Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sh. S. Venkat Raman on 28 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR No. RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi.
Branch : ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi.
Under Sections: Sections 217 & 218 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1872 (In short "IPC").
Case No : CBI/310/19
CNR No. DLCT12-000927-2019
Date of institution : 31.01.2013
Date of reserving : 31.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2024
JUDGMENT
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF PROSECUTION... 4 to 5 COURT PROCEEDINGS....................................... 5 CHARGE.......................................................... 5 to 6 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.............................. 6
i) Prosecution witnesses......................................6 to 9
ii) Documents on record.....................................10 to 16 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 CrPC............16 to 18 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 1 of 78 DEFENCE EVIDENCE........................................18 to 19 FINAL ARGUMENTS......................................19 to 20 LEGAL PROVISIONS......................................20 to 21 DETAILED DEPOSITION OF CBI WITNESSES.............................................................21 to 43 DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE WITNESS.................................................................43 to 44 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS..............................44 to 77
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS SUPERIORS WERE FALSE ?....................................52 to 58
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION ?......................58 to 66
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:
...............................................................................66 to 76
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER:
..................................................................................66 to 68
b) SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS PERTAINING TO RC-5/99: .......................................68 to 71
c) LACK OF EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE CASE DIARY OF to RC-5/99:........................................................ 72 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 2 of 78
d) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS, THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING INFORMATION:................................................73
e) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:.........................74 to 75
f) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND CARELESSNESS:.......................................75 to 76
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. PP FOR CBI:
....................................................................76 to 77 CONCLUSION:.....................................77 to 78
a) Serial number of the : CBI/310/2019 case
b) Date of commission of : From the period 1999 to March 2011.
offences
c) Name of the : Sh. S. L. Garg, Inspector, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi complainant
d) Name, parentage and : S. Venkat Raman (in short "S.V. Raman.") address of the accused S/o Sh. V. Subrahmanian R/o. Plot No. 89, Phase-IV, CBI Colony,Vanasthlipuram, Hyderabad-70
e) Offence complained of : Sections 217 and Section 218 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 3 of 78
g) Final order : Acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 217 and Section 218 IPC.
h) Date of Decision : 28.06.2024 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and Section 218 IPC in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the accused, namely, Sh. S.V. Raman, while being the Investigating Officer in RC 5(E)/99/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi (in short "RC-5/99") did not file its charge-sheet and its accompanying documents. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused made incorrect noting in the office files and gave false information to his supervisory officers that the charge-sheet has been filed in the court of Ld. MM, Egmore. It is alleged that the accused being a public servant disobeyed directions of his superiors and prepared false reports with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he would save accused from legal punishment. In CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 4 of 78 view of the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the accused Sh.
S.V. Raman, committed the offences punishable U/s 217 and 218 of I.P.C.
3. The investigation of the case was done by the IO/Inspector Sh, Bharat Singh, CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi who filed the final report/chargesheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC against the accused.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
4. The Ld. Predecessor Judge of this court took cognizance upon the said final report/chargesheet on 26.02.2013 and issued summons upon the accused , who was stated to be chargesheeted without arrest. On 18.04.2013, when the accused appeared, he was admitted to court bail and he was supplied with the copies of chargesheet/final report along with its documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 27.01.2015, passed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 217/218 IPC was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 5 of 78 However, vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Ld. Special Judge-IV, (PC Act) CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, in a Revision Petition filed by the accused, the order of framing of charge dated 27.01.2015 was set aside on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court framed the charge in the absence of his counsel and one opportunity was granted for addressing arguments on framing of charge against the accused. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.02.2018, the Ld. Predecessor Judge, framed a fresh Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 217/218 IPC to also which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(I) Prosecution Witnesses:
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined, 10 witnesses, namely:
Sr. No. Designation and Name of Role in the present case the Witness 1 PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, at In the year 1998, he was the time of recording of his posted in SIU-X as a Public deposition, he was posted as, Prosecutor and accused S.V. CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 6 of 78 Deputy Legal Advisor, Raman, the then Deputy SP Lucknow Zone, CBI, was also posted in the same Lucknow, UP. branch.
2 PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, at He was working with CBI the time of recording of his in SIU (X), Delhi from deposition, he was posted as, 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005.
Inspector CBI Academy, He was posted as LDC and Ghaziabad, EC-59187 was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh. L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. As a Crime Clerk, he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases.
3 PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad. From the year 2000 to 2012, he was posted in BS & FC branch, CBI as Head Clerk/ Crime Assistant and his duty was to maintain crime, investigation files etc. and carry out CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 7 of 78 correspondence with various agencies.
4 PW4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, at In the year 2009, he was the time of recording of his posted in BS & FC Branch, deposition, he was posted as New Delhi as UDC in Crime Assistant, Crime Section. His duty Administration Section, CBI was to maintain the crime Headquarters files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the branch.
5 PW 5 Sh. Sham Lal (S.L.) Complainant who also
Garg conducted the Preliminiary
Enquiry of the accused. In
the year 2012, he was
posted as Inspector of
Police, CBI, ACU-VI, New
Delhi.
6 PW 6 Sh. Surender Singh, at From 2005 to 2013, he was
the time of recording of his posted as Inspector in CBI, deposition, he was posted as, BS & FC, New Delhi Additional SP, CBI, ACB, Branch and that he checked Kolkata. the records pertaining toRC-5/1999 and submitted his report that documents of the said case were lying in CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 8 of 78 CBI Malkhana.
7 PW 7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari. From 1997 to July 2002, he
was posted in SIU X
Branch, CBI, New Delhi as
Superintendent of Police
(SP).
8 PW 8 Sh. D. Kumaresan, , at In the year 2012, he was
the time of recording of his posted as Record Clerk, deposition, he was posted as, under Sh. Tr. V.P. Record Assistant, in the Raveendran, Ld. Office of the Ld. MM, Additional Chief George Town Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai-1. Egmore, Chennai-08.
9 PW 9 Sh. M.P. Rama Rao. During the year 2012 to 2014, he was posted as Under Secretary, in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP & T, Government of India. He signed the sanction of prosecution and communicated it to CBI.
10 PW 10 Sh. Bharat Singh. Investigating Officer of the present case. From the year 1998 to December 2013, he was posted as Inspector in AC-II Zone of CBI .
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 9 of 78 (II) Documents on record :
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A (8 pages) FIR dated 22.12.1999 in respect of RC-5/99, SIU(X).
2. Ex.PW1/B Noting given by SP Sh. K.N. Tiwari that charge-sheet be filed urgently dated 05.12.2001
3. Ex.PW2/A Noting no. 13/N with signatures of Sh. D.P. Dash, BS& FC, Delhi dated 23.11.2001 and 27.11.2001 at point A and C; signatures of Sh.J.C. Dabas,EOW-IV,dated 26.11.2001 at point B and signatures of Sh. K.N. Tiwari, dated 29.11.2001 at point D and signatures of Sh. L.C.Minocha dated 29.11.2001 at point E wherein it was stated " HO orders have been received CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 10 of 78 today. IO has been instructed to file chargesheet within 10 days"
4. Mark 2/A ( however Photocopy of charge-sheet of it is mentioned as RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI (from Mark 3/A in the page no.s 15 to 27). document)
5. Mark 2/B Copy of charge-sheet of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI.
6. Ex. PW 2/B Complete file containing Copy of charge-sheet of RC 5(E)/99- SIU (X)/CBI.
7. Ex. PW 3/A (OSR) Production memo dated 01.07.2011 (D-10) whereby PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad handed over FIR, PRs, FR-1 and other miscellaneous papers regarding the present case to the IO who conducted the preliminary inquiry, namely. Sh. S.L.Garg.
8. Ex.PW3/B File M-674/11 (D-15) containing reports in respect of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI.
9. Ex.PW3/C File M-708/11 containing reports in respect of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 11 of 78
10. Ex.PW3/D Copy of charge-sheet of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI which is part of File No. M-710/1.
11. Ex. PW 3/E (OSR) Seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-13), as per which PW 3 Sh.
Mahavir Prasad handed over part files of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI to IO Sh. Bharat Singh.
12. Ex. PW 3/F File MR-514/12 containing reports in respect of RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI.
13. Ex. PW 5/1 (Colly) Para No. 455 of Notesheet of (Para 455 to 459 ) file bearing M-715/2011 (in CC (evidence is of PW 4, No. 312/19), wherein the however exhibit is accused put the draft mentioned as PW 5) chargesheet and which was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI. Vide para no. 459/N, the draft chargesheet was approved by DIG A.M. Prasad dated 23.07.2007.
14. Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) Copy of Charge-sheet of case (pages 41 to 60) RC BD1/2005/E/001 available (evidence is of PW 4, at page no. 59. (in CC No. however exhibit is 312/19) mentioned as PW 5) CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 12 of 78
15. Ex. PW 5/A (Colly) Complaint dated 23.01.2012 (OSR) (running in 3 sent by PW5 Sh. S.L. Garg from pages) addressed to Supdt. Of Police, SPE, CBI, New Delhi regarding accused for not filing the chargesheet mentioning all facts recovered during P.E.
