Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sanjay Kumar Etc on 15 September, 2025
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
The accused persons have 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)
ACJM-06 RADC
NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 1 of 72 02:33:19
+0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
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.
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(19 YEARS 4 MONTHS 20 DAYS OLD CASE)
CNR No. : DLCT12-000261-2019
CASE No. : 45/2019
FIR No. :1(A)/2006/ACU-VII
Under Section :419/467/468/471/511
120-B IPC.
Name of Branch : CBI/ACU-VII
Date of Commission of Offence : In the year 2005-2006
Name of the Complainant : Source Information
Name, Parentage and Address of : (1) Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.
accused Jagdish Singh, R/o VPO
Kanganhari, New Delhi.
(2) Hemraj @ Shunti S/o
Sh. Murari Lal R/o 218,
Type-II, Press Colony,
Mayapuri, New Delhi-64.
(3) Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh.
Maman Singh R/o B-769-
770, Indrapuri (JJ Colony),
New Delhi.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 2 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15
02:33:24 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(4) Rajeev Malhotra S/o
Sh. Chaman Lal R/o G-36,
Amar Colony, Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 120-B read with
419/467/468/471/511 IPC.
Plea of Accused Persons : Not Guilty
Final Judgment : ACQUITTED
Date of institution of case : 26.04.2006
Date of Judgment : 15.09.2025
*****
Counsel for the parties:-
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Bansal, Ld.
P.P.
For the accused Sanjay Kumar : Sh. Sanjeev Sharma,
Ld. Advocate
For the accused Rajeev Malhotra : Sh. Gulshan Bhadana,
Ld. Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused persons namely (1) Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh (2) Hemraj @ Shunti S/o Sh. Murari Lal (3) Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Maman Singh and (4) Rajeev Malhotra NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 3 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:33:28 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal have been sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/467/468/471 IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 419 and 511 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that proceedings against accused Hemraj @ Shunti and accused Sanjeev Kumar got abated vide orders dated 19.12.2016 and 25.07.2018 respectively due to their death.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the present case was registered against unknown private persons and unknown CBI officials on 24.02.2006 under Section 34 read with 467/468/471 IPC on the basis of information received from a reliable source that some unknown private persons along with certain unknown CBI Officials and other private persons have engaged themselves in the act of preparing forged CBI Identity Cards and impersonating as CBI officials with ulterior motives. The source also handed over one such Identity Card, which was in the name of "Rajiv Malhotra", with the address as 17/108, Geeta Colony, New Delhi, showing the holder to be an 'Agent' for CBI, containing forged signature of the issuing authority. 2.1 During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused Sanjay Kumar has worked in CBI/ACR-III as Constable, on deputation from SSF for the period 2003 to 2006. Accused Hemraj @ Shunti worked in the capacity of waterman (casual labour) till 2005. Accused Sanjeev worked in CBI, ACR, NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Date: 2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:33:32 +0530 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 4 of 72 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
III in the year 2003 for some time on daily wages and accused Rajiv Malhotra is a private person who had close proximity with the other accused persons.
2.2 Investigation disclosed that in the year 2005, all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with the fraudulent intention to forge Identity Card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra and cheat various persons by impersonation. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Rajeev Malhotra made available his own passport size photographs alongwith the address, which were to be mentioned on the forged Identity Card. Investigation further disclosed that accused Sanjay Kumar used the photocopy of the back portion of the Identity Card No. 12828 and pasted it over the front portion of the forged Identity Card. It was accused Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj @ Shunty and Sanjeev who had approached the Establishment Section of CBI ACR-III for getting typed the matter carrying the same photograph of Rajeev Malhotra which was affixed on the forged Identity Card. On refusal by Vipin Kumar, the then LDC in Establishment Section, ACR-III, CBI, the accused persons got it typed from elsewhere. Investigation also disclosed that it was accused Sanjay Kumar who got laminated the Identity card from the shop of Khan Market, New Delhi.
2.3 It was also revealed during investigation further disclosed that Hemraj @ Shunty had been inquiring about the stamps of AC-III. The stamps of AC-III Region of CBI were NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.09.15 02:33:35 +0530 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 5 of 72 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
appearing on the forged identity card. Investigation also disclosed that two of the stamps with the impression "Supdt. Of Police, ACR-III, New Delhi" procured by AC-Ⅲ Region of CBI in the year 2000, were missing. It has been also disclosed that it was accused Rajeev Malhotra who was seen with accused Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj @ Shunti and Sanjeev in and around C.G.O. on various occasions.
2.4 Investigation further revealed that no such Identity Card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra (A-4) with the address of 17/108, Geeta Colony, New Delhi had been issued by any Branch of CBI or the CBI/HQs and the aforesaid Identity Card is a forged one.
2.5 It has further transpired during investigation that the accused persons indulged themselves in fake raids impersonating themselves as Special Branch CBI officials in May, 2005, and cheated Deepak Arora, r/o B-71 Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar by accepting Rs. 14,000/- against the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs. It was accused Rajeev Malhotra who used the forged identity card as genuine and claimed himself as an agent of Special Branch (CBI) as the same has been made available by accused Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj @ Shunty and Sanjeev.
2.6 Investigation further disclosed that accused Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj @ Shunty and Sanjeev conducted fake raid at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic at 8/4, 1st Floor, Main Market, Subash Nagar on 07.01.06 impersonating themselves as Special Branch NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 6 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:33:39 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
CBI Officials and attempted to cheat by demanding Rs. 10,000/-. 2.7 Investigation thus disclosed that the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as well as under Section 120-B read with 419/511 IPC after having forged the Identity Card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra and thereby cheated various persons by impersonation as CBI officials in fake raids in pursuance of criminal conspiracy.
2.8 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE 3.1. The cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B read with 419/468/471 IPC was taken against the accused persons on 27.04.2006.
3.2 Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanied documents were supplied to accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B, 419, read with 120-B, 467 read with 120-B, 468 read with 120-B, 468 read with 471 IPC read with Section 120-B and 419 read with 511 and 120-B IPC were framed against accused persons on 03.04.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in total. Their testimonies in brief are as follows:-
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:33:43 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 7 of 72 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(i) PW-1 Sh. Vipin Kumar:- He worked as Crime Clerk in ACU-VIII CBI and was allotted the work of Establishment Section.
He identified the photograph affixed on ID card Ex. PW1/A which was carried by accused Sanjeev when he came to him. He has also identified the ID card Ex. PW1/A having photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra which was with accused Sanjay Kumar when he came to him.
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Subhash Chand:- He joined CBI on 01.06.1999 on deputation from CRPF. He was also present at the Reception when accused Rajeev Malhotra came there. He correctly identified accused Rajeev Malhotra in the Court as well as his photo affixed on Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that it was the same photo which was carried by accused Rajiv Malhotra during first half of 2005.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Nand Lal:- He proved the photocopy of the Rent Agreement (D-13) dated 01.10.2001 vide Mark-A executed between his wife Sheela Devi and accused Rajeev Malhotra who resided at property bearing no. 17/108, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31 for a period of 5-6 months. He also proved his original Voter ID card of the said address vide Ex. PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 Sh. Mahavir Singh:- He is the complainant in the present case and proved his complaint to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide Ex.PW-4/A.
(v) PW-5 Sh. Rajesh Kumar:- He is the independent witness of the search proceeding conducted at the house of accused Rajeev Malhotra, who was not found there, and his elder brother provided them with the family photograph, having the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:33:46 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 8 of 72 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra.Same matched with the photograph on the identity card and was duly seized vide search memo Ex. PW5/A. The family photographs were handed over to CBI and the same were proved by this witness vide Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C. The second independent witness of the search proceedings was Naresh Tanwar. This witness had not been examined by the prosecution, but his signatures were identified by PW5 Rajesh Kumar.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Puran Chand:- He was posted as Head Clerk, AC-III Branch, New Delhi during April, 2006. He handed over certain documents to M.C.R Mukand, Inspector, Police, CBI New Delhi vide seizure memo dated 18.04.2006 Ex.PW6/A. However, this witness could not be examined-in-chief completely due to his death.
(vii) PW-7 Dr. Nek Singh:- He is the eye witness to the raid conducted at Sahil Ayurvedic Centre. He correctly identified the Identity card bearing no. 12828 shown by accused Sanjay vide Ex.PW7/A. He further proved that his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was given by him to CBI vide Ex.PW7/B.
(viii) PW-8 Harminder Singh:- He was posted as Assistant Engineer in Project Division of West Zone, MCD Delhi and participated in the searches conducted at the house of accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Yadav and Hemraj @ Shunti vide Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/C.
(ix) PW-9 Raj Kumar:- He worked as UDC in MCD in February, 2006 and proved search list dated 24.02.2006 (D-14) vide Ex. PW-
9/A and search list dated 24.02.2006 (D-15) vide Ex. PW-9/B. NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 9 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:33:50 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(x) PW-10 Suchitar Kumar Huria:- He proved Rent agreement dated 01.10.2001 (D-13) vide Ex. PW-10/A bearing signature of his mother.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. V.K. Thakur:- He proved police verification (D-20) format of Deepak Arora vide Mark Ex.PW11/A but could not identify the two documents, part of D20 and annexed with Mark PW11A along with details of vehicles (Mark PW11B). He correctly identified his name and address on the photocopy of the lease agreement dated 01.05.2005 (D-21) vide Mark PW-11/C.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Sanjay Logani:- He deposed that two persons came to his shop bearing no. 21 Prithvi Raj Khan Market, New Delhi in March 2006 and introduced themselves as Mr. Sangwan from CBI alongwith Mr. Sanjay as well as produced one I-card which might have been shown to him. He further deposed that Card (D-3) Ex.PW7/A may be laminated by him. He has also deposed that accused Sanjay Kumar is the same person who had come to his shop alongwith CBI official.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta:- He deposed that accused Hemraj and Sanjay were doing work as cleaner/temporary worker when he was posted as Inspector in CBI Branch AC-III during the year 1999-2005. He has proved fully vouched contingent bill (D-7) containing various applications/request vide Ex.PW13/1. He has correctly identified accused Sanjay Kumar being a permanent employee of CBI who was posted as constable during that period.
