Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Narayan Diwakar & Ors. on 16 August, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI03
(NORTHWEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Case No. CBI50/2016
CNR No. DLNW010000532006
CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS)
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi
U/s 120B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC& Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act
1988 and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468/471 IPC & Sec. 15 r/w
13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988.
CBI Vs. 1. Narayan Diwakar
S/o Late Sh. Chhathi Lal
R/o G30, Masjid Moth,
Greater KailashII,
New Delhi38
2. Yogi Raj
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o AP77, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
3. U.S. Bhatnagar
S/o Late Sh. S.S. Bhatnagar
R/o B479, Delhi Administration Flats,
Timarpur, Delhi54
4. Gokul Chand Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad
R/o A603 & 703, Ashoka Appts.,
Plot No. 36/2, Rohini Sector9,
Delhi
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 1/91
2
5. Ramnath
S/o Late Sh. Bishan Lal
R/o 192, Gali No.9,
West Guru Angad Nagar,
Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi92.
6. Balam Singh Aswal
S/o Sh. Dhyan Singh
R/o T3/34, Kalyan Vas,
Near Mayur ViharII,
Delhi91
7. P.K. Thirwani,
S/o Late Sh. Moti Ram Thirwani,
R/o 348E, PocketII, Mayur Vihar,
Phase1, Delhi91.
8. Kamal Singh
S/o Sh. Bhakhtawar Singh,
R/o 677, Vill.&P.O Badli,
Delhi42.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS)
Date of institution of the case 14.12.2006
Date on which, case has been received in this court 04.05.2011
Date on which, judgment have been reserved19.7.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment 09.8.2017
JUDGEMENT:
In brief, the case of the prosecution/CBI is that vide order dated 02.08.2005 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10066/2004, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed the CBI to conduct the investigation with respect to illegal and unlawful FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 2/91 3 revival of defunct 135 Cooperative Group Housing Societies including the present society i.e. Hindustan Steel Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society. On the basis of preliminary inquiry, conducted by the CBI, this case bearing RC No. 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi was registered U/s 120B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC& Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468/471 IPC & Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 against accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, accused Yogi Raj (A2) the then Assistant Registrar, accused US Bhatnagar (A3) the then Dealing Assistant, accused Niranjan Singh, the then Dealing Assistant & accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) (private person) and other unknown persons.
It is stated that the Hindustan Steel Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society (hereinafter called as 'Society') was got registered with office of Registrar Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred as 'RCS'), Delhi vide registration no. 63(H) on 15.7.1971 with address at Jeevandeep Building, 10 Parliament Street, New Delhi. It is further stated that a list of 103 members was forwarded to DDA in the year 1976 by Sh. B.L. Khurana, the then Secretary of the Society, for allotment of land. The DDA asked for the deposit of 25% of cost of land by 15.4.1977 vide letter dated 01.04.1977 addressed to the Secretary of the Society. When the Society failed to deposit the requisite money with DDA despite extensions granted to the Society from time to time, it was put under liquidation vide order dated 21.3.1979 passed by Sh. Ashok Bakshi, the then Deputy Registrar in the office of RCS. It is stated that in the year 2003, with a dishonest intention to obtain land from DDA at concessional rate and taking advantage of old registration number of the society, accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal, accused Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, accused Yogi Raj, accused U.S. Bhatnagar, accused Ram Nath, accused Balam Singh Aswal, accused P.K. Thirwani and accused Kamal Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy to FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 3/91 4 revive the society fraudulently on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal prepared forged and fabricated documents viz. affidavits of 143 members, their membership application forms, receipts of membership fee, account/audit papers for 24 years, minutes of proceedings of the society besides election proceedings. On 4.8.2003 accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal submitted application for revival of the society in the office of RCS purportedly having been signed by one Vinod Kumar, the secretary of the society. Accused U.S. Bhatnagar and accused Yogi Raj put a note for revival of the society without making efforts to verify antecedents and genuineness of Vinod Kumar who claimed himself to be secretary of the society. Accused Yogi Raj recommended appointment of accused Ram Nath as an inspection officer. Accused Ram Nath submitted false inspection report dated 28.8.03 stating therein that he visited the office of society at JU 70B, Pitampura, Delhi and met Vinod Kumar, the Secretary of the society and verified the records. Accused Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, approved the revival of society on 19.11.03 and sent freeze list of 143 approved members to DDA for allotment of land. After revival of society, accused Balam Singh Aswal was appointed as an Election Officer to conduct election of the managing committee of the society within two months. It is stated that accused Balam Singh Aswal submitted false election proceedings report. Accused P.K. Thirwani and accused Kamal Singh, the then auditors, also submitted false audit reports in respect of records of the society. It is alleged that the aforesaid accused persons conspired with each other for revival of the society and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, documents were forged and as used as genuine, forged reports were prepared and used as genuine by the accused persons and thereafter, society was got revived. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against all the above named accused persons u/s 120B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC & FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 4/91 5 Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468/471 IPC & Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988.
2. It is stated that all the accused namely Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), US Bhatnagar (A3), Gokul Aggarwal (A4), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6), P.K.Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them for getting revived the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS (Society) on the basis of false and forged documents for the purpose of getting land from DDA at subsidized rates.
It is further stated that accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) while working as Registrar in office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as a public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by reviving the society and approving the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents.
It is stated that accused Yogiraj (A2) while working as Assistant Registrar and accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as public servants obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by submitting false and favorable notings with regard to the verification of documents for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of said Society on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 5/91 6 such documents.
It is further stated that accused Ram Nath (A5) while working as GradeII Service Officer in the office of RCS, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as a public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by submitting a false inspection report dated 28.08.2003 without visiting the office of the Society for getting revived the society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of forged documents.
It is stated that accused Balam Singh Aswal (A6) while working as Election Officer GradeIV in the office of RCS, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as a public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by submitting a false Election Report qua elections conducted on 23.12.2003 for getting revived the Society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of forged documents.
It is further stated that accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) and accused Kamal Singh (A8) while working as Auditors in the office of RCS, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and by otherwise abusing official position as public servants obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage by conducting a false Audit without visiting the office of the 'Society' and by submitting false audit report and by allowing coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C. Saxena President, Vinod Kumar Secretary and K. Paul Treasurer on the audit reports for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 6/91 7 It is also stated that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) during the year 200304 at Delhi dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates. It is further stated that during the year 200304 at Delhi, A4 dishonestly and fraudulently impersonated himself as Vinod Kumar self styled Secretary, R.C. Saxena President and K. Paul Treasurer of the society in the office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates. It is stated that during the aforesaid period and places, A4 fraudulently and dishonestly in order to cheat the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents, he prepared or got prepared false and forged documents affidavits, forms etc for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates. It is further stated that during the aforesaid period and places, A4 fraudulently and dishonestly used the fake and fabricated documents for getting revived the society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents which he prepared or got prepared for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates.
3. Thereafter, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offences u/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC& Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 was framed against accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), US Bhatnagar (A3), Gokul FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 7/91 8 Aggarwal (A4), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6), P.K. Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court. Further, charge for committing the offences u/s Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act 1988 was framed against accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), US Bhatnagar (A3), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6), P.K. Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8). In addition to this, charge for committing the offences u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC was also framed against the accusedGokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
The above named accused persons pleaded not guilty to the respective charges framed against them and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution/CBI has examined 122 witnesses i.e PW1 to PW122.
Prosecution witnesses can be classified as under: ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY : PW61 R.P. Narang, PW81 Gunanand Madwal.
FAKE MEMBERS OR NOT MEMBERS IN THE SOCIETY : PW1 Gursharan Singh Saluja, PW2 Vivek Kaushik, PW3 Shankar Lal, PW4 Anita, PW5 Girdhari Lal Goswami, PW6 Ram Prasad Shah, PW7 Sudesh Kumar, PW8 Dwarka Dass, PW9 Balwant Kaur, PW11 Kishan Chand Sethi, PW12 Ram Bhagat, PW13 Dinesh Nigam, PW14 R.K. Dhawan, PW15 Devraj Miglani, PW16 Mitter Sain, PW18 Hari Kishan, PW20 Som Nath Bhatia, PW22 Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, PW23 Jaidev, PW25 Suresh Chand Jain, PW26 Prashant Kumar Ahuja, PW27 Rajeev Yadav, PW28 Dalip Kumar, PW33 V.N. Sharma, PW37 H.C. Jain, PW38 Rajesh Kumar Nizhawan, PW44 B.L.Bhaskar, PW45 Binod Kumar FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 8/91 9 Choudhary, PW46 Shakuntla Katyal, PW47 Promila Kumar Sikka, PW48 V.R. Saryal, PW49 Rajni, PW50 Ajit Singh, PW51 Harish Chander Shukla, PW52 Bal Krishan Sharma, PW53 Sanjay Aggarwal, PW55 Ravinder Kohli, PW58 Vipin Puri, PW59 Vinod Kumar Khullar, PW60 S.S. Dhawan, PW65 Chander Parkash, PW66 Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, PW67 Harsh Khandelwal, PW68 Vinny Malik, PW69 Jitender Singh, PW70 Vijay Aggarwal, PW71 Pankaj Khandelwal, PW72 Jagbir Singh, PW73 Ratinder Walia, PW74 Swayam Cheta Mohanty, PW75 Sanjeev Kumar Saini, PW76 Vikas Gupta, PW77 Subedar Yadav, PW79 Anil Chawla, PW80 P.N. Viz, PW82 Rajender, PW83 Vikas Dang, PW93 K.K. Kalsi, PW94 Ashok Kumar, PW96 Joginder Singh, PW112 Nem Singh & PW115 T.C. Kharbanda, WITNESSES FROM RCS OFFICE:
PW24 Ashok Bakshi, PW29 M.P. Sharma, PW30 Amar Dass, PW31 Rakesh Bhatnagar, PW42 Virender Kumar Bansal, PW84 Mohinder Singh, PW86 Satya Prakash Sharma, PW87 Jagdish Chander Satija, PW88 Manohar Lal Ahuja & PW111 Sushil Kumar Sharma.
WITNESSES RELATED TO INVESTIGATION/GEQD PW63 Khushi Ram (CBI Official), PW64 Rajesh Kumar Verma (CBI Official), PW78 Sandeep Kumar Tiwari (CBI Official), PW98 HC Harbir Singh, PW99 Ct. Azad Singh, PW101 HC Rajender Singh, PW102 HC Shakul Mohd., PW103 Sunil Kumar, PW104 Ct. Subhash Chand Sharma, PW105 Ct. Ram Sewak Singh Yadav, PW106 Sham Lal Garg, PW107 Sudipta Paul, PW108 Prakash Thapa, PW116 Ct. Jagpal, PW117 Ct. Rajveer, PW118 Ct. Kuldeep, PW119 Ct. Pintooji, PW120 HC Sunil Ekka, PW121 DSP Devraj V. (IO of the case) & PW122 P. Venugopala Rao FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 9/91 10 (GEQD Expert).
SANCTIONING AUTHORITY PW21 S.K. Khosla, PW36 Vijay Kumar, PW90 Ramesh Narayanswami, PW92 Baleshwar Rai & PW109 Naini Jayaseelan.
OTHER WITNESSES :
PW10 Arun Kumar Trivedi, PW17 Sanjeev Verma, PW19 Ameena Rizvi, PW32 H.P.S. Thapar, PW34 Deepak Soni, PW35 Mandeep Singh, PW39 Surender Kumar Abrol (bank official), PW40 Surinder Kumar Dhama (postman), PW41 Pan Singh (postman), PW43 Naveen Kaushik, PW54 Joginder Dahiya, PW56 Ram Kumar Khatri (Notary Public), PW57 R.S. Beniwal (Notary Public), PW62 Sandeep Goel, PW85 Shikha Verma (bank official), PW89 Gaurav Gupta (Notary Public), PW91 Harender Singh Mehta (Notary Public), PW95 Satbir (Stamp Vendor), PW97 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Notary Public), PW100 Sushil Kumar (dropped witness), PW110 Rajesh Kumar (formal witness), PW113 Sushil Garg & PW114 Parasnath (DDA official).
5. After recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, which they denied as incorrect.
In their above said statements u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) and accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) stated that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence and accusedYogi Raj (A2), US Bhatnagar (A3), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6), P.K. Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) stated that they want to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 10/91 11
6. In his DE, accused Yogi Raj (A2) has examined D2W1 Prem Nath Manchanda and D2W2 M.G. Satya, Asstt. Registrar (Admn.).
In his DE, accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) has examined D3W1 Ganga Sharan, Superintendent Directorate of Education.
In his DE, accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) has examined D7W1 Jitender Singh Sharma.
It is pertinent to mention here that during trial, accused Ram Nath (A5) and Balam Singh Aswal (A6) submitted that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence and they prayed that their defence evidence (DE) may be closed and accordingly the DE on behalf of the above named accused A5 and A6 was closed in the present case.
Further, accused Kamal Singh (A8) submitted that he adopts the DE adduced on behalf of accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) and he does not want to lead any further evidence in his defence and he prayed that his defence evidence may be closed and accordingly the DE on behalf of the accused Kamal Singh (A8) was closed vide order dated 22.03.2017.
7. I have heard the arguments at length put forward by Ld. Senior PP for the CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution/CBI in support of its case and by the accused persons in their defence.
8. It has been submitted by Ld. Senior PP for the CBI that in view of the evidence adduced on record, the prosecution/CBI has been successful in proving on record the guilt of the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 11/91 12 submitted that during the year 200304, all accused persons were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of RCS and DDA Delhi, by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing it to approve the Freeze list of 143 members of the 'Society' on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at a subsidized rate. It is submitted that accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy while working as Registrar Cooperative Societies by abusing his official position as a public servant, obtained or attempted to obtain Pecuniary advantage to the private persons without any public interest by reviving the society and by approving the freeze list of 143 members of the 'Society' on the basis of false and forged documents. It is submitted that accused Yogi Raj (A2) & accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) were also a part of the said criminal conspiracy and A2 while working as Assistant Registrar and A3 while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS by abusing official position as public servants obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage to the private persons by submitting favorable notes and recommending for revival of society and getting approved the freeze list of 143 members of the Society on the basis of false and forged documents. It is submitted that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) was also part of the above said criminal conspiracy and he impersonated himself as one Vinod Kumar self styled secretary of the Society before the office of RCS and he further prepared or got prepared the false and forged various documents viz forms, affidavits etc for getting the aforesaid 'Society' revived and for the purpose of approval of the freeze list of 143 members of the said society on the basis of false and forged documents. It is submitted that accused Ram Nath (A5) and accused Balam Singh Ashwal (A6) were also part of the criminal conspiracy and A5 while working as Inspector and A6 while working as Election Officer in the office of RCS by abusing their official position as public servants obtained or FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 12/91 13 attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage to the private persons without any public interest by submitting false inspection report dated 28.08.2003 and election report dated 23.12.2003 respectively without visiting the office of 'Society' for getting revived the society and getting approved the freeze list of 143 members of the above said Society on the basis of false and forged documents. It is submitted that accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) while working as Senior Auditor and accused Kamal Singh (A8) while working as Auditor in the office of RCS by abusing their official position as public servants obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage to the private persons without any public interest by submitting false audit report without visiting the office of society and by allowing coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal to forge the signatures of R.C. Saxena President, Vinod Kumar Secretary and K.Paul Treasurer on the audit report for getting the revived the Society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 members of the said society on the basis of false and forged documents. Ld. Senior PP for the CBI also submitted that in view of the evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution/CBI, guilt of the accused persons have been proved beyond the reasonable doubts and he prayed that all the accused i.e. A1 to A8 may be convicted of the respective charged offences.
In support of his contentions , Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has relied upon the case law cited as (1972) 3SCC 89, Indiankanoon.org./doc/1269046 and Indiankanoon.org./doc/7537696.
9. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) that the said accused while discharging his function as Registrar, Cooperative Societies Delhi, in good faith came to deal with the application for revival of the 'Society' and before passing any order on the same, he directed the inspection/ inquiry of the said society from the officers as FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 13/91 14 contemplated under the statutory enactment i.e DCS Act, 1972. The relevant inquiry under the DCS Act, 1972 was also conducted by the subordinate staff and favourable reports were submitted/ forwarded recommending revival of the above said Society and thereafter the arguments on the said revival application were addressed and A1 passed a statutory speaking order under section 63 (3) of DCS Act. It is submitted that A1 had passed the said order in good faith, while relying upon the documents submitted to him by his subordinates and that he had no knowledge or reason to believe that the documents submitted were forged and there was no evidence on record to prove that A1 was in conspiracy with the other coaccused persons to commit the alleged offences. It is submitted that it has been wrongly projected that the 'Society' was liquidated whereas crux of the fact was that it was only 'put under' the process of the liquidation which was not completed as a Society which is finally liquidated, needs a proper quasijudicial order under the provisions of the DCS Act 1972, however in the present case there was no such order of final liquidation passed by the RCS at any point of time. It is submitted that there was no connection between the alleged forged documents and inspection report with the passing of the order of revival of the society as A1 was bound to pass order for revival as windingup proceedings were not completed within the statutory period in terms of provisions of Section63 (3) of DCS Act & Rule 105 of DCS Rules. It is further submitted that the prosecution of A1 was bad in law as there was no sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC against him. It is further submitted that the case of the A1 is also covered by general exception as per section 76/79 of IPC as he was justified in passing an order if in his opinion the society should continue to exist and the prosecution has failed to prove that he was having any connection with any private person or had obtained any illegal gratification from any person. It is submitted that CBI has no power to investigate the offence in the instant case which related to DCS Act as the same has not been FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 14/91 15 notified u/s 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and DCS Act was a complete code in itself and in the present case, A1 was formally governed and regulated by the Special Statute i.e. DCS Act, 1972. It is submitted that the prosecution/CBI has failed to adduce any evidence on record to show that by his act of revival of the society, A1 had obtained any pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person and as such the ingredients of the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) of PC Act were not fulfilled in this case. It has also been submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) and it has been prayed that the said accused (A1) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. defence counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) has relied upon the case law cited as AIR 1996 SC 901, 2015 (12) Scale 500, Order dated 11.09.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP ( C ) No. 133/58/2004, Order dated 21.11.1986 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 1767/1986 and (2001) 6 SCC 704.
10. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Yogi Raj (A2) that the allegations against A2 were false and the said allegations have not been proved on record beyond the reasonable doubt by evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution/ CBI. It is further submitted that actual custody of files used to remain with the Dealing Assistant and not with A2, who was working as Asstt. Registrar at the relevant time and the present file was dealt by the Dealing Assistant (A3) and he has not brought on record any abnormality about intensive inquiry proforma of Krishi CGHS in his noting and as such, it was not possible for A2 to have doubt about the same. It is submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that the right procedure was not adopted when the complete file of the Society was not FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 15/91 16 found in the branch was vague and was not substantiated by any other evidence to show as to what procedure was required to be adopted in those circumstances and CBI has adopted a pick and choose policy in making A2 as an accused in this case. It is further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that the proceedings for the revival of the society were done very swiftly which reflects the conspiracy of the officials of the RCS was entirely baseless and misconceived as from the material on record, it was clear that the application for revival was dated 04.08.2003 and the date of revival was 19.11.2003 and the list of members of the said society was forwarded to the DDA vide letter dated 25.03.2004, which was much beyond the cut of date prescribed by DDA i.e. 31.10.2003. It is submitted that the sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was issued against A2 without application of mind and no sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC was obtained against the said accused prior to his prosecution. It is submitted that A2 has dealt with the file in question in discharge of his official duty and thus the said act had direct nexus with discharge of his official functions and as such sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC was mandatory. It is submitted that the file in question was processed in its natural course and there was nothing unusual in dealing with the file by A2, which could raise suspicion as the power to revive a society u/s 63 (3) of the DCS Act exclusively vests in the RCS and not with A2, who was merely an Asstt. Registrar. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present case has been biased and conducted in faulty and malicious manner. It is submitted that some error of judgment or wrong decision or over looking some facts or even negligence does not amount to culpability and the mere circumstance that A2 dealt with the file during the discharge of his official function, no conclusion can be drawn that he was party to conspiracy. It is submitted that A2 acted in good faith in discharge of his official duty and the prosecution/CBI has not placed on record any proof of any personal gain obtained by him and some suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 16/91 17 take place of proof. It is also submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the A2 and it has been prayed that accused Yogi Raj (A2) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Yogi Raj (A2) has relied upon the case law cited as 2002 (1) SCC 679, 1997 (7) SCC 156, (1996) 10 SCC 193, 2016 Laws Suits (SC) 382, 2009 (8) SCC 617, Order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3406/2008, 2015 (12) Scale 500 and judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 131/2007.
11. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution/ CBI to show that the said accused was having knowledge about forged documents of the society produced in RCS office or that A3 deviated in procedure/ norms in respect of the file pertaining to the present society dealt with by him. It is further submitted that there was no evidence on record that A3 had dishonest intention while dealing with the file or that he had gained some thing while dealing with the file of the present society or that he gained any wrongful gain or had caused any wrongful loss to anyone. It is submitted that the revival of the society was done u/s 63 (3) DCS Act and the prosecution/CBI has not brought on record any other standing instructions or rules regarding the revival of the societies. It is further submitted that no investigation has been done by the CBI as to who appeared before the RCS office with original record of the society and signed as Vinod Kumar on the margin of the notesheet and even specimen signatures of PW113 Sushil Garg, owner of Pitampura address of the society were not referred to the GEQD and this cast doubt on the veracity of the investigation conducted by the CBI. It is further FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 17/91 18 submitted that A3 was the Dealing Assistant in the rank of LDC/ UDC and no duty chart of the Dealing Assistant showing their responsibilities or duties have been seized or produced by the CBI in this case. It is submitted that A3 was merely a dealing assistant, who put up the papers to his seniors with the noting, writing therein, gist of the matter and thereafter the said noting was approved by the senior officers and as such A3, being only the Dealing Assistant has no role in recommending the revival of the society as the revival order was passed by the then RCS, who was empowered to do the same. It is further submitted that there was no evidence regarding hatching of any conspiracy or cheating or forgery of documents brought on record by the prosecution/ CBI and it has also not been established that any pecuniary gain has been received by A3. It is submitted that no recovery have been made from A3 and even the departmental action has not been recommended against the said accused in this case. It is further submitted that there is no requisite sanction for prosecution for IPC offences as per section 197 Cr. PC. It is submitted that the prosecution under PC Act is invalid/ defective as the sanction order was not issued by the competent authority and even otherwise, there was no application of mind by the concerned authority. It is also submitted that A3 has been falsely implicated in this case without any evidence of criminality and it has been prayed that the said accused U.S Bhatnagar (A3) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) has relied upon the case law i.e Judgment dated 05.7.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 565/2016 ( Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana) & Judgment dated 27.4.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 722/2015 ( D.T.Virupakashappa Vs. C.Subhash.) FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 18/91 19 12 . It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) that the allegations qua the said accused are false and fabricated as the prosecution/ CBI has failed to produce any witness, who has seen A4 visiting the office of RCS in connection with the present society or for any other purpose. It is further submitted that had A4 manipulated the address of the society, he could have either used his own address or the address of someone, who is known to him so that official communications could have been received by him. It is submitted that the sole testimony of GEQD is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the A4 beyond reasonable doubt and there is no corroborative evidence to support the said report given by GEQD, especially in view of the fact that the witnesses pertaining to the office of the RCS has not stated anything about appearance of A4 while impersonating as Vinod Kumar. It is further submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has failed to establish ingredients of offences u/s 419/420 IPC qua A4 in this case, especially in view of the fact that there was no evidence on record to prove that A4 has tried to deceive anyone or had caused wrongful loss to any person. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that it was A4, who had submitted the application in the office of the RCS for revival of the society. It is further submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and it is wellsettled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the facts established should form a chain of events so closely associated with each other so as to exclude the possibility of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused and in the instant case, no such complete chain of events have been established on record by the prosecution/ CBI. It is submitted that GEQD opinion/ report filed on behalf of the prosecution/ CBI was inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise, the said report was faulty and unreliable as the same was no based upon any scientific approach. It is further submitted that the specimen handwriting/ signatures have been taken in this FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 19/91 20 case without the orders of the court and as such, the opinion of GEQD was required to be ignored as it was in violation of Section 311A Cr. PC. It is submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has failed to produce any evidence to show that A4 was ever in possession of any record of the society nor any such record was recovered from him and there is also no evidence that A4 ever approached the RCS office with the record of the present society or that A4 ever had meeting with RCS officials, so as to constitute the conspiracy as required u/s 120B IPC. It is also submitted that A4 has been falsely implicated in the present case to save the actual culprits, who were actually running the society and were enrolling members and it has been prayed that since the prosecution/ CBI has failed to establish the guilt of the accusedGokul Chand Aggarwal ( A4) on record beyond reasonable doubt, he may be acquitted of the charged offences.
13. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Ram Nath (A5) that the said accused has been falsely implicated in this case and no duty chart showing his responsibility and duties have been brought on record. It is further submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has failed to produce any evidence to show that there was any irregularity in the inspection report submitted by A6. It is submitted that the testimony of PW113 Sushil Garg regarding misuse of the address of his premises was false as all the letters including revival orders from RCS office had been delivered at his address and there was no evidence that said letters sent by RCS, were received back undelivered and this implies that the society has been functioning at the address of Pitam Pura, Delhi. It is further submitted that the IO had failed to recover original record of the society from Pitam Pura, Delhi and it shows that he has shunned his statutory duties which he was required to perform in accordance with law. It is submitted that there was no evidence on record regarding FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 20/91 21 any pecuniary gain obtained by A6 and further the report submitted by A6, was also not a prerequisite for revival of the society. It is further submitted that A6 has no role in sending the list of members of the society to the DDA for the allotment of land and he was also not required to verify the genuineness of the names of the members of the society. It is submitted that even if it is said that the reports submitted by A6 u/s 54 of DCS Act was false in that case, A6 could only have been prosecuted under the DCS Act and not under the IPC. It is submitted that no sanction order under u/s 197 Cr. PC has been obtained to prosecute A6 for IPC offences in this case and further, the prosecution sanction under the PC Act was also invalid and defective as the same has not been obtained from the competent authority. It is also submitted that A6 has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution/CBI for ulterior reasons and it has been prayed that the said accused (A6)may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accusedRam Nath (A5) has relied upon the case law cited as 1995 (2) Crimes 85, 2016 IV AD (SC) 383 , 1980 Crl.J 220, AIR 1974 SC 1507, 2007 (4) JCC 4750, AIR 1999 SC 782, AIR 1997 SC 3424 & AIR 1970 SC 513.
14. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accusedBalam Singh Aswal (A6) that said accused was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case . It is further submitted that A6 is a matriculate and joined the Govt. of NCT, Delhi as a classIV employee and he was not given any training or instructions regarding the manner in which the election was to be conducted qua the present society. It is submitted that A6 had no malafide intention and has not violated any provisions of DCS Act or DCS Rules or any other directive, while conducting the said election on the basis of the list of members provided by the FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 21/91 22 department. It is further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution CBI regarding any benefit caused to A6 in any manner. It is submitted that the elections in question were conducted after the passing of the revival order qua the society and it is not the case of the prosecution that the said revival order was issued on the basis of the elections of the society got conducted by A6. It is further submitted that no separate sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC for the prosecution of the A6 in respect of IPC offences have been taken in this case and the sanction under PC Act was not valid as it was not taken from the competent authority and the said sanction was also given by the concerned authority without application of mind. It is submitted that there has been no complaint against A6 nor any departmental inquiry was initiated against him by the department qua any alleged irregularity in the elections conducted by him. It is further submitted that during investigation, CBI has not found anything incriminating from the house search of A6 or from his bank account. It is also submitted that A6 has not committed any criminality and he has been falsely implicated in this case and it has been prayed that the said accused Balam Singh Aswal (A6) may be acquitted of the charged offences.
15. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accusedP.K. Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) that the said accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as the revival order was not based on the alleged report submitted by A8. It is further submitted that no evidence have been brought on record to show that A7 & A8 were having knowledge about bogus documents of the society being produced before either of them and the said accused persons do not have any mechanism to check the authenticity of the record. It is submitted that prosecution/CBI has no evidence to show that any irregularity was committed by A7 FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 22/91 23 & A8, while submitting the audit report nor any evidence has been produced to show that the audit report was required to be filed by the appointed Auditor himself in his own handwriting. It is further submitted that the prosecution/CBI has failed to point out any violation of DCS Act/Rules in the submission of the audit report by A8 and there was also no evidence that any illegal act or omission was done by A7 & A8 nor any departmental action has been recommended against them. It is submitted that there was no evidence of demand for pecuniary gain or valuable thing brought on record by the CBI and as such the ingredients of Section 15 r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act were not made out against A7 & A8 in this case. It is submitted that sanction order under the PC Act qua A8 was invalid and defective as the same have not been issued by the competent authority as laid down u/s 19 (2) of PC Act and further there is no sanction under section 197 Cr. PC for prosecution of these accused for IPC offences. It is also submitted that A7 & A8 have been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their guilt on record beyond the reasonable doubt and it has been prayed that A7 & A8 may be acquitted of the charged offences.
16. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution/CBI and accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution/CBI in support of its case as well as by the accused persons in their defence. I have also carefully perused the written arguments/submissions filed on behalf of accused and the case law relied upon by the Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI and Ld.Defence counsels in support of their respective contentions.
17. In the present case, it is being stated on behalf of the prosecution/CBI FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 23/91 24 that all the accused namely Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), US Bhatnagar (A3), Gokul Aggarwal (A4), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6), P.K. Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) were party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and DDA by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them for getting revived the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS (Society) on the basis of false and forged documents for the purpose of getting land from DDA at subsidized rates.
It is further stated that accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) while working as Registrar in office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi during the year 20032004 in pursuance of the abovesaid criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently approved the revival of the society and also approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the Society on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents. It is stated that accused Yogiraj (A2) while working as Assistant Registrar and accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) while working as Dealing Assistant in the office of RCS, Delhi dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false and favorable notings with regard to the verification of documents for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of said Society on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents.
It is further stated that accused Ram Nath (A5) while working as GradeII Service Officer and accusedBalam Singh Aswal (A6) while working as Election Officer GradeIV in the office of RCS, Delhi, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false inspection report dated 28.08.2003 and false Election Report qua elections on 23.12.2003 without visiting the office of the Society for getting revived the society and for getting FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 24/91 25 approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of forged documents. It is also stated that accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) and accused Kamal Singh (A8) while working as Auditors in the office of RCS, Delhi in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false audit report and allowed coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C. Saxena President, Vinod Kumar Secretary and K. Paul Treasurer on the audit reports for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents.
18. It is being argued on behalf of the accused A2, A3 & A5 to A8 that no mandatory sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C has been obtained against the said accused prior to their prosecution in this case. It is further submitted that the abovesaid accused have dealt with the file in question in discharge of their official duties and the said act had direct nexus with discharge of their respective official functions and as such sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC was mandatory , however the said submissions made by Ld. Defence counsel are devoid of any merits and are contrary to law . It is pertinent to note here that the Prevention of Corruption Act ( PC Act) is a special statue and if the sanction for prosecution has been given U/s 19 of the PC Act, then there is no requirement for seeking sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC Act again for prosecution of the accused.
In the case titled as 'Shri Vinod B Vs. K.S. Eshwarappa' ( Criminal Revision No. 224/14) vide order/judgment dated 21.10.2014, It has laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
"Hence, it can be said that every case against a public servant, alleging an offence punishable under the provisions of the PC Act, can be presented only on obtaining a prior sanction under Section 19 of the said Act, but a sanction FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 25/91 26 under Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. is not required to be obtained as a matter of course to initiate other criminal proceedings against a public servant, unless it is so expressly provided under any statute. "
Further ,in the case titled as ' Neera Yadav Vs. CBI' { reported as (2006)2 All L.J. 442}, it has also been laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that : "For prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, once sanction under Section 19 of the said Act is granted, there is no necessity for obtaining further sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Where a public servant is sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC and sanction under Section 19 of Act of 1988 has been granted, it is not at all required to obtain sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the State Government or any other authority merely because the public servant is also charged under Section 120B IPC.
The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as charge of criminal conspiracy, cannot be said to constitute "acts in discharge of official duty".
19. Further, the submissions made by Ld. Defence counsel that the sanction U/s 197 Cr. P.C. was required for prosecution of the accused persons ( except A4 ) is also not tenable as the accused persons have also been charged for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s120B in this case and where the accused have been charged u/s120B IPC, the sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC is even otherwise not required as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case cited as (1972)3 SCC 89.
In the aforesaid case titled as 'Harihar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar' FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 26/91 27 [ cited as (1972)3 SCC 89}, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "As far as offence of criminal conspiracy U/s 120B IPC was concerned, it could not be said to be of the nature mentioned in section 197 Cr.P.C. meaning thereby it was not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct and therefore want of sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C.
was not bar to prosecution."
Further, in the case titled as 'Rajib Ranjan and Ors. Vs. R. Vijaykumar' {reported as (2015) 1SCC 513}, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
"Even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted".
Hence, in view of the above, it is evident that once the sanction u/s 19 of PC Act for the prosecution of accused has been obtained , further separate sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC was not required .
20. In the instant case, it has also been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that sanction U/s 19 of PC Act for the prosecution of the accused has not been obtained from the competent authority and as such , the trial without valid sanction was void. It is submitted that sanction u/s 19 of PC Act should have been taken from the officer who was the competent authority at the time of commission of offence. It is further submitted that the said sanction u/s19 of PC Act has been granted without application of mind by the concerned authority, however the said FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 27/91 28 contentions put forward on behalf of the accused do not hold water and the same are contrary to record and are also against the well settled principles of law.