16. Ex. PW 6/A (Page- Letter dated 09.08.2012 written 48 of D-9) by PW6 Sh. Surender Singh addressed to SP,CBI, BS&FC that documents of RC 5(E)/99-
SIU (X) were kept in the CBI Malkhana.
17. Ex. PW 7/A FAX message dated 11.12.2001 (D-6) signed by accused informing about filing of the chargesheet.
18. Ex. PW 7/B Document (D-6) at page no. 341 which is faintly reflected to be a FAX message, contents of which are not readable (bearing Diary No. 534 dated 07.02.2002).
19. Ex. PW 7/C Letter dated 11.02.2002 written by SP bearing signature of PW7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari ( D-6) CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 13 of 78
20. Ex. PW 7/D1 File D-4 containing notesheets (para 34).
21. Ex. PW 8/A Letter dated 07.05.2012 (D-8) written by Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai.
22. Ex. PW 9/A Colly (4 Forwarding letter dated pages in total) 22.01.2013 sent by M.P. Rama Rao addressed to Dy. Inspector General of Police, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi) along with sanction of prosecution against the accused
23. Ex. PW 10/A (OSR, Copy of FIR RC original in CC no. 01/2012/CBI/ACU (VI)/New 313/2019) Delhi.
24. Ex. PW 10/B (OSR, Copy of handing/taking over original in case CC memo dated 28.02.2012 vide no. 313/19) which the IO Bharat Singh had taken over the documents from Sh. S.L.Garg.
25. Ex. PW 10/C (OSR, Copy of letter dated 26.04.2012 original in case CC written by Supdt. Of Police, no. 313/ CBI, BS&FC whereby letter and documents were marked IO Bharat Singh for necessary action by the then SP, Sh. SK CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 14 of 78 Bhagat.
26. Ex. PW 10/D (OSR, Copy of letter dated 01.08.2012 original in case CC written by Supdt. Of Police, no. 313/19) CBI, BS&FC whereby letter and documents were marked to IO Bharat Singh for necessary action.
27. Ex. PW 10/E colly (6 Copy of letter dated 16.04.2012 pages in total) (OSR, (D-14) written by Head of original in case CC Branch, CBI, BS&FC whereby No. 313/19) letter and documents were marked to IO Bharat Singh by Sh. SK Bhagat, the then SP for necessary action
28. Ex. PW 10/F (OSR, Copy of reply dated 15.06.2009 original in case CC of accused SV Raman.
No. 313/19)
29. Ex. PW 10/G Letter dated 03.04.2012 (D-7) written by SK Bhagat, the then, SP, CBI addressed to Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai
30. Ex. PW 10/H Colly Forwarding letter dated 21.08.2012 (D-9) forwarded to Sh. Pradeep Kumar, the then SP by Sh. M.S. Singhal, SP, CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 15 of 78 BS&FC whereby letter and documents were marked to IO Bharat Singh.
31. Mark PW 10/X Copy of charge-sheet of RC 5/1999
32. Ex. PW 10/I D-6 (File M 509/2012) containing documents seized by the IO pertaining to RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.11.2022. The court will discuss the detailed testimonies of the said witnesses at the time of appreciation of evidence.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C/DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
10. The Statement of the Accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 01.12.2022. He stated that he had mentioned correct details to the department at the appropriate time and had never shielded any information from his superiors at any point of time. He also stated that the chargesheet had been filed before concerned court on the date mentioned by him to his superiors and informed the office by FAX. He stated that he filed the chargesheet of the RC in question on 11.12.2001. Further, he stated that the CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 16 of 78 complete files which include part files of the RC in question have not been produced before the Court. He also stated that the statement of witnesses examined during Preliminiary Enquiry were not produced before the court. He also stated that the prosecution did not seized or produced the relevant documents regarding filing of the chargesheet and also the letter which is Ex.PW8/A was unverified.
11. Further, in his statement, the accused stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including investigation, supervision of investigation of cases including searches conducted by his subordinates in various cases, administration, preparing notes for conferences, conducting enquiries, preparation of comments on judgments and whether the case was fit for appeal against the acquittal of accused persons. He also stated that he was also asked to supervise and train the newly inducted 6-7 CISF personnel inducted in the CBI. Further, he stated that during the said period he had carried out his duties with utmost sincerity and was never communicated any adverse ACR or remarks. He further stated that he received President's Police Medal for distinguished services in 2008. Lastly, he stated that he had CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 17 of 78 been made a scapegoat to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI at the relevant point of time.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
12. The accused led evidence in his defence.
13. (I) In order to prove and substantiate its case, the defence has examined, 01 witness, namely:
Sr. No. Designation and Name of the Role in the present Witness case 1 DW1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, at the He brought the time of recording of his summoned record deposition, he was posted as, SI, which included the CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. Service Register accused S.V. Raman from the Malkhana of CBI,AC-II,New Delhi.
Documents on record :
14. (II) The Defence witness relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Mark Nature of
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 18 of 78
Documents
1. Ex. DW 1/A (Colly, Copies of page nos.
OSR, running into 14 18 to 30 of Service
pages) Register containing
some loose pages
which are tagged
with the Service
register of accused
from the Malkhana
of CBI, AC-II, New
Delhi
2. Mark DW1/DX Copy of order no.
CBI ID No.
47/Med./PPM-
PM/ID-08/PD-1617
dated 20.08.2008.
15. Thereafter, Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.01.2023.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas Khatri, Ld. PP for the State as well as that of Sh. Shivam Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused. The court has also CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 19 of 78 diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents and the entire material on record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
17. The legal provisions which are involved are Sections 217 and 218 of IPC. The said sections are reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 217 IPC:
217. Public servant disobeying directions of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture;
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 218 IPC:
218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.--
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 20 of 78 other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES:
18. PW 1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar deposed that from 20.11.1992 to 06.01.1997, he worked as an Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in CBI, ACB, Delhi. He deposed that on 07.01.1997, he reported to SIC-I as APP. Thereafter, he stated that he was promoted as a Public Prosecutor and joined in EOW-II and got transferred in 1998 in SIU-X. Further, he deposed that during his posting in SIU-X, Sh. K.N. Tiwari was the Head of the Branch as Superintendent of Police and the accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy SP, was also posted in the same branch. He further deposed that SIU-X was having jurisdiction of Economic Offences and Bank Fraud related cases and that prosecutors were also attending various trial cases spread all over India. He explained the entire procedure in regard to investigation upto filing of chargesheet in the concerned court. In this regard, he deposed that after the finalization of investigation, final report U/s 173 (2) Cr.PC was prepared CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 21 of 78 by the IO, on receipt of approval orders from the competent authority/HO. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting. He further deposed that after vetting, the charge-sheet was prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in the court of law of competent jurisdiction. He deposed that charge-sheet also bears a dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the court. He deposed that the RC in question dated 22.12.1999 which is Ex. PW 1/A (8 pages) was registered under the signatures of Sh. K.N. Tiwari and correctly identified signature of Sh. K.N. Tiwari. He deposed that the investigation of the said case was entrusted to accused S.V. Raman. He also deposed that vide para 196/N of D-4, the competent authority approved the prosecution of persons mentioned in para 193-194N of D-4. He deposed that vide para no. 202/N, Sh. K.N Tiwari, put a note that charge-sheet should be filed urgently. Further, he identified the noting and signature of Sh. K.N.Tiwari at point A on the Noting which is Ex. PW 1/B. Further, he correctly identified the accused in the court.
19. PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, wherein he deposed that after filing the charge-sheet in the court, charge-sheet was never returned without pronouncing a speaking order and that if the documents are deficient or incomplete, the court directs CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 22 of 78 the IO to file the deficient documents, before proceeding further. He further deposed that at the time of filing of charge-sheet, Ahlmad of the court checks the documents as per the list relied by the prosecution and submits his report and thereafter, Charge-sheet is registered by the Court. He further stated that if original documents are not filed alongwith the charge-sheet, Ahlmad apprises the same to the Ld. Judge for appropriate directions. He further deposed that apart from the IO, charge-sheet can be filed by IO, deputed by Head of the Branch. He deposed that Branch Head can depute any other IO to file charge-sheet, in case charge-sheet is returned from the court.
20. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that he was working with CBI in SIU (X), Delhi from 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005. He deposed that on 12.09.2003, SIU(X), Delhi got merged with BS & FC, Delhi Branch of CBI and at the said time the Branch SP was K.N. Tiwari. He further deposed that during the relevant period he was posted as LDC and was working as Crime Clerk under the supervision of Sh. L.C. Minocha, Head Clerk. He deposed that as a Crime Clerk he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the Branch and that in BS & FC Delhi Branch, he was looking after the work of only under investigation cases.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 23 of 78
21. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar described the entire procedure of investigation, from FIR to filing of chargesheet. He deposed that whenever any FIR was registered, copy of the same was entrusted to the IO for investigation and sent to the concerned court. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, the final report Part-I was submitted by the IO of the case to Branch SP, thereafter, Branch SP marked the same to Law Officer of the Branch for opinion as Final report Part-II and subsequently, the Law Officer prepared the Final Report Part-II and submitted the same to the Branch SP/competent Officer. Further, he deposed that competent authority gave his final order in the matter and that if matter was related to the prosecution of the Public Servant, sanction of prosecution was required before filing of the charge-sheet. He further deposed that Branch SP prepared a report and sent to the concerned department requesting to send sanction for prosecution against the concerned Public Servant. He further deposed that after receipt of sanction for prosecution, draft charge-sheet was prepared by IO of the case, which was forwarded by the Branch SP and then filed in the concerned Court. Further, he stated that IO of the case submitted a status report of filing of charge-sheet and the status of the case on the date fixed before the court.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 24 of 78
22. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed that RC 5/99, SIU(X) was registered on 22.12.1999 under the signature of Sh. K.N.Tiwari, the then SP and identified his signature. He deposed that the said RC was marked to accused S.V.Raman for the investigation and also copy of the same was sent to Special Judge, CBI, Chennai. Further, he identified the signature of Sh. D.P. Dash, DIG, BS&FC, Delhi, at point A dated 23.11.2001 and at point C dated 27.11.2001, on the noting no. 13/N in file no. M- 514/2012. He also identified the signature of SP Sh. K.N. Tiwari at point D, dated 29.11.2001 and signature of Head Clerk Sh. L.C. Minocha at Point E dated 29.11.2001. Para 13/N in file no. M 514/2012 is Ex. PW2/A. Further, PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar identified the signature of accused S.V.Raman at point A and Sh. K.N.Tiwari at point B on page no. 27 i.e. first page of chargesheet and deposed that as per the record available, no court diaries and report were available in the said file. Copy of charge-sheet RC 5(E)/99-SIU (X)/CBI is Mark 2/A. After seeing the chargesheet/court dairy file No. (D-5) M509/2012, he deposed that it contained only the copy of the charge-sheet of RC 5(E)/99 SIU-X and identified the signatures of accused S.V.Raman at point A and that of Sh. K.N.Tiwari at point B on Mark 2/B. He further deposed that there was no court diary/report CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 25 of 78 available in the file and proved the complete file as Ex.PW2/B.
23. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel for accused. In his cross- examination, he deposed that his examination in chief was based on the documents shows to him from the record of the case and he had no personal knowledge of the case. He further admitted that if compared with seizure memo, all the files pertaining to RC-5/99 SIU-X, CBI were not the part of the Court record. Further, he deposed that the file Ex. PW 3/B contained notesheet (one page), copy of charge-sheet of RC 5(E)/99, SIU-X alongwith list of witnesses and documents and the file did not contain any court diary/report. Further, during his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex. PW 2/A did not bear the signature of accused SV Raman.
24. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar deposed in his cross-
examination that office used to maintain dispatch register but that dispatch register was not part of the court record. Further, he deposed that it cannot be stated from the register that to whom the charge-sheet was entrusted to for the purpose of filing in the court. Further, he could not remember the other cases entrusted to accused during the relevant time. He admitted that record maintained by the CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 26 of 78 crime section was inspected by senior officers including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis.
25. PW 3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed that he was posted in BS & FC Branch of CBI from 2000 to 2012 as Head Clerk/Crime Assistant. Further, his duty was to look after the work of crime files, investigation files etc. Further, he deposed that vide production memo dt. 01.07.2011 (D-
10), he handed over the note-sheet portion i.e., M-674/11 to the IO along with FIR, PRs, FR-1, other miscellaneous papers M-708/11, CD file M-709/11 charge-sheet file (M- 710/11) in PE 21720110002(A)/ACU V/Delhi. Further, he identified his signature at point A and signature of S.L. Garg at point B on the production memo dt. 01.07.2011 (D-10) which was Ex. PW 3/A (OSR). The file M-674/11 (D-15) was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/B, file M-708/11 was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/C and charge-sheet file M-710/11 was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/D. Further, he deposed that vide seizure memo dt. 26.03.12 (D-13), he handed over part file of RC-5(E)/99 SIU-X/CBI (MR-514/12) to IO and he identified his signature at point A and signature of IO Bharat Singh at point B on the seizure memo. He further proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW 3/E (OSR) and the file MR-514/12 as Ex. PW 3/F. CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 27 of 78
26. PW 3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that all the files pertaining to RC-5(E)/99 SIU-X, CBI were not available on record of the court and he had never seen the trial file. Further, he deposed that trial file was separately maintained by Crime Clerks, who used to work under him. Further, he stated that he did not remember as to what duties were performed by accused S.V. Raman.
27. PW 4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that he was working in CBI Headquarter, Admin. Section as Crime Assistant and in 2009 he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. Further, he deposed that his duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all the cases registered in the Branch. Further, he deposed that the present case was registered in BS & FC Branch, CBI on 31.01.2005 and identified the signature of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC on FIR (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A) dated 31.01.2005, of the case i.e., RC BD1/2005/E/001.
28. Further, PW 4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that the note-sheet vide para no. 444 and 445 (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/B in CC no. 312/19) showed that the then Director, CBI approved filing of charge-sheet in RC No. CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 28 of 78 BD1/2005/E/001 and then the file was marked to accused S.V. Raman. Further, he deposed that vide para 455, it is apparent that accused S.V. Raman submitted the draft charge-sheet in case CC No. 312/19, which was vetted by Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP for CBI and vide para 459/N, draft sheet was approved by DIG A.M. Prasad dated 23.07.2007. The para 455 and 459/N were exhibited as Ex. PW 5/1 (Colly) (Para 455 to 459) in CC No. 312/19. He further deposed that vide para-516/N, accused S.V. Raman made a note on 24.07.2007 that he was filing the charge- sheet in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Nasik by 26.07.2007 and the last note on the file (Ex. A2) was of 22.11.2007 and that the para was already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/C in CC No. 312/19.
29. PW 4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that on the page-41 to 60 of the file (already exhibited as Ex. PW 3/D in CC No. 312/19), copy of charge-sheet of case BD1/2005/E/0001 was available and at page number 41 of the charge-sheet, he identified the signature of Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the then PP who vetted the charge-sheet on 27.07.2007. Charge-sheet was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/2 (Colly) (Pages 41 to 60) in C.C No. 312/19. Further, PW 4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed that the first noting at para-1 from point B to B on Ex. PW 3/C in CC No. 312/19, was made by accused S.V. Raman which was already proved as CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 29 of 78 Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19 and he identified signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that noting at para-7, from point C to C was made by accused S.V. Raman on 20.05.2009, which was already proved as Ex. PW 1/E in CC No. 312/19 and witness identified the signatures of accused at point A. Further, he deposed that fax message at page 57, 58, in the file numbered as M-718/11 (already exhibited as Ex. A3 in CC No. 312/19) was sent by accused S.V. Raman to SP, CBI BS & FS Branch on 25.07.2007 (already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/D) and he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A.
30. PW 4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he admitted the fact that when compared to the seizure memo of the files pertaining to RC No. BD1/2005/E/001, all the material was not filed in the court. Copy of charge-sheet dated 21.03.2011 filed in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001 was in the court record and was exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A (D-16) in C.C. No. 312/19. He also stated that copy of charge-sheet in RC No. BD1/2002/E/0001 prepared and approved to be filed in the court in the year 2007 was not part of the charge-sheet in the present case. Further, he admitted the fact that whenever a charge-sheet was taken from the office to be filed in the court, an entry was made in the dispatch register and the dispatch register was not a part of court record. Further, he CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 30 of 78 stated that during the relevant period, accused S.V. Raman was also investigating other cases including old and fresh investigation. He stated that record maintained by Crime Section was inspected by Senior Officer including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. Further, he stated that he had not dealt with the trial file in RC No. BD1/2005/E/0001.
31. PW 5 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi. He deposed that a complaint was received by office of CBI, AC-II from BS & FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V. Raman for not filing charge-sheet and the complaint was marked to him for Preliminary Enquiry. He deposed that he conducted the Preliminary Enquiry and found evidence against the accused S.V.Raman and accordingly, he filed his complaint (D-2) dated 23.01.2012, bearing his signature at point A, to his SPE, CBI, ACU-VI, New Delhi mentioning all the facts which he recovered during Preliminary Enquiry. Further, he deposed that original complaint dated 23.01.2012 was tagged with the case no. 313/2019 and the complaint was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/A (Colly) (OSR).
32. PW 5 Sh. Sham Lal Garg in his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel deposed that when any complaint was CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 31 of 78 received from the superiors for PE, it was registered by giving a specific number and in the present case the PE number was mentioned in the subject of his complaint dated 23.01.2012 (D-2). Further, he could not remember if he handed over the written complaint received from Sh. Santosh Macherla, HoZ (BS & FC), CBI, New Delhi to the IO of the present case. He deposed that he handed over all the documents prepared and statement recorded by him during PE to the IO of the present case. Further, he deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge-sheet by the accused as claimed by him. Further, he deposed that statement recording during Preliminary Enquiry were not made part of the present charge-sheet. Further, he deposed that after submission of PE, the Branch takes further course of action as per law and that he could not remember the name of senior officer on whose instructions the FIR was registered. . Further, he denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any statement during PE that is why the same were not part of the present charge-sheet.. Further, he denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any PE in this case.