(xiv) PW-14 Sh. Satdev Singh:- This witness was working as ASI in ACB, CBI Branch and correctly identified accused Sanjay Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:33:54
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 10 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Kumar in the court. He was also present at the Reception when accused Rajeev Malhotra came.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Rajender Singh Negi:- He was on the reception duty at ACB, Block No.-4, New Delhi during the year 2005-2006. He deposed that one constable Satdev and Subhash Chand brought accused Rajeev Malhotra to him and asked him to meet Sanjay Kumar. He asked accused Rajeev Malhotra the purpose for visiting Sanjay who replied that some I- card type card is to be given to him. He correctly identified the photograph on the I Card (D-3) Ex.PW1/A of accused Rajeev Malhotra.
(xvi) PW-16 Sh. R.K. Sangwan:- He was Inspector of Police in AC- III, CBI, Delhi. He was also part of the search team at the house of accused Rajiv Malhotra. He has also deposed that his brother Rajendra Kumar provided family photograph to the search team in which he was one of the person and same was taken into possession vide search memos dated 24. 02. 2006 Ex.PW5/A. (xvii) PW-17 M.C.R Mukund:- He is the investigating officer in the present case and proved the steps of investigation undertaken by him. He proved D-1 i.e. FIR-RC(A)/06/ACU-VII dated 24.02.2006 vide Ex. PW17/A, D-4 i.e. letter no. 487/130/SP (BK)/DLI dated 21.03.2006 vide Ex. PW17/B through which the complaint was assigned to him, page no. 24 of D-7 i.e. one file containing fully vouched contingent bill of AC-III vide PW17/C, Seizure Memo(D-
12) dated 18.04.2006 already exhibited as Ex. PW6/A pertaining to seizure of applications of Hem Raj, the then casual worker and accused Sanjay Kumar, the then constable. He deposed that Ex.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 11 of 72 02:33:58
+0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
PW6/A was also about seizure of one stamp bearing impression i.e. Superintendent of Police/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi and also includes the documents with regard to purchase of official stamps of AC-III, CBI, New Delhi and some paid vouchers of sweepers during the relevant period. He also proved D-8 i.e. one bunch of papers containing various applications of Sanjay Kumar, the then Constable vide Ex. PW-17/D, pages no. 16 to 19, 25 to 28 of D-7 i.e. one file containing bill of AC-III already exhibited vide Ex.PW13/1 vide Ex.PW17/E(colly). He also proved D-9 i.e. one bunch of paper containing various applications of Hemraj vide Ex.PW17/F(colly). He identified the original stamp vide Ex.PW17/A bearing the impression of Superintendent of Police, CBI AC-III, New Delhi seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW6/A. He proved Ex.PW17/G (colly) (D-11) i.e. file containing bunch of papers regarding procurement of stamp, D-10 Ex.PW17/H i.e. letter no. DPAD.I/2006/1103/26101999 dated 25.04.2006 vide Ex.PW17/H, Panchnama dated 27.02.2006 vide Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C, search and seizure memo dated 24.02.2025 bearing Ex.PW5/A, D-6 i.e. forwarding letter no. 1707/3/1(A/2006/ACU-VII) dated 20.04.2006 vide Ex.PW17/I, Ex.PW6/A i.e. seizure memo dated 18.04.2006 bearing signature of Sh. Puran Chand, Head Clerk CBI ACR-III, D-14 i.e. search list dated 24.02.2006 already exhibited vide Ex. PW9/A and search list dated 24.02.2006 vide Ex. PW9/B. He further proved seizure memo of two photographs of family of Rajeev Malhotra including him vide Ex.PW5/A,Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. He deposed that he had Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:34:02 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 12 of 72 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
written letter dated 25.04.2006 vide Ex.PW17/H to SP HQ (CBI) seeking information regarding two I-Cards in the name of accused Rajiv Malhotra (D-3) and Sanjay Kumar (D-20) and in response to such letter he received confirmation vide Ex. PW17/H. He proved Ex.PW17/I(colly) i.e. CBI Identity Card bearing no. 12828 issued in the name of accused Sanjay Kumar vide letter DPAD.I/2006/53/26/10/2006 dated 27.02.2006 which was obtained by him during the investigation. He also proved Ex.PW17/J i.e. letter DPAD.I/2006/53/26/10/2006 dated 27.02.2006 which was sent in response to CBI letters dated 20.02.2006 and 27.02.2006. He deposed that through Ex.PW17/J, original Identity Card No. 12828 dated 17.03.2003 in the name of Sanjay Kumar, Constable CBI was forwarded to SP, ACU-VIII, CBI and same was used for investigation in the present case. He also identified the accused present in the court.
(xviii) PW-18 Sh. Anil Sharma:- He deposed that he joined CFSL in 1998 and worked with late N.K. Aggarwal who was HOD in Document Division and seen him signing on the official documents.
He proved D-24 i.e. forwarding letter dated 21.11.2006 along with report no. CFSL 2006/D-200 dated 15.11.2006 vide Ex.PW18/A bearing the signatures of Mr. N.K. Aggarwal and the stamp and correctly identified his signatures and that of Director Bibha Rani on the forwarding letter dated 20.10.2006. He also proved D-25 i.e. two sheets containing the stamp impression of the stamp of CBI/AC-III/New Delhi along with stamp vide Ex.PW18/B(colly). 4.1 During the course of trial, witnesses namely Dr. N.K. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:34:06 +0530 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 13 of 72 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Aggarwal, Satish Katyal and Mahavir Singh had expired. 4.2 After conclusion of the list of prosecution evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 24.05.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded vide order dated 14.07.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations.
5.1 Accused Sanjay stated that he did not know accused Rajeev Malhotra till the time he was arrested. He stated further that he learnt about the fact that Mahavir Singh and Satish Katyal were Constables in Central Excise after institution of the present case and both of them were suspended. It was next stated that on 07.01.2006, he was busy with his duty of picking both the children of his boss DIG SS Sundri Nanda, IPS from her home at Gurgaon and took them back to their residence after the school. As such, at no point in time he was present on 07.01.2006 at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic or took part in the alleged fake raid. It was emphasized that the search team did not include PW-Deepak Arora and he was pressurized to become PW. He further mentioned that at no point in time he went to Khan Market to the shop of PW12 for any lamination. He admitted that he was permanent employee of CBI. He mentioned further that he never had the opportunity to travel in the private car or vehicle with Naresh Shokeen or with Satyadev Singh because of his NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 14 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:10 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
deployment at the residence of his boss DIG SS Sundri Nanda. It was further stated by him that he had no knowledge whether accused Rajeev Malhotra had come to meet him if at all or had come to meet other Sanjay as there were many people working in the said office by the name of Sanjay. Further, no question arises of accused Rajeev Malhotra coming to meet him in the office of CBI simply because he never visited the office being deployed at the residence of DIG SS Sundri Nanda at Gurgaon. He stated next that he lost his I-card bearing no. 12828 Ex.PW7/A on 02.01.2005 for which he had also lodged a complaint with PS Vasant Kunj of the same date and he was clueless as to how the said I-card issued in his name came in the hands of CBI as the same was not recovered by the CBI from him. 5.2 Accused Rajeev Malhotra stated that he had never visited CBI office ever in his life. At no point in time he was present on 07.01.2006 at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic or took part in the alleged raid. He did not know who was accused Sanjay Kumar till the time he was arrested. It is further stated that his passport size picture was misused by the officials of CBI. He stated next that his name was falsely implicated in the present case to extort money from him because of the internal rivalry going on in the CBI office and other factors unknown to him. 5.3 Both the accused persons stated in common that the official witnesses had deposed against them because they had to tow the line what their superiors had ordered. It was further NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 15 of 72 by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:15 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
stated that the independent witnesses, namely, PW-4, PW-7 and PW- Late Satish Katyal deposed/gave statement because of the fact that the said witnesses were running a sex racket under the garb of running Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic in Subhash Nagar and the CBI was aware of the said fact. The CBI pressurized the said independent witnesses to help them in launching a false case. Accused Sanjay stated that FIR bearing no. 155 of 2006 under Immoral Trafficking Act was registered against PW-4 Mahavir Singh, PW Late Satish Katyal who was the husband of the owner of Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic along with three ladies namely Priya, Neelam and one Phool Jahan who were doing the business of prostitution.
5.4 Both accused persons stated that they are innocent persons and have been implicated falsely in the present matter.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Both the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Final arguments at length were heard on behalf of both the parties. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of learned PP for CBI as well as learned counsel for accused persons.