In the present case , the perusal of the record reveals that sanction for prosecution of accused Yogiraj (A2) has been granted by PW21 Sh. S.K.Khosla , who deposed that in the year 2006 he was working as Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) in Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and had signed the sanction order dt. 26.11.2006, against Yogi Raj, who was functioning as Assistant Registrar, RCS office at the time of offence in question. PW21 further deposed that he was competent authority to accord / authenticate sanction for prosecution against Yogi Raj and he has gone through the SP report alongwith the documents received from the CBI and applied his mind and found that prima facie case was made out against Yogi Raj under the provisions of IPC and PC Act. PW21 has also proved the above said sanction order as Ex. PW21/A and further stated that the said sanction order was sent to DIG, CBI, EOU,IX vide letter Ex.PW21/B. Further, sanction for the prosecution of accused U.S.Bhatnagar (A3) has been granted by PW36 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi and he deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Director of Education, Govt of NCT Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi and he granted prosecution sanction for accused U S Bhatnagar, the then official of the RCS office, Delhi in respect to Hindustan Steel CGHS. PW36 further deposed that he had gone through the report/documents including investigation report, calender of evidence, oral and documentary etc. and had applied his mind and came to the conclusion that a primafacie case was made out against U S Bhatnagar and granted sanction for his prosecution vide sanction order No. DE.7/59/NGV/2006 (Ex. PW36/A). PW36 also deposed that he was competent to grant sanction and the said order Ex.PW36/A was dispatched to CBI vide covering letter , Ex. PW36/B. FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 28/91 29 Sanction for the prosecution of accusedRam Nath (A5) and P.K. Thirwani (A7) have been granted by PW90 Sh. Ramesh Narayanswami, who deposed that he remained posted as Chief Secretary to Govt of NCT of Delhi in the year 20062007 and he granted prosecution sanction for accused Ram Nath and P K Thirwani, both officials of the RCS office, Delhi in respect to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and the said case was investigated by CBI. PW90 further deposed that he had gone through the report / documents including calender of evidence, oral and documentary and statements of witnesses and then he applied his mind and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against Ram Nath and P.K. Thirwani and granted sanction for their prosecution and he has proved the sanction order in respect of accused Ram Nath and P.K. Thirwani as Ex. PW90/A and Ex. PW90/B respectively and stated that he was competent to grant sanction.
Further, sanction for prosecution of accused - Balam Singh Aswal (A6) has been granted by PW92 Sh. Baleshwar Rai and he deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Chairman, Public Grievances Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and during his tenure, he granted the sanction for prosecution against accused Balam Singh Aswal, an official of the RCS office, Delhi in respect to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS. PW92 further deposed that after going through the report/documents including calender of evidence, oral and documentary and statements of witnesses etc. and after applying his mind, he came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against Balam Singh Aswal and granted sanction for his prosecution vide sanction order dated 27.11.2006 and he proved the said sanction order as Ex.PW92/A and stated that he was competent to grant the said sanction.
In addition to above, sanction for prosecution of accused Kamal Singh (A8) has been given by PW109 Ms. Naine Jayaseelan, Financial commissioner, FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 29/91 30 Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who deposed that in the year 2006, she was posted as Development Commissioner / Secretary, Irrigation & Food Control, Govt of NCT of Delhi and she granted prosecution sanction for accused Sh. Kamal Singh an official / the then Auditor (Audit Branch) of the RCS office, Delhi is respect to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and the said case was investigated by CBI. PW109 further deposed that she had gone through the report / documents including calender of evidence, oral and documentary and statements of witnesses recording during investigation by the CBI etc and applied her mind and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against Kamal Singh and granted sanction for his prosecution vide sanction order Ex. PW109/A and deposed that she was competent to remove him from service.
21. The important fact is that all the above material witnesses i.e PW21 Sh. S.K. Gupta, PW36 Sh. Vijay Kumar , PW90 Sh. Ramesh Narayanswami, PW92 Sh. Baleshwar Rai and PW109 Ms. Naine Jayaseelan were cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsels but nothing material has come on record, which could assail the credibility of these witnesses or could be of any help to the accused persons in this case.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW21 Sh.S.K. Gupta stated that the file regarding the sanction order (Ex.PW21/A) was sent through the officers concerned till LG office and after going through SP report, documents etc. , the sanction order was used to be prepared separately. PW21 also denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind before according the sanction.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW36 Sh. Vijay Kumar stated that he did not obtain any legal opinion before according sanction in respect of U.S. Bhatnagar and voluntarily stated that he was satisfied that FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 30/91 31 prima facie sufficient material was available on record to accord prosecution sanction against U.S. Bhatnagar after applying his mind. PW36 denied the suggestion that he had issued sanction order without satisfying himself that the sanction was to be granted or he did not go through the material sent by CBI against U.S. Bhatnagar.PW36 further stated that he do not recollect as to how many days he took in granting sanction against U.S. Bhatnagar. PW36 also denied the suggestion that he granted sanction mechanically without applying his mind at the behest of CBI without going through the material produced before him.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW90 Sh. Ramesh Narayanswami stated that the letter for grant of sanction was received by him from CBI and on the day, he granted sanction for prosecution of accused P.K.Thirwani , he was competent authority to remove him from the service . PW90 further stated that he granted sanction with respect to P.K.Thirwani after going through the calender of evidences, oral and documentary and other documents and he do not recall whether any draft sanction order from CBI was received or not and volunteered to state that sanction order was prepared by his office as per his broad directions. PW90 denied the suggestion that he had not seen the documents before granting sanction against accused P.K.Thirwani. PW90 further denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind before granting sanction or that the sanction order was issued at the instance or pressure of the CBI. PW90 also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he has simply signed the sanction for prosecution against P.K.Thirwani without going through the relevant records and statements of witnesses.
It is pertinent to mention here that PW92 Sh. Baleshwar Rai have not been cross examined on behalf of defence despite opportunity being given.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW109 Ms. Naine FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 31/91 32 Jayaseelan stated that on the day, she granted sanction for prosecution of accused Kamal Singh, she was competent authority to remove him from the service PW109 further stated that she granted sanction with respect to Kamal Singh after going through the calender of evidences, oral and documentary and other documents. PW109 stated that she do not recall having sought any legal opinion prior to issue of above mentioned sanction order. PW109 denied the suggestion that she had not seen the documents before granting sanction against accused Kamal Singh. PW109 further denied the suggestion that she had not applied her mind before granting sanction or that sanction order was issued at the instance or pressure of the CBI. PW109 also denied the suggestion that she simply signed the sanction for prosecution against Kamal Singh without going through the relevant records and statement of witnesses.
22. Further, the argument of the Ld. Defence counsel that sanction for prosecution should have taken from that particular officer only, who was posted as competent authority at the time of commission of offence is devoid of any merits as the relevant fact to be considered is as to whether the sanction has been obtained from the competent authority or not. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note here that any omission, error, irregularity in the matter of according the sanction would not affect the validity of the proceedings unless such error, omission or irregularity results in the failure of justice as has been laid down in the case titled as 'State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajmangal Ram' {Criminal Appeal No. 709710 of 2010 (DOD: 31.3.14)}.
In the present case, the perusal of the sanction orders reveals that the concerned sanctioning/competent authorities have given the reasons for granting the sanction for prosecution in respect of the abovesaid accused persons. Further, it is FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 32/91 33 also revealed that the concerned sanctioning/competent authorities have also perused the material before granting the sanction for the prosecution of accused in this case and as such, the said sanctions do not suffer from non application of mind as is being alleged on behalf of the accused persons.
In view of the above, it is evident that there is nothing on record to show that the sanction for prosecution of accused was not given by the competent authority or that there is any failure of justice, which had caused any prejudice to the accused in this case.
23. It has been further submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that the registration of the FIR in the present case is illegal as no consent from the competent authority had been obtained before the registration of FIR, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the record as the perusal of the record reveals that in the instant case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 02.8.2005 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2004. As per these directions, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and after the conclusion of the said preliminary enquiry, the FIR was registered. In this regard, it has been specifically deposed by the IO PW121 Dev Raj V. that the present case was registered on the basis of the abovesaid directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 02.8.2005 and he has proved the FIR in this case as Ex. PW121/A. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, there does not appear to be any illegality on the aspect of registration of FIR in this case. Further, it is pertinent to note that High Court can direct CBI to investigate the offence without the consent of the State Government within whose territorial FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 33/91 34 jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have taken place as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as "State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights ( reported as 2010 (2) SCALE
467)" .
24. ROLE OF ACCUSED PUBLIC SERVANTS (i.e A1 to A3 & A5 to A8) It has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsels for the accused public servants i.e. accused A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 that whatever they have done in the file in question regarding the revival of the society, the same have been done by them in discharge of their official duties and that there was no malafide intention on their part . It is further submitted that said accused have dealt with the file in good faith, while relying upon the documents submitted to them by their respective subordinates and they had no knowledge or reason to believe that the said documents were forged and they had no means to evaluate the genuineness of the documents furnished on behalf of the society. It has also been submitted that there was no evidence on record to connect the said accused with the alleged offences in this case.
In the instant case , to connect the abovesaid public servants i.e A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 with the alleged offences, notings on the file are the vital piece of evidence.
It is pertinent to note here that evidential value of such notings has been recognized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI" ( CRL.A. 482/2002, DOD - 21.12.2011) and therein, it has been laid down that since the offence of corruption are done under the clock of official duties and in a very clever and shrouded manner, the only evidence available is note sheets FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 34/91 35 written or approved by public servant and the court would be fully justified to draw appropriate inferences from such note sheets.
In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to note sheets and the signatures of these officials/officers i.e A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 appearing thereon. The abovesaid notings and the signatures of these RCS Officials/Officers therein have been proved by PW31 Rakesh Bhatnagar, who deposed that he remained posted in the office of RCS as Joint Registrar w.e.f May 2002 to December, 2003 and was aware about the rules & regulations and the functioning of the cooperative societies. PW31 further deposed that he had dealt with the file of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS during his tenure as Joint Registrar in the office of RCS and was well conversant with the hand writings/notings and signatures of the then officials of the RCS, who had dealt with the file of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS. PW31 deposed that he has been shown RCS file (D2 and D3) exhibited as Ex. PW31/A (colly.) and page 1/N therein was a note of dealing assistant for revival of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and the same was forwarded by the then AR ( NorthWest) Yogiraj alongwith his note . He further marked the file to the then RCS, who in turn signed the said note at pointC and marked the file to him and he marked the said file to AR ( North West) and the said page was Ex. PW31/B. PW31 further deposed that he has been shown an application dated 04.8.2003 (Ex. PW31/C) for the revival of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS written by Secretary of society and therein, he identified the signature of Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS at pointA. He also identified the signature of Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS at pointA on the revival order dated 19.11.2003 ( Ex. PW24/C). PW31 has also proved the Page No. 2/N of file Ex. PW31/A (colly) having signature of Yogiraj, AR ( NW) at point A, Page No. 4/N of the said file having the signature of Yogiraj AR ( NW) at pointA, Page No. 5/N FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 35/91 36 of Ex. PW31/A (colly) having the signature of Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS at point A, Page No. 6/N of Ex. PW31/A (colly) having the proceedings dated 25.9.2003 and signature of Narayan Diwakar , the then RCS at point A as Ex. PW31/D, Ex. PW31/E, Ex. PW31/F & Ex. PW31//G respectively. PW31 deposed that he has seen the note running into pages 7/N to 16/N put up by the then dealing assistant and having hand writing of Yogiraj, the then AR ( NW) from point B to B and signature of Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS below the note sheet dated 14.10.2003 and 28.10.2003 at points D and has proved the said pages 7/N to 16/N as Ex. PW31/H (colly) and he has also proved page 17/N as Ex. PW31/J. PW31 has proved the page no. 18/N ( Ex. PW2/B) and has identified the signature of Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS below the note sheet dated 13.11.2003 and signature of Yogiraj therein at pointB and he has also proved the page no. 19/N of the same file having signature of the then AR ( NW) Yogiraj at point B as Ex. PW31/K.
25. In the instant case, the perusal of record reveals that a PUC was received from the Secretary of the Society requesting therein the revival of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS Ltd, address JU 70B, Pitampura Delhi and the same was dealt by the concerned dealing official i.e accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) and therein the Secretary of the Society has requested for the revival of the society and approval of the final list of members .
The dealing official/assistant dealt with the present file i.e D2 and D3 [ Ex. PW31/A (colly.)] and page 1/N therein contains the note (Ex. PW31/B) and in its relevant portion, it has been stated that the society was brought under liquidation under section 63 of DCS Act 1972 vide order No. F46/47/63/79/ H/ Coop/153036 dated 21.3.1979, as the society has failed to achieve its basic objective and not likely to achieve its objective in near future and has failed to act in FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 36/91 37 accordance with Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973 and as per the provisions of registered byelaws of the society and the Managing Committee Members and other members of the society were not showing any interest in the working of the society and it does not appear that there was any hope to keep the society alive any more in order to achieve its aim in any manner.
In the abovesaid note , it was further stated that now, the managing committee of the society has requested for the revival of the society u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act, 1972. In this context, it was pertinent to mention that the complete noting portion of the society was not available with the main file. It appears that it might have been tied up with some others folders /file of this Zone or another Zone.
Further, vide portion marked'A' of the said note , it was proposed that a Circular may be issued to all Branches/ Zone requesting to trace the same and if found it may be returned to this branch immediately within 10 days otherwise it would be presumed that no such noting portion of the file was available. In case if the same was traced in future it may be merged with the main file of the society. It was further proposed meanwhile they may take on record the correspondence portion on noting side and to verify the record of the society and to bring out the factual position of the society, they may appoint Sh. Ram Nath GrII, as Inspection Officer u/s 54 of DCS Act 1972.. This note was put up for approval by the concerned Dealing Assistant i.e accused U.S.Bhatnagar (A3).
The portion 'A' of the abovesaid note was forwarded for approval by the then AR ( NW) i.e accused Yograj (A2) alongwith his note to JR (NW), who further marked the file to the then RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) , who in turn signed the said note at pointC and marked the file to JR (NW) and he marked the said file to AR ( N W).
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 37/91 38
26. In pursuance to the aforesaid note, the accused Ram Nath (A5) was appointed Inspection Officer vide order dated 18.8.2003 ( P41/C) u/s 54 of DCS Act 1972 to examine and verify the record of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and to bring out the actual position in this regard and accordingly, Inspection Officer i.e accused Ram Nath (A5) submitted his report , wherein it was stated that he visited the office of the society at JU70B Pitampura Delhi and there he met Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the Society, who produced all relevant records of the society and informed that there were 143 members existing in the society and the list of members has not yet been approved by the RCS Office. In the said report, it was further stated that as per record of the society, the society has shifted its address from Jeevan Deep Building , Parliament Street, Delhi to JU 70B Pitampura Delhi110034 and it has been approved by the GBM dated 18.5.2013 . Further, it was stated therein that membership register was complete in all respect , accounts of the society was pending unaudited since 01.7.1978 and same have been prepared up to date i.e 31.3.2003 which was verified by him and the same was ready for audit . In the said inspection report , it was also stated that as per the Proceedings Register, last Managing Committee Meeting was held on 20.5.2003, election of Managing Committee of the Society was held on 18.5.2003 as per DCS Act & Rules and all the society record was found under the safe custody of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the Society by the Inspecting Officer i.e accusedRam Nath (A5) .
On the basis of the abovesaid Inspection Report , a note ( Ex. PW31/E) was put up by the Dealing Assistant i.e accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) and therein vide portion mark'A', it was proposed that competent authority may requested to consider the revival of the society u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act 1972 and to approve the freeze strength 143 members for onward transmission to DDA for FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 38/91 39 allotment of flats and the said note was duly forwarded to the Reader to RCS by AR (NW) i.e accused Yogiraj (A2).
Thereafter Reader to RCS put up a note ( Ex. PW31/F) ( page 5/N) , wherein it was stated that the proposal for the revival of Hindustan Steel Emp. Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. 63 (H) under the provision of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, has been forwarded by the Asstt. Registrar (N/W). The said society was liquidated vide order dated 21.3.1979 as the society has failed to achieve its basic objective and not likely to achieve its objective in near future and the society has failed to act in accordance with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and as per the provisions of registered bye laws of the society, the society and the Managing Committee's members and other members of the society were not showing any interest in the working of the society and its does not appears that there was any hope to keep the society alive anymore in order to achieve its aim in any manner or so.
In the abovesaid note, it was further stated that in the light of above, Sh. Ram Nath, Gr.II/Inspecting Officer of this department has already been made the inquiry under section 54 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 1972 with the approval of the competent authority and submitted his favourable report on 02.9.2003, which was placed in the file and duly signed by AR (N/W).
Further, it was stated therein that as per section 63 (3) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Registrar may cancel an order for the winding up of a cooperative society at any time, in any case where , in his opinion the society should continue to exist and it was proposed that if approved, a notice u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act & Rules may be issued to the President/Secretary of the Society for initial hearing on 25.9.2003 in the court of worthy RCS and the said note/proposal was approved by the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1).
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 39/91 40 Thereafter vide proceedings (Ex. PW31/G) ( page 6/N), wherein society was represented by the counsel Ms. Rita Kaul, Adv. the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) directed the Reader to sent the file to the concerned Zone for verification of membership and also to ascertain the election/audit position and accordingly the matter was marked to AR (NW) by Reader to RCS , to do the needful.
