed that as per reply dated 11.05.2018, the letter no.F22 (363)88/DDA/LAB(R)/817 dated 13.02.2006 was not dispatched/issued from LAB (Residential), DDA Branch. PW-42 deposed that as per reply dated 09.05.2018, letter no.F27(33)/92/LAB(R) dated 13.02.2006 was issued vide dispatch no.1817 and no letter no. F22(363)88/DDA/LAB(R)/1817 dated 13.02.2006 was issued from their office as per record available at that time.
49. PW-43 is Retired ACP Mehar Singh, who was entrusted with the investigation of the present case on 21.10.2011 deposed that he had seized the documents i.e. bank opening form Ex.PW6/A, specimen thumb impression card Ex.PW6/B and statement of account of Smt. Ratni Devi Ex.PW6/C, which were collected by Insp.
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 29 of 60Ramphool Meena alongwith Ct. Ved Parkash from Central Bank of India, Shahbad Mohammadpur Branch, through seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. He further deposed that on 14.05.2012, he had seized original documents i.e. (i) original Agreement to Sell dated 08.12.1995, (ii) original registered GPA dated 08.12.1995 (iii) original registered Will dated 08.12.1995 and (iv) original registered SPA dated 08.12.1995, all purported to be executed in favour of Parmod Garg by Smt. Ratni Devi pertaining to property no. B-17, Sector-8, Dwarka, through seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that on 29.05.2012, the exhibits i.e. the documents were sent to the Director, Fingerprint Bureau, Kamla Market through PSI Prem Raj Hooda through letter dated 28.05.2012 i.e. Ex.PW43/A. PW-43 deposed that on 01.06.2012, Sh. P.K. Sinha, SDM, Kapashera joined the investigation and he had been shown document Ex.PW5/A, but he had stated that the document was forged and does not bear his signature and official stamp. He further deposed that he had taken the specimen signatures of Sh. P.K. Sinha, SDM, Kapashera i.e. Ex.PW5/D for comparison. PW-43 deposed that on 14.12.2011, Sh. Ram Kumar Khatri, Notary Public, Tis Hazari joined the investigation and was shown original undertaking dated 28.11.2005 i.e. Ex.PW4/B and after seeing the same, he stated that he had never signed and stamped the aforesaid document. He further deposed that on this document the name of the witness under his purported signature is written as 'Raj Kumar'.
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 30 of 6049.1. In his cross-examination, PW-43 admitted that he had not sent the specimen signatures of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM and Sh. R. K.Khatri, Notary Public for comparison to Fingerprint Bureau or to any other authority.
50. PW-44 is Insp. Naresh Malik to whom investigation of the present case was assigned on 10.07.2012 and during the course of investigation, notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. dated 07.08.2012 i.e. Ex.PW44/A was issued by him to Sub- Registrar, Janakpuri for providing certified copies of the GPA, Will and SPA i.e. Ex.PW36/A (colly), Ex.PW36/B and Ex.PW36/C, all dated 08.12.1995 executed by Smt. Ratni Devi in favour of accused Parmod Garg, which were collected. He further deposed that on 03.10.2012, Sh. R.K. Khatri, Notary Public had joined the investigation and his supplementary statement was recorded. PW-44 deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar U/s 161 Cr.P.C., who was witness of the Sale Deed. He further deposed that on 27.12.2012, accused Parmod Garg was examined and arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/B, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW44/C and his disclosure statement i.e. Ex.PW44/D was also recorded by him. He further deposed that accused Parmod Garg was produced before the Court and his one day PC remand was obtained. PW-44 deposed that accused Parmod Garg led the police team to his office situated at plot no.6, Sector
-17, Dwarka, Delhi, where at his instance, pointing out memo i.e. Ex.PW44/E was prepared. He further deposed that search of office of accused Parmod Garg was also FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 31 of 60 conducted and search memo i.e. Ex.PW44/F was prepared in this regard. He further deposed that he had also taken the search of office table and rack, which were lying outside the office room of Parmod Garg Associates, vide search memo Ex.PW44/G. PW-44 deposed that accused Parmod Garg led them to his another office situated at Plot no.6, Sector-10, Dwarka, where he was running his office during 1995-96, where construction work was going on. He further deposed that during investigation he also collected the certified copies of Civil Suit no.153/09, titled as Smt. Rajdevi Vs DDA i.e. Ex.PW44/H (colly).
51. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they denied as false and incorrect.
52. Accused Bijender Singh took a defence that he discharged his duties in accordance with law and that it was his duty to place the Dak received by him before the higher authorities and whatever the orders used to be received from higher authorities, he used to follow and accordingly the notice was sent qua the letters received from the parties i.e. from daughters in law of Smt. Ratni Devi and Sh. Parmod Garg in the year 2006 after having the orders from the higher authorities.
53. Accused Parmod Garg took a defence that in this case, the EOT was filed three times i.e. in 2001, 2002 and 2005 and all the times Satish, son of late Smt. Ratni Devi got all these documents executed from his mother and FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 32 of 60 alongwith Amit Gupta filed the same in DDA and for the same, he used to give Satish some expenses. He has further submitted that probably for that reason in 2005, he did not inform him about death of his mother. He has further submitted that as the EOT filed in 2001 and 2002 was found to be genuine and not in question, so if it had been in his knowledge the death of Ratni Devi, as per DDA policies, he could have applied for conversion on the basis of registered documents in his favour. He has further submitted that the present matter has only been prepared by those advocates/complainants for the purpose of blackmailing him, as while compromising the matter with the daughters in law of late Smt. Ratni Devi, they had seen his generosity while offering some monetary help to them. He has also taken the defence that during the case, the complainants/advocates who were also the counsel of the daughter in law of late Smt. Ratni Devi came to know that the EOT in 2005 was filed after the death of Ratni Devi and on the basis of that they tried to blackmail him and asked for exorbitant amount which he declined and thereafter, they pursued this false complaint against him. Further he has taken a defence that in the present matter, he is a genuine buyer and his registered documents are not in question in the present case by the IO or by any other investigating agency, thus, there was no question of cheating anyone or causing any illegal gain to himself or any unlawful loss to anyone.
54. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Rakesh FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 33 of 60 Mehta, Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State, as also by Sh. N. S. Dalal, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bijender Singh and Charan Singh Solanki and by Sh. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg. I have also perused written submissions as filed on behalf of accused Parmod Garg.
55. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State argued that accused Parmod Garg pursuant to his conspiracy with co- accused C. S. Solanki and Bijender Singh submitted documents bearing forged thumb impression of original allottee Smt. Ratni Devi after her death, in order to get property in question converted from leasehold to freehold from DDA. It is submitted that on the basis of forged documents, they got issued demand notice for extension of time to construct property in question as well as sanctioned building plan in favour of original allottee Smt. Ratni Devi and accused Parmod Garg also obtained approval for conversion of property from leasehold to freehold in his favour.
56. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State further argued that as per conversion policy of DDA, completion certificate was required for conversion of property in question from leasehold right to freehold right, therefore accused Parmod Garg and C. S. Solanki being his Architect prepared forged documents i.e. undertaking, application for EOT, application for submission of 3rd copy of bank challan, specimen signatures of Smt. Ratni Devi, certificate for water harvesting bearing forged thumb impression of Smt. FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 34 of 60 Ratni Devi and some of these documents are also bearing forged signature and stamp of SDM Sh. P. K. Sinha and of Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public.
57. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State further argued that as per FSL result, the thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on Ex.PW-4/B i.e. undertaking and on application for submission of third copy of bank challan i.e. Ex. PW-5/C are forged and as per opinion of PW-5 Ms. Sarita Sharma, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents) FSL, Rohini, the signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM are forged on Ex.PW- 5/A i.e. regarding the attestation of thumb impression of Late Smt. Ratni Devi. It has been submitted that PW-40 Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public has also deposed before the Court that undertaking Ex.PW-4/B bears his forged signature and stamp.
58. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State further argued that accused C. S. Solanki submitted copy of final EOT letter dated 13.02.2006 alongwith certificate for water harvesting, but no such final EOT letter was issued by the concerned branch of DDA. It has been submitted that the certificate of water harvesting submitted by accused C. S. Solanki being Architect for sanction of building plan also bears forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi and he had also attested/acknowledged the forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi in his own handwriting.
59. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State further argued that accused Parmod Garg and C. S. Solanki pursuant to their conspiracy filed various documents bearing forged thumb FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 35 of 60 impression of Smt. Ratni Devi in order to get extension of time and sanctioned building plan for converting the property in question from leasehold to freehold. Ld. Officiating Chief PP for State further argued that prosecution has proved its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
60. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg argued that admittedly original allottee Smt. Ratni Devi had executed registered documents of property in question in the year 1995 in favour of accused Parmod Garg and therefore it is unexplained that how the application for conversion of property from leasehold right to freehold right on the basis of registered documents was likely to cause any wrongful loss to DDA or wrongful gain to accused Parmod Garg.
61. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg further argued that applications for extension of time were filed in the year 2001, 2002 and 2005 and every time, accused Parmod Garg got executed required documents through Satish S/o Smt. Ratni Devi after giving him some expenses and probably for the said reason, he did not inform accused about the death of Smt. Ratni Devi when he was asked to get documents executed from his mother in the year 2005.
62. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg further argued that DDA or LRs of Smt. Ratni Devi have not filed any complaint, but it was filed by some Advocates, who were the counsel of daughter-in-law of FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 36 of 60 Smt. Ratni Devi in Civil Suit which was later on withdrawn by them, in order to blackmail the accused Parmod Garg. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that there is no evidence that accused Parmod Garg filed the alleged documents in DDA for extension of time and the prosecution case is based upon mere surmises that accused Parmod Garg is the ultimate beneficiary. My attention is drawn towards the authorities reported as Vimla vs. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0163/1962; M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and Ors. MANU/SC/ 1029/2022 and Rekha Jain and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/0142/2022.
63. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bijender Singh argued that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Bijender Singh was a party to any conspiracy with co-accused persons or he ever made any demand of bribe or obtained any gratification for processing the application received by him being Dealing Assistant of DDA. Ld. Defence counsel vehemently contended that it was the duty of accused Bijender Singh to place the Dak received by him before the higher authorities and he followed the due procedure of DDA and did not conceal any information on the file from his senior officers.
64. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bijender Singh further argued that sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of PC Act has been granted without application of mind. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that IO/ACP B. S. Rana has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore there is no FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 37 of 60 evidence on record as to what documents were sent to Sanctioning Authority with request letter to accord the sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against accused Bijender Singh.
65. Ld. Defence counsel for accused C. S. Solanki argued that there is no evidence that alleged forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on the documents submitted to DDA were put by accused C. S. Solanki. It is submitted that the alleged role of accused C. S. Solanki is to forward the documents and except attestation, nothing was done by him.
66. Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is relevant to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the fundamental requirement of criminal law viz., the guilt of an accused should be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In this regard reliance is placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2009 (4) RCR (criminal) 217, and State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) LRC 34 (SC). In both these cases, it was held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also held that even while invoking the provision of section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. In the case of Dnyaneshwar (Supra) it was also held that the demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 38 of 60 constitution of an offence under PC Act.
67. It is also well settled that it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion however strong can never take the place of proof. There is a long distance between the fact that accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence', which is to be proved by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence is recognized as human right which cannot be wished away. (Refer; Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghuraman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and; State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384).
68. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. The ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy are:
i). agreement between two or more persons.
ii). an agreement to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
69. The prosecution thus, has to establish meeting of the minds of the accused persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means. It has to be borne in mind that a criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, hence it is FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 39 of 60 difficult to establish the same by direct evidence. Thus, the manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed are relevant and to prove the charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each other and every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of conspiracy anything said, done or written by any of them would be evidence against the other. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object all those participating at different stages of crime will be guilty of conspiracy.
70. It is a settled law that "Criminal conspiracy" is not easy to prove. The conspirators invariably deliberate, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was involved in it from the start to finish. What is important is that they were involved in the conspiracy. Conspiracy requires actus reus and accompanying mens rea. To convict a person for conspiracy, the prosecution must show that all accused agreed with each others to accomplish the unlawful object of conspiracy. The Court has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to believe the existence of the conspiracy and that is a matter for judicial inference from proved facts and circumstances.