33. PW 6 Sh. Surender Singh, Addl. SP, CBI, ACB, Kolkata deposed that he was posted as Inspector in CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi Branch from 2005 to 2013. He deposed CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 32 of 78 that on the instructions of Sh. M.S. Singhal, the then SP, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi, he checked the records pertaining to RC-5/1999, SIU-X, New Delhi and submitted his report to him on 09.08.2012.Further, he deposed that through a letter dated 09.08.2012, he informed that the documents of RC-5/1999, SIU-X, New Delhi, were kept in the CBI Malkhana and he also mentioned that the case diary file of RC 5/ 1999, SIU-X, New Delhi had not been traced out yet. Further, the letter dated 09.08.2012 was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/A (Page-48 of D-9) and he idenitified his signature alongwith the seal at point A. Further, he identified the signature/initial of Sh. M.S. Singhal, the then SP, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi at point B.
34. PW 6 Sh. Surender Singh, was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel . In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not the IO of the present case and he received the instructions from Sh. M.S. Singhal, the then SP in the capacity being a part of BS & FC Branch. Further, he stated that he had not submitted any other report regarding case diary file in RC-5/1999, SIU-X, New Delhi after 09.08.2012 and except for Malkhana he did not conduct any search in the abovesaid RC.
35. PW 7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that he was posted in SIU X Branch of the CBI, New Delhi from 1997 to July CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 33 of 78 2002 as Superintendent of Police (SP) and that Branch had been merged with BS & FC (called as BS & FB). Further, he identified his signatures at point A and B on Ex. PW 1/A (which was the FIR RC No. 5/1999 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi). Further, he deposed that the said FIR was marked to accused S.V. Raman, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of the said branch and copy of the same was sent to the Ld. Special Judge CBI, Chennai which was mentioned at serial no. 1 on page 7 of the FIR. Further, he deposed that Sh. J.C. Dabas, the then Joint Director, CBI, had given the approval of the noting mentioned at para 13 N (in M- 514/2012) "to file the charge-sheet within ten days". He identified the signature of J.C. Dabas at point B. Further, he deposed that the file was marked to him and he identified his signature at point D. Further, he deposed that he marked the said file to the Head Clerk. He also identified his signature at point X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7 and X8 on the note-sheet of the file (already Ex. PW 3/F).
36. Further, PW 7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that the FAX Message dated 11.12.2001 pertained to filing of the charge- sheet of RC 5/1999 SIU X, CBI, New Delhi which was signed by accused S.V. Raman, the then IO of the case. Fax Message was exhibited as Ex. PW 7/A. Further, he identified the signature of accused S.V. Raman at point A on Ex. PW 7/A. Further, he deposed that the document bearing CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 34 of 78 diary no. 534 dated 07.02.2002 faintly reflected to be a FAX message but the rest of contents of the document were not legible and he identified his signature at point A and a note in his handwriting "inform them" and which was marked to Head Clerk. The document (fax message, contents of which were not readable) was exhibited as Ex. PW 7/B.
37. Further, PW 7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari deposed that vide letter bearing no. CBI: ID No. DPSAI 2002/545/5 (E)/99- SIU (X), New Delhi dated 11.02.2002 which was sent to CBI SU Kolkata, he informed on the basis of FAX message that the charge-sheet of RC SIA 1999E0005-CBI, SIU (X), New Delhi was filed on 11.12.2001, in the court of Ld. Tenth (Xth) Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. On the Letter dated 11.02.2002, he identified his signature at point A and which was exhibited as Ex. PW 7/C.
38. PW 7 Sh. K.N. Tiwari was cross examined and during his cross examination he admitted that as per the notesheet dated 22.12.2000, para 34 of D-4, the accused S.V.Raman was busy in case RC No. 1(A)/94-SIU-X. The file D-4 as Ex.PW7/D1 was put to him during his cross- examination. He further admitted that as per the note-sheet dated 29.03.2001, para 43 of Ex.PW7/D1, the accused S.V.Raman was busy in case RC No. 1(A)/94-SIU-X and RC No. 6/87 and that as per the notice sheet dated CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 35 of 78 09.10.2001, para No. 104 of Ex.PW7/D1, the accused S.V.Raman was also busy in case RC No. 4/2001-SIU-X. He further deposed that during his tenure in SIU-X, CBI, New Delhi, the accused S.V.Raman was assigned duties of DSP Head Quarter for certain period which he could not recall. He further deposed that the jurisdiction of SIU-X branch of CBI was throughout the country. He further deposed that he could not admit or deny the suggestion that the charge sheet in the present case was submitted in the court by some other officer instead of accused as he did not know.
39. PW8 Sh. D. Kumaresan deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as Record Clerk under Sh. Tr. V.P.Raveedran, Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Channai-08. After seeing the document D-8 i.e. letter dated 07.05.2012 addressed to CBI, SIU-X, New Delhi, he identified the signature of Sh. Tr. V.P.Raveedran on it at point A and which is Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that the Ex.PW8/A was typed on the dictation of Sh. Tr. V.P.Raveedran, Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Channai. He was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he deposed that he was working as Record Clerk under Sh. Tr.V.P.Raveendran, Ld. ACMM for the period from 2007 to April, 2022. He further deposed that he was not working CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 36 of 78 under him in the year 2001. He further deposed that he could not remember, if he had conducted any search regarding the RC bearing No. RSCIA/1999/E0005/SIU- X/CBI/New Delhi or not. He further deposed that he could not remember if any CBI official visited his office or met him regarding the RC bearing No. RSCIA/1999/E0005/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi.
40. PW9 Sh. M.P.Rama Rao deposed that he was posted as Under Secretary in Advice Vigilance Division-II (B) of DOP&T, Government of India from the year 2012 to 2014. He deposed that, on receipt of the present case from CBI in respect of Sh S.V.Raman, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case and also the documents and statements of witnesses pertaining to the case; after exercising due diligence and application of mind and with approval of Sanctioning Authority, the present prosecution sanction was signed by him and communicated to CBI. He identified his signature at point A on the forwarding letter dated 22.01.2013 addressed to DIG, AC- II, CBI and Sanction of the Prosecution dated 22.01.2013 at point A on each page. The forwarding letter alongwith Sanction of prosecution is Ex.PW9/A (colly 4 pages in total).
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 37 of 78
41. PW9 Sh. M.P.Rama Rao in his cross-examination deposed that the Sanction was sought in relation to the omissions and commissions in submission of a case by the accused in the court of law. He further volunteered that in total there were four cases. During his cross examination he further denied the suggestion that he had not scrutinized the documents or that he had passed the Sanction order in a mechanical manner. He further denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind to the facts and the documents provided by the CBI to him or for this reason there was no mention of details of the documents or the list of witnesses in his sanction order.
42. PW10 is Sh. Bharat Singh who was the Investigating officer in the present case. He deposed that he was posted as Inspector in the AC-II Zone of CBI from the year 1998 till December 2013. He further deposed that in the year 2012, an FIR vide RC No. 1/2012 was registered in the ACU-VI branch of CBI on 08.02.2012 against accused Sh. S.V.Raman, retired SP CBI on the allegations that he had been the investigating officer of four cases viz. RC No. 1/1998/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 2/1999/SIU-X CBI, RC No. 5/1999/SIU-X CBI and RC No. 1/2005/BS&FC CBI Delhi and that he had not filed the chargesheet in respect of these cases after conclusion of the investigation and that CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 38 of 78 subsequently he also submitted false reports to his supervisory officers that chargesheet in these cases had been filed and that these cases are under trial in the concerned court.He further deposed that the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint of Sh. S.L.Garg already Ex.PW5/A. He proved the copy of FIR RC 01/2012/CBI/ACU (VI)/New Delhi as Ex.PW10/A (OSR, original in CC No. 313/2019) bearing the signature of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP CBI, ACU-VI New Delhi at point A. He identified his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official work and deposed that the FIR was marked to him for investigation.
43. PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that vide handing/taking over memo dated 28.02.2012 (D-10) he had taken over documents mentioned in the memo from Sh. S.L.Garg, the then Inspector ACU VI CBI and which is Ex.PW10/B (OSR, original in case CC No. 313/2019) bearing his signature at point A and that of S.L.Garg at point B. He further deposed that vide letter dated 24.04.2012 of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB AC-II received the documents mentioned and subsequently letter alongwith the documents was marked to him for necessary action by endorsement of then then SP, Sh. S.B.Bhagat at point B alongwith signature. He had also signed on the letter which is document (D-11) Ex.PW10/C (OSR, original in case CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 39 of 78 CC NO. 313/2019) at point A. He further deposed that vide letter dated 01.08.2012 (D-12) of SP CBI, BS&FC, the HoB, AC-II received the documents mentioned and subsequently a letter alongwith the documents was marked to him which is Ex.PW10/D (OSR, original in case CC NO. 313/2019). He further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 26.03.2012 (D-13) which was already Ex.PW3/E, he had seized the documents mentioned in the memo from Mahavir Prasad, Crime Assistant, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi, bearing his signature a point B and that of Sh. Mahavir Prasad at point A, which he identified as said Mahavir Prasad had signed in his presence. He further deposed relied upon the document (D-14) i.e. forwarding letter dated 16.04.2012 alongwith the documents mentioned in the letter of Sh. A.S.Dhillon to SP CBI ACU-VI and deposed that the letter alongwith documents were marked to him by Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP ACU-VI under his signature marked at point A which was Ex.PW10/E colly (6 pages in total) (OSR, Original in case CC No. 313/19).He further deposed that vide Ex.PW10/E, he had received the reply dated 15.06.2009 of accused addressed to HoB, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi and the said reply is Ex.PW10/F (OSR, original in case CC No.313/19). He identified the signature of accused at point A on Ex.PW10/F (wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW9/F) as accused had signed various CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 40 of 78 documents.He further deposed that as per the document (D-7) which is a letter dated 03.04.2012 of Sh. S.K.Bhagat, the then SP CBI ACU-VI, New Delhi which was addressed to Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai requesting him to provide necessary information in respect of filing of the chargesheet in RC No.05/1999/BS&FC CBI, New Delhi and which was Ex.PW10/G bearing the signature of Sh. S.K.Bhagat at point A.He further relied upon the document (D-8) which was a letter dated 07.05.2012 alongwith annexures which were already Ex.PW8/A addressed to SP CBI SIU X sent by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and was marked to him by Sh.K.Bhagat under his signature.He further relied upon the forwarding letter dated 21.08.2012 (D-9) alongwith annexures forwarded to Sh. Pradeep Kumar, then then SP, ACU VI by Sh. M.S.Singhal, SP BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi. He further deposed that the forwarding letter alongwith documents were marked to him by Sh. Pradeep Kumar vide note at point A under his signature and the forwarding letter was Ex.PW10/H (colly).
44. PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that the copy of the chargesheet of RC No. 5/1999 was available in the file at page No. 447 to 459, duly forwarded by Sh. K.N.Tiwari, the then SP SIU X at point marked A and that of accused/IO were at point B and B1. He deposed that the copy of the CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 41 of 78 chargesheet is Mark PW10/X.He further deposed that during investigation, he had seized the files i.e. D3 Ex.PW3/C, D4 Ex.PW7/D1, D5 Ex.PW2/B, D6 (M 509/2012) and Part File M 514/2012 Ex.PW3/F from Sh. S.L.Garg through Ex.PW10/B. He further relied upon D-6 (M 509/2012) which is Ex.PW10/I. He further deposed that after conclusion of investigation he had filed the four separate charge-sheets in the present matter of RC 01/1998/SIU-X CBI, RC 02/1999/SIU X CBI, RC 05/1999/SIU X CBI and RC 01/2005/BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi as the said offences were found to be separate and distinct from each other. He further deposed that the present CC No. 310/99 pertains to RC 05/1999 BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi.
45. PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh in his cross examination deposed that he obtained the report regarding the filing of the chargesheet in the present matter and he had not deputed any other person to check the record of the court in respect of filing of the chargesheet. Ld. Counsel for the accused confronted him with the document which is D-15 page No.418 (report dated 15.01.2010) and 419 (report dated 04.03.2010) which were marked as Mark PW10/D1 colly (2 pages). He deposed that in the report dated 04.03.2010, Sh. M.K.Singh had mentioned that he did not find the Volume No.3 of the CC register for the year 2001. He CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 42 of 78 volunteered that during his visit to Egmore Court, it was confirmed that RC No.5/1999 was never pending trial in the Court. He denied the suggestion that because one volume of CC register of year 2001 was missing, hence it could not be ascertained whether the chargesheet was filed by S.V.Raman or not in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that Ex.PW8/A was based on unverified record. He admitted that Ex.PW8/A does not mention as to which specific record was checked while issuing the said report. He admitted that he had carried out searches of the residence of accused at Hyderabad, but did not find any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. He further admitted that Inspr. S.L.Garg recorded the statements of witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry. He admitted that the said statements were not part of the chargesheet. He volunteered that the same were not required.
DETAILED DEPOSITION OF DEFENCE WITNESS:
46. DW-1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, SI, CBI, AC-II, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. Service Register containing some loose pages, tagged with the service register of accused S.Venkat Raman from the Malkhana of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi. The copies of the page No. 18 to 30 CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 43 of 78 of the said register were relied upon as Ex.DW1/A (colly, OSR, running into 14 pages) and copy of the order No. CBI ID No. 47/Med./PPM-PM/ID-08/PD-1617 dated 20.08.2008 was marked as Mark DW1/DX. During his cross examination he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the entry made in the register and as to who had made the entries and when they were made. He also deposed that the entries were not made in his presence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
47. Coming to the specific allegations against the case, it is the case of the prosecution that the case RC-5/99 was registered in the SIU-X branch of the CBI on 22.12.1999 which is proved as Ex.PW1/A (8 pages). It is alleged that RC-5/99 was marked to the accused Sh. S.V. Raman, the then Dy. SP, CBI, who remained the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case till the conclusion of the investigation.
48. It is alleged that as per the final approval, the charge-sheet in the said case was supposed to be filed against one M/s Malack Shoes Ltd. Chennai, and its three Directors, on the allegations that the said accused persons had cheated the Allahabad Bank, Chennai to the tune of Rs.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 44 of 78 7.48 Crores. It is alleged that the competent authority approved the prosecution of the said persons.
49. It alleged that Sh. K.N. Tiwari, the then SP/CBI/BS & FC, marked the file to accused Sh. S.V. Raman with the instructions to file the charge sheet within 10 days, as per noting which is Ex. PW2/A. Further, the signatures of SP K.N. Tiwari on Ex. PW2/A dated 29.11.2001 at point D were found present which has been duly proved. Further, it is alleged that vide noting dated 05.12.2001 which is Ex.PW1/B, SP K.N. Tiwari put a note that chargesheet be filed urgently. It is alleged by CBI that a charge-sheet was prepared and signed by the accused Sh. S.V. Raman on 07.12.2001 which was forwarded by Sh. K.N. Tiwari
50. Further, the prosecuting agency has alleged that on 11.12.2001, the accused Sh. S.V. Raman sent a FAX message from Chennai to his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N.Tiwari that charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the court on 11.12.2001. The copy of FAX message dated 11.12.2001 signed by the accused is Ex.PW7/A.
51. Further, it is alleged that on 15.06.2009, the accused S.V. Raman submitted a report to the then HOB, CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 45 of 78 CBI, BS & FC, FC regarding the status of this case which is Ex.PW10/F and in which he mentioned that "It is submitted that I have personally visited and checked up at Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai in case RC 5/99-SIU-X/DLI and the charge-sheet has been marked to ACMM, Chennai on reallocation of work. Copies of documents have already been submitted and the case has been fixed for taking cognizance to 9-7-2009".
52. Further, it is the case of the Prosecution that charge-sheet in the above mentioned case was never filed by accused Sh. S.V. Raman, in the Court of the Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai, or the Ld. ACMM, Egmore Chennai, as apparent from the letter/report dt. 07 th May 2012 which is Ex.PW8/A received from the Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai.
53. In view of the aforesaid specific allegations, CBI has alleged that the accused Sh. S.V.Raman being the Investigating Officer of the case RC 5/99, by not filing the charge-sheet of case in the court, has knowingly found to have disobeyed the direction of the law with intent to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save some persons from legal punishment. It is also alleged that the accused S.V.Raman is found to have given false reports about filling CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 46 of 78 of the charge-sheet of the case to his superiors and hence, he prepared record/writing in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with an intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will cause, loss or injury to the public or to CBI, with intention to save or knowing it to be likely that he will save certain persons from legal punishment. Thus, the prosecution has alleged that the accused is guilty of commission of offences punishable u/s 217/218 IPC.
54. Now in the light of the aforesaid legal provisions, let us appreciate the evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that RC-5/99 was registered on 22.12.1999 which is Ex.PW1/A (8 pages) and duly proved by the prosecution. It is also not disputed by the accused that the said RC was marked to him by his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N.Tiwari, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC. It is also admitted by the accused that he sent a FAX message from Chennai to his supervisory officer Sh. K.N.Tiwari on 11.12.2001 which is Ex.PW 7/A informing him that the chargesheet of the said case had been filed on 11.12.2001 itself.
55. As per the CBI, the accused never filed the chargesheet in the said case and in fact, the accused gave false reports to his seniors and other officers of CBI that he CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 47 of 78 had filed the chargesheet. It is the case of CBI that this act was done by the accused in order to save the persons qua whom chargesheet was to be filed.
56. In regard to the false reports given by the accused, CBI has alleged that the report sent by way of FAX message by the accused dated 11.12.2001 from Chennai to his supervisory officer, Sh. K.N.Tiwari that charge-sheet of the case has been filed in the court on 11.12.2001 which is Ex. PW7/A is false. CBI has also alleged that the report sent to the then HOB, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi, dated 16.06.2009, signed on 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW10/F, in which the accused has reported that he had personally visited and checked up in the court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai and stated that the chargesheet had been marked to Ld. ACMM, Chennai on re-allocation of work ; copies of documents had been submitted and the case was fixed for taking cognizance on 09.07.2009 was a false report.