27. In pursuance of the above order of the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), the verification of the record of the Hindustan Steel CGHS was done and in this regard, a note Ex. PW31/H ( colly.) was put up by the Dealing Assistant i.e accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) and the said note was forwarded to the RCS by the AR (NW) i.e accused Yogiraj (A2) alongwith his endorsement wherein it was stated that record of the society was verified with reference to original record produced by the society . 106 resignations , 153 enrollment may be taken on record and list of 143 may be considered . The request of society for revival of society u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act 1972 may be considered by the worthy RCS in the proceedings to be held on 14.10.2003.
Thereafter the proceedings in this matter were conducted by the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) on 14.10.2003 and 28.10.2003 ( Ex. PW31/J) , wherein the society was represented by counsel Ms. Rita Kaul , Adv. and AR Yogiraj (A2) was also present.
Further, the proceedings dated 13.11.2003 ( Ex. PW2/D) ( page 18/N) were also conducted by the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) , wherein society was represented by Smt. Rita Kaul, Adv and in the said proceedings, it has been recorded by the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) that the concerned Zonal AR was also present and stated that an inspection u/s 54 of the DCS Act, FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 40/91 41 1972 was done by an Inspector of the Department, who has given his favourable report. He further stated that he has checked up and verified each and every paper submitted by the society. The society has also submitted list of members as on date. The documents regarding holding of election were also scrutinized and found the same in order and as per DCS Act and Rules. He further stated that the society has prepared its books of accounts and submitted unaudited accounts till 31.3.2003. The concerned Zonal Officer finally recommended the case for the revival of the society.
In the abovesaid proceedings, it has been further stated that the winding up order passed by the then Dy. Registrar shows that proper procedure was not followed while winding up the society as the reasons given were not adequate for initiating such an extreme step for winding up the society. If there was any mis management in the society, it was appropriate to initiate action u/s 32 for setting the right working of the society and then restoring the cooperative management. Such orders for winding up without proper application of mind were not conducive for revitalization and restrengthening of the cooperative movement in Delhi and therein it has also been stated that during the course of arguments, the counsel of the society also mentioned that Dy. Registrar who had passed order u/s 63 of DCS Act, 1972 was not competent to decide the matter u/s 63.
Further, it has also been stated that there was nothing on record that such powers u/s 63 exercisable by Registrar were delegated to the Dy. Registrar by the competent authority. It appears that during the time order was passed, large number of societies were wound up without any valid and convenient reasons. It also appears that the society was not given sufficient opportunity either to reply to the SCN issued or to rectify the shortcomings mentioned in the notice issued by the RCS and accordingly, the case was reserved for orders.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 41/91 42 Thereafter vide his order dated 19.11.2003 (Ex. PW24/C ), the RCS i.e accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) revived the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS with immediate effect and he also appointed Sh. B.S. Aswal Gr.IV ( A6) as Election Officer to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee of the Society within two months of the issue of order.
After the revival , audit of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS was conducted by accused Kamal Singh (A8) and the said audit report was Ex. PW111/A3 ( colly.) and it is being stated that the hand writing therein was that of accused P.K. Thirwani (A7) .
28. In the present case, a letter dated 04.8.2003 ( Ex. PW31/C) (colly.) for revival of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS was written to RCS by Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the said Society and as per the opinion of GEQD (PW122), the said signature (Q1) of Sh. Vinod Kumar , Secretary were forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) .
This letter for revival of society Ex. PW31/C was dealt with by the concerned Dealing Assistant i.e accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3), who prepared the note in this regard, which was Ex. PW31/B and the said note was forwarded for approval by accused Yogiraj (A2).
AccusedU.S. Bhatnagar (A3) and Yogiraj (A2), while processing the file for the revival of the society, were duty bound to see the previous records pertaining to the society and then put up an appropriate noting as the society was approaching the RCS office for revival after the period of about 2324 years and the perusal of the record reveals that they have not taken any steps in this regard and have also not even verified the identity of the person i.e Sh Vinod Kumar, Secretary , who was approaching the RCS office.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 42/91 43 As per the GEQD report Ex. PW122/B, the signatures of the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary on the abovesaid letter for revival was made by accusedGokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) , which implies that this letter has been sent by A4 by impersonating himself as Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the society and he has also appeared in the office of RCS as Vinod Kumar.
Further, the perusal of the above letter Ex. PW31/C reveals that the address of the society mentioned therein was JU70B, Pitampura Delhi, where as the byelaws of the said society Ex. PW11/B shows that the said society was having its registered address as Jeevan Deep Building , Parliament Street, New Delhi .
PW88 Manohar Lal Ahuja deposed that he remained posted at Liquidation Section in RCS office from 1979 to 1980 and stated that Ashok Bakshi , the then Deputy Registrar, RCS was competent to pass liquidation order dated 21.3.1979. PW88 further deposed that vide letter dated 20.4.1979, he had informed the Manager, Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi that he has been appointed as liquidator and he has proved the said letter as Ex. PW88/A. He has also proved the letter dated 17.5.1979 addressed to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS by him as Ex. PW88/B. It is pertinent to note here that there has been a difference in the address of the society as given in the letterhead of the request letter for revival and address as mentioned in certificate of registration/byelaws of the society , however, these public servants i.e accused A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 have not raised any objection regarding the change of address as there was no correspondence received in the office of RCS regarding the change of the address of the society. No efforts have been made by these public servants to verify the address as given in the request letter for the revival of the society. Further, accused Yogiraj (A2) without verifying the FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 43/91 44 previous records of the defunct society has appointed accused Ramnath ( A5) as inspecting officer U/s 54 of DCS Act to verify the records of the society vide order dated 18.8.2003 which Mark PW113/B (page -41/C file D-3).
In his inspection report, accusedRam Nath (A5) stated that he visited the office of the society at JU70B Pitampura Delhi and there he met Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the Society, who produced all relevant records of the society, however in view of the material on record, it is clear that the office of the society i.e. Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS never existed at the abovesaid address of Pitampura as was evident from the testimony of PW113 Sushil Garg, who deposed that he alongwith his family resided at JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi from 1991 to December 2005 when he sold the said property to one Madhu and he has never rented out the said property. PW113 further deposed that he has seen letter dated 04.08.2003 (Ex. PW31/C) which was the letter head of Hindustan Steel Employee CGHS Ltd available at page no. 40C {(file Ex. PW31/A (DII & DIII)} regarding revival of the said society purportedly signed by one Vinod Kumar having the address as JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi and stated that this was his flat where he was residing from 1991 to 2005 and he does not know any person by the name of Vinod Kumar or about any society by the name of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and he has not given premises to any person or society to be used as his address or communication or to run any society. PW113 stated that he has been shown page no. 215/C to 220/C (Ex. PW31/A), affidavit dated 29.03.2003 ( Ex. PW15/C ), (Ex. PW89/A 139 and Ex. PW89/140A) available at page nos. 65 & 56/C, letter dated 03.10.2003 & 08.03.2003 available at page nos. 46 & 47 of the file and issued by RCS to the President/ Secretary of the society and stated that address i.e. JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi has been misused by someone and he has not given the said premises to any person. PW113 further deposed that he has been shown the FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 44/91 45 inspection report dated 28.08.2003 available at page no. 45/C ( Ex. PW113/A), letter addressed to AR, NW, RCS New Delhi dated 28.08.2003 ( Ex. PW113/B), letter at page no. 41/C and 42/C {(Ex. PW113/A Colly.)}, letter dated 20.04.2003 ( Ex. PW113/B) available at page no. 564/C available in file D4 (Ex. PW95/A), agenda notice available at page no. 561/C and 562/C, 563/C {(Ex. PW113/C (Colly.)} of file D4 (Ex. PW95/A) and the report (Ex. PW113/D) available at page no. 50/C of file D4 (Ex. PW95/A) and stated that all these letters/ documents mentions his previous address i.e. JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi and further stated that no Society was running at his aforesaid address and someone has forged his previous address.
29. Further , the perusal of the record reveals that these public servants i.e A2, A3 & A5 have also stated in their respective notings report that they have verified the list of members of the society , however the list verified by these accused consisted of the persons, who were either fake members or were not the members of the society. In fact, the persons, whose names were mentioned as members therein, were examined as witnesses in this case and they specifically stated in their testimonies that they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS at any point of time as was evident from the testimonies of the following witnesses examined by the prosecution/CBI in this case.
PW1 Gursharan Singh Saluja, PW2 Vivek Kaushik, PW3 Shankar Lal & PW4 Anita deposed that they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS at any point of time and they have proved their respective affidavits on record as Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A,Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW4/A respectively and stated that they never went to notary to get those affidavits notarized. PW1 to PW4 have also proved their respective verification certificates on record as Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW2/B,Ex. PW3/B & Ex. PW4/B respectively and FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 45/91 46 stated that the details in the said verification certificate were not filled up in their hand writing.
PW5 Girdhari Lal Goswami , PW6 Ram Prasad Shah, PW7 Sudesh Kumar, PW8 Dwarka Dassi, PW9 Balwant Kaur & PW10 Arun Kumar Trivedi deposed that they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS at any point of time and they have proved their respective affidavits as Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW6/A,Ex. PW7/A, PW8/A, PW9/A & Ex. PW10/A respectively and their respective verification certificates on record as Ex. PW5/B to 10/B respectively and stated that the columns therein were not filled up in their respective hand writing.
PW23 Jaidev, PW26 Prashant Kumar Ahuja, PW28 Dalip Kumar, PW38 Rajesh Kumar Nizhawan, PW45 Binod Kumar Choudhary, PW49 Rajni , PW50 Ajeet Singh, PW51 Harish Chander Shukla, PW52 Bal Krishan Sharma, PW53 Sanjay Aggarwal, PW55 Ravinder Kohli, PW58 Vipin Puri, PW59 Vinod Kumar Khullar and PW60 S.S.Dhawan deposed that they never became members in Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and they also stated that details in the freeze list of the said society were incorrect and do not pertain to them .
PW62 Sandeep Goel deposed that his father had never been a member of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS nor had he executed any documents, affidavits or applications in respect to the membership of the said society. He also stated that application Ex. PW62/A, affidavit Ex. PW62/B, receipt Ex. PW62/C do not bears handwriting or signatures of his father .
PW65 Chander Prakash, PW66 Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, PW67 Harsh Khandelwal, PW68 Vinny Malik, PW69 Jitender Singh, PW70 Vijay Aggarwal, PW71 Pankaj Khandelwal, PW72 Jagbir Singh, PW73 Ratinder Walia, PW74 Swayam Cheta Mohanty , PW75 Sanjeev Kumar Saini , PW76 Vikas Gupta, FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 46/91 47 PW77 Subedar Yadav and PW79 Anil Chawla deposed that they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS nor they have paid any membership fee of the said society. They also deposed that some one had fraudulently incorporated their names in the said society without their will, consent and information.
PW82 Rajender, PW83 Vikas Dang, PW93 K.K.Kalsi, PW94 Ashok Kumar, PW96 Joginder Singh , PW112 Nem Singh & PW115 T.C.Kharbanda deposed that they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS at any point of time nor they have paid any membership fee in respect of the said society.
30. In addition to above, the perusal of record also reveals that the record of the society was manipulated and some persons, who were the members of Krishi CGHS, were shown to be the members of the present society and even their resignation from the membership of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS were forged and all these illegalities have been ignored by the RCS officials, who are accused in this case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that some of the fake members mentioned in the list of members of the society have stated in their deposition in the court that they became members of Krishi CGHS and that they never became member of Hindustan Steel Employee CGHS and since they never became the members in Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS, there was no question of their resignation from the membership of the said society as was evident from the testimonies of the following witness exained by the prosecution/CBI in this case.
PW11 Kishan Chand Sethi, PW12 Ram Bhagat, PW13 Dinesh Nigam, PW14 R.K.Dhawan, PW15 Devraj Miglani & PW16 Mitter Sain deposed that they became members of Krishi CGHS and they never became members of Hindustan FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 47/91 48 Steel Employees CGHS and they have proved intensive inquiry proforma as Ex. PW11/A (Colly.) and Byelaws as Ex. PW11/B. PW11 to PW16 also deposed that since they never became the members in Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS so there was no question of their resignation from the membership of the said society.
PW17 Sanjeev Verma deposed that his father became member of Krishi CGHS and he was never member of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS. PW17 also deposed that since his father was never member of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS so question of his resignation from the membership of said society does not arise.
PW18 Hari Kishan, PW20 Som Nath Bhatia, PW22 Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, PW25 Suresh Chand Jain, PW33 V.N.Sharma, PW36 Vijay Kumar , PW44 B. L. Bhaskar, PW46 Shakuntala Katyal, PW47 Promila Kumar Sikka, PW48 V.R.Saryal & PW80 P.N.Viz deposed that they became members of Krishi CGHS and they never became members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and since they never became the members in Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS, so the question of their resignation from the membership of the said society do not arise.
PW19 Smt. Ameena Rizvi deposed that her husband was a member in Krishi CGHS and he never became member in Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and question of his resigning from the said society does not arise.
31. Further, the record pertaining to the membership of the society, application forms, receipt, affidavits etc., of members have also been manipulated/ forged as was evident from the testimonies of PW61 Sh. R.P. Narang and PW81 Gunanand Madwal, who were the original members of the society.
PW61 Sh. R.P. Narang deposed that he was a member of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS Ltd and he had not received any letters from the Election FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 48/91 49 Officer appointed by the RCS office nor from the NorthWest Zone of RCS. He further deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Vinod Kumar being Secretary of the above said society and as per his knowledge, his name was forwarded to the DDA initially during 1976 by the then Secretary Sh. B.L. Khurana. PW61 deposed that all the members at that time were not interested to take land for group housing purpose when it was offered at Paschim Puri by the DDA as all the members were interested in plot only. PW61 further deposed that as per his knowledge, the members did not deposit the 25% cost of the land and their case of allotment was closed and the society was liquidated in 1979 by the RCS due to reason that the society failed to achieve the objective mainly allotment of land to the members. PW61 deposed that after the society seized to exist, no meeting had taken place at any point of time and no proceedings for revival were initiated by any of the members. PW61 further deposed that the officials of the CBI visited their office at Delhi and made certain inquiries from other staff as well as from him regarding the membership, allotment and revival of the society and he came to know later on that some of the persons fraudulently by forging the documents initiated the revival proceedings and he also came to know that society has been got revived by some persons after forging affidavits in the name of old members including him. PW62 deposed that he had not executed any documents, affidavits or applications in respect of the membership of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS Ltd in the year 1972 and that he was the member of the society which was seized during 1976. PW61 further deposed that application {(Ex. PW61/A (colly.)}, affidavit (Ex. PW61/B), bear his wrong details i.e. his wrong address, father's name, age, income etc and handwriting on both documents was not his handwriting. He further deposed that receipt no. 001 dated 19.8.1972 (Ex. PW61/C), towards the membership fee of the society was wrong and incorrect and he had not paid any membership fee to the said society.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 49/91 50 PW61 also deposed that he has seen the freeze list of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS Ltd which is at serial no. 4 (MN 101) and the details therein were also incorrect and did not pertain to him and he was not member of the society vide membership no. 101 and stated that somebody had prepared the forged documents in his name.
PW81 Gunanand Madwal deposed that he was a member of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS Ltd which was closed in the year 197879 and the said society was allotted a land by the DDA at Paschim Puri but as the members of the society were not interested in taking land in Paschim Puri, the amount was not paid despite ample opportunities given by the DDA. PW81 further deposed that the above said society was liquidated in the year 1979 by the order of RCS and was not in existence and thereafter, no election/meeting had taken place after the liquidation order was passed. PW81 deposed that he had not received any letter either from the election officer appointed by the RCS office or from the NorthWest Zone of RCS office. PW81 deposed that he had seen the affidavit (Ex. PW81/A) and it does not bear his signatures and his details mentioned therein were wrong and he had not executed or signed the said affidavit at any point of time. PW81 further deposed that he had seen the application (Ex. PW81/B) and receipt (Ex. PW81/C) and details mentioned in the application (Ex. PW81/B) were incorrect and does not belong to him and he had not deposited any amount as mentioned in the receipt (Ex. PW81/C) with the society towards share money and admission fee. PW81 deposed that all these documents Ex. PW81/A to Ex. PW81/C does not bear his signatures and someone has forged the same. PW81 further deposed that he had seen the list (Ex. PW29/C) as well as file {(Ex. PW11/A) (colly.)}, wherein his name was shown at serial no. 1 and it also contained wrong information/details regarding his father's name and address. PW81 also deposed that he do not know any Vinod Kumar, who FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 50/91 51 was the Secretary of the society at any point of time and someone had forged his signature on the above mentioned documents in order to cheat for his vested interest.
The testimonies of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution / CBI clearly shows that the record of the society was not verified by accused Ramnath (A5) or by accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) & accused Yogiraj (A2) , although it was incumbent upon them to verify the same before recommending the revival of the society.