71. In order to bring home the charge of conspiracy and for the purpose of drawing inferences U/s 10 of the FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 40 of 60 Evidence Act, the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused acted in concert, either through overt or covert acts in furtherance of the common objective. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down there are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the co-conspirators. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is as under :
"Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
72. Thus, there should be prima facie evidence disclosing reasonable grounds for court to believe that two or more persons were members of a conspiracy, (2) Anything said, done or written by anyone of them in reference to the common intention would be evidence against the other, (3) Anything said, done or written by anyone of them should have been said, done written by them after the intention was formed by anyone of them. The prosecution thus had to prove by chain of events which could lead to strong inference of conspiracy.
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 41 of 6073. In the light of the above broad principles, let us examine the facts of the present case to find out whether the accused persons had conspired with each other in furtherance to their common object. An alternative plot no.B-17, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in the name of Sh. Amar Singh under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land by DDA and after the death of Sh. Amar Singh, the said plot was mutated in the name of his wife Smt. Ratni Devi on 18.06.92 after completion of all formalities by the legal heirs. Possession of the plot was handed over to Smt Ratni Devi on 22.05.92 and Lease Deed was executed on 18.06.92. Clause 5 (a) of the Perpetual Lease of the plot in question which was executed in favour of Smt. Ratni Devi and is also part of file no. F.325(06)/06 Bldg. i.e. Ex. PW- 30/F (colly) says that the lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the residential plot except with the previous consent in writing of the lessor which he shall be entitled to refuse in his absolute discretion.
74. Despite the Clause 5(a) of the Perpetual Lease i.e. part of Ex.PW-30/F (colly), on 08.12.95 Smt. Ratni Devi sold the plot in question to accused Parmod Garg through registered General Power of Attorney, SPA and Will i.e. Ex. PW-36/A (colly), Ex. PW-36/B and Ex. PW-36/C. The said documents were also verified by PW-43 Sh. Mehar Singh, Retd. ACP from the office of Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri and found to be registered there. Further, as per FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 42 of 60 Clause 4 of the Perpetual Lease i.e. part of Ex. PW-30/F (colly), it is specifically provided that the lessee shall within a period of two years i.e. from 22.05.1992 after obtaining sanction to the building plan, erect a residential building on the aforesaid plot. PW-28 Sh. Rajender Kumar Puri, Deputy Director, DDA vide his reply Ex. PW-28/B has also clarified that as regard to extension of time, the allottee is required to complete construction of residential building on the plot within two years from the date of taking over of physical possession, after obtaining sanctioned building plan, as per the terms and conditions of the Lease and further a grace period of one year is also allowed as per the policy decision taken by the Authority.
75. PW-28 Sh. Rajender Kumar Puri vide his reply Ex.PW-28/B has also stated that regarding the conversion of leasehold to freehold, the policy guidelines notified by the Government of India on 14.02.92 and amended from time to time are being adopted mutatis mutandis. The copy of the notification dated 14.02.92 issued by Government of India regarding conversion of leasehold property into freehold in Delhi is part of reply Ex.PW-32/B given by Deputy Director, LA (Residential) to the Investigating Officer and as per Clause 1.5 of the notification dated 14.02.92 issued by Government of India, conversion to freehold for plot holders would be allowed only when a residential building on the plot has been constructed and completion certificate for the building has been issued by the local body concerned. The requirement of copy of 'D' FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 43 of 60 form/completion certificate is also a necessary document in case of mutation of residential plot on the basis of Will outside blood relations, which is provided in the guidelines for transfer/mutation of residential plots issued by DDA and is part of reply Ex. PW-28/B.
76. As per death certificate Ex.PW-14/B, original allottee of plot in question i.e. Smt. Ratni Devi expired on 26.10.2004. In order to get the property in question converted from leasehold right to freehold right, the sanctioned building plan was required and therefore an application for Extension of Time (EOT) dated 28.11.2005 i.e. Ex.PW-5/B was filed on behalf of Smt. Ratni Devi after her death alongwith her attested thumb impressions allegedly attested by Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ) on a non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- i.e. Ex. PW-5/A. On the basis of application filed on behalf of Smt. Ratni Devi alongwith her attested thumb impression, co-accused Bijender Singh processed the request for grant of Extension of Time (EOT) upto 21.05.2006 and issued a demand letter of Rs.60,724/- as composition fee to Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. letter no. F22(363)88/DDA/LAB(R)/12233 dated 05.12.2005 which is part of file no.F325 (06)/06/Bldg. i.e. Ex. PW-30/F (colly). The composition fee of Rs.60,725/- was also deposited in State Bank of India on behalf of Smt. Ratni Devi on 02.02.2006 vide challan no.50181, copy of which is part of Ex. PW-30/F (colly) and 3rd copy of the bank challan was also submitted in DDA on 02.02.2006 alongwith an application bearing FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 44 of 60 thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi.