8. Learned PP for CBI argued that the oral and documentary evidence in the present case against the accused persons is sufficient to prove their guilt. The identification of " bade sahib"
as accused Sanjay Kumar is duly proved. It was highlighted that NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 16 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:18 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW14, PW 15 and PW17 alongwith PW5, PW10, PW12, PW16, and CFSL report Ex. PW18/A clearly prove the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons in the preparation of forged I-Card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra by showing him as a CBI agent. Further, unrebutted testimony of PW4, PW7, PW8, PW17 and PW11 established that accused no. 1 to 4 laid fake raids by impersonating as CBI officers and got the amount illegally from Deepak Arora and did overt acts to receive the amount illegally from the owner of Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic thus fulfilling the ingredients of attempt to cheat by impersonation. 8.1. He placed heavy reliance on the testimony of PW-4 Shri Mahavir Singh who not only identified the accused persons in the Court but also proved his complaint Ex-PW-4/A. Neither the accused nor Defence Counsel has cross-examined this witness despite opportunity given to them. Therefore, it was urged that the testimony of this witness has become unrebutted, truthful and legally proved. He placed reliance on case law titled as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the opposite party. Since PW4 was not cross- examined by the accused, hence it was argued that his testimony in his examination -in-chief has to be considered admitted by the accused persons. He further relied on case titled as Sudhir NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 17 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:22 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provision of criminal conspiracy and held that conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must bear in mind that meeting of the minds is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be.Reliance was next placed on case titled as Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15 wherein it was observed that it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.It was thus argued by learned PP for CBI that from the circumstantial evidence, the presence of the accused persons and their active role in the alleged offence stand duly proved.
8.2. He next relied on Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC; in Nrisingha Murari Chakraborty v. State of W.B., (1977) 3 SCC 7 provision of Section 420 read with 511 of IPC was discussed NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 18 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:26 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
and Sharvan Kumar v. State of U.P., (1985) 3 SCC 658 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provision pertaining to forgery.
8.3 It was vehemently urged by learned PP for CBI that the burden is shifted to the accused to prove their version which was in their specific knowledge. Reliance was placed on case law titled as Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2023) SCC Online SC 1261 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the law pertaining to Sec.106 of Evidence Act and case titled as Anand and Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4042). It was urged that the primary defence of accused Sanjay Kumar is that he was working at residence of DIG Ms. S.S.Sundari for taking her children to school in Vasant Kunj, Delhi from Gurgaon and other places also after school time. It was contended that the accused Sanjay Kumar neither could extract the said version from any of the prosecution witnesses nor summoned any defence witness to prove the same. Further without admitting to the defence of accused, if the defence of the accused Sanjay Kumar is to be seen in reference to the opportunity to conduct fake raids, the distance between Vasant Kunj and Subhas Nagar as well as Rajender Nagar is very less and time of incident was around 12-1 PM which in itself is sufficient to discard the defence of accused Sanjay. It was next argued that another defence of accused Sanjay Kumar that the illegal activities were going on in Sahil Ayurvedic Centre is also Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:34:30 +0530 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 19 of 72 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
not proved by him. It was prayed for conviction of accused persons.
9. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of accused persons that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and the evidence in the present case is not sufficient for the conviction of the accused.
9.1 Learned counsel on behalf of accused Sanjay Kumar urged that Sanjay Kumar was neither present in the CBI office nor at the time of alleged raids as he cannot be omnipresent in as much as, he was duty bound to take the children of the DIG S.S. Sundri Nanda to their school from Gurugram to Delhi every day and for their evening private classes. It is not the case of the CBI that DIG was perturbed because accused Sanjay Kumar remained absent from his duty many a times and if he dared to remain absent from duty, the DIG had the option to censure him for being negligent in his duty. He brought the attention of this court to PW14 Satdev who in his testimony affirms that when he went to CBI office to find out Sanjay Kumar, he came to know that Sanjay Kumar had gone to DIG to residence in Gurugram. Thus, it was urged that the said fact makes clear the defense version of accused Sanjay Kumar being deployed at the resident of DIG S.S. Sundari Nanda. It was further contended that the investigating officer failed to recover the two missing stamps of AC-III unit of CBI as well as the alleged revolver being carried by one of the accused persons on 07.01.2006 at Sahil Ayuvedic Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 20 of 72 02:34:34 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Clinic. It was urged that the CBI through its case failed to give plausible answers as to where the two stamps of AC-III unit of CBI went missing. It was next argued that CBI failed to drive home with conviction that it was the same stamp which was in possession of AC-III unit of CBI which was purportedly used by the accused persons in forging the Identity card in the name of Accused Rajeev Malhotra. He argued further that the investigating officer failed to give convincing reply as to what repercussion the said employee faced on discovering that two of the stamps were missing from his custody. 9.2. It was next argued that had accused Sanjay Kumar been present on 07.01.2006 in the fake raid then why would he expose himself by wearing his original Identity card and put his job in jeopardy; why would he handover his Identity card to other accused person to wear or carry the same, as it is the case of the CBI that accused Sanjay Kumar was addressed as "Bade Saheb"
by the members of the said team engaged in making a fake raid and that the said "Bade Saheb" was neither wearing/ carrying the Identity Card nor he was carrying the revolver. 9.3. It was defended that accused Sanjay Kumar had lost the said Identity card, a year prior to the incident of 07/01/2006. It was next argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that the identity card was recovered from the person of accused Sanjay Kumar, as the seizure memo Mark D-1 fails to disclose the recovery of the same. Hence, it was urged that possibility of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2025.09.15
02:34:38
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 21 of 72
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
misuse of I-card of accused Sanjay Kumar cannot be ruled out.
10. Learned Counsel on behalf of accused Rajiv Malhotra argued that the investigating officer miserably failed in his duty by not seizing the phone of accused Rajiv Malhotra when he allegedly made a raid with fake Identity card at the residence of PW Deepak Arora and demanded money from him. No CDRs was obtained by the investigating officer to showcase his location on all those occasions when allegedly accused Rajiv Malhotra visited accused Sanjay Kumar at the office of AC III unit of CBI for getting a fabricated Identity card or to authenticate the allegations of PW Satish Katyal that he had received the phone call from the said number. Both the learned counsel on behalf of accused persons took the attention of this court to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to point out the material contradictions which weakned the case of the prosecution. It was prayed for acquittal of the accused persons.
11. In rebuttal, learned PP for CBI urged that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel of accused persons are trivial and parrot like version cannot be expected from witnesses. Hence, it was prayed for conviction of accused persons.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file carefully.
13. The points of determination in the present case are as follows:-
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 22 of 72 02:34:42
+0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
1.Whether Identity Card Ex.PW1/A is forged or not?
2. If yes, then whether Identity Card Ex.PW1/A is forged by the accused persons?
3.Whether the accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy for cheating by way of impersonating as CBI officials by using forged identity card Ex. PW1/A and thereby cheated PWs Deepak Arora and Satish Katyal.?
14. Let us deal with the above points one by one.
FORGERY
15. The term "forgery" is defined in section Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows:
"463. Whoever makes any false documents 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
16. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted 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 digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 23 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:47 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by 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 digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
xxxxxx Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
xxxxxx Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery."
17. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories:-
(i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 24 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:50 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
(ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
18. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. The condition thus precedent for an offence under section 467, 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record.
19. It therefore remains to be seen whether Ex.PW1/A will fall under `false document.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 25 of 72 by NEETU
NAGAR
Date: 2025.09.15
02:34:55 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
20. It is alleged on behalf of CBI that the identity card (Ex.PW1/A) in the name of accused Rajeev Malhota is forged as the same has been created by way of superimposing the contents of the back portion of the identity card (Ex.PW7/A) issued in the name of accused Sanjay Kumar. In order to prove the forgery in question, CBI has relied on the testimony of investigating officer namely PW17 M.C.R.Mukund who has proved the letter dated 25.04.2006 (D-10) vide which queries raised were replied regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the identity card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra.
21. From a perusal of letter dated 25.04.2006 Ex. PW17/M which has been addressed to the Superintendant of Police, C.B.I.,ACU-VIII, (AC.III),New Delhi by Sh. Rajeev Singh, Superintendent of Police(HQ), CBI, it is manifest that only two laminated identity cards (Polaroid cards) bearing number I2819 and I2824 were issued by CBI, HQs on 13.03.2005. On a request dated 11.03.2003 of SP, ACU,VIII, CBI, New Delhi, a Polaroid Identity Card bearing no. 12828, duly prepared in the name of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Constable was got signed from the competent authority and handed over to Shri Sanjay Kumar, Constable on 17.03.2003 under proper acknowledgment.It was further replied that no Identity Card has ever been issued by CBI, HQs in the name of Rajeev Malhotra, Agent.The CBI, HQ does not issue any Identity Card in the name of Agents.
22. Hence, it has become crystal clear that no identity card has NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 26 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:34:59 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
been issued by HQ, CBI in the name of accused Rajeev Malhotra showing him as agent. Also, no identity card bearing no. 12828 was issued on 13.03.2025 i.e. the date of issuance as shown on I- D card Ex. PW1/A. It has thus been proved that the identity card Ex.PW1/A is a false document. Same is further substantiated by the CFSL report Ex.18/A duly proved by PW18. The contents of the same are reproduced as follows:-
"RESULT OF EXAMINATION I.The document marked Q-l is the reduced photocopy of the back portion of CBI Identity Card no. 12828 except typed matter marked A-22A, A-22B and signature marked A-22C.
II.On superimposition using Video Spectral Comparator- 5000, the questioned Hindi printed word "Janey" marked as Q-2 superimpose over the reduced printed matter marked A-23 including wear and tear defects in the word"Ja"
indicating that Q-2 is the reduced photocopy of A-23 (0.9 time linear).