32. Further, after the passing of the revival order by accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) , the Assistant Registrar ( NW) i.e accused Yogiraj (A2) has sent to the Assistant Registrar (Policy), an application dated 19.11.2003 along with enclosures, a freeze list of 143 members of the society for forwarding the same to DDA for allotment of land. That said letter dated 19.11.2003 is Ex. PW115/C, ( page 226/C, file D3). The freeze list of 143 members is Ex. PW122/M ( colly) (page 225/C to 220/C of file D3) and the said list has been signed by R.C.Saxena (President) & Vinod Kumar ( Secretary) and it has also been signed by accused Yogiraj (A2) and as per the report of the GEQD (Ex. PW122/B), the signatures of R.C.Saxena (President) & Vinod Kumar ( Secretary) on the said list have been forged by accusedGokul Chand Aggarwal (A4).
Regarding the name of the members mentioned in the abovesaid freeze list, PW121 (IO) deposed that notices u/s 160 Cr. PC were also sent to addresses through Speed Post/RC, which were mentioned in the freeze list of the members of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS for the purpose of verifying genuineness of their existence and all these notices were returned with the remarks that either the addressees were incorrect/not existing/incomplete or the persons in the notices were not residing at the given addresses. The fact that the members FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 51/91 52 mentioned in the aforesaid freeze list were fake is also evident from the testimonies of the following witnesses i.e PW63 , PW64, PW78, PW98, PW99, PW101 to PW105 and PW116 to PW120.
PW63 Sh. Khushi Ram deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr.PC to be served upon Sh. S.M. Puri ( Ex. PW63/A ), Sh. R.C. Saxena ( Ex. PW63/B), Sh. V.C. Puri (Ex. PW63/C), Sh. V.K. Gulati (Ex. PW63/D), Sh. Satya Narain Gupta (Ex. PW63/E), Sh. Balam Singh (Ex. PW63/F), Sh. A.K. Jain (Ex. PW63/G), Sh. Harinder Bimbhat (Ex. PW63/H), Sh. Purushotam Sharma (Ex. PW63/J), Sh. R.N. Mathur (Ex. PW63/K) and Sh. Suresh Kumar (Ex. PW63/L) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW64 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma deposed that he was given notices under section 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. Vir Singh (Ex. PW64/A), Sh. Mohan Singh Rana (Ex. PW64/B), Sh. Ram Avtar Garg (Ex. PW64/C), Sh. S.K. Aggarwal (Ex. PW64/D), Sh. H.P. Advani (Ex. PW64/E), Sh. P.R. Ahuja (Ex. PW64/F), Sh.S.N. Gupta (Ex. PW64/G), Sh. O.P. Gupta (Ex. PW64/H), Sh. Ram Mohan (Ex. PW64/J) and Sh. A.S. Nayal (Ex. PW64/K) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW78 Sandeep Kumar Tiwari deposed that he was given notices under section 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. Satish Kumar Verma (Ex. PW78/A), Sh.Dharam Pal Vadhera ( Ex. PW78/A1), Sh. Manas Rajan Coudhari ( Ex. PW78/A2), Sh. Rajender Prasad ( Ex. PW78/A3 ) & Sh. Puran Singh ( Ex. PW78/A4) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW98 HC Harbir Singh deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr.PC to be served upon Sh. Nityanand Gupta (Ex. PW98/A), Sh. M.P.Rama FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 52/91 53 Krishna (Ex. PW98/B) & Sh. K. Laxman (Ex. PW98/C) and stated that said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW99 Ct. Azad Singh deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. G.C. Malhotra (Ex. PW99/A) and Sh. Tika Ram Jiwal (Ex. PW99/B) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW101 HC Rajender Singh deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. Shanti Swaroop Kapoor (Ex. PW101/A), Sh. H.R. Sachdeva (Ex. PW101/B), Sh. S.L. Verma (Ex. PW101/C), Sh. V. Parkash (Ex. PW101/D), Sh. Rajendra Pal Sharma ( Ex. PW101/E ), Sh. R.P. Bhat ( Ex. PW101/F), Sh. R.C. Gulati (Ex. PW101/G), Sh. K.K. Kalsi (Ex. PW101/H) and Sh. Gulshan Rai Kumar (Ex. PW101/J) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW102 HC Shakur Mohd. deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Saroj Gulati (Ex. PW102/A), Sh. Sujan Singh Bedi (Ex. PW102/B) and Sh. Ashok Sharma (Ex. PW102/C) and stated that said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW103 Sunil Kumar deposed that the notices issued u/s 160 Cr. PC placed in file D39 at page nos. 110, 111, 118, 119, 121, 127, 132, 133, 140, 141, 142 & 143 were handed over to him by Insp. Devraj V for the purpose of service to the addressees mentioned therein and all the above notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address and he has proved the said notices as Ex. PW103/A to Ex. PW103/K respectively.
PW104 Subhash Chand Sharma deposed that he was given notices under section 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. R.S.K. Menon (Ex. PW104/A), Sh.Uma Shanker Yadav ( Ex. PW104/B ) and Sh. Kanhiya Lal Malhotra (Ex.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 53/91 54 PW104/C) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW105 Ct. Ram Sewak Singh Yadav deposed that the notices issued u/s 160 Cr. PC placed in file D39 at page nos. 60, 113, 114, 116, 117, 138 were handed over to him by Insp. Devraj V for the purpose of service to the addressees mentioned therein and all the above notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address and he has proved the said notices as Ex. PW105/A to Ex. PW105/F. PW105 further deposed that he has been shown notices u/s 160 Cr.PC issued to R.C. Saxena President and Vinod Kumar Secretary of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS for the purpose of services and the said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address and he has proved the said notices as Ex. PW105/G & Ex. PW103/H. PW116 Ct. Jagpal deposed that was given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Sh. R.P. Narang ( Ex. PW116/A ), Sh. Om Parkash (Ex. PW116/B), Sh. R. Swaroop (Ex. PW116/C), Sh. Rajender Nath (Ex. PW116/D), Sh. Guna Nand (Ex. PW116/E), Sh. S.P. Bhasin (Ex. PW116/F), Sh. Hari Chand Saini ( Ex. PW116/G), Sh. Naveen Shahdar Mastana (Ex. PW116/H), Sh. Vipin Puri (Ex. PW116/J), Sh. Mohd. Usman ( Ex. PW116/K ), Sh. M.M.C. Mishra ( Ex. PW116/L), Sh. Shanti Swaroop (Ex. PW116/M), Sh. C.K. Bahl (Ex. PW116/N), Sh. P.V. Venkatseran (Ex. PW116/O), Sh. J.R. Goel (Ex. PW116/P), Sh. Gurbachan Lal (Ex. PW116/Q), Sh. Radhey Lal Sharma ( Ex. PW116/R ), Sh. S.D. Chatwal (Ex. PW116/S), Davinder Kaur ( Ex. PW116/T ), Sh. Jagdamba Prasad Sharma (Ex. PW116/U), Sh. Rakesh Kumar ( Ex. PW116/V ) and Sh. Vinod Kumar (Ex. PW116/W) and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW117 Ct. Rajveer deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 54/91 55 be served upon Sh. S.S. Bajaj (Ex. PW117/A), B.K. Aggarwal (Ex. PW117/B) and Sh. I.P. Bahri (Ex. PW117/C) and stated that all the said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW118 Ct. Kuldeep and PW119 Ct. Pintooji deposed that they were given notices u/s 160 Cr. PC to be served upon Ms. Urmila Jai (Ex. PW118/A) and Jagdeesh Kumar Gupta (Ex. PW119/A) and stated that the said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address.
PW120 HC Sunil Ekka deposed that he was given notices u/s 160 Cr.PC to be served upon Sh. S.K. Das Patnaik, K.S. Subramaniam, B.L. Khurana, V.S. Verma, H.K. Juneja, N.L. Yadav, R. Krishnamurthy, K.K. Sehgal, Smt. K. Paul, S.P. Anand, P.P. Vohra, S.K. Kashyap, Kishan Lal Sethi, Sukhdev Raj, G.N. Puri, P.C. Kohli, Ravindra Kohli, B.K. Jaiswal, S.N. Dhar, Ashok Kumar, Rajender Kumar Garg, U.N. Sharma, Arvind Sood, S.C. Mathur, T.R. Arora, Jagmohan Bhasin, O.P. Sandhir, Gurbachan Singh, Banta Ram, Rakesh Mittal, Chander Mohan Malhotra, Sudhir Chander, Kishan Gupta, R.B. Patnaik, Ram Sehgal, Kiran Oberoi, T.C. Kharbanda, V.N. Nair, Santa Anand, S.S. Dhavan, C.R. Ramamurthy, Amar Kishan Seth & Sam Francis and stated that all the above said notices were returned unserved due to either want of addressee or want of address and he has proved the said notices as Ex. PW120A to Ex. PW120/A42.
33. Hence , in view of the above, had accused Yogiraj (A2) , accused U.S.Bhatnagar (A3) and accused Ramnath (A5) insisted upon the identify of the applicant, who has moved the RCS office for revival of the society and had verified the records of the society for the period during which it had remained defunct, then it would have easily come to their notice that request for the revival of the society was not a genuine request and has not been made by an authorized person, however FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 55/91 56 these public servants have failed to take any such requisite steps and this shows that they were in conspiracy with accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to achieve the illegal object of the allotment of land from the DDA at subsidized rates.
Further, it is pertinent to note that accused Ramnath(A5) was appointed as Inspecting Officer U/s 54 of DCS Act to verify the records of the society and to bring out the factual position of the society. He has filed the inspection report, which has been proved on record as Ex. PW121/AC (D3). As per the said report (Ex. PW121/AC), A5 has visited the office of the society at JU70B, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 and there he met Vinod Kumar, Secretary of the society. A5 further stated that Vinod Kumar produced all the relevant records of the society and as per the proceedings register, last meeting was held on 20.5.2003 and all the society records were found by him under the safe custody of the Secretary of the Society.
The abovesaid inspection report( Ex. PW121/AC) given by accused Ramnath (A5) apparently is a false report as Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS was not functioning at JU70B, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 as was evident from the evidence of PW113 Sushil Garg. In his report, A5 noted that the last meeting was held on 20.5.2003, however he has not verified whether any meeting of the society was held during the period when the society remained defunct. A5 has also not insisted upon the identify proof of the Vinod Kumar, who allegedly met him as Secretary of the society . It shows that A5 has given the false inspection report at behest of A4 to achieve the illegal object of the conspiracy and this false report given by A5 paved the way for the revival of the society.
34. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is evident that accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) was the dealing assistant under AR (NW Zone), who had put up the file containing the application for revival FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 56/91 57 dated 04.08.2003 of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS submitted by purported Secretary, Vinod Kumar showing address of the society as JU 70B, Pitampura New Delhi and he had submitted the file to accused Yogi RajAR (NW) stating that the noting portion of the file was missing from the records and the file has been reconstructed with the documents such as byelaws, intensive inquiry proforma liquidation order of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS etc. It is evident that A3 had not done any verification regarding the present status of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS before from DSC Bank, where the society had the account which was transferred to the Liquidator's name of RCS office before putting up the note and no records were sought from DDA to cross check the antecedents of the purported Secretary Vinod Kumar. The note was put up with the above records which were found to be fake and belonging to another CGHS namely Krishi CGHS. The liquidation order found in the file also contained the forged signatures of Sh.Ashok Bakshi, Dy. Registrar of RCS office. The members mentioned in the intensive inquiry proforma and in the bye laws were not members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS but were of Krishi CGHS who had already been alloted land in 1983. It was also falsely mentioned in the note sheet by A3 that he had met the office bearers and verified the records submitted by the purported President/ Secretary of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and A3 also malafidely recommended for revival of the society u/s 63 (3) of DCS Act and approval of the freeze list of 143 members for allotment of land.
Further, the prosecution/CBI has been able to establish on record that accused Yogi Raj (A2) was posted as AR (NW) at the relevant period and was also having additional charge of AR (West) and AR (Policy) and he has not raised any objection to the absence of file notings and other old records pertaining to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS. Further, A2 has also not suggested at any point FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 57/91 58 of time to call for records from the DDA office or from the Delhi State Cooperative Bank, where the society was having the bank account where a relevant record of the promotee members and the freeze list sent to the DDA in 1976 was present. Instead A2 put up for approval the reconstructed file containing name of members of Krishi CGHS, fake liquidation order etc and also falsely stated in the notesheet that he had verified the submitted documents by the office bearers with the original records produced by the society which the investigation has proved otherwise and this resulted in wrongful revival of the society. Further, the freeze list of 143 purported members, who were never the members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS, was forwarded by accused Yogi Raj as AR (NorthWest) to AR (Policy) as he was having dual charge. Accused Yogi Raj (A2) as AR (Policy) has also malafidely sent the freeze list of fake members to DDA for allotment of land , which clearly links him with the commission of offences in this case.
In addition to above, the prosecution/CBI has proved on record that accused Ram Nath (A5) was appointed as Inspection Officer by the RCS office to visit the office of the society at JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi and conduct inspection of the records of the society and meet the office bearers. The perusal of record reveals that A5 has submitted a false inspection report stating that he had visited the above address, met the purported Secretary Vinod Kumar, who produced the relevant records which shows the shifting of address of society to JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi, membership register, accounts documents, proceeding register, election records etc and he had also stated that the management committee had maintained the records as per statutory requirements and as such, A5 was instrumental in fraudulent revival of the society. During the investigation, it has been found that JU70B, Pitam Pura, Delhi was not the office address of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS but belonged to a person namely Sushil Garg (A113),, who was not at all connected with any FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 58/91 59 affairs of the society. The management committee members whom accused Ram Nath had stated to have met namely Vinod Kumar and others were found to be non existent and the signatures of the office bearers namely Vinod Kumar, R.C. Saxena and K. Paul were found to be forged on the documents by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal and the list of members in the freeze list of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS having inspected by accused Ram Nath (A5) were also found either non existing or not members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and as such, in view of evidence adduced on record, the prosecution/CBI has been successful in connecting A5 with the commission of offences in the instant case..
35. In the present case, the perusal of the record reveals that accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) has approved the noting (Ex. PW31/F) as to the appointment of accused Ramnath (A5) as Inspecting Officer. In the said noting ( Ex. PW31/F), accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) had approved the issuance of notice U/s 63 (3) of DCS Act & Rules to the President/Secretary of the society for initial hearing on the proposal of the revival of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS on 25.9.2003.
Further, the proceedings dated 25.9.2003 ( Ex. PW31/G) ( page 6/N) has been signed by accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) and it shows that on the said date i.e 25.9.2003, one Advocate namely Mrs. Rita Kaul representing the society was present and the proceedings were adjourned by A1 to 14.10.2003. As per proceedings dated 14.10.2003 ( page 17/N) , A1 directed the Reader to call the Inspector, who had done the inspection u/s 54 of DCS Act alongwith AR concerned on the next date of hearing i.e 28.10.2003 . On the next date of hearing i.e 28.10.2003, the proceedings (Ex. PW31/J) conducted by A1 reveals that concerned AR Yogiraj (A2) as well as Mrs. Kaul , Adv. representing the society were present FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 59/91 60 and A1 again directed the Reader to call the concerned Inspector on the next date of hearing i.e 13.11.2003. Thereafter on 13.11.2003, vide proceedings, Ex. PW2/D ( Page 18/N), A1 heard the arguments on behalf of the society as advanced by Smt. Rita Kaul Adv, and the case was reserved for orders.
AccusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) passed the order dated 19.11.2003 ( Ex. PW24/C), thereby cancelling the winding up order dated 06.2.1979 of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS in exercise of the powers U/s 63 (3) of DCS Act with immediate effect. In the said order ( Ex.PW24/C), A1 also stated that consequently Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS ( Regd. No.63/GH ) is revived with immediate effect as the concerned Assistant Registrar has already verified the 143 members submitted by the society subject to the condition that the pending audit shall be got completed within two months. A1 has also appointed accused B.S.Aswal (A6) Gr. IV of the department as Election Officer to conduct the election of the managing committee of the society within two months from the issuance of the order.
It is pertinent to note here that accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) was holding the responsible position as Registrar, Cooperative Societies and so it was his primary duty to scrutinize the documents for the revival of the society carefully and cautiously as the society has been approaching the office of RCS after a long period of time of about 24 years. It was incumbent upon A1 to act in a judicious manner, however, it appears that he has not taken any measures, before passing the revival order (Ex. PW24/C) to see the genuineness and truthfulness of the documents being furnished for the revival of the society.
Further, while passing the aforesaid revival order (Ex. PW24/C), accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) observed that Deputy Registrar who had passed order u/s 63 of DCS Act was not competent to pass such order as only Registrar FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 60/91 61 was competent to decide the matter u/s 63. It was also observed therein that there was nothing on record to show the such powers u/s 63 of exercisable by Registrar were delegated to the Deputy Registrar by the competent authority and these observations being made by accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1) shows that he had passed the revival order (Ex. PW24/C) without going through the record of his own office or without perusing the relevant Notifications/Directives issued by the Competent Authority as was evident from the testimony of PW24 Sh. Ashok Bakshi , the then Deputy Registrar , who has passed the abovesaid order u/s 63 of DCS Act qua the windingup of the society.