77. An application on behalf of Smt. Ratni Devi for issuing sanctioned building plan was filed alongwith documents such as undertaking, affidavit of Ratni Devi and proposed building plan by Architect i.e. co-accused C. S. Solanki. On 22.02.2006, the JE Building vide letter no. F325(06)/06/bldg./1271 dated 22.02.2006 which is part of File no.F325(06)/06/Bldg. i.e. Ex. PW-30/F (colly) asked her to submit letter of final extension of time and certificate for water harvesting.
78. As per case of the prosecution, although the letter for final extension of time was not issued by DDA but co- accused C. S. Solanki being Architect submitted a copy of letter regarding extension of time i.e. F22 (363)/88/DDA/LAB(R)/817 dated 13.02.2006 issued in favour of Ratni Devi alongwith one Water Harvesting certificate bearing the right thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on 23.02.2006 although, she had expired on 26.10.2004. Sections 468 and 471 IPC being relevant are reproduced herein below:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 45 of 60 reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
79. Section 468 and 471 IPC leads us to section 463. As per section 463:
"463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
80. Thus, the accused persons can be said to have forged a document, if they make any false document with intent to commit fraud. As far as false documents are concerned, Section 464 IPC being relevant is reproduced herein below:
"464. Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record -
First - who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the (electronic signature), with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or (electronic signature) was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 46 of 60 whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;
or Secondly - Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with (electronic signature) either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix has (electronic signature) on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
81. An application for extension of time for construction of the plot in question bearing thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi alongwith an undertaking on her behalf to pay the enhanced penalty dated 28.11.2005 attested by Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public i.e. Ex. PW-4/B and specimen signature of Smt. Ratni Devi on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- bearing specimen thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi attested by Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ) dated 28.11.2005 were received in the office of Deputy Director, Residential, DDA vide Diary no. 8375 dated 28.11.2005.
82. PW-4 Insp. Avdhesh Kumar of Finger Print Bureau examined the questioned thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi as appearing on undertaking i.e. Ex. PW-4/B with her admitted thumb impression and opined that thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on undertaking i.e. Ex.PW-
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 47 of 604/B i.e. Q7 is not identical with any of the admitted thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. A1 to A28. The undertaking Ex. PW-4/B also bears attestation of Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public and his stamp. Sh. R. K. Khatri, Advocate appeared in witness box as PW-40 and deposed that Ex. PW-4/B neither bears his signature nor his stamp. PW-40 was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given to them. Thus the testimony of PW-4 Insp. Avdhesh Kumar and PW-40 Sh. R. K. Khatri proves that undertaking Ex. PW-4/B of Smt. Ratni Devi dated 28.11.2005 which was furnished after her death to pay the enhanced penalty bears her forged thumb impression and also forged signature and stamp of attestation of PW-40 Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public.
83. PW-5 Ms. Sarita Sharma, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents), FSL, Rohini examined the signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha SDM (HQ) i.e. Q16 on Ex.PW-5/A. The questioned signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ) were examined with his specimen signatures S1 to S3 and his admitted signature of contemporary period i.e. A1 to A4 and it is opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S3 and A1 to A4 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q16. Thus, as per opinion of PW-5, the specimen thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi were not signed/attested by Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ). PW-5 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg, but no question was asked about the reasons FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 48 of 60 regarding the opinion of the expert and only two suggestions were given. Thus, the report of PW-5 Ms. Sarita Sharma, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents) FSL, Rohini proves that Ex. PW-5/A is bearing forged signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ). However, PW-5 though found some similarities regarding the handwritings on Ex.PW-5/B i.e. application for extension of time with the specimen handwriting of accused Parmod Garg, but did not give definite opinion in absence of some more admitted genuine writings written in the normal course of time.