III.It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the stamp impression marked Q-7 in comparison with the stamp impressions marked A-25/1 and A-26 due to the reason that the questioned stamp impression is partial and smudged in nature and do not contain sufficient individual identifying characteristic features for comparison, examination and opinion.
IV.VSC-5000 examination of the red enclosed portion marked Q-4 revealed that it is an handwritten figure 5 whereas there are typed figures in the rest of the date Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:35:02
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 27 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
portion indicating tempering of original figure at the red enclosed portion marked Q-4. However, the original figure could not be deciphered successfully at this place. V.On superimposition using VSC-5000 of the questioned English printed matter marked Q-3 reading "Report" tally with the reduced (0.9 times linear) specimen printed matter marked A-24 in their detailed manner of execution of printed matter including wear and tear defects indicating that Q-3 is the reduced photocopy of A-24. VI.It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the photocopy marked Q-6 in comparison with any set of writings marked A-1 to A-13 and A-14 to A-21 due to the reason that the questioned matter being limited in extent and do not afford sufficient individual identifying features for a thorough scientific examination and expressing any definite opinion. VII.It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signature marked Q-5 in comparison with the admitted writings/signatures marked A'-1, A'-4, A'-7, A'-11 in the absence of comparable model of standard signatures. For a thorough scientific examination and opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures marked Q-5, similar model of standard signatures as that of questioned ones would be needed."
23. In simple words, suspicious thing about the identity card Ex.PW1/A is that it has been issued showing agent against "C.B.I. WORK" whereas the identity cards are never issued in the name of agent as clear from letter dated 25.04.2006 NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 28 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:07 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Ex.PW17/M. The Identity Card Ex.PW1/A carries the stamps at two places however no opinion could be expressed on both the stamps in the CFSL Report, hence, it could not be proved if the stamp recovered by the investigating officer PW-17 during the course of investigation from the office of Superintendent of Police, which as per the case of the prosecution were missing, tallied with the stamps used on the identity card Ex.PW1/A thus clearly pointing towards the conclusion that the stamp recovered from the office of Superintendent of Police was not used in creating identity card Ex.PW1/A.
24. However, the forgery of identity card Ex.PW1/A by way of superimposition is duly proved by the prosecution as the Hindi word "जाने" and English word "Report" have the same defects as in the original identity card Ex.PW7/A of accused Sanjay Kumar which clearly shows that the contents of the back portion of the identity card of accused Sanjay have been superimposed on the identity card Ex.PW1/A else similar defects would not have occurred. Furthermore, the dates on both the identity cards are similarly written except for the year as "13.3" reflecting the date as 13th of March. Further, the year on the identity card Ex.PW1/A clearly has been changed to "2005" as the numeral "5" seems to have been tampered by hand. Hence, the CBI has successfully proved that the identity card Ex.PW1/A is forged.
25. It is next to be seen if the forgery of the identity card Ex.PW1/A has been committed by the accused persons facing the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 29 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:11 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
trial.
26. In order to bring home the charge of forgery against the accused persons, learned PP for CBI has heavily relied on the testimony of PW1 Vipin Kumar, PW2 Subhash Chand, PW14 Satdev Singh and PW15 Rajender Singh Negi to corroborate the presence of accused Rajiv Malhotra in reception block of CBI and PW12 Sanjay Logani to prove that the accused persons were involved in the alleged conspiracy and forgery.
27. Learned PP for CBI first took the attention of this court to the testimony of PW1 Vipin Kumar in order to urge that this witness was first approached by the accused before forging ID Card in the name of accused Rajiv Malhotra and that he was also shown the said forged ID card later on by accused Sanjay Kumar.
28. PW1 Vipin Kumar deposed during his examination-in- chief that the accused Sanjeev came to him and requested him to prepare one identity card during seventh or eighth month of 2005 and same was refused by him as he failed to show him any appointment letter or proof of his appointment. It is further deposed by him that at that time accused Sanjeev was also carrying a photograph which was affixed on the identity card Ex.PW1/A. He has deposed next that after 2-3 days accused Sanjay came to him and told him that they got issued the identity card for that person from somewhere else, and he has also seen the identity card having the photograph of accused Rajiv Malhotra. He has further deposed that during the year 2005, NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 30 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:14 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Hemraj and Sanjay Kumar were also with Sanjeev when they have requested for typing the matter of identity card which was generally used for ad-hoc persons.
29. PW1 Vipin Kumar thus named three persons who came to him for the purpose of preparation of the identity card namely Hemraj, Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev. However, it could not be understood why the said accused persons would go to PW1 Vipin Kumar for the purpose of preparation or typing of the identity card when the intention of the accused was to forge the identity card for the purpose of cheating. It was argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the accused went to PW1 for specific format of I-Card. But this argument stands rejected as the 'specific format' as pointed out was already available with the accused Sanjay Kumar who allegedly used his ID Card for forging Ex. PW1/A. Moreover, it could not be understood why accused Sanjay after having got issued the identity card from some other person would tell PW1 Vipin Kumar and also show him forged identity card. Accused Sanjay was not having friendly terms with PW1 so as to repose his trust in him. Moreover, it has not surfaced during the testimony of PW1 anywhere if he was the person authorized or responsible for typing the material on the identity card or was in someway connected in the procedure of issuance or preparation of identity card. It has transpired that PW1 has not complained or informed any senior officer regarding the fact that the accused persons NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 31 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:18 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
namely Hemraj, Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev had approached him for typing the matter of gate pass. He has in clear words admitted that he was not authorized to issue the gate pass. Further, it is not proved by CBI what exactly were duties of PW1 in the Establishment Section or if he was the person responsible for typing the material in identity cards/gate passes. Hence, the version of CBI that the accused persons would go to PW1 who was not even authorised to prepare the gate pass/identity card for the purpose of preparation of forged ID Card seems to be improbable.
30. PW2 Subhash Chand was next examined by the CBI.He was a constable working in CBI at the relevant time. He has identified accused Rajeev Malhotra in the court. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that accused Rajeev Malhotra visited him at the reception block of CBI office in the first half of 2005 and was asking for Sanjay Kumar to meet him for issuance of I- card. He has identified photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra on Ex. PW1/A which was also carried by Rajiv Malhotra at that time. He deposed further that Satya Dev came thereafter and they took Rajeev Malhotra to the receptionist Mr. R.S. Negi. He testified further that Mr. Sanjay Dhall also came at the reception but Rajiv Malhotra could not identify him. The CBI has examined this witness basically to prove that the accused Rajeev Malhotra was also seen by him several times with other accused and also came at the reception of CBI Office to enquire about NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 32 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:23 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
accused Sanjay in order to show conspiracy amongst them and to prove that there was meeting of mind for the purpose of conspiracy as alleged. However, the testimony of this witness is not sufficient for the purpose of proving the alleged conspiracy amongst the accused persons. Simply for the reason that the accused Rajeev Malhotra went to CBI office and asked about accused Sanjay does not confirm by any stretch of imagination that there was a conspiracy involved. Had there been conspiracy as alleged, then accused Sanjay Kumar would have been present when accused Rajeev Malhotra visited the reception block for issuance of I-Card. During his cross-examination, PW2 confirmed that his duty was not at the reception. This witness has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has seen accused Rajiv Malhotra several times with accused Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj and Sanjeev. But no specific dates of such sighting has been deposed by this witness as rightly argued by learned counsel of accused Sanjay Kumar. It is also to be noted that the CBI failed to examine Mr. Sanjay Dhall who also came at the reception and could not be identified by accused Rajiv Malhotra.
31. PW 14 Satdev Singh is another witness who was working in the ACB, CBI branch. He also deposed that the accused Rajeev Malhotra came to the reception at CBI office and inquired about Sanjay. He deposed further that Rajeev came with the copy of I- Card and has shown the same to them. It is to be noted that Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 ACJM-06 RADC 02:35:27 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 33 of 72 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
PW2 did not depose if the ID card was shown by accused Rajiv Malhotra to him. In fact, this witness has confirmed the defence of the accused Sanjay to some extent that accused Sanjay was working at the home of DIG concerned as he has deposed very categorically that when they enquired in the branch of Sanjay, it was informed that he had accompanied the concerned DIG to his home at Gurgaon. He deposed next that on asking the reason, accused Rajeev Malhotra stated that Sanjay got prepared his I- card and the same has been misplaced and that he wants to get issued the new card, however, this is not the version of any other witnesses examined by CBI who was working in the reception of ACB, CBI branch. During his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was on duty at the reception and R.S. Negi was present at the reception and that there were three persons on the reception, including him. This witness has categorically deposed that there was an entry register at the reception only and every person who wants to enter the CBI office has to mark his entry in the said register. He deposed next that Rajeev Malhotra's name was not entered in the register as he returned back from the reception. To my mind, same cannot be believed because when such registers exist then the entry would have been made even if the person returned back from the reception. It is noteworthy that no such reception register has been seized during the investigation by the investigation officer. Surprisingly, this witness deposed that the accused Rajiv Malhotra showed the photocopy of I-Card to them.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 34 of 72 02:35:30
+0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Whereas, PW2 did not depose so and in fact, specifically deposed that Rajiv Malhotra was asking for Sanjay Kumar to meet him for issuance of I-card. He did not remember the date, month ,time and exact year of the incident, though he deposed that it was around noon. He admitted that he had identified the accused on pointing out of the IO. He was himself not sure whether it may or may not be possible to identify the person having interaction of 10 minutes after around one year.It seems that this witness has identified accused Rajeev Malhotra only at the instance of the IO.