PW24 Sh. Ashok Bakshi, deposed that he was working as Deputy Registrar in the office of RCS at the relevant time from the year 19771979 and during his tenure the official work was done in Hindi because the Janta Party Government at that time decided that the official work shall be done in Hindi. PW24 further deposed that he has seen one liquidation order Ex.PW24/A placed in file D2 & D3 pertaining to Hindustan Steel CGHS at page no.38/C and the signatures appearing at point A and A1 on the said liquidation order were forged and the same were not his signatures. PW24 deposed that during his tenure, number of liquidation proceedings were going on with respect to different nonfunctional housing societies, hence, number of cyclostyle liquidation paper were prepared for the purpose of liquidation proceedings. PW24 deposed that writing appearing at point X and X1 in the said liquidation order were not his and before issuing the orders for liquidation of the society based on the report of the concerned Inspector, a show cause notice used to be sent to the society under reference and after giving opportunity to the said society and finding that it was nonfunctional, liquidation orders were issued and a liquidator was appointed with the approval of RCS. PW24 deposed that he was delegated the power of RCS by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 61/91 62 this was communicated under the signatures of Secretary (Cooperation), Govt of Delhi vide notification bearing no. F9(38)/68Coop863642 dated 18.10.1977 exhibited as Ex.PW24/B. PW24 further deposed that he had seen order dated 19.11.2003 placed in file D23 at running page 71/C and had gone through the said order of Mr. Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, at page 70/C and in the relevant portion which is encircled in red, it has been mentioned that Deputy Registrar was not competent to pass liquidation order and societies were wound up in a mechanical manner and in this regard, he stated that in view of the above quoted Notification of Delhi Administration, the above view is wrong because Deputy Registrar was delegated the power to pass the liquidation order and he has proved the same as Ex.PW24/C. PW24 further deposed that he had seen note sheet page 18/N, dated 13.11.2003 exhibited as Ex. PW24/D and stated that in view of the above quoted Notification of Delhi Administration, the said noting was wrong because Deputy Registrar was delegated the power to pass liquidation order and no order of liquidation was passed mechanically and the said orders were passed after due application of mind and following proper procedure. PW24 deposed that he has seen the letter dated 09.01.1978 placed in file D24 at running page 25 under the signature of Sh. S.P Goel, Executive Officer, DDA and vide the said letter, the Hindustan Steel Employee CGHS was offered land in Paschim Puri and the said society declined to accept the offer vide letter dated 28.01.1978, as Ex. PW24/F. PW24 also deposed that one copy of liquidation order used to be sent to the concerned Officer of DDA for information and he has seen the said copy which was placed in DDA file (D22) and the same was Ex.PW24/G.
36. Further, from the proceedings conducted by accusedNarayan Diwakar (A1), it is apparent that he has never insisted for the appearance of President and FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 62/91 63 Secretary of the Society at the time of arguments despite issuance of notice to them. Further, even before passing the revival order ( Ex. PW24/C), A1 did not consider it necessary to see as to why the liquidator was not able to carry out the process of winding up and also failed to verify the genuineness of liquidation order (Ex.PW24/A) placed in file D2 & D3 pertaining to Hindustan Steel CGHS at page no.38/C. The said liquidation order (Ex. PW24/A) is alleged to be signed by Sh.Ashok Bakshi,( the then Dy. Registrar), however, the said Sh. Ashok Bakshi (PW24) has deposed that the liquidation order ( Ex. PW24/A) does not bear his signatures and the signatures appearing therein at point A and A1 were forged and the same were not his signatures. Further, A1 has also not insisted on the identity proof of the members and office bearers of the society to verify their genuineness and in case, this step had been taken by A1, it would have immediately came to his notice that all the members including office bearers of the society were fake. All these facts proved that accused - Narayan Diwakar (A1) has malafidely passed the revival order ( Ex. PW24/C) of the society in conspiracy with the other coaccused in order to speedily achieve the object of the abovesaid conspiracy. It is being submitted on behalf of accused - Narayan Diwakar (A1) that he had no option but to order the cancellation of winding up order of the society as the liquidation proceedings were not completed within stipulated period and in this regard, he relied upon the judgment dated 22.11.1986 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as 'Vikas CGHS Vs. RCS, (CWP No. 1767/1986).
Under Section 63 (3) of DCS Act and Rule 105 of DCS Rule 1973, the Registrar has the power to terminate liquidation proceedings, but this power is required to be exercised in bonafide manner, however in the instant case, from the material on record and evidence as discussed above, it is proved that accused - Narayan Diwakar (A1) has invoked these provisions in a malafide manner. The FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 63/91 64 abovesaid judgment being relied upon by A1 is not applicable as the fact and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the fact and circumstances of the case discussed therein and in any event, in the instant case, it is clear that A1 had invoked the abovesaid provisions with undue haste and in a malafide manner.
Ld. Defence counsel for A1 has also submitted that A1 while acting as Registrar has been discharging quasi judicial functions as a judge and therefore he could not have been prosecuted, however , the said submissions made on behalf of the A1 are devoid of any merits and are contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as 'Narayan Diwakar Vs. CBI' (reported as 129 (2006) DLT 258) that any Registrar while exercising power or discharging functions under DCS Act 1972 cannot be deemed to be a judge and consequently cannot claim any protection from the prosecution or other legal proceedings.
Hence, in view of the above, the prosecution/CBI has been successful in proving on record that accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) had approved the note put up by accused U.S. Bhatnagar (A3) and accused Yogi Raj (A2) for using reconstructed file consisting of fake documents and documents of other CGHS without calling for records pertaining to Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS from other departments like DDA where the freeze list sent by the RCS office in the year 1976 would have been available and no action was taken to find the antecedents of the so called self proclaimed secretary of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS namely Vinod Kumar. A1 also did not fix the responsibility or initiate any inquiry regarding the absence of noting portion and old records of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and from the material on record, it was evident that revival order was passed without following proper procedure and the reasons stated therein were FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 64/91 65 not adequate for the revival of the society. A1 had also wrongly stated that the Deputy Registrar was not competent to decide the matter u/s 63 of DCS Act, although the Notification in this regard issued by Delhi Administration reveals that such power has been delegated upon by Dy. Registrar by the Competent Authority and this implies that A1 did not even deemed it necessary to go through the relevant record/notification/directives etc. before fraudulently passing the revival order of the society. Further, it appears that A1 had also not ascertained the genuineness of the documents and malafidely passed the revival order of the society and all these circumstances clearly establishes the connection of accused Narayan Diwakar (A1) with the commission of the offences in this case.
37. Further, as far as the accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) is concerned , it is being submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that during the relevant period, the said accused in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy prepared false audit report in his own handwriting , although he was not appointed as auditor by the office of RCS in this case. It is further stated that while preparing the said false audit report, accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) allowed coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C.Saxena ( President ), Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K. Paul (Treasurer ) on the said audit report for the purpose of revival of the society on the basis of false and forged documents.
On the other hand , it is being submitted on behalf of the accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) that prosecution/CBI has not brought on record any evidence to show that any irregularity was committed by A7, while allegedly preparing the audit report nor any evidence has been produced to show that the said audit report was required to be prepared by the appointed Auditor himself in his own handwriting. It is further submitted that the prosecution/CBI has failed to point out FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 65/91 66 any violation of DCS Act/Rules in the preparation of the audit report , wherein A7 had only assisted accused Kamal Singh (A8) in filling up the audit report proforma on his request and it is also submitted that there was also no evidence that any illegal act or omission was committed by A7 nor any departmental action has been recommended against him.
In the present case , it is stated that accusedKamal Singh (A8) was appointed as Auditor to audit the accounts of the society , however , the alleged false audit report was prepared by accused P.K.Thirwani (A7), although he was not officially appointed as an auditor to audit the account of the society.
In the instant case, in his defence accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) has examined D7W1 Shri Jatinder Singh Sharma, who deposed that he was posted in the office of RCS Parliament Street as Assistant Registrar from January 2001 till April 2004 and during that period, he remained as Assistant Registrar (Audit Branch). D7W1 further deposed that it was necessary to complete the pending audit of a society which is to be revived either before passing the order by the RCS or after passing order within a stipulated period as mentioned in the revival order and the audit is done as per order of the RCS contained in the revival order of respective society. D7W1 further deposed that Audit branch has no concern with the sending of list of member to the DDA as the same is done by the Zonal Assistant Registrar. D7W1 deposed that the auditors posted in the audit branch of the RCS office can take help of each other in completing the audit of the society and that there was no necessity for giving a certificate or declaration by the auditor that he conducted audit of the society at the registered address of the society, however, the audit is done as per DCS Act 1972 and DCS Rules 1973. D7W1 also deposed that there was no provision in DCS Act 1972 and DCS Rules 1973 for any punishment if the audit was not done at the registered address of the society.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 66/91 67 The important fact is that this witness i.e D7W1 was cross examined by the Ld Sr.PP for CBI, however nothing material has come on record , which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. In his cross examination by the Ld. Sr. PP, D7W1 stated that as per order dated 19.11.2003, accused Kamal Singh was appointed as auditor to conduct pending audit of this society and only he was required to conduct the audit in this case. He further stated that in case of any discrepancy in the audit report in this case, the liability would be of accused Kamal Singh.
In view of the above testimony of D7W1, it is evident that it was necessary to complete the pending audit of a society which is to be revived either before passing of the revival order by the RCS or after passing of the said order, within a stipulated period as mentioned in the revival order and that Audit branch has no concern with the sending of list of member to the DDA. D7W1 also stated that the auditors posted in the audit branch of the RCS office can take help of each other in completing the audit of the society.
In the present case, the perusal of the record reveals that audit report (Ex. 111/A3 ) (D9 ) does not bear the signatures of accused P.K.Thirwani (A7). Further, the prosecution /CBI has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the audit report was prepared at the spot by accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) or that he had actually done auditing. In these circumstances, there is possibility that audit report may have been written by the accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) at the request of Kamal Singh (A8). There is also no evidence on record to prove that accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) has allowed accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C.Saxena ( President ), Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K. Paul (Treasurer ) on the said audit report for the purpose of revival of the society on the basis of false and forged documents.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 67/91 68 Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, the prosecution/CBI has failed to prove on record beyond the reasonable doubt that it was the accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) who has himself conducted the audit of the society and filed the report. Further, there is no conclusive evidence on record to link accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) with the alleged offences. In these circumstances , it is evident that prosecution/CBI has not been able to bring home the guilt against the accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7).
38. In the present case, after the revival, audit of the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS was conducted by accused Kamal Singh (A8) and the said audit report is Ex. PW111/A3 ( colly.) It is being submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that accused Kamal Singh (A8) submitted a false audit report without visiting the office of society and allowed coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C. Saxena (President), Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K.Paul (Treasurer) on the audit report for getting the Society revived and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 members of the said society on the basis of false and forged documents.
On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused Kamal Singh (A8) that the revival order was not based on the alleged report submitted by him. It is further submitted that no evidence have been brought on record to show that A8 was having knowledge about bogus documents of the society being produced before him and the said accused do not have mechanism to check the authenticity of the record. It is submitted that prosecution/CBI has no evidence to show that any irregularity was committed by A8, while submitting the audit report nor any evidence has been produced to show that the audit report was required to be filed by the appointed Auditor himself in his own handwriting. It is further submitted FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 68/91 69 that the prosecution/CBI has failed to point out any violation of DCS Act/Rules in the submission of the audit report by A8 and there was also no evidence that any illegal act or omission was done by A8 nor any departmental action has been recommended against them.
In the instant case, the Audit Report, Ex PW111/A3 ( colly.) has been given by accused Kamal Singh (A8) and the documents/enclosures annexed with the said report i.e Ex. PW122/Z362 ( colly.) Ex. PW122/Z363 ( colly.) ,Ex. PW122/Z364 ( colly.) ,Ex. PW122/Z365, Ex. PW122/Z366,Ex. PW122/Z367, Ex. PW122/Z368,Ex. PW122/Z370, Ex. PW122/Z371,Ex. PW122/Z372,Ex. PW122/Z373, Ex. PW122/Z374, Ex PW122/Z375, Ex. PW122/Z376, Ex. PW122/Z377, Ex. PW122/Z378,Ex. PW122/Z379,Ex. PW122/Z380, Ex. PW122/Z381, Ex. PW122/Z382, Ex. PW122/Z383,Ex. PW122/Z384,Ex. PW122/Z385, Ex. PW122/Z386, Ex. PW122/Z387,Ex. PW122/Z388,Ex. PW122/Z389, Ex. PW122/Z390, Ex. PW122/Z391, Ex. PW122/Z392,Ex. PW122/Z393, Ex. PW122/Z394, Ex. PW122/Z395,Ex. PW122/Z396,Ex. PW122/Z397,Ex. PW122/Z398, Ex. PW122/Z399 and Ex. PW122/Z400 to Ex. PW122/Z474 contains the purported signatures of office bearers of the society i.e R.C.Saxena ( President) , Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K. Paul ( Treasurer) alongwith the signatures of A8 and as per the report of PW122 P. Venugopala Rao (GEQD), the said signatures of R.C.Saxena ( President) , Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K. Paul ( Treasurer) have been forged by accused - Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) , which implies that no such office bearers ever appeared before A8 and he conspired with A4 and other coaccused to prepare the false audit report . Further, the perusal of the record reveals that A8 had submitted the false audit report without even visiting the office of the society because had he visited the office of the society , he would have come to know that no such office FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 69/91 70 of the society existed at the given address i.e JU 70B, Pitampura, Delhi as was evident from the testimony of PW113 Sushil Garg, who specifically stated that the said premises belong to him and he does not know any person by the name of Vinod Kumar or about any society by the name of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and he has not given premises to any person or society.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record , it is evident that accused Kamal Singh (A8) had submitted a false audit report showing the existence of documents and the account records of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS for the period 19722003. In the said audit report, A8 had shown the address of the society as JU70B, Pitampura, which does not belong to the society. Further, A8 had also taken on record the false receipts and payments, cash balance records, list of resigned members and enrolled members, list of numbers who had paid membership subscription for the period 1972 to 2003 bearing the fake signatures of the office bearers forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4), In these circumstances, the prosecution /CBI have been successful in proving on record that accused Kamal Singh (A8) while working as Auditor in the office of RCS, Delhi in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false audit report and allowed coaccused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) to forge the signatures of R.C. Saxena as President, Vinod Kumar as Secretary and K. Paul as Treasurer on the said audit reports for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents.
39. Further, as far as accused Balam Singh Aswal (A6) is concerned , it is being submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that A6 while working as Election Officer in the office of RCS submitted a false election report dated FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 70/91 71 23.12.2003 without visiting the office of the Society for getting revived the society and getting approved the freeze list of 143 members of the above said Society on the basis of false and forged documents, whereas on the other hand it is being submitted on behalf of the accused Balam Singh Awal (A6) that he is a matriculate and joined the Govt. of NCT , Delhi as a classIV employee and he was not given any training or instructions regarding the manner in which the election was to be conducted qua the present society. It is submitted that A6 had no malafide intention and has not violated any provisions of DCS Act or DCS Rules or any other directive while conducting the said elections on the basis of the list of members provided by the department. It is further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution/CBI regarding any benefit caused to A6 in any manner . It is also submitted that the election in question were conducted after the passing of the revival order qua the society and it is not the case of the prosecution that the said revival order was issued on the basis of the elections of the society got conducted by A6.
In the present case , the perusal of the record reveals that accused Blam Singh Aswal (A6) was appointed as Election Officer vide order no. RCS/124/03/420712 dated 19.11.2003 (Ex. PW24/C ) to conduct the election of the Managing Committee of Hindustan Steel Employee CGHS and accordingly, he conducted the said elections and submitted his report , which was Ex. PW122/Z
476. The perusal of the record further reveals that the document annexed with the said election report i.e Ex. PW122/Z480 ( colly.) also contains the nomination forms filled up by the candidates i.e R.C.Saxena, K. Paul and Vinod Kumar alongwith the signatures of A6 and as per the report of PW122 P. Venugopala Rao (GEQD), the said signatures of R.C.Saxena, K. Paul and Vinod Kumar on the said nomination forms were fake and have been forged by accused - Gokul Chand FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 71/91 72 Aggarwal (A4). Further, during investigation, it has been found that the members elected during the aforesaid elections were non existent as was evident from the testimony of PW121 DSPDev Raj V (IO) and this implies that no such election as mentioned in the election report Ex. PW122/Z480 ( colly.) were ever held and A6 has given a false election report in connivance with the other accused persons .