84. The aforesaid application for extension of time i.e. Ex. PW-5/B alongwith other documents i.e. undertaking Ex. PW-4/B and specimen signature of Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. Ex.PW-5/A, all dated 28.11.2005 were dealt by accused Bijender Singh in file Ex. PW-26/B (colly) and on the basis of these documents, he issued Demand Letter of composition fee of Rs.60,724/- dated 05.12.2005. The 3rd copy of bank challan regarding deposit of composition fee was submitted on 02.02.2006 alongwith an application on behalf of Smt. Ratni Devi bearing her thumb impression i.e. Ex. PW-5/C.
85. Thereupon the request for fresh sanction of building plan ground floor of the property in question was dealt in file no. F325 (06)/06/Bldg. DDA i.e. Ex.PW-30/F (colly) and on 14.02.2006 the concerned JE recorded in the file that the site was inspected on 11.02.2006 which was lying vacant and asked to deposit :-
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 49 of 60(i) Submission of final EOT letter.
(ii) Certificate for Water Harvesting.
86. Pursuant to above, on 23.02.2006, co-accused C. S. Solanki submitted the copy of extension of time letter dated 13.02.2006 alongwith his certificate of water harvesting which also bears the thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi. The copy of letter of extension of time for completing the construction shows the letter no. F.22 (363)/88/DDA/LAB (R)/817 dated 13.02.2006. PW-42 Sh. R. C. Meena, Dy. Director, Land Pooling deposed that as per his reply dated 11.05.2018 i.e. Ex.PW-42/C the letter no.F.22(363)88/DDA/LAB(R)/817 was not dispatched /issued from (LAB) Residential DDA branch. He also proved the copy of the dispatch register showing relevant entries dated 13.02.2006 as Ex. PW-42/B. Thus, as per testimony of PW-42, Sh. R. C. Meena, the letter no.F.22(363)/88/DDA/LAB(R)/817 dated 13.02.2006 was not issued/dispatched from their branch and as such the copy which was submitted by co-accused C. S. Solanki is a forged document.
87. PW-27 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Asst. Director (Documents) RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi examined the signatures of accused C. S. Solanki on the application for submission of document of plot i.e. final EOT letter and certificate for water harvesting i.e. Q1 as well as the handwriting and signature on the water harvesting certificate i.e. Q2 and Q6 and another signature of accused C. S. Solanki on the annexures filed alongwith water FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 50 of 60 harvesting certificate as Q3 and Q4 and opined that Q1 to Q4 and Q6 are written by the person who wrote the admitted handwriting and signature i.e. A1 to A6 and S1 to S4 i.e. of accused C. S. Solanki. The detailed report of PW-27 i.e. Ex.PW27/A is not disputed. Even in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C., accused C. S. Solanki has stated that he submitted the application alongwith documents i.e. copy of EOT letter and certificate of water harvesting to Dy. Director (Building) which can be read u/s 313(4) Cr.P.C. It has been proved by the report of PW- 27 that application regarding submission of document and water harvesting certificate alongwith annexures bears signature and handwriting of accused C. S. Solanki are false documents.
88. As per case of the prosecution, accused C. S. Solanki during investigation stated that one Amit Gupta approached him to prepare the file in respect of property in question and he handed over him the file for getting the thumb impression of lessee and he attested the same in good faith. Therefore, the specimen thumb impressions of Amit Gupta s/o Ramesh Gupta and accused Charan Singh Solanki were sent to Finger Print Bureau so as to opine whether the thumb impressions of Smt. Ratni Devi appearing on water harvesting certificate and its annexures i.e. from TH1 to TH7 were forged by Amit Gupta or accused Charan Singh Solanki. PW-31 Sh. Sushil Kumar, Finger Print Expert proved his report as Ex.PW-31/A and opined that these thumb impressions i.e. from TH2 to TH7 FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 51 of 60 are not identical with any of the specimen thumb impression and TH1 could not be examined being unfit for comparison. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove that thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi on documents i.e. application for extension of time, undertaking and specimen thumb impressions or on the application for deposit of 3rd copy of bank challan, application to submit documents i.e. final EOT letter and certificate for water harvesting and upon the annexures were put by accused C. S. Solanki or by co-accused Parmod Garg so as to attract ingredients of Section 467 IPC.
89. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Parmod Garg that there is no evidence that documents regarding Extension of Time etc. bearing forged thumb impressions of Smt. Ratni Devi were submitted by accused Parmod Garg with DDA. It was submitted that son of Late Smt. Ratni Devi namely Satish alongwith one Amit Gupta filed the same in the DDA. Perusal of file no. F.22(363)/88/LAB(R) regarding plot in question i.e. Ex. PW-26/B (colly) shows that on 13.02.2006, accused Parmod Garg filed the application form for conversion of leasehold right to freehold right in the prescribed format bearing his photograph as well as attested copies of the documents. In the said application form, accused Parmod Garg has also mentioned that copy of completion certificate/D Form attested by Notary Public is also annexed, which also shows that the application for extension of time for completion of construction work was FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 52 of 60 filed alongwith other documents bearing forged thumb impression of original allottee by accused Parmod Garg as same were required by him to get the property converted from leasehold right to freehold right in his favour. No witness in defence is examined by accused to show that Amit Gupta or Satish filed these documents with DDA on his behalf. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of Ld. Defence counsel that application for extension of time alongwith other documents i.e. undertaking Ex.PW4/B and specimen thumb impressions of Smt. Ratni Devi i.e. Ex.PW5/A were not submitted by accused Parmod Garg with DDA.
90. The above chain of evidence clearly proves that as completion certificate was required to get the property in question converted from leasehold right to freehold right and original allottee Smt. Ratni Devi had expired on 26.10.2004, accused Parmod Garg conspired with accused C. S. Solanki and thereupon they both knowingly used the documents bearing forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi and forged signature of Sh. P. K. Sinha, SDM (HQ) and Sh. R. K. Khatri, Notary Public with DDA as genuine. PW-11 Sh. Gian Chand Sharma, who was working as Deputy Director, (LAB) Residential, DDA and PW-12 Sh. Ombir Singh Rathi, who was working as UDC, (LAB) Residential, DDA have deposed that on receipt of information regarding death of Smt. Ratni Devi, the issue of EOT (Extension of Time) for construction was stopped. This fact is not disputed by Ld. Defence counsels. As the FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 53 of 60 issue of EOT (Extension of Time) was stopped and the concerned JE in file no.F325(06)06Bldg. DDA i.e. Ex.PW- 30/F (colly) asked for final Extension of Time letter alongwith Water Harvesting certificate, a forged Extension of Time letter i.e. having number F.22(363)88/DDA/ LAB(R)/817, which was not issued by the DDA, was annexed by accused C. S. Solanki alongwith his application regarding submission of these documents, which also shows that accused Parmod Garg and C. S. Solanki were having conspiracy with each other to achieve the common object i.e. to get the property in question converted from leasehold to freehold. There is no evidence on record to show that accused Bijender Singh was also a party to the conspiracy to convert the property in question from leasehold right to freehold right by using documents bearing forged thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi. Thus, prosecution has proved charge under Section 120-B IPC as well as charge under Section 471 r/w 120-B IPC against accused Parmod Garg and Charan Singh Solanki beyond reasonable doubt.
91. Now the question comes to decide whether accused Parmod Garg and C. S. Solanki used forged documents for the purpose of cheating DDA. To constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC, firstly, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce the person so FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 54 of 60 deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. It is not in dispute that accused Parmod Garg purchased the property in question from Smt. Ratni Devi in the year 1995 vide registered documents i.e. GPA, SPA and Will and these documents were also verified by the IO during the investigation and found registered at the office of Sub-Registrar. It is also not in dispute as mentioned in reply of DDA Ex.PW-28/B that DDA adopted the guidelines notified by the Government of India on 14.02.92 regarding conversion of leasehold to freehold rights of the property mutatis mutandis. PW-12 Sh. Ombir Singh Rathi, Asst. Director, DDA deposed that the conversion application of present case has not reached at finality because of multiple court cases against the property and during survey it was found that property was in possession of accused Parmod Garg. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to show that if the application for extension of time to construct the property in question or application for conversion of property in question from leasehold to freehold right, filed on the basis of registered GPA of the original allottee would have been allowed or rejected on account of submission of some documents bearing forged thumb impression, DDA would have suffered any damage or wrongful loss of property or its reputation. Therefore, ingredients of cheating are not FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 55 of 60 attracted.