32. The next witness examined by the CBI to corroborate that accused Rajeev Malhotra came to the reception block of CBI is PW15 Rajendra Singh Negi.He deposed that he was on reception duty at ACB in the year 2005- 2006 and one Constable Satdev and Subhash Chand brought Rajeev Malhotra to him and asked him to meet him with Sanjay Kumar. He deposed next that he asked Rajiv Malhotra the purpose for visiting Sanjay and he replied that some I-card type card is to be given to him. He identified accused Rajeev Malhotra in the court as well as on the photograph of I-card Ex PW1/A. During his cross-examination by learned PP for asking leading question, he has deposed that he did not remember the ID card type shown to him on the fateful day was a copy or original. During his cross-examination, this witness deposed that they have register in which the entry and exit of a person is recorded. He has voluntarily stated that the Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 35 of 72 2025.09.15 02:35:35 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
entry on the register made by them as and when the official wants to be visited, gave permission to send the person who has come to meet him. Surprisingly, this factum has not been so deposed by any other witness who was present at the reception block at that time. He deposed further that he had not made any entry qua the visit of Rajeev Malhotra in the register. He has then deposed that accused Rajeev Malhotra had told him that he wanted to give something to Sanjay. He did not remember whether accused Rajiv Malhotra had brought the ID card for issuance and attestation. He has admitted that no card issuance or its attestation was being done at CBI office. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the fact of accused Rajeev Malhotra showing him his passport size photograph or the accused Rajeev Malhotra holding the passport size photograph in his hand.Meaning thereby that this witness improved upon his version during his deposition in the court.
33. It also stands confirmed from the testimony of the investigating officer PW-17 that no entry was made in the register at the reception block of CBI with regard to arrival of accused Rajeev Malhotra. It was deposed by the investigating officer PW-17 that Sanjay Kumar and other accused person ensured that no entry of Rajeev Malhotra maybe made in the visitor register. However, this fact has not been mentioned by the investigating officer during the entire chargesheet. It was further NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 36 of 72 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:39 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
deposed by investigating officer PW17 that Sanjay Kumar and another accused person gave the impression that Rajiv Malhotra has been called by the higher authority for reliable information, but same is not the case of the prosecution and not so deposed by any other witness who were present at the relevant time at the reception. The said fact is also not mentioned in the chargesheet and seems to be an improvement and after thought. In fact, Sanjay was not present when accused Rajeev Malhotra visited the Reception Block of CBI. Investigating officer PW-17 has then deposed that the temporary card for the worker is issued by CBI and the accused had approached Vipin Kumar for the purpose of typing of I-card to be issued by the concerned Authority. At the cost of repetition, it could not be understood why would accused persons go to PW1 Vipin Kumar only for the purpose of typing of I-card when the same could have been done easily from outside without raising any suspicion.
34. Otherwise also, it is clear that all the persons present at the reception i.e. PW2, PW14 and PW15 gave different versions with regard to the purpose of visiting the Reception Block by accused Rajiv Malhotra. Even if it is assumed that accused Rajiv Malhotra visited the Reception of CBI, this fact cannot singularly prove the conspiracy as alleged, otherwise accused Sanjay Kumar would have ensured his presence there or would have informed accused Rajiv Malhotra about his absence for any reason whatsoever.
NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 37 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:43 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
35. Additionally, the investigating officer PW-17 deposed that the accused persons also enquired about the stamp of police, AC-III, CBI, which was used on the forged ID card. However, this version has not been deposed by any other witness regarding inquiry made by the accused persons regarding stamps. He has further deposed that the investigation also revealed that some of the stamps of Superintendent of Police, AC-III,CBI were not traceable, however, the investigation is totally lacking in this regard.
36. It is also to be noted that the investigation is also lacking as to the action that was taken with regard to missing stamps. The investigating office did not even have any knowledge regarding any department enquiry initiated against the person and under whose custody those stamps were. Pertinently, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were responsible for stealing of those stamps. Neither those stamps were seized from the house nor recovered from the possession of any of the accused person. The stamp vendor who prepared the triplicate stamps for AC-III unit has also not been made a witness.
37. It is next the version of CBI that the forged identity card Ex.PW1/A was got laminated by the accused Sanjay from a photocopy shop in Khan market owned by PW12 Sanjay Logani who was also doing the work of binding and laminating. However, this witness deposed during his examination-in-chief that he did not remember any incident of March, 2006. He NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 38 of 72 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:47 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
deposed that two persons came at his shop and introduced themselves as Mr. Sangwan from CBI along with Mr. Sanjay. However, he could not identify the said two persons due to passage of time. He deposed further that they asked him about the lamination of a card. This witness was not aware about anything else and deposed clearly that he will not be able to identify the said Card shown to him if he had laminated the same. He has deposed further that there is a possibility that in case he was busy with photocopy machine the lamination might have been done by his staff. No record was kept by him regarding lamination as there was no such legal requirement. This witness was also cross-examined by learned PP for CBI as he was not disclosing the correct facts. The identity card D3 in the name of Rajiv Malhotra was put to this witness but he deposed that he cannot admit it as the Card shown to him. When his attention was drawn towards the accused Rajiv Malhotra and asked if he was the same person who had come along with CBI official, he denied the same. He deposed further that he did not remember him correctly, but he does seem to be the same person. Meaning thereby that this witness is not sure about the identity of the person who came to his shop when he was pointed towards accused Rajeev Malhotra. Similar was his testimony when he was shown another ID card Ex. PW7/A, he deposed that he cannot admit that the card was laminated by their shop. Though he has identified accused Sanjay Kumar stating that he had come NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 39 of 72 02:35:51 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
to his shop along with CBI official, but he has very categorically stated that he did not remember whether he had come to his shop in the month of March- April 2005 for the purpose of lamination of Card Ex.PW7/A. Merely identifying the accused Sanjay was not suffice in the absence of proving if he had visited the said shop during the relevant time of forgery in question or at the time of making preparation for committing the offence alleged.
38. It was contended vehemently on behalf of CBI that since the identity card of accused Sanjay Kumar (Ex. PW7/A) has been used in committing forgery of identity card Ex. PW1/A which bears photograph and correct address of accused Rajiv Malhotra hence, they are responsible for forging the said identity card and same stands substantiated with the testimony of PW3 and PW10 who confirmed the address of accused Rajiv Malhotra on the forged identity card.
39. PW3 Nandlal is the owner of the property bearing no.17/108, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31. His testimony is only with regard to the fact of rent agreement dated 01.10.2001 which was executed between his wife namely Smt. Sheela Devi and the accused Rajiv Malhotra. He has identified the signature of his wife Smt. Sheela Devi thereon and proved the same vide Mark A. It is pertinent to mention that the original rent agreement could not be produced as this witness deposed that he has lost the same. He has testified categorically that accused Rajeev Malhotra resided at the said address for a period of 5-6 months. There is no NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 40 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:35:55 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
cross-examination of this witness by any of the accused persons. Moreover, this fact is not even denied by accused Rajiv Malhotra. Hence, it stands confirmed from the testimony of this witness that the accused Rajiv Malhotra resided at property bearing no.17/108, Geeta colony in the year 2001.
40. PW 10 Suchitar Kumar Hurai, who is son of PW-3 Nandlal is another witness who has come in the deposition box in order to testify that house bearing no.17/108 was given on rent by his mother to accused Rajiv Malhotra and his brother Rohit Malhotra. He had also identified the accused Rajeev Malhotra in the court and had also proved the photocopy of the rent agreement bearing signature of his mother vide Ex.PW1-/A. He has also identified one ID card i.e. D3 bearing the photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra and showing his address. He has deposed that it was not possible to trace the original rent agreement. He testified further that he had seen accused Rajeev Malhotra during the tenancy. A perusal of D3, which is a photocopy of the identity card Ex.PW1/A shows the address of Rajeev Malhotra as 17/108, Geeta colony, New Delhi. Hence, it stands duly proved by the conjoint testimony of PW3 and PW10 that the accused Rajiv Malhotra resided at the address given in the forged identity card Ex.PW1/A.
41. It is pertinent to mention that the specimen handwriting/signatures of only two accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar and Hemraj have been taken from the Records D8 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:35:58
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 41 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(Ex. PW17/D) and D9 (Ex. PW17/F) during the course of investigation from points A-1 to A-13 and A-14 to A-21 respectively. However, the signatures of accused persons Sanjay Kumar and Hemraj could not tally with the signatures on identity card Ex.PW1/A as clear from the CFSL report Ex. PW18/A. The CBI failed to prove whose signatures are appended at point Q5 i.e. at the place of "signature of holder" in ID Card Ex. PW1/A. No specimen signature of accused Rajiv Malhotra were taken during the course of investigation by the investigating officer which could have thrown some light if the accused Rajeev Malhotra signed at point Q5 in forged identity card Ex. PW1/A. It was argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that accused Rajiv Malhotra would not have otherwise used his original signatures in the forged ID card. To my mind, if it was so then he would also have not used his correct address also. Hence, argument of learned PP for CBI in this regard stands rejected.