57. The prosecution has mainly relied upon a letter dated 07.05.2012, which is Ex.PW8/A to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet in either the court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai or in the court of Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai or any court for that matter. The CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 48 of 78 said letter which is Ex.PW8/A is addressed to CBI, SIU-X, New Delhi and is written by Sh. T.R.V.P.Raveendran, Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai. The said letter was written as a response to an earlier letter dated 03.04.2012 which is Ex.PW10/G written by SP concerned to Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai.
58. As per the said letter which is Ex.PW8/A written by Sh. T.R.V.P.Raveendran, Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it is stated that, ".....the perusal of available records in this office Cr. No. RC SIA/1999/E0005/SIU-X/CBI/New Delhi revealed that the Investigating Officer has not filed any final report in this case. The Investigation Officer has filed a memo stating that he had filed the final report before the Learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in this case. But on search it came to know that no such final report has been filed till this date. ..."
59. The prosecution attempted to prove the said letter Ex.PW8/ A by summoning a witness, PW8 Sh. D.Kumarresan who deposed that in the year 2012, he was posted as a Record Clerk under Sh. T.R.V.P.Raveendran, ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai who was the author of the said letter. PW8 Sh. D.Kumarresan identified the writing and CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 49 of 78 signature of ld. ACMM as he had seen him writing and signing during his course of duty while being posted under him. He deposed that the said letter was typed on the dictation of the Sh. T.R.V.P.Raveendran, Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai.
60. It is settled law that it is the duty of each party to lead best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy. Further, in case, such material evidence is withheld, the court has the discretion to draw adverse inference U/s. 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). The same was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam [(2009) 14 SCC 541. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration
(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence (vide Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif [AIR 1968 SC 1413] )."
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 50 of 78
61. The aforesaid position of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 360.
62. Another principle of law is that it is the solemn duty and responsibility of the prosecution to place the best evidence before the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1974) 3 SCC 774 also emphasized the role of the Investigating Officer not to only collect evidence to strengthen the prosecution case but to conduct fair investigation which brings out the truth. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"11. The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth..."
"12. As neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one or more incidents took place in which so many persons, including Laldhari and Ramanandan, were injured, Courts can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth if possible. This may be done, within limits, to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any point under consideration from proved facts and circumstances of the case."
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 51 of 78
63. Applying the aforesaid legal position of law to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the issues in controversy are: whether the accused filed the chargesheet or not and whether the notings and reports sent by the accused to his superiors in this regard were false. This court is required to see whether the prosecution has brought the best evidence in its possession to show that the accused did not file the chargesheet and sent false reports to his superiors in this regard. Further, this court is to see whether the Investigating Officer conducted fair investigation which brought out the truth or whether he collected evidence only with intention to bolster the case of the prosecution.
i) WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY I.E. CHARGESHEET WAS NOT FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTINGS OF ACCUSED TO HIS SUPERIORS WERE FALSE?
64. In the present case, the best evidence to prove that the accused did not file the chargesheet would have been the Institution Registers/ Other relevant registers from the concerned courts i.e. of the court of Ld. ACMM and/or that of the court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai and/or from the Filing Counter, if in existence at that time. Further, the best witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed would have been the Ahlmad/ Record Keeper of CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 52 of 78 the files of that period i.e. 11.12.2001 of the said courts or any official from the Filing Counter of the said courts, if existing at that point of time.
65. As per the prosecution case, in the alleged false reports sent by the accused to his superiors including the FAX message, he stated that the chargesheet was filed on 11.12.2001.It is the case of the prosecution that the chargesheet was not filed on 11.12.2001. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW8 Sh. D.Kumaresan in his cross- examination deposed that in the year 2001, he was not working under Sh. T.R.V.P.Raveendran, Ld. ACMM, Egmore, Chennai. Considering the testimony of PW8 Sh. D.Kumerasan, it is apparent that he was not the Record Keeper or custodian of the files in the year 2001 and hence, he is not a witness to the fact whether the chargesheet was filed or not. Further, PW8 Sh. D.Kumerasan in his cross- examination deposed that he did not know if the said letter was issued by the Ld. Magistrate after going through any record maintained in the Court office. The said letter is silent as to what record has been checked by the Ld.ACMM, Egmore, Chennai to conclude that the final report has not been filed. Further, he stated that he did not remember, if he conducted any search regarding the alleged chargesheet in question nor he could recall, if CBI official CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 53 of 78 visited his office or met him in regard to the present case. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that PW8 Sh. D.Kumerasan's testimony and letter Ex.PW8/A do not assist the prosecution in proving its case that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said notings and the said reports given by the accused to his superiors about filing of the chargesheet and status of the case were false.
66. The prosecution failed to cite Ahlmads of the Ld. ACMM or/and that of the court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai or /and any officials from Filing Counter as prosecution witnesses in the present case. The record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts/ officials from Filing Counter of the period 2001 could give the direct evidence with regard to the receiving /non receiving of the chargesheet which would be the best evidence . The non- production of the said registers and not citing the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts/ officials from Filing Counter of the period 2001 as witnesses has prejudiced the fair trial of the accused.
67. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 671 held that, the non-examination of a material witness would give rise to an inference that if he is examined , he would not have CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 54 of 78 supported the prosecution case. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the fact that the Ahlmad/ Record keepers of the relevant period ( year 2001) have not been cited as a prosecution witness, which gives rise to an inference that in case they were joined as witnesses, they would not have supported the case of the prosecution.
68. The deposition of another witness, PW-5 Sh.
Sham Lal Garg is also important . He had conducted the preliminary inquiry on the basis of complaint received from BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi against the accused S.V.Raman for not filing the chargesheet. In his cross examination, PW-05 Sh. Sham Lal Garg deposed that he inquired from the relevant court concerned regarding filing of charge- sheet by the accused as claimed by him. He deposed that the said statements recorded during preliminary inquiry are not made part of present chargesheet although he had handed over all statements to the Investigating officer. No plausible explanation came forward to state as to why the said statements of the relevant court staff members recorded during preliminary inquiry being important for adjudication of the present case were not filed. Since the said statements were admittedly available with CBI yet not filed, an adverse inference is drawn against it owing to the fact that material evidence has been withheld by the prosecution.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 55 of 78
69. Now, coming to an argument of Ld. PP for CBI made in this regard, wherein he argued that the said registers were not summoned as it would have disturbed the daily proceedings of the concerned court. I find no merit in the submission made by Ld. PP for CBI, considering that it is not believable that the said register would be used till date. Moreover, CBI did not bring any evidence to show that the said register was being used till date which would have allegedly caused inconvenience to the said court.
70. During Final Arguments, Ld. for CBI had argued that the fact that documents of RC-5/99 were found in the Malkhana, as deposed by PW6 Sh. Surender Singh shows that the chargesheet was never filed by the accused . He also argued that the case/trial court diary was not filed by the accused This contention lacks merit as the best evidence were the said registers and not the fact that documents were lying in the Malkhana or that the case/trial diary was not filed, as explained above in detail. Another argument of Ld. PP for CBI was that a perusal of the letter written by Ld. ACMM which is Ex.PW8/A shows that there is an Index of documents attached and the final report is not attached with it, which shows that the accused failed to file the chargesheet. It is pertinent to note that the said letter is CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 56 of 78 silent about the said Index. Further, the said Index has not been exhibited while recording of deposition of PW8 Sh. D. Kumaresan and cannot be read in evidence. Moreover, the said Index itself does not prove that the chargesheet was not filed and hence, there is no merit in this argument.
71. Further, Ld. PP for CBI argued that the letter of Ld. ACMM is enough evidence to conclude that the chargesheet was not filed. He argued that the Ld. ACMM was not summoned as a witness to prove the letter authored by him which is Ex.PW8/A, as per Section 121 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short "IEA"). Section 121 IEA specifically provides for protection of the Judges/Magistrates from being unnecessarily exposed as witnesses before a court. In this regard, he relied upon various judgments passed by the different courts in the cases of Yuvaraj vs. The State Rep. in Criminal O.P. No. 7668 of 2019 and M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 and Criminal M.P. No. 4193 of 2019 decided on 03.06.2019, C.B.I. Thru S.P., New Delhi vs. The State of U.P. And Anr. decided on 14.12.2020 and Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr 1977 AIR 2445 .He argued that the reason why the Ld. Magistrates or Judges are not summoned as witnesses was succinctly explained in the case of Union of India vs. Orient Engg. & Commercial CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 57 of 78 Co. Ltd. & Anr (supra), wherein it was held that the Judges or Magistrates will be put to embarrassing and objectionable proceedings wherein they will be asked to testify as to what weighed in their mind in reaching their verdict which is undesirable. He also argued that by summoning Judges, public administration will suffer.
72. This contention of Ld. PP for CBI does not assist the case of the prosecution as the witness to prove the fact that the chargesheet was not filed was the Record Keeper or Ahlmad and not the concerned Judge who was admittedly not the Judge at the time of filing of the chargesheet. Hence, this court is of the opinion that a mere reply by the Ld. ACMM to a letter sent by CBI does not prove the prosecution's case of the accused committing the alleged criminal offences.