92. The accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC, as the case of prosecution is that accused Bijender Singh, who was working as Dealing Assistant in DDA pursuant to his criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons, by corrupt and illegal means and abusing his position as a public servant processed the file of conversion of plot no.B-17, Sector-8, Bagdolla, Dwarka from leasehold right to freehold right in the name of accused Parmod Garg and got approval from senior officers. The defence of accused Bijender Singh is that it was his duty to put any dak received by him before his senior officers and he processed the file of accused Parmod Garg as per procedure and guidelines of DDA.
93. Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act reads as under:-
Section 13-Criminal misconduct by a public servant- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) .........
(b) .........
(c) .........
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 56 of 60
94. It is not the case of prosecution that accused Bijender Singh made any specific demand of bribe or obtained any pecuniary advantage from co-accused Parmod Garg for processing his case of conversion of plot in question from leasehold to freehold. Therefore, prosecution must prove that accused Bijender Singh while holding post of Dealing Assistant in DDA obtained the order of conversion of the property in question from leasehold to freehold in favour of co-accused Parmod Garg without any public interest. It is admitted fact as deposed by PW-23 Smt. Darshna Devi that firstly she gave the complaint to stop the freehold of the property to DDA on 02.01.2006 whereby she also informed that her mother-in- law has already expired on 26.10.2004. The fact that DDA issued the guidelines/policy for conversion of properties from leasehold to freehold is also not in dispute. Now the question arises whether there is any direct or circumstantial evidence to show that accused Bijender Singh was in conspiracy with co-accused Parmod Garg or C. S. Solanki, Architect to process the file of co-accused Parmod Garg for conversion of property in question from leasehold to freehold by corrupt or illegal means or processed the same without any public interest. The image of the note dated 12.01.2006 and 20.02.2006 i.e. page 26 noting of file Ex.PW-26/B (colly) in which the case of conversion of property in question from leasehold right to freehold right was processed by accused Bijender Singh to his senior officers while mentioning that Smt. Darshna FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 57 of 60 Devi and Smt. Raj Devi have informed vide letter dated 02.01.2006 that their mother-in-law has expired and furnished the copy of death certificate of Smt. Ratni Devi, reflects as under:-
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 58 of 6095. The aforesaid noting of the file no. F-22(363) 88/LAB(R)/DDA i.e. Ex.PW-26/B (colly) shows that accused Bijender Singh had not recommended the proposal to convert the property from leasehold to freehold, but he after disclosing the facts which came on file regarding the death of Smt. Ratni Devi and deposit of composition fee of Rs.60,725/- for Extension of Time to complete the construction upto 30.06.2006, submitted the facts for appropriate orders with regard to processing the case for conversion from leasehold to freehold. Perusal of file Ex.
PW-26/B (colly) shows that the file was considered by officer from the rank of Assistant Director (LA) upto Commissioner (LD) and after consideration Commissioner (LD), DDA approved the conversion of the property in question from leasehold to freehold on 19.09.2006. PW-11 Sh. Gian Chand Sharma, who was working as Deputy Director, (LAB) Residential, DDA and PW-12 Sh. Ombir Singh Rathi, who was working as UDC, (LAB) Residential, DDA have confirmed that accused Bijender Singh had followed the complete procedure as per the norms of the department. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Bijender Singh while working as Dealing Assistant, DDA obtained any favourable order in favour of co-accused Parmod Garg by misrepresenting or concealing any fact from the senior officers without any public interest. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B IPC against accused persons.
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 59 of 60Conclusion:-
96. In view of above reasons and discussions, it is held that prosecution has proved charge U/s 120-B IPC and 471 r/w 120-B IPC against accused Parmod Garg and Charan Singh Solanki beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they stand convicted thereunder. Further, Prosecution has failed to prove charge framed against accused Bijender Singh and as such he stands acquitted.Digitally signed by SANJEEV
SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2023.07.10
Announced in the open court 16:28:06 +0530
on 10 th day of July, 2023 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 44/2010, PS Kotla Mubarakpur State vs. Parmod Garg etc. Page 60 of 60