Hence, in view of the above, the prosecution /CBI has been successful in proving on record that accused Balam Singh Aswal (A6) was appointed as Election Officer by A1, to conduct the elections of the management committee of the society. A6 had submitted the report (Ex. PW122/Z476) regarding conduct of elections and a list of elected candidates (Ex. PW122/Z477) was enclosed therewith wherein Sh. R.C. Saxena has been shown elected as President, Arvind Sood as Vice President, K. Paul, Vinod Kumar & Smt. Paramjeet Kaur as managing committee members and during investigation, it has been found that these elected members were nonexistent and the signatures of most of the management committee members had been forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) as was evident from the testimonies of PW121 DSPDev Raj V (IO) and PW122 P.Venugopala Rao (GEQD). Further, the proceedings register (Ex. PW122/Z478) showing the General Body meeting and conduct of elections reveals that therein A6 has mentioned that he had received the nominations from R.C. Saxena, K. Paul, Vinod Kumar, who were nonexistent members and it also reveals that the said elections have been carried out in the presence of 37 members, who were not the members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS as was evident from the testimony of the IO (PW121). The perusal of the record further reveals that the nomination forms counter signed by A6 bears the fake signatures of nonexisting office bearers R.C. Saxena, K. Paul, Vinod Kumar etc., which were found to be forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4)as was evident from the report of PW122 P. FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 72/91 73 Venugopala Rao (GEQD). All the abovesaid circumstances clearly establishes the involvement of accused Balam Singh Aswal (A6) in the commission of offences in the present case.
40. In the instant case, it is being submitted on behalf of the accused public servants i.e. A1 to A3 and A5, A6 & A8 that they were entitled to general defence U/s 76 and 79 of IPC and as such , they cannot be held liable for the acts which have been done by them in discharge of their public duties, however, the said contention raised on behalf of the accused does not hold water as the said accused were not entitled to claim the benefit of these provisions as their acts/omissions for the revival of the society cannot be said to be done in good faith, which was an essential ingredient of these sections. It has been further submitted by the Ld.Defence counsels that even if there was any irregularity committed by the public servants i.e. A1 to A3 and A5,A6 & A8 , then they could have been prosecuted under the DCS Act and their prosecution under IPC and the PC Act was illegal, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the law as the DCS Act does not cover the specific acts of forgery and corruption, which involves higher punishment and penalties.
41. Role of accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution/CBI that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) during the year 200304 dishonestly and fraudulently induced the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the 'Society' and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates by dishonestly and fraudulently impersonating himself as Vinod FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 73/91 74 Kumar self styled Secretary, R.C. Saxena President and K. Paul Treasurer of the society in the office of the RCS, Delhi. It is also stated that A4 prepared or got prepared false and forged documents, affidavits, forms etc for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates and fraudulently and dishonestly used the said fake and fabricated documents for getting revived the society and for getting approved the freeze list of 143 fictitious members of the said Society.
On the other hand, it is being submitted on behalf of the accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) that the allegations qua the said accused are false and fabricated as the prosecution/ CBI has failed to produce any witness, who has seen A4 visiting the office of RCS in connection with the present society or for any other purpose. It is further submitted that the sole testimony of GEQD was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the A4 beyond reasonable doubt and there was no corroborative evidence to support the said report given by GEQD, especially in view of the fact that the witnesses pertaining to the office of the RCS has not stated anything about appearance of A4, while impersonating as Vinod Kumar. It is submitted that the prosecution/ CBI has failed to establish ingredients of offences u/s 419/420 IPC qua A4 in this case and that there was nothing on record to establish that it was A4, who had submitted the application in the office of the RCS for revival of the society. It is further submitted that GEQD opinion/ report filed on behalf of the prosecution/ CBI was inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise, the said report was faulty and unreliable as the same was no based upon any scientific approach. It is also submitted that the specimen handwriting/ signatures have been taken in this case without the orders of the court and as such the opinion of GEQD was required to be ignored as it was in violation of Section 311A Cr. PC.
In the present case, during investigation, questioned documents along with specimen writing/signatures were sent to CFSL Hyderabad for obtaining opinion FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 74/91 75 and the said documents were examined by PW122 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao (GEQD).
PW122 Sh.P. Venugopala Rao deposed that he has received specialized training in scientific examination of documents including handwriting identification and forgey detection from Govt of India Laboratory at Shimla and has been in this profession for the last about 25 years. PW122 further deposed that the documents of this case were received for examination and opinion in the office of GEQD Hydrabad vide letter No. 949/02/2006/EOUIX/New Delhi dated 22.7.2006 and the said letter was Ex. PW122/A (colly). PW122 further deposed that the questioned writings/signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q547, Q4A, Q6A, Q6B,Q6C, Q47A and Q132A and the specimen writings/signatures pertaining four individuals stamped and marked S1 to S382 were received and on examination of the documents as per the query, he arrived at the opinion bearing No. CH262/2006 dated 22.08.2006 and the same was Ex. PW122/B and the said opinion was sent to the SP, CBI EOUIX New Delhi vide the office letter No. CH262/2006/2435 dated 22 nd August, 2006 which was Ex. PW 122/C and all the documents were returned to SP CBI EOUIX after examination, vide office letter No.CH262/2006/2517 dated 2882006 which was Ex. PW 122/D. PW122 deposed that further documents were forwarded by the SP, CBI EOUIX New Delhi to the GEQD Hyderabad for examination and opinion vide letter no. 996/02/2006/EOUIX, ND, dated 04.09.2006 which was Ex. PW 122/E (Colly) and these further documents were questioned writings/signatures stamped and marked as Q548 to Q914, Q569 (A) and Q693 (A) and the specimen writings/ signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S144 and S383 to S512, pertaining to four individuals and on examination of the said further documents, he arrived at the supplementary opinion bearing no. CH262/2006 dated 22.09.2006 which was Ex. PW 122/F (Colly) and the said further documents were returned to SP CBI EOUIX FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 75/91 76 New Delhi after examination, vide the office letter No. CH262/2006/3234 dated 26102006 which was Ex. PW 122/G. PW122 deposed that the reasons for the opinion bearing no. CH262/2006 dated 22.08.2006 were Ex. PW 122/H (Colly) as well as the reasons for the supplementary opinion bearing no. CH262/2006 dated 22.09.2006 were Ex. PW 122/J (colly) and the same were forwarded to the SP, CBI EOUIX New Delhi vide office letter No. CH262/ 2006/2786 dated 24.07.2008 which was Ex. PW 122/K. PW122 further deposed that he has been shown specimen signatures/ handwritings purported to be given by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal marked S2 to S204 { (Ex. PW110/A (Colly.)}, purported to be given by accused Ram Nath marked S215 to S252 {(Ex. PW110/B (Colly.)}, purported to be given by accused Balam Singh marked S253 to S312 {(Ex. PW110/C (Colly.)}, purported to be given by accused U.S. Bhatnagar mark S322 to S82 {(Ex. PW110/D (Colly.)}, purported to be given by accused P.K. Thirwani marked S383 to S429 { (Ex. PW110/E (Colly.)}, purported to be given by accused Kamal Singh marked S430 to S491 {(Ex. PW110/F (Colly.)} and purported to be given by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma marked S492 to S512 { (Ex. PW110/G (Colly.)} and stated that these documents/ items were received in his office for comparing and after comparing the questioned with the specimen writing questioned, he had arrived at opinion which was Ex. PW122/B as well as the supplementary opinion which was Ex. PW122/B. In his opinion/report No. CH 262/06 dated 22.8.2006 (Ex. PW122/B), PW122 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao has stated that the documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined as the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q1, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q6A, Q6B, Q6C, Q7 to Q32, Q35 to Q46, Q53 to Q132, Q133 to Q523, Q537, Q538, Q542 and S1 to S214 were all written by one and the same person.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 76/91 77 The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q2, Q4, Q4A and S215 to S252 were all written by one and the same person. The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q33, Q34, Q524 to Q536, Q539, Q540, Q541, Q544 to Q547 and S253 to S321 were all written by one and the same person and the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q47, Q47A, Q48 to Q52 and S322 to S382 were also written by one and the same person.
Further, in his supplementary opinion/report No. CH 262/06 dated 22.09.2006 {(Ex. PW122/E (Colly.)}, it has been stated by PW122 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao that further documents of this case have also been carefully and thoroughly examined as the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q569 (A), Q575 to Q578, Q581, Q583, Q585, Q586, Q589, Q590, Q592, Q595, Q596, Q599 to Q602, Q605 to Q608, Q611, Q612, Q615 to Q618, Q621 to Q624, Q627, Q628, Q631 to Q634, Q637 to Q640, Q643, Q644, Q647 to Q650, Q653 to Q656, Q659, Q660, Q663 to Q666, Q669 to Q672, Q675, Q676, Q682, Q685 to Q688, Q691, Q692, Q714, Q715, Q718 to Q721, Q724 to Q727, Q730, Q731, Q734 to Q737, Q740 to Q743, Q746, Q747, Q750 to Q753, Q756 to Q759, Q762, Q763, Q766 to Q769, Q772 to Q775, Q778, Q779, Q782 to Q785, Q788, Q789, Q792, Q793, Q796, Q797, Q800 to Q803, Q806 to Q809, Q812, Q813, Q816 to Q819, Q822, Q823, Q826, Q827, Q830, Q831, Q834 to Q837, Q840, Q841, Q844, Q845, Q848, Q849, Q852, Q853, Q856 to Q859, Q862, Q863, Q866, Q867, Q870, Q871, Q874 to Q877, Q880, Q881, Q884, Q885, Q888, Q889, Q892, Q893, Q896 to Q899, Q902, Q903, Q906, Q907, Q910, Q911, Q914 and S1 to S144 were all written by one and the same persons. The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q548, Q549, Q551, Q553, Q555 to Q557, Q559, Q564, Q565, Q567 to Q569, Q572, Q573 and S383 to S429 were all written by one and the same person. The enclosed writings stamped and marked Q558, Q563, Q570, Q571 and S430 to S491 FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 77/91 78 were all written by one and the same person and the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q574 and S492 to S512 were also written by one and the same person.
42. In the instant case, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel for A4 that the specimen handwriting/signatures of the said accused i.e A4 have been taken by the IO during the investigation without the permission of the court and it renders the reports Ex. PW122/B and Ex. PW122/E (colly.) as inadmissible in evidence, however the said submissions made on behalf of A4 are devoid of any merits and are contrary to law and it is well settled law that the investigating officer has power to take specimen signatures during the investigation even without permission of the court and that report of such expert based on such specimen signatures/writing could be used as evidence as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as 'Ravinder Singh @ Dara Singh Vs. Union of India ( reported as AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1436) .
It is pertinent to note that PW122 Sh. P. Venugopala Rao has been cross examined on behalf of accused, however nothing material has been come on record which could assail the credibility of this witness or which could show that the said witness has not applied proper procedure for comparison purposes. In fact, the report (Ex. PW122/B) and the supplementary opinion/report ( Ex. PW122/E) are reliable documents as these are well reasoned and these reports also proves the case of the prosecution that it was A4, who has prepared false/forged documents for the purposes of the revival of the society.
Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that the sole testimony of PW122 (GEQD) was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the A4 beyond reasonable doubt and there was no corroborative evidence to support the reports given by PW122 (GEQD), however the said contention put forward on FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 78/91 79 behalf of accused does not hold water and is contrary to law as there is no rule of law or prudence which provides that opinion/evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1980 SC 531.
In the aforesaid case, titled as 'Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P ( reported as AIR 1980 SC 531) it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution.
Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight.".
From the abovesaid reports Ex. PW122/B & Ex. PW122/E of PW122 (GEQD), it is evident that it was A4, who has signed as office bearers of the society i.e as R.C. Saxena (President), Vinod Kumar (Secretary) and K. Paul (Treasurer) on the various letters/documents including, the request letters for the revival of the society, notesheets, inspection report , proceedings of the society , freeze list of 143 members of the society, audit report etc. Further, the perusal of the record also reveals that A4 has forged the applications for membership of the FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 79/91 80 society, resignation of the members of the society, minutes of the society, affidavits etc. of the members to create fake members for revival of the said society.
43. Apart from the testimony of hand writing expert i.e PW122 P. Venugopala Rao (GEQD) , the involvement of A4 in forging the documents of the society is also proved by various other prosecution witnesses i.e PW95 Satveer, PW54 Sh. Joginder Dahiya , PW56 Ram Kumar Khatri, PW57 Sh. R.S. Beniwal, PW89 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, PW91 Sh. Harender Singh Mehta and PW97 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal .
PW95 Satveer deposed that he was working as stamp vendor at B1/504, Janak Puri, Delhi and was issued licence from office of the Collector of Stamps, Govt. of NCT for issuing of stamps and his registration number was 489. PW95 further deposed that he purchased the stamp papers from the treasury at Tis Hazari and sell them to general public for various purposes like filing of affidavit, preparation of agreement, attorney and bonds etc and while selling these stamp papers, he was required to maintain a register in which entries of all the stamp papers sold by him were made including the name and addresses of the purchaser and the purpose for which the stamp papers were purchased. PW95 deposed that he had seen file D4 {(Ex. PW95/A (colly.} in which the affidavits are annexed from page no. 294/C to 436/C and he stated that those stamp papers were purchased by Gokul Chand Aggarwal or his representative. PW95 further deposed that on seeing back side of the stamp papers, he identified his seal which he ambrose upon back of all the stamp papers and these stamp papers were issued by him. PW95 deposed that he identified Gokul Chand Aggarwal, present in the court as he came to him for purchase of stamp papers and volunteered to stated that sometimes some persons came to him for purchase of the stamp papers and they said that Gokul Chand FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 80/91 81 Aggarwal wanted the stamp papers and accordingly he as well as his employees gave the stamp papers to them. PW95 further deposed that he recognized Gokul Chand Aggarwal as he specially asked for the stamp papers in bulk and he had made the entries in the register at the relevant time. PW95 also deposed that as far as he remembered, none of the person in whose name these affidavits/ stamp papers had been filed as placed in the file of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS have come to purchase the said affidavits/ stamp papers as all of them were sold to Gokul Chand Aggarwal, who had purchased more than 2000 stamp papers from him.
PW54 Sh. Joginder Dahiya deposed that his wife Smt. Savita Dahiya was a Notary Public and he was familiar with the handwriting and signatures of his wife. He further deposed that he had seen the affidavits of Sh. Dwarka Dass (Ex. PW8/A), Smt. Sonia, Balwant Kaur (Ex. PW9/A), Sh. Dilbagh Singh MarkAX, Manpreet Kaur Shankar and Shankar Lal (Ex. PW3/A), Ram Prasad Shah (Ex. PW6/A), AnitA (Ex. PW4/A & 4/C), Binod Kumar Choudhary (Ex. PW45/A) and Binod Kumar Choudhary, Bijender (two copies) Rajeev Yadav (Ex. PW27/A), Bhim Singh Chand (Ex. PW27/C), Dalip Kumar (Ex. PW28/A), Bal Kishan Sharma (Ex. PW52/A) and Sudesh Kumar Sharma (Ex. PW7/A) and all these affidavits bears the stamp of notary public with the name of his wife which was false and it does not bear the signatures of his wife at all.
PW56 Ram Kumar Khatri deposed that he was appointed as a Notary Public in 1997 and his registration number was 740 and after 2010, he had not got renewed his licence of Notary Public. PW56 further deposed that he had seen the affidavits of Sh. Prashant Kumar Ahuja (Ex. PW26/A), Jai Dev (Ex. PW23/A) Jagjeet Kumar Chawla (Ex. PW56/A), Rajni { (Ex. PW49/A (colly.)}, Harish Chand Shukla, Sanjay Aggarwal, Amit Sawhney, Suman Thapar, Pawan Chabra, Pankaj Khandelwal, Anil Chalwa {( Ex. PW32/A (colly.) }, Vimal Pant ( Ex.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 81/91 82 PW56/A1), Swayam C. Mohanti Ex. PW10/A, Harsh Khandelwal, Sukhwinder Singh, Manoj Kumar, Subedar Yadav, Sanjeev Kumar {(Ex. PW32/A (colly.)}, Vikas Gupta (Ex. PW10/F)f and Vikas Dang {(Ex. PW32/A) (Colly.)} and stated that all these affidavits have not been notarized by him and there was no entry number of the notary register of these affidavits maintained by him during the official course of the business. PW56 deposed that all the signatures on the said affidavits were forged and have not been signed by him and the stamp impression was also different and does not belong to him.
PW57 Sh. R.S. Beniwal deposed that he was appointed as a Notary Public in August 2010 and his registration number was 1783. PW57 further deposed that he had been shown the affidavits of Sh. Amar Lal (Ex. PW57/A), Rajinder Walia {(Ex. PW32/A (colly.)}, Harpreet S. Rishi {(Ex. PW32/A (colly.)} and all these affidavits have not been notarized by him and there was no entry number of the notary register of these affidavits maintained by him during the official course of business. PW57 deposed that all the signatures on the said affidavits were forged and have not been signed by him and the stamp impression was also different and did not belong to him. PW57 deposed that the registration number of the affidavits was his but he had not executed the said affidavits Ex. PW57/A and Ex. PW32/A (colly.) but somebody had forged his signatures and seal.