42. Pertinently, the signatures of accused Rajeev Malhotra are appended as tenant on the photocopies of the rent deed Ex.PW10/A recovered during the course of investigation. A comparison of the signature of accused Rajiv Malhotra on the rent deed Ex.PW10/A with those of the holder of the identity card Ex.PW1/A reveals that the same does not tally even when seen from the naked eyes.
43. Importantly, the identity card EX.PW1/A has not been recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 42 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:03 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
during their searches. PW17, the investigating officer has proved the FIR vide Ex. PW17/A. It is mentioned in the FIR that one identity card has been collected from a source, which is in the name of Rajeev Malhotra with the address as 17/108, Geeta colony, New Delhi, which mentions the holder to be an agent for CBI, and containing the signature of the issuing authority on the identity card. Based on the information only the present FIR was registered. The investigating officer PW-17 has clearly deposed that prior to registration of FIR, the identity card in the name of Rajeev Malhotra was recovered by the source from accused Rajeev Malhotra and same was shared with the office of Superintendent of Police, AC-III that led to the registration of the instant case. He deposed further that the identity card bearing no. 12828 in the name of accused Sanjay Kumar was obtained by him during the course of investigation of the present case. During his deposition, he stated that along with the FIR, the copy of the identity card was also enclosed with it. Perusal of the file shows that the present case was registered on the basis of source information and same has been so deposed by the investigating officer. Meaning thereby that the forged ID card was given by the source, and this was the manner how the forged identity card Ex.PW1/A landed with the CBI. It could not be understood why the accused Rajiv Malhotra will hand over forged identity card in his name to source which might implicate him in criminal cases and might expose his alleged "modus operandi" to cheat by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 43 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:06 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
impersonating as CBI official by using a forged ID card. Undoubtedly, the CBI was not duty bound to divulge the source as rightly argued by learned PP for CBI but the story that source recovered the forged I-card from accused Rajeev Malhotra seems improbable.
44. It was urged by learned PP for CBI that no explanation is forthcoming from the side of accused Rajiv Malhotra as to why his photograph is found appended on the forged identity card Ex.PW1/A along with his correct address. He has vehemently relied on section 106 of the Evidence Act to bring home the charge against the accused.
45. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states as under:-
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket.
The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
46. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 44 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:10 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration(a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience". Reliance in this regard can be placed on case law titled as Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404,
47. In Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725, it was observed as under:
"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
ACJM-06 RADC 02:36:15
+0530
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 45 of 72
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all.When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
48. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 10 SCC 373, it was observed as under:-
"23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened.
In that process, the courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:36:19
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 46 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilised. We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.
49. Clearly, the passport size photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra is appended on the forged ID card Ex. PW1/A along with his correct address. Accused Rajeev Malhotra has offered explanation for the same in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that his passport size photograph was misused by CBI officials.
50. It was urged on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the accused Rajiv Malhotra has offered false explanation and same is strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for the commission of the crime. The submission of learned PP for CBI seems to be attractive and does raise suspicion in the mind of the court with regard to role of accused in forgery but it is trite law that suspicion can not take place of proof. If the identity card would have been recovered from the possession of accused Rajiv Malhotra, things would have been different. In that scenario, the burden would have definitely been on accused under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act as stated by learned PP for CBI to give an NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 47 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:23 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
explanation. Neither Ex.PW1/A has been recovered from accused Rajiv Malhotra nor carries his signature. Hence, there arises no question of shifting the burden on accused as the circumstantial evidence required to be established by the prosecution is not established with regard to offence of conspiracy and forgery. Therefore, lack of proper explanation by merely stating that the passport size photograph of accused Rajeev Malhotra has been misused is not relevant at all.
51. The only circumstance which points towards the role of accused Sanjay Kumar in the forgery of identity card Ex.PW1/A is that his identity card Ex.PW7/A has been used for the purpose of superimposition on the forged identity card Ex.PW1/A. Accused Sanjay Kumar has taken the defence that his identity card might have been misused as he has lost the same one year prior to the present case. In order to substantiate the same, he has relied upon the complaint made by him. A perusal of the receiving of the complaint Ex.DX-1 having stamp of P.S. Vasant Kunj dated 02.01.2005 substantiates the defence of the accused Sanjay Kumar that he had lost his wallet having identity card bearing no.12828, phone diary, four passport size photographs and cash of Rs. 300/-. The present FIR has been registered on 24.02.2006. Thus, the accused Sanjay Kumar has been able to probabalise the defence made on his behalf to that extent. Hence, from the above discussion it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts the NEETU (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 48 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:27 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
conspiracy as alleged or that the forgery of Identity Card Ex.PW1/A was done by the accused persons.
CHEATING
52. 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."
53. 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".
54. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 49 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:31 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, to constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
55. 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. 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 ingredient of the NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 50 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:35 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
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.
56. 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 offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 51 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:39 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
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".
57. In the backdrop of the above legal position, let us now critically examine the version of the prosecution that the accused persons cheated persons namely Deepak Arora and Satish Katyal by conducting raids impersonating as CBI officers.
FIRST RAID
58. With regard to the first raid allegedly conducted at the house of Deepak Arora, the investigating officer PW17 deposed that during the search Deepak Arora had confirmed that accused Hemraj, Sanjeev and Sanjay Kumar had raided his residential house along with accused Rajeev Malhotra and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from him, and that he also confirmed that he had made payment of Rs.14,000/- after the demand and after negotiation. However, the said witness could not be examined by CBI due to the reason that he was not traceable. Hence, the said allegations could not be proved.
59. Moreover, the investigating officer/PW-17 also NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 52 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:43 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
categorically deposed that he has not come across any complaint made by Deepak Arora in the year 2005. The same revelation came to him from Deepak Arora after registration of the present FIR during his examination. It could not be understood how the investigation led to Deepak Arora. This link is missing. With regard to the allegation that Deepak Arora made the payment to accused Rajeev Malhotra, it was deposed by the investigating officer PW17 that the transaction was made in cash. Meaning thereby, there is no document to substantiate the payment, if any made by Deepak Arora to any of the accused.
60. Resultantly, the version of the CBI with regard to cheating of Deepak Arora could not be proved due to his non-examination as he was best witness who could have deposed regarding the factum of cheating and delivery of Rs. 14,000/- in pursuance thereof. The CBI has thus miserably failed to prove the first raid conducted by the accused persons as alleged in the month of May 2005 for the purpose of cheating PW Deepak Arora. Simply proving the existence of Deepak Arora by examining his landlord PW 11 V.K. Thakur and preparation of Panchnama at his instance is not sufficient to prove the alleged cheating. The wife of Deepak Arora namely Seema was also made a witness but even she was not examined being untraceable.
61. Learned PP then relied on the testimony of PW8 Harminder Singh. He is the attesting witness to the searches conducted under section 165 Cr.P.C. at the house owned by the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 53 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:47 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
sister of accused Sanjay Kumar. He has proved the Panchnama dated 27. 02. 2006, vide Ex.PW8/A. He was attesting witness to another search conducted at the house of the accused Sanjay Yadav and proved the panchnama dated 27.02.2006 vide Ex.PW8/B. He has deposed that both the panchnama were prepared at the spot and the accused Sanjay Kumar and Sanjay Yadav were identified by Deepak Arora. He is attesting witness to another search conducted at the Quarter of accused Hemraj, who was also identified by Deepak Arora and proved the same Ex.PW8/C. It is to be noted that Deepak Arora, at whose instance, the accused namely Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Yadav, Hemraj were identified could not be examined by the prosecution. Surprisingly, no TIP was conducted by the investigating officer and directly searches have been made at the house of the accused persons, which gives blow to the case of the CBI.
SECOND RAID
62. The next raid was allegedly conducted by accused Sanjay, Hemraj and Sanjeev in order to cheat Satish Katyal, who was the owner of Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic for delivery of cash to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- but same was not delivered. The only witnesses who could have proved the factum of the second raid and attempt to cheat were the persons who were present at the time of the alleged raid. Surprisingly, the present complaint has not been made by Satish Katyal or his wife Neeru, who were the owners NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 54 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:52 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
of Sahil Ayurvedic Centre. Notably, Satish Katyal could not be examined by the CBI as he had expired during the course of the trial.
63. Learned PP on behalf of CBI took the attention of this court to the examination-in- chief of the complainant namely PW4 Mahavir Singh. PW4 Mahavir Singh has deposed during his examination-in-chief that on 07.01.2006, he along with Satish Katyal was sitting in Sahil Ayurvedic clinic, which was being run by wife of Satish Katyal, namely Neeru. At about 1 PM, two persons came inside the clinic and told that they have come from Chandigarh and one of them was having pain in his leg. Dr Nek Singh used to sit at that time in the clinic and was present on the said date, and he told that person that the pain can be cured after massaging with some Ayurvedic cream. He has further deposed that thereafter both the persons entered the room and started searching the ladies purse. Two ladies were also working in the clinic. One lady used to do the sweeping job and other used to assist the doctor. He and Satish Katyal entered into the room where both the persons were searching the ladies purse, and told him that something was going wrong there. Thereafter, he and Satish Katyal asked both the persons to disclose their identity upon which they had told him that it was a CBI raid and one of them had shown an I-card. The said two persons told them that they were going to have bad time, they explained them that no wrong doing was going on there, however, both the said two NEETU (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 55 of 72 Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:36:56 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
persons repeated that they were in trouble and going to have bad time. Thereafter, both the persons told that the matter would be dealt by 'Bade Sahib' and thereafter a call was made to 'Bade Sahib' and after about 5 to 10 minutes, the said 'Bade Sahib' came inside the clinic and he caught hold of the collar of the shirt of Satish Katyal. Thereafter, the 'Bade Sahib' had asked both the said two persons to put them in the vehicle and take them to the office. They explained to 'Bade Sahib' that no wrong doing was going on there. It was further categorically deposed by this witness that those two persons had made the demand Rs. 10,000/- but they were not having such huge amount at that time. Thereafter, Satish was taken to the office of Central Excise located at Gagandeep building, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, for the said amount as he wanted to arrange the demanded money from one of his colleague as money could not be arranged. They told those three persons that their demanded money would be arranged on Monday. Those three persons, himself and Satish Katyal had taken the tea in the market and thereafter, those three persons had left. He has identified those three persons as accused Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev, and Hemraj. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint regarding the present matter vide Ex.PW4/A.