73. The next point to consider is whether the Investigating Officer in the present case conducted fair investigation or collected only that evidence which would bolster the case of the prosecution.
ii) WHETHER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER CONDUCTED FAIR INVESTIGATION?
74. In this regard, the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW 10 Sh. Bharat Singh is relevant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 58 of 78 personally check the record of the concerned court, where the official record of chargesheet is maintained. The deposition of PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh in this regard is reproduced below :
"It is correct that a record of filing of chargesheet is maintained in the concerned court. I did not personally check the above said record".
75. PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh in his cross-
examination also deposed that he did not depute any person to check the record of the court in respect of the filing of the chargesheet. PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh failed to give any explanation as to why he did not personally check or depute any person to check the record in the concerned court.
76. The fact that the investigating agency did not make any efforts to check the record of filing of chargesheet which is maintained at the concerned courts for seizing or inspecting the official record makes the case of the prosecution very weak. It is apparent that efforts were not made to collect the best evidence itself which would prove the fact that the chargesheet was never filed in the year 2001.
77. Another pertinent point to note is that during the cross-examination of PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh , he was CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 59 of 78 confronted with certain reports /letters dated 15.01.2010 and 04.03.2010 of Sub-Inspector Sh. M.K.Singh which are Mark PW10/D1 (colly) (2 pages).As per the aforesaid report dated 15.01.2010, part of Mark PW10/D1 (colly) (2 pages), SI Sh. M.K. Singh went to the Court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai and inquired from the officials of the said court and was told that during 2003-2004, the cases of Ld. Xth MM were transferred to that of Ld. ACMM, Egmore. It is also stated in the report that he was advised by the Court officers to check the concerned CC register in the Record Room. As per the report, he checked the record provided by the In charge of the Record Room of Egmore Court. It is stated that 4 registers of cases which were transferred by Ld. Xth MM to Ld. ACMM, Egmore, from the record were provided by the In charge of the Record Room which he had checked. As per the report, "register for the relevant period i.e.11.12.2001 could not be traced". As per the report, it is stated that he requested the concerned In charge, Record Room to provide the register of the relevant period but it was informed that since, the record is old, it will take some time to trace it. It is stated that he checked the said 4 registers of cases, which were transferred by Ld. Xth MM to Ld. ACMM, Egmore but could not find mention of the"RC-5/99" in them. It is stated that he was informed by the staff of Ld. ACMM, Egmore CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 60 of 78 that some registers may be available in the court of Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai. As per the said report, it is stated that since records of several courts are required to be checked, it will take time to find out the status of the case as all the Courts of Egmore are busy and expressed their inability to extend co-operation during Court hours.
78. As per the report dated 04.03.2010, SI Sh.
M.K. Singh stated that on 22.02.2010, he again visited the Record Room, Egmore Court, Chennai to check the CC No. Register no.4 for the year 2001 and 2002. It is stated that he met the In-charge of the Record Room, Smt. Sugandha and she checked all the records available in the Record Room. It is stated that there were three volumes of CC No. Registers for the year 2001 containing entries starting from Serial no. 1 to 1439 (Vol.1), Sl. No. 1440 to 6569 (Vol. II) but Volume III was not traceable. It is stated that the Smt. Sugandha, In- charge of the Record Room informed that Volume III of CC No. Register for the year 2001 is missing. He also stated that he checked CC Register for the year 2002 which was in three volumes. He stated that the entry of "RC-5/99" might be available in Volume III of CC No. Register which is missing and not available in the Record Room of Egmore Court.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 61 of 78
79. The said reports which are Mark PW10/D1 (colly) (2 pages) were never brought on record by the prosecution and SI MK Singh was not cited as a prosecution witness . The said reports surfaced only when the investigating officer PW 10 Sh. Bharat Singh, during his cross-examination was confronted with it by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses including the investigating officer, PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh disclosed that SI MK Singh had visited the Record Room of Egmore Court, Chennai, or that his reports existed. PW8 D.Kumaresan who was the Record Clerk from the court of ld. ACMM, Egomore, Chennai also failed to mention that SI MK Singh had visited the Record Room. The letter which is Ex. PW 8/A, issued by the Ld. ACMM is also silent about the visit of SI MK Singh. It is also silent about the missing register of 2001 in which the "RC-5/99" may have been mentioned and from which the true picture of the chargesheet could have emerged.
80. The Prosecution failed to explain as to why neither PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh nor any of the prosecution witnesses disclosed in their testimonies that SI M.K.Singh had visited the concerned court and made efforts to trace the register of the "RC-5/99" . Further, CBI failed to explain the reason why PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh did not CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 62 of 78 mention in the chargesheet or in his testimony that Volume No.III of CC Register for the year 2001 was missing. In fact, PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh, only on being confronted with the said reports disclosed in his cross-examination that SI M.K.Singh of BS & FC branch visited the concerned court before registration of the RC and submitted his report to supervising officer in BS & FC Branch.
81. Further, PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that during his visit to the Egmore Court, it was confirmed that "RC-5/99" was never pending trial in the said Court. Apart from the letter, which is Ex.PW 8/A, the letter issued by the Ld. ACMM, there is no other document to show as to how the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the chargesheet of "RC-5/99" was never filed. The investigating officer PW 10 Sh. Bharat Singh failed to disclose what efforts were made by him to trace the chargesheet of "RC-5/99. M.K Singh in his report dated 15.01.2010 disclosed that visits had to be made to other courts. In the same report, M.K. Singh stated that he was informed by the staff of Ld. ACMM, Egmore that some registers may be available in the court of Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai. However, there is neither any oral nor documentary evidence to prove as to what steps were taken by the investigating officer or any person from CBI to visit CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 63 of 78 those courts including that of Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai. Without visiting those courts and summoning the record keepers/ Ahlmads of those courts, it cannot be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that the chargesheet of "RC-5/99 was not filed by the accused. S.V. Raman. Hence, it is apparent by the conduct of the Investigating Officer/Sh. Bharat Singh that he failed in collecting the best evidence in this case, by not going to the said courts and not checking the record. Further, the suppression of the fact that the register of the year 2001 was missing also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
82. In this regard, Ld. PP for CBI had argued that evidence of Police Witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to Police Force owing to the reason that they are interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. He argued that the credibility of any witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness and there is no rule of law that no conviction can be recorded merely on the testimony of Police Officials. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 617 and Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 64 of 78 871 of 2021 decided on 30.08.2022. He also argued that the testimony of Police witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they are biased as the correct test of biasness would be whether there appears to be a "real danger of bias" and the probability or preponderance of probability of such bias would not be relevant and in this regard, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the test in checking the presence of bias is that there may be "real danger of bias" and the bald plea of the investigation not being fair has to be tested on this.
83. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the present case, investigation was conducted fairly and there was no danger of bias against the accused S.V. Raman who was the investigating officer working in CBI. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra) itself points out that as a rule of prudence, the court is to carefully scrutinize and independently appreciate the evidence of police witnesses, as they are interested in the outcome of result of the case. Considering the testimonies of all the police witnesses in the present case, after carefully scrutinizing and appreciating their evidence, it is apparent that they have not CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 65 of 78 come out with the truth. They have proved to be only interested in the success of the outcome of the present case and hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Ld. PP for CBI.
iii) OTHER MISSING LINKS IN THE
PROSECUTION CASE:
84. After careful perusal of the evidence, adduced in proof of the fact that the accused allegedly did not file the chargesheet, there are other glaring missing links. Those missing links are factors which make the prosecution doubtful. Those factors include the fact that the prosecution failed to produce its own dispatch register of the year 2001; all the part files pertaining to RC-5/99 were not part of the record ; belated response from CBI despite regular inspection by superiors of the accused; lack of efforts to trace the case diary and no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were allegedly saved from legal punishment.
a) NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DISPATCH
REGISTER:
85. Firstly, PW-1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar who was the Public Prosecutor deposed that as per procedure, after the finalization of investigation, after the receipt of approval CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 66 of 78 orders from the Competent Authority/HO, the final report U/s. 173 (2) CrPC is prepared by the IO. He deposed that subsequently, the chargesheet is marked to Prosecutor by the Branch Head for vetting and after the vetting, the charge-sheet is finally prepared in the proforma and forwarded by the Branch Head for filing the same in Court of competent jurisdiction. He deposed that the charge-sheet also bears the dispatch number of the branch before filing the same in the Court.
86. PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar deposed that he was working with CBI in SIU-X during the period 18.11.1998 to 13.06.2005 as LDC, Crime Clerk. He stated that he was looking after the cases under investigation and under trial in the said branch. PW2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that the office used to maintain dispatch register, wherein office maintains the dispatch number of every reply/correspondence/chargesheet/FIR etc. He deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
87. Further, PW4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey, who deposed that in the year 2009, he was posted in BS & FC Branch, New Delhi as UDC in Crime Section. His duty was to maintain the crime files and crime register in respect of all CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 67 of 78 the cases registered in the branch.PW4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination also deposed that the said dispatch register was not part of the court record.