PW89 Sh. Gaurav Gupta deposed that his father late Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta was an Advocate and Notary Public and his registration number was 741/97 and he has expired on 15.01.2002 and he has proved the death certificate in this regard as Ex. PW89/A. He further deposed that he was well conversant with the signatures of his father and he has seen the affidavits placed in D4 from page no. 249/C to 436/C and the said affidavits were shown to have been attested on 25.09.2002, whereas his father had already expired on 15.01.2002. PW89 deposed FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 82/91 83 that the initials appearing at point A on all the said affidavits Ex. PW89/A, Ex. PW89/A1 to Ex. PW89/A138, Ex. PW55/B, Ex. PW89/60B were not of his father. PW89 deposed that he had also been shown file no. D2 & D3 (Ex. PW31/A) and his attention had been drawn at page no. 54C, 55/C, 56/C and 65/C and stated that these affidavits were also not notarized by his father as his initial appearing at point A were forged and the said affidavits were Ex. PW89/139 to Ex. PW89/141 and Ex. PW15/C. PW91 Sh. Harender Singh Mehta deposed that he was an Advocate and Notary by profession and his registration number was 2380. He further deposed that he had been shown the file D5 & D6 (Ex. PW91/A) and his attention had been invited at the affidavit Ex. PW32/A in the name of Harjinder Singh Assi, affidavit Ex. PW70/A in the name of Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, affidavit Ex. PW69/A and Ex. PW69/A in the name of Jitender Singh, affidavit Ex. PW91/A in the name of Rani Mittal, affidavit Ex. PW91/C in the name of Praveen Kumar, affidavit Ex. PW91/D in the name of Sachin Jatin, affidavit Ex. PW91/E in the name of Amarjeet Singh, affidavit Ex. PW66/A in the name of Bhupender Kumar Sharma and affidavit Ex. PW91/F in the name of Rahul Raya and affidavit Ex. PW82/A in the name of Rajender and stated that the aforementioned affidavits were never notarized by him and the seal embossed at points B1 on the aforesaid affidavits was not his and signatures appearing at point B were not related to him and someone had forged his signatures. PW91 further deposed that on 04.02.2005, he had lost his notary seal and he had lodged the complaint with PS : Janak Puri on 05.02.2005.
PW97 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal deposed that he was practicing advocate and Notary Public since 1999 and his registration number was 1472/1999. He further deposed that he has been shown two sheets and identified the specimen/ impression of seal which was at point A on both the sheets and stated that he used to put his same FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 83/91 84 seal for attesting the documents and he has proved the said two sheets as Ex. PW97/A (colly.). PW97 further deposed that he has been shown the affidavit placed at pages 112, 108 and Ex. PW32/A (colly.) placed in D5 & D6 and affidavits placed at page nos. 74, 72, 39, 27, 25, 16, 5 and 3 (File D5 & 6) and stated that he had never attested these affidavits and also that the seal impression at point A on all the affidavits were different from that of his seal and he has also not put his signatures on any of these affidavits. He has proved the aforesaid affidavits as Ex. PW96/A, Ex. PW96/B, Ex. PW97/C, Ex. PW97/B, Ex. PW97/C, Ex. PW97/D, Ex. PW97/E and Ex. PW97/F. The important fact is that all the abovesaid witnesses were cross examined on behalf of A4, however nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of these witnesses or which could be of any help to the accused in this case.
44. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, the prosecution /CBI has been able to establish that accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) in connivance with the other accused public servants i.e A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8, submitted the application for revival of a defunct society Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS as the seniority of registration of the housing society was to be taken into account for allotment of land. Further, it has been proved on record that the documents/letters/nomination forms / affidavits etc., were containing the fake signatures of the office bearers Vinod Kumar (Secretary) & R.C. Saxena (President), which were forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) and even the address of the society was fake as no office of the society existed at the given address i.e JU70B, Pitampura Delhi as was evident from the testimony of PW113 Sh.Sushil Garg. In addition to this, the 143 affidavits of purported members FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 84/91 85 placed in the RCS file have been proved to be bought by A4 and his aide from the stamp vendor i.e PW95 Satveer . Further, all the purported members have been proved to be nonexistent as they were not found residing at the addresses mentioned in the affidavits or the addresses itself were found to be nonexistent. Apart from this, it has been proved that the records submitted in the RCS office contained the fake signatures of nonexisting office bearers forged by accused Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4) and even the records purportedly submitted to the audit officer i.e accused Kamal Singh during audit of the society also contained the fake signatures of nonexisting office bearers, which have been proved to be forged by A4. Further, it has been proved that the documents likenomination forms, proceedings register etc., contained the fake signatures of nonexisting office bearers and the same have been proved to be forged by A4 as was evident from the reports of PW122 ( GEQD).
In these circumstances , in view of the material and evidence on record, it has been proved that the revival of the society was got done by A4 in connivance with the accused public servants i.e A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 on the basis of the fake and forged documents so as to get allotment of land in the name of 143 fake members of Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS so that flats may be built against 143 fake members and later sold at a heavy premium.
45. Further, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsels that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused public servants had entered into the alleged conspiracy as all the said accused public servants i.e A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 have done their official duties, while processing the file for the revival of the society and there is nothing to show that there was any meeting of minds to commit the alleged offences, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 85/91 86 devoid of any merits and contrary to law laid down in the case cited as 1993 (3) SCC 609.
In the aforesaid case , titled as 'Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India' ( reported as 1993 (3) SCC 609), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
".....It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects."
Further, in the case reported as (2003) 8 SCC 461, it has also been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that: "Privacy and secrecy are more characteristic of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference."
Hence, in view of the evidence on record as discussed above, it has been proved that the public servants A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 along with A4 had FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 86/91 87 conspired together to achieve the common object of allotment of land to the society from the DDA at subsidized rates .
46. Further, it has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused public servants that the said public servants i.e A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 had acted in a routine manner without having any knowledge of the forgery or without having any intention to abuse their official position and as such, they can not be said to have not committed any offence U/s 13 of PC Act and even otherwise , their alleged acts amounts only to preparation as no land was allotted to the society in this case.
Section 13 of PC Act deals with criminal conduct by a public servant and Section 13 (1) (d) of the said Act reads as follows: "13 (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
In view of the above provisions of Section13(1) (d) of PC Act, it is clear that a public servant commits the offence of Criminal Misconduct, if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 87/91 88 while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
In the case titled as 'Kavery Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Union of India' ( reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 217), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that land was to be allotted to the society according to the seniority of the society i.e. the date of its registration, so as to prevent bungling in the office of RCS.
Further, in the case titled as "Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI" ( CRL.A. 482/2002, DOD - 21.12.2011), it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that : " Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the preexisting law, as well as the decisions of the Court the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d)
(iii). It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest".
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 88/91 89 In view of the above caselaw, it is evident that if the public servant knew that his act or omission, by overlooking or disregard to the precautions, would be injurious to public interest, he would come within the purview of section 13 of PC Act. This knowledge of public interest has to be gathered from the facts of the case. In the instant case, the allotment of land to the society would be an act in the public interest, however if the said land is managed to be given to a fake society, it would be injurious to the public interest.
In the present case, the public servants i.e. A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with A4 for fraudulently reviving the society so that the registration number of such society would be higher in the seniority list on account of its date of registration and in such circumstance, the aggrieved person would be the legible society which would have been allotted the land, had the accused persons not revived the defunct society. In these circumstances , in view of the material on record, it is evident that there was an attempt to cause wrongful loss to such legible society and attempt to have wrongful gain by the accused persons.
Hence, in view of the evidence on record, it is clear that the acts of the public servants A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 cannot be said to be acts of mere negligence or dereliction of duty. In fact , these public servants were actively involved with A4, so that illegal request of A4 was met with success and they were helping each other with the common object of the revival of the defunct society and for the allotment of land to such society from the DDA. These accused persons were successful in achieving their object as defunct society was revived and a letter was sent to the DDA for allotment of land. Fortunately, the land was not allotted to the society. In these circumstances, the accused public servants i.e A1 to A3, A5, A6 & A8 have misused and abused their official position and it cannot be said to be an act of preparation as an attempt has already been made for the allotment of land FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 89/91 90 from DDA to a defunct society. The said acts of these public servants tantamount to an attempt to drive pecuniary advantage either for themselves or for A4. Accordingly, 'criminal misconduct' has been committed and the offence U/s 15 of PC Act stands proved in the instant case.
47. Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of the evidence and material on record, the prosecution/CBI has proved on record its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons: A1 A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A8 that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object to get the land allotted from the DDA to the Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS and for the said object, the documents were forged, defunct society was revived, A4 was allowed to sign the documents in different identities and as such, the abovesaid accused public servants have committed criminal misconduct in order to attempt to obtain pecuniary advantages for themselves or for A4.
Accordingly, I hold the accused A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A8 guilty and convict them as under :
(i). Accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), U.S.Bhatnagar (A3), Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6) & Kamal Singh (A8) are held guilty and convicted U/s 120B read in conjunction with section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
(ii). Accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), U.S.Bhatnagar (A3), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6) & Kamal Singh (A8) are held guilty for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 90/91 91 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii). AccusedGokul Chand Aggarwal A4 is held guilty for substantive offences under Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC and Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
Further, as far as accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) is concerned, the prosecution/ CBI has failed to prove the guilt of the said accused (A7) on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hereby acquit the accused P.K.Thirwani (A7) of the charged offences, giving him the benefit of doubt.
PB and SB of A7 are cancelled. His surety is discharged. The order u/s 437A Cr.PC in respect of accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) has been passed separately in the ordersheet of even date.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence qua convicts:
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A8 on 16.8.2017.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 09.8.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03
NorthWest District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
09.8.2017
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 91/91
92
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 92/91
93
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 93/91
94
CBI New Case No.50/2016
CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS)
09.8.2017
Present: Sh. N. P. Srivastava, Sr. PP for the CBI.
Accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), U.S.Bhatnagar (A3),Gokul Chand Aggarwal ( A4) & Balam Singh Aswal (A6) are present on bail with their counsel Sh. Abhishek Prasad. AccusedRam Nath (A5), P.K.Thirwani (A7) and Kamal Singh (A8) are present on bail with their counsel Sh. S.K.Bhatnagar . Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, accused Narayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2), U.S.Bhatnagar (A3), Gokul Chand Aggarwal (A4), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6) & Kamal Singh (A8) have been held guilty and convicted U/s 120B read in conjunction with section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
AccusedNarayan Diwakar (A1), Yogi Raj (A2),U.S.Bhatnagar (A3), Ram Nath (A5), Balam Singh Aswal (A6) & Kamal Singh (A8) have been further held guilty for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
AccusedGokul Chand Aggarwal A4 has also been held guilty for substantive offences under Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC and Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 94/91 95 Further, accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) has been acquitted of the charged offences.
2 PB and SB of A7 are cancelled. His surety is discharged.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.PC, the acquitted accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) has been directed to furnish PB & SB in the sum of Rs. 30,000/each and accordingly, the personal bond has been furnished on behalf of the said accused (A7) and Ld. Defence counsel requests that A7 may be given time to furnish the surety bond as he is not able to arrange the surety today.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, put up for furnishing of surety bond by the accusedP.K.Thirwani (A7) on 10.8.2017 and arguments on the point of sentence qua convicts: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A8 on 16.8.2017, as requested.
(Paramjit Singh ) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 09.8.2017 FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 95/91 96 CBI New Case No.50/2016 CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS)
10.8.2017
Present: Sh. N. P. Srivastava, Sr. PP for the CBI.
Accused P. K. Thirwani (A7) in person with his counsel Sh. S.K.
Bhatnagar.
In view of earlier order dated 09.8.2017 and in accordance with the provisions of Section 437A Cr. PC, the acquitted accused-P.K. Thirwani (A7) has furnished the fresh PB & SB in the sum of Rs. 30,000/each and the same are considered and are accepted for six months in terms of provisions of Section 437A Cr. PC.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence qua convicts:
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A8 on 16.8.2017, the date already fixed, as requested.
(Paramjit Singh ) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03 NorthWest District Rohini Courts, Delhi 10.8.2017 FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 96/91 97 IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI03 (NORTHWEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS:DELHI Case No. CBI50/2016 CNR No. DLNW010000532006 CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS) FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi U/s 120B r/w 419/420/468/471 IPC& Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 and substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468/471 IPC & Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE In the present case, convicts Narayan Diwakar , Yogi Raj, U.S.Bhatnagar, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ram Nath, Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh have been convicted U/s 120B read in conjunction with section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
Convict Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj , U.S.Bhatnagar, Ram Nath , Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh have been further convicted for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal have also been convicted for substantive offences under Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC and Section FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 97/91 98 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
2. I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the convicts .
3. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that all the convicts except convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal were public servants and the public servants, who commit offences, in particular the offences relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, do not deserve any leniency. It is further submitted that convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal is also a habitual offender and all the convicts herein have already been convicted previously by various courts and he prays that in view of the nature and gravity of offences, maximum punishment prescribed for the respective offences may be imposed upon the convicts.
4. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsels for convict public servants Narayan Diwakar , Yogi Raj , U.S.Bhatnagar , Ram Nath , Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh submit that all these convicts have not only lost their pension and jobs, but also have been financially drained on account of fighting a large number of cases in the court . It is further submitted that appeals of all these convicts in other cases are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and unless those appeal are decided, they should not be presumed to be previously convicted persons. It is also submitted that all these convict public servants are old aged persons and are suffering from various old age related ailments and they pray that lenient view may be taken qua these convicts in the present case.
Ld. Defence counsel for convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal submit that the said convict is the sole bread earner of his family and have to lookafter his wife and three children, out of which two are still unmarried and all of them are FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 98/91 99 dependent upon him. It is also submitted that convictGokul Chand Aggarwal is suffering from brain related disease as well as neuro problems and has remained in custody for about two months during investigation of this case and he prays that a lenient view may be taken qua this convict also in this case.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. defence counsels for the convicts and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
6. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the nature and gravity of offences committed by the convicts , I am of the considered opinion that they are not entitled to lenient view, however, in view of the old age, medical condition and family circumstances of the convicts, I hereby sentence the convicts as under: (1) ConvictsNarayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj, U.S.Bhatnagar, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ram Nath, Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default SI for three months each u/s 120B IPC read in conjunction with section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
(2) Further, Convicts Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj , U.S.Bhatnagar, Ram Nath, Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 99/91 100 in default, SI for five months each for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3) Further, convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal is hereby sentenced as
under:
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000 / in default, SI for two months u/s 419 IPC
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000/ in default, SI for two months u/s 420 IPC r/w
Section 511 IPC.
(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default, SI for three months u/s 468 IPC.
(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default, SI for three months u/s 471 IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently .
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to all the convicts.
Conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to all the convicts, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 16.8.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03
NorthWest District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
16.8.2017
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 100/91
101
CBI New Case No.50/2016
CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors.
(Hindustan Steel Employees CGHS)
16.8.2017
Present: Sh. N. P. Srivastava, Sr. PP for the CBI.
Convicts Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj , U.S.Bhatnagar ,Gokul Chand Aggarwal & Balam Singh Aswal are present in person with their counsel Sh. Abhishek Prasad.
ConvictsRam Nath and Kamal Singh are also present in person with their counsel Sh. S.K.Bhatnagar .
Arguments on the point of sentence, heard.
Vide separate order on the point of sentence, announced in the open court, the convictsNarayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj, U.S.Bhatnagar, Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Ram Nath, Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default SI for three months each u/s 120B IPC read in conjunction with section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 419 IPC, 468 IPC and Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
Further, convicts Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj , U.S.Bhatnagar, Ram Nath, Balam Singh Aswal & Kamal Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each in default, SI for five months each for substantive offences under Section 15 read with section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Convict Gokul Chand Aggarwal have also been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 / in default, SI for two months u/s419 IPC, RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default, SI for two months u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC, RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default, SI for three months u/s 468 IPC and RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default, SI for three months u/s 471 IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently .
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to all the convicts.
Conviction warrant be prepared accordingly.
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 101/91 102 At this stage, separate applications u/s389 (3) Cr. PC suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been moved on behalf of convicts 2 Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj, U.S.Bhatnagar, Balam Singh Aswal,Ram Nath, Kamal Singh and Gokul Chand Aggarwal.
Heard. File perused.
Ld. Defence counsels for convicts submit that the convicts want to prefer appeal against the judgment and order on sentence passed by this court. Ld. Defence counsels further submit that all the convicts are old aged persons and are suffering from various old age related ailments and they have remained on bail throughout the trial in this case. Ld. Defence counsel also submit that all the convicts have deposited the amount of fine imposed upon them and they pray that in the interest of justice, the sentence of all the convicts may be suspended and they may be granted bail for two months so as to enable them to avail their legal remedy to file appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi In view of the above and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of the provisions of Section389 Cr. P.C, the sentence awarded to the convicts are suspended and all the convicts Narayan Diwakar, Yogi Raj, U.S. Bhatnagar, Balam Singh Aswal,Ram Nath, Kamal Singh and Gokul Chand Aggarwal are admitted to bail till 16.10.2017 on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount so as to enable the convicts to avail their legal remedy to file appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi .
PB & SB have been furnished on behalf of the above named convicts and the same are considered and are accepted till 16.10.2017. Copy of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convicts, free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to page and book mark the file so as to enable the digitization of the entire record.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 16.8.2017) Special Judge ( PC Act) CBI03
NorthWest District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 102/91
103
16.8.2017
FIR No. RC 02/2006/EOUIX/CBI/New Delhi CBI Vs. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. 103/91