64. It was argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that since the examination-in-chief of PW-4 Mahavir Singh has not been rebutted due to lack of cross-examination by the accused persons hence, his entire testimony is to be treated as admitted by the Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 56 of 72 02:37:09 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
accused persons. Perusal of file shows that on 14.05.2024, an application under section 311 IPC was moved on behalf of accused Sanjay Kumar in respect of recalling PW4 Mahavir Singh and PW7 Dr. Nek Singh. The said application was allowed by the learned predecessor court on 20.06.2024. The Order dated 27.09.2024 mentions that Mahavir Singh (PW4) had already expired on 09/06/2023. Hence, PW4 could not be cross-
examined by the accused due to his death. It is now to be seen whether the testimony of PW4 is completely reliable on not.It is therefore necessary to see the contents of the complaint Ex.PW4/A.
65. It has been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint Ex.PW4/A that on 70.01.06 (date wrongly mentioned), he was present in Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic along with his friend Satish Kumar Katyal. On the said day, three persons came and told that they are CBI officials and stated to them that they are doing some wrong doing. When they told their entire working, then they were not satisfied and started making search and misbehaving with them. One of them showed his red coloured identity card from a distance and the other one demanded Rs.10,000/-. They were not having that much amount and stated that would arrange in 1 to 2 days. Therefore, he stated that they told him that they will come after calling them and to arrange that much amount. Later, when they got down, one other person was standing. He has next stated that on 10.01.2006, 12.01.2006 and 13.01.2006, NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 57 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:21 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
one of them who named himself as Hemant called at his number 9818541913 and that of Satish at 9213441651 and asked about the collection of money to which they stated that they are trying to which he said that they will come to take the same in the noon and stated that the amount should not be less than Rs.2000/- to 3000/- and rest of the amount will be taken by them later on. He stated further that on 13.01.06, they waited for him and Hemant called them many times, but he did not come to take the money. Later on, he got to know their names as Hemraj, Sanjeev and Sanjay Yadav, who were working in CBI complex as detailed in the complaint.
66. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint made by PW4 vide Ex.PW4/A and the testimony recorded of this witness as PW4, it has transpired that this witness has improved upon his testimony as well as made various material contradictions. In his complaint Ex.PW4/A,he has stated that there were three persons who came and the fourth one was waiting down, whereas during his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that only two persons had come inside the clinic and third person "Bade Sahab" came later. It is pertinent to mention that he has deposed that two ladies were working in the Clinic. However, the CBI has not examined those two ladies. Moreover, in his complaint Ex.PW4/A, he has stated that one of the accused showed a red coloured ID card to him, whereas he omitted the colour of the identity card during his deposition. Whereas, it is deposed by the investigating officer NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 58 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:25 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
that the colour of ID card was multicolour, including red. Perusal of the ID card Ex. PW7/A shows that the same is not in red colour entirely. PW4 has not even deposed as to what happened on 10.01.2006, 12.01.2006 and 13.01.2006 regarding the calls made by one person namely Hemant.
67. It is also to be noted that in the complaint dated 25.01.2006, it has not been mentioned that accused Sanjay Kumar showed a revolver or he was carrying a revolver at the time of raid at Sahil Ayurvedic clinic on 07.01.2006. Further, the statement of PW4 Mahavir Singh does not specifically state that Sanjay Kumar was carrying the revolver. PW-17,the investigation officer also very clearly testified that 'Bade Sahib' was not carrying the revolver. Then he has voluntarily stated that it was either Hemraj alias Shunty or Sanjeev as per the statement of Mahavir Singh. He admitted that 'Bade Sahab' neither had a revolver nor showed his I-card from a distance. He voluntarily deposed that I-card and revolver was used by the accused person who made first entry i.e. Sanjay Kumar. Whereas, 'Bade Sahab' identified as accused Sanjay Kumar by PW-7 did not make the first entry. The investigating officer PW-17 has further deposed that the revolver was used by the accused person who made first entry i.e. accused Sanjay Kumar but no revolver has been recovered in the present case.
68. From a further perusal of the complaint Ex. PW4/A, it has transpired that telephonic calls were made at the number of the NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 59 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:29 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
complainant Mahavir Singh and Satish Katyal, however, no CDRs were obtained by the investigating officer for the reason best known to him. Moreover, the mobile set of any of the accused has not been seized in the present case except for mobile of accused Sanjay bearing number 9899901299 but the call has not been made from the said number to the complainant or Satish Katyal. Further CDR of mobile number of accused Sanjay bearing no.9899901299 has not been taken, despite taking the phone of the accused Sanjay Kumar in order to corroborate his presence at the time of the raids. Investigating officer also could not recollect if he has taken into possession the mobile phone of accused Rajeev Malhotra. The investigating officer has also not placed any documentary proof such as CDR record of accused Rajiv Malhotra or CCTV showing the presence of accused Rajiv Malhotra in CBI office during the alleged incident or at the time of raid.
69. Notably, PW4 did not specify as to which of the accused person was being called 'Bade Saheb'. He also did not substantiate if accused Rajeev Malhotra was also a member of the said raid at Sahil Ayurvedic clinic. Furthermore, it could not be revealed by the said witness how he came to know the details of the accused persons along with their names and designation as well as place of living when it is not the case of the prosecution that the persons who came on the date of fake raid disclosed their respective names or they were able to read the name of the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 60 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:33 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
accused on the ID card. As per the version of the investigating officer, no CCTV camera was installed in the clinic. Further, the person who showed the same was not near to the witnesses but he showed the same from a distance. It is also not the case of the prosecution that CCTV was installed at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic and that recording of the said raid was made or they identified the accused persons in the CBI office where they found all the accused to be present or that the CBI was already aware of the fact that the aforesaid accused persons had made a raid or that one of the accused was arrested prior in time and on his interrogation he shelled out all the beans, as rightly argued by learned counsel for accused Sanjay Kumar. It has also transpired that the accused were not carrying the name plates nor they revealed their names to anyone at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic then how their names were mentioned by PW-4 Mahavir in his complaint Ex. PW1/A is a mystery. Hence, not much reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness due to material contradictions despite the fact that this witness could not be cross-examined by the accused due to his death.
70. The next witness relied upon by the prosecution who was alleged to be present at the time of the second raid is PW7 Dr. Nek Singh. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has worked at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic, which was run by Mrs. Neeru. On 07.01. 2006, Mr. Mahavir and Mr. Katyan were there with him at Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic. At about 12-01 PM, two NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 61 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:37 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
unknown persons came to him and claimed themselves to be CBI officials and started inquiring from him about him and also started misbehaving with him. He informed that he is only an employee and the owner is sitting inside. They were talking about some 'Bade Sahib'. They were saying that if the information was not given, they would call 'Bade Sahib'. They went inside and loud noises came from inside. He went inside and saw that ladies purse were lying, and they were checking the purse. The owner of Sahil Ayurvedic clinic was Neeru whose purse they were checking.Then they called 'Bade Sahib' who was identified by him as accused Sanjay who also started checking. When all of them left, owner Neeru informed him that they were demanding Rs. 10,000/- on the pretext that they are CBI officials, and the owner was doing some illegal work at Sahil Ayurvedic clinic. He deposed further that Accused Sanjay also shown his ID and he has identified the same with the name of Sanjay Kumar bearing no. 12828 (D-2) vide Ex.PW7/A.
71. Pertinently, PW7 was declared hostile by learned PP for CBI as he was not disclosing the complete facts of the case and disclosed the same only during his cross-examination by learned PP. He then deposed that his statement under section 161 CR.P.C. was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW7/B. He has deposed that when those two unknown persons came in the clinic, one of them claimed that he was having pain in his legs, and that he had come from Chandigarh. Mahavir Singh advised Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:37:41
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 62 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
him to take medical prescription from him.When they went inside and he along with Mahavir Singh and Satish Katyan also went inside on hearing noises, they were using the language such as 'they could do anything as some legal activities is going on'. He deposed further that they were carrying revolver. He admitted that accused Sanjay had stated that as money is not being paid, all the persons present there would be booked and be taken to CBI Headquarters in vehicle for interrogation. He then voluntarily stated that Mr. Katyan and madam Neeru were sorting out the matter with those persons who claimed themselves to be CBI officials. He admitted that Neeru madam and Satish Katyan went along with those officials to sort out the matter as Neeru madam had informed him that they were demanding Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed that no money transaction took place in his presence, but after sometime, Neeru Madam and Satish Katyan returned and informed that the matter has been sorted out. Thus ,the entire version as deposed by PW-4 Mahavir regarding pain in the leg of one of the person has been deposed by this witness only during his cross-examination by learned PP for CBI. Hence, the version of this witness cannot be relied upon in this regard.