88. Considering the aforesaid procedure deposed by PW1 Sh. Prabhat Kumar, it was imperative for CBI to have filed the dispatch register of the year 2001 to prove that the accused did not file the charge-sheet in the concerned court. The fact that CBI failed to file register and did not give any reasonable explanation as to why the dispatch register was not filed, raises a doubt on the prosecution case.
b) SUPRESSION OF CERTAIN PART FILES/ NOTINGS PERTAINING TO RC-5/99:
89. It is pertinent to note that as per testimonies of PW2 Rajiv Kumar, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad and PW4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey who are all officers of CBI,it is apparent that all the notings/part files pertaining to RC-5/99 are admittedly not before this court.
90. In this regard, PW2 Rajiv Kumar in his cross examination deposed that : "it is correct that if compared with seizure memo, all the files pertaining to RC-5/99 SIU- X, CBI are not part of the court record". Further, he CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 68 of 78 deposed that : "I do not maintain any separate record to show how many part files are opened in a particular case. I cannot say after seeing a notesheet file that how many part files were opened in that particular case."
91. Further, PW3 Sh. Mahavir Prasad deposed in his cross examination that: "It is correct that all the files pertaining to RC-5(E)/99/SIU-X, CBI not available on record of the court." Moreover, PW4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey in his cross examination deposed that : "It is correct that after seeing the note sheet file, I cannot say how many part files were opened in this case" .
92. Further, PW-7 Sh. K.N.Tiwari, who was the then SP and superior of accused in his cross examination deposed that the jurisdiction of SIU-X, branch of CBI was throughout the country and the IO of a particular case in relation to investigation had to visit different places involved in a case throughout the country. Further, PW7 Sh. K.N.Tiwari deposed that any development in respect of the case is recorded in the notesheet file and put up to the concerned officers. He deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the charge-sheet in this case was submitted in the court by some other officer instead of the accused as he did not know. In the absence of the complete CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 69 of 78 notesheets, the aforesaid testimony of PW7 Sh. K.N.Tiwari casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
93. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010 decided on 23.05.2014 wherein it was held that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination, he would not get an opportunity to explain a particular issue and hence, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue cannot be raised. Ld. PP for CBI also relied upon the judgment pronounced in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 decided on 15.05.2024 in regard to the importance of giving suggestions and the consequence of failure to give it. Ld. PP for CBI had argued that Ld. Counsel for accused failed to put questions to the prosecution witnesses in regard to the exact notesheets and part files which were not part of the charge-sheet filed against the accused and the contents of the said notesheets and part files. He argued that since those questions were not asked, the prosecution witnesses were not given an opportunity to explain as to which notesheets and part of files were not produced and in case they were asked specific questions in regard to the exact notesheets CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 70 of 78 and part of files, it would not have favoured the accused and thus, this court should draw an adverse inference against the accused.
94. This Court is not satisfied with the argument made by Ld. PP for CBI as Ld. Counsel for the accused could have put the questions in cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses, in regard to the exact notesheets and part files, which were deliberately suppressed only if the accused had access to it. Without access to the complete part files and the notesheets, Ld. Counsel for accused could not have asked specific questions. In fact, Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out the discrepancies in the case of prosecution by asking the prosecution witnesses as to whether all the notesheets and part files were made part of record and to which they answered in the negative. The CBI is guilty of suppression of notings wherein officers record the developments of a case. The prosecution failed to give any plausible explanation as to why the complete part files and notesheets were not produced. in It is well apparent it CBI is being selective in filing of the notings and something is being hidden from the Court. Accordingly, adverse inference is drawn against CBI in this regard for suppression of the notesheets and part files.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 71 of 78
c) LACK OF EFFORTS TO PRODUCE THE CASE DIARY OF to RC-5/99:
95. Similarly, the prosecution witnesses failed to explain as to the status of the case diary. In this regard, it is seen that PW-6 Sh. Surender Singh deposed that he had checked the record pertaining to RC-5/99 . He deposed that he submitted his report vide letter dated 9.08.2012, which is Ex.PW6/A to Sh. M.S.Singhal, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC, New Delhi. As per the said letter, PW6 informed the then SP that the documents of the said RC were kept in the CBI Malkhana. PW-6 in his cross examination deposed that except for the Malkhana, he did not conduct any search in the aforesaid RC and denied the suggestion that case diary is not kept in the Malkhana but in the office.
96. The prosecution failed to explain why the Case Diary of the RC-5/99 was not produced. Further, there is not even a whisper in regard to the efforts made by the investigating agency to trace the case diary of the RC- 5/99. Accordingly, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution story, as the case diary could have also thrown light on the facts and circumstances of the present case to prove the commission of the alleged offences by the accused.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 72 of 78
d) DESPITE REGULAR INSPECTIONS BY SUPERIORS, THERE IS BELATED RESPONSE OF CBI IN SEEKING INFORMATION:
97. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar and PW-4 Sh. Kishore Tirkey deposed in their cross examination that the record maintained by the Crime Section was inspected by Senior officers, including SP, DIG and JD on quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. As per the prosecution, the accused had sent a false report about the chargesheet being filed by way of FAX message on 11.12.2001 which is Ex.PW7/A. It is also alleged that the accused sent a false status report to HOB, CBI, BS & FC on 15.06.2009 which is Ex.PW10/F in which the accused has reported that he had personally visited and checked up in the court of Ld. Xth MM, Egmore, Chennai and stated that the chargesheet had been marked to Ld. ACMM, Chennai. If the record was being regularly inspected by the said senior officers, then it is not clear as to why CBI made inquiries about the chargesheet so belatedly, in the year 2012 from the Ld. ACMM, vide Letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the then SP concerned which is Ex. PW 10/G. This is also a gap which was not explained by the prosecution.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 73 of 78
e) LACK OF INVESTIGATION QUA THOSE WHO ACCUSED TRIED TO SAVE:
98. As per Section 217 and 218 of IPC, one of the ingredients to be fulfilled for the accused to be held liable is that the accused should have committed the offences with intention to save or knowing that he is likely to save any person from legal punishment. The entire chargesheet is silent on this aspect. The prosecution failed to bring any material evidence on record to show as to how the accused had an intention or knowledge to save the persons from legal punishment. Further, no investigation in regard to role of those persons who were saved from legal punishment was carried out.
99. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubansh Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0033/1957 AIR 1957 SC 486 wherein it was held that the intention of the accused that he deliberately made wrong entries has to be gathered from the acts of the accused for him to be liable for the offence punishable U/s 218 IPC. In the light of the said legal position, CBI failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the accused had benefited by way of monetary means or otherwise.
There is no iota of evidence in this regard. In this regard, CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 74 of 78 testimony of the investigating officer, PW10 Sh. Bharat Singh is important who deposed that he had carried out searches of the residence of the accused at Hyderabad but he did not find any incriminating evidence regarding disproportionate asset. If the story of the prosecution is to be believed, some benefit should have been accrued to the accused as a motive for deliberately not filing the chargesheet, but in the absence of any evidence, this ingredient could not be fulfilled.
f) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACT AND CARELESSNESS:
100. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 CrPC stated that the motive of CBI to file the present case was to hide the procedural irregularities in the CBI, at the relevant point of time and he was made a scapegoat. He stated that during the period from 1998 to 31.08.2011, he was assigned various duties including that of investigation, supervision of investigation, searches etc. There is a difference between being careless and having criminal intention and criminal knowledge to commit offences punishable under penal laws, such as IPC. Considering that the superiors of the accused themselves woke up after several years from the date when the false report in regard to the filing of the chargesheet was given shows that there may have been office politics and the accused may have been made a CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 75 of 78 scapegoat. There is a possibility that the file had gone missing and the liability was fixed on the accused who was the smallest fish amongst his superiors.
iv) OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.PP FOR CBI:
101. Ld. PP for CBI argued that in the statement U/s 313 Cr.PC , the accused should have disclosed the information which was in his special knowledge but he remained evasive in his answers and hence, the case of the prosecution stands proved. Ld. PP for CBI relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw SC 932 and Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168, wherein it was held that the Statement of the Accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC can be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution case and may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
In the case of Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra (Supra), it was held that if there are facts within the special knowledge of the accused which are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor which could be used against the accused. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC is neither a CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 76 of 78 substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence, as held in the judgment of Indrakunwar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) itself and it does not discharge the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. Further, the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that burden cannot be put on the accused. In the present case, the burden has not been discharged by the prosecution which failed to produce the best evidence to prove its case.
CONCLUSION:
102. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused person.
103. In view of the above discussion, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, hence, the accused S. Venkat Raman stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 217 and 218 IPC.
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 77 of 78
104. Bail bonds/Surety bonds U/s. 437 CrPC stand canceled.
105. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 28.06.2024 (SONAM SINGH-I) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI. Digitally signed by SONAM SONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.06.28 16:10:25 +0530 Certified that this Judgment contains 78 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SONAM SINGH-I) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROUSE AVENUE DISTT. COURTS NEW DELHI.Digitally signed by SONAM
SONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2024.06.28
16:10:47
+0530
CBI vs. S. Venkat Raman
FIR : RC-2172012A0001/ACU-VI/CBI/New Delhi Page No. 78 of 78