72. Surprisingly, during the cross-examination of PW-7, he could not even tell the name of the husband of Neeru.He was not aware who Satish Kumar Katyal was. He could not even state if Satish Kumar Katyal was the husband of Neeru. He did not know NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 63 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:45 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
Mahavir Singh. In complete contradiction to his examination-in- chief, he deposed that at the time of the incident, only he and Neeru madam were present, which has totally belied the entire version of the prosecution and raised a doubt on the testimony of PW-4 Mahavir Singh, who has deposed that he was present along with the husband of Neeru, namely Satish Kumar Katyal at the time of the raid. He deposed further that after sometime, two more persons had come, but he cannot say Mahavir Singh was one of them. Notably, this witness has stated that one of them was carrying a revolver which is not so deposed by PW-4 Mahavir Singh. He could not tell the name of the person who was carrying a pistol and was bearing an I-card on the date of the incident, however, he said that he was being addressed as 'Bade Sahib'.Meaning thereby that this witness wanted to state that it was 'Bade Sahib' who was carrying a pistol and was having an I- card on the date of the incident. This witness was also confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 CR.P.C., where he has stated that "in the meantime, one of them asked Satish Katyal to come to the kitchen and demanded Rs.10,000/- or threatened of dire consequences" to which he replied that Neeru madam had made a call after which two persons had come. He did not even know if Satish Katyal was one of them. He deposed further during his cross-examination that two persons had come who had some heated discussion with Neeru Madam inside a room and Neeru Madam had come out of the room and had told him that he NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 64 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:37:49 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her.
73. It is pertinent to mention that PW-4 Mahavir has not uttered a single word regarding the presence of Neeru at the time of raid. Surprisingly, the prosecution has not examined the most important witness present at the time of raid Ms. Neeru from whom the demand of Rs.10,000/- was made and whose purse was checked. When the investigation officer PW17 was questioned regarding the same, he has deposed that all the persons present there i.e. Mahavir Singh, Satish Katyal and Dr. Nek Chand were examined during examination and their statements were recorded. They stated about the incident of fake raid by accused persons and entirety of facts related to the said incident, hence, there was no requirement of examination of Ms. Neeru just for repetition of same facts. Such an explanation in view of the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is unjustified as Neeru was not only prime witness, but the demand was made from her as per the statement of Dr. Nek Singh who deposed to such an extent that at the time of raid only he and Neeru were present. This has caused a dent in the story of prosecution.
74. Surprisingly, PW7 pointed towards accused Rajeev Malhotra when he was asked about the two persons who were talking about 'Bade Sahib'.' Whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons except for Rajiv Malhotra had gone at the time of second raid. He deposed further Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 65 of 72 02:37:53 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
that he is not sure if anyone of them was there. When he was questioned by the court to identify the person 'Bade Sahib',' he pointed towards accused Sanjay Kumar. Learned PP for CBI argued that this witness clearly identified Sanjay Kumar as 'Bade Sahab'. To my mind, this witness though could identify 'Bade Sahib' but earlier deposed that he was not sure if the accused present in the court were there. Hence, he gave wavering statement as to the identification of accused Sanjay Kumar.
75. Astonishingly, the investigating officer PW-17 was not also sure about the name of the owner of Sahil Ayurvedic clinic. He deposed that his name might be Satvir or Mahabir or Mrs Neeru and deposed that Mahavir Singh was a friend of Satvir who used to visit his clinic.PW-17 has further deposed that all the three accused persons, namely Sanjay Kumar, Hemraj and Sanjeev Kumar, along with Rajiv Malhotra were heading the fake raid in the Sahil Ayurvedic Centre, whereas the presence of fourth accused has not transpired at the time of second raid from the testimony of PW-4 Mahavir Singh and PW-7 Dr. Nek Singh.The investigating officer PW-17 deposed in clear terms that Rajiv Malhotra was instrumental for the raid at the residential premises of Deepak Malhotra, however, he could not recollect the participation of Rajiv Malhotra in the fake raid at Sahil Ayurvedic clinic. Meaning, thereby that the investigating officer was not sure about the role of accused Rajiv Malhotra at the time of the raid at Sahil Ayurvedic clinic. During his further NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2025.09.15 Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 66 of 72 02:37:58 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
cross-examination, he has admitted that no role has been assigned to accused Rajeev Malhotra at the time of raid in Sahil Ayurvedic Clinic.
76. It is also pertinent to mention that the complaint was officially made by Mahavir Singh on 25.01.2006. Whereas, the alleged incident took place on 07.01.2006. The delay of almost 18 days to file the complaint has not been explained by CBI.
77. With regard to contradictions, in Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 , it was observed as follows:
"9. Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to reappraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
78. Similarly, in Rammi v. State of M.P. [(1999) 8 SCC 649 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 26] , it was observed :-
Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 67 of 72 2025.09.15
02:38:02
+0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
(SCC p. 656, para 24) '24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally nondiscrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.' (emphasis supplied)
79. Thus, keeping the above case laws in mind, it is crystal clear that the material witnesses who could have proved the second raid were PW4 Mahavir and PW7 Nek Singh, however, there are material contradictions in the testimony of the said two witnesses as well as the investigating officer/PW-17 as noted above, which has ruined the entire case of the prosecution regarding raids and created serious doubts in the version of the prosecution.
80. The other witnesses who have been examined by the CBI are official witnesses and formal witnesses but their testimonies are not sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused persons.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
81. It is the defence of the accused Sanjay Kumar that PW Mahavir Singh and PW Satish Katyal were pimps and indulging Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2025.09.15
02:38:06
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 68 of 72 +0530
CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
in wrong activities in collusion with the owner of the said clinic, Neeru, and they were running a prostitution racket from the said clinic due to which FIR bearing no. 155/2006 dated 15.02.2006 was registered by Police Station Shiv Vihar, District North West under Immoral Trafficking Act because of the involvement of said PW Mahavir Singh, Satish Katyal and three ladies namely Priya, Neelam and one Phool Jashan as per the photocopy of FIR Mark D-2. However, mere allegations in this regard is not sufficient in the absence of proof thereof. Hence, this defence version fails.
82. It is further the defence of accused Sanjay Kumar that the total number of constables assigned to work at the residence of DIG Ms. S.S. Sundri Nanda, IPS were four in number i.e. three from CBI and one from Delhi Police, out of whom accused Sanjay Kumar was the one who was assigned the job of taking her children namely Baby Prakriti Nanda and Master Partyush Nanda to their school as their escort-come driver in Toyota of the said DIG, since accused Sanjay Kumar knew driving. However, there is no proof in that regard. The accused Sanjay has not even examined DIG Ms.S.S. Sundari Nanda or any other person who was working with him at the residence of DIG Ms.S.S. Sundari Nanda.It is further the defence of the accused Sanjay Kumar that there were two other CBI officials who were assigned for duty to DIG. But the other two CBI officials were not examined by him. Even though, the fact that the accused Sanjay was working as a NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 69 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:38:12 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
driver stands corroborated from the testimony of the investigating officer PW-17 who has himself deposed that he did not recollect, but it was DIG madam, who was supervising this case since registration was upset as accused Sanjay was being used as a driver, as and when required. However, the defence of accused Sanjay that on the particular day of raids, he was working at the residence of DIG Ms. S.S. Sundari Nanda remains unproved as there is no proof to that effect also. It is stated on behalf of learned counsel of accused that a copy/log book was maintained by DIG S.S. Sunderi Nanda in her house in which the presence of accused was recorded daily and that the said fact was specifically told to the investigating officer by accused Sanjay Kumar during the course of interrogation more so, DIG S.S. Sundri Nanda used to countersign the copy/log book. But the said copy/log book has not been placed on record by the accused person. Hence, it seems that the version of the accused Sanjay Kumar regarding alibi has remained unproved on record.
83. However, merely for the reason that the accused Sanjay Kumar failed to prove his defence does not mean that the case of the prosecution stands proved as it is settled law that prosecution must stand or fail on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Reliance can be placed on case law titled as Sharad B. Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.
84. The court in the end cannot lose sight of the golden NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 70 of 72 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2025.09.15 02:38:18 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
principle which runs through the entire criminal justice system of burden upon the prosecution of proving their case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt against accused. The prosecution is required to complete the journey of their case by showing that the proved material shows that accused must have committed the offence and not merely may have committed the offence. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense.
85. As a squeal of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the role of accused persons in the commission of the offence alleged beyond shadows of reasonable doubt and the benefit of the same deserves to be given to them.
CONCLUSION
86. In view of the above discussed findings, it has to be concluded in the end that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has several gaps and too many material contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses as discussed above, due to which the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar and Rajiv Malhotra stand acquitted of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120- B, 419, read with 120-B, 467 read with 120-B, 468 read with NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 71 of 72 Date: 2025.09.15 02:38:22 +0530 CBI 45/2019 CBI VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.
120-B, 468 read with 471 IPC read with Section 120-B and 419 read with 511 and 120-B IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
87. Accused to furnish bail bond under Section 481 BNSS 2023 (437-A Cr.P.C).
88. Copy of judgment be given to learned PP for CBI as well as to the accused persons free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
Announced in the open NEETU NAGAR
court today i.e. 15.09.2025 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.15
(This Judgment contains 72 pages 02:38:28
signed by the undersigned) +0530
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
15.09.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:15.09.2025 Page 72 of 72