Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of vs . (1) Rl Ghera (Expired) on 19 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) 01, CBI,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act)
CC No. 41/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0480832008
Central Bureau of Vs. (1) RL Ghera (Expired)
Investigation S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o BG12B, DDA Flat, Munirka,
New Delhi 67
(2) NS Dabas (Expired)
S/o Sh. Mange Ram Dabas,
R/o Vill. Sultanpur Dabas,
PO Pothkhurd, Delhi39
(3) Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
R/o A/2178, Sector8,
Rohini, Delhi.
(4) Prem Singh Mural
S/o Late Sh. Tek Chand,
R/o Vill. & PO Rohat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 1 of 95
2
(5) Pradeep Mann
S/o Late Sh. Satya Pal Singh,
R/o Vill. Ballah Tehsil, Asandh,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
(6) Mahavir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Diya Ji,
R/o House No. 118, Sector - 15,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
RC No. : DAI 2005 A 0063
u/Ss : 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,
1988.
Date of Committal : 31.03.2008
Received by transfer on : 14.10.2011
Arguments Concluded on : 15.12.2012
Date of Decision : 19.12.2012
CC No. 46/11
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0017612008
Central Bureau of Vs. (1) RL Ghera (Expired)
Investigation S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o BG12B, DDA Flat, Munirka,
New Delhi 67
(2) NS Dabas (Expired)
S/o Sh. Mange Ram Dabas,
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 2 of 95
3
R/o Vill. Sultanpur Dabas,
PO Pothkhurd, Delhi39
(3) Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
R/o A/2178, Sector8,
Rohini, Delhi.
(4) Prem Singh Mural
S/o Late Sh. Tek Chand,
R/o Vill. & PO Rohat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
(5) Pradeep Mann
S/o Late Sh. Satya Pal Singh,
R/o Vill. Ballah Tehsil, Asandh,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
(6) Mahavir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Diya Ji,
R/o House No. 118, Sector - 15,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
RC No. : DAI 2005 A 0063
u/Ss : 120B IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Date of Committal : 31.12.2007
Received by transfer on : 24.10.2011
Arguments Heard on : 15.12.2012
Date of Decision : 19.12.2012
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 3 of 95
4
Appearances:
Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. Roopansh Purohit, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT
1.0 Accused persons have been facing trial for the charge u/S 120B IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 in RC No. 63(A)/05 and for the charge u/Ss 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 in RC 64(A)/05.
FACTS RC No. 63(A)/05 1.1 During investigation in RC No. 51(A)/03DLI searches were conducted at the office of Accounts Officer (cash) MTNL, Eastern Court, Delhi in which number of paid bills were seized on 25/9/03 vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The seized bills were duly scrutinized and the work executed, as indicated in the bills were physically checked. The verification of the bills revealed that work executed as indicated in the following 20 bills as detailed below amounting to Rs. 53,39,192/ was not physically carried out. PW27 Inspr. C.K. Sharma, prepared the verification source information memo dtd. 22/11/05 Ex.PW27/A and made a complaint dtd. 29/11/05 Ex.PW27/B for the registration of case on the basis of which RCDAI2000 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 4 of 95 5 A0063 Ex.PW27/C was lodged on 30/11/05. The subject matter of the present case is the following 20 first and final bills:
S. Bill No. Work Amount Contractor
No. (Rs.)
1 EE(CM/NII/MTNL / Work of Repairing to damage 99,388/ M/s. Satya Construction
0203/10) roof at Generator room, cycle
stand and other works at TE
Building Tis Hazari
2 EE(CM/NII/ Work of M.S. Pedestal 99,978/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL /0203/04) Strings, Second Floor TE
Building Tis Hazari
3 EE(CM/NII / Work of M.S. Pedestal 99,440/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/03) Strings, Second Floor TE
Building Tis Hazari
4 EE(CM/NII/ Work of Civil/Enginering 3,07,400/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/61) work N.THD III TE Building
Tis Hazari
5 AE C1/MTNL/0203/04 Work of A/R EI M/o Bld. TE 77,753/ M/s. Satya
Building Tis Hazari Constructions
6 AE C1/MTNL/0203/08 Work of A/R EI M/o Bld. TE 77,966/ M/s. Satya
Building Tis Hazari Constructions
7 AE C1/MTNL/0203/05 Work of A/R EI M/o Bld. TE 78,000/ Pee Aar Builders
Building Tis Hazari
8 EE(CM/NII / Work of repair to damaged 3,01,989/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/51) toilet at TE building Tis
Hazari
9 EE (CM/NII/ Work of repair to damaged 3,10,400/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/53) tiles/PVC flooring at TE
Building Tis Hazari
10 EE (CM/N Work of repair to civil work 2,98,016/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/46) at TE Building Tis Hazari
11 EE (CM/NII/ Work at TE Building Tis 3,18,110/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/ related 49) Hazari
12 EE (CM/NII/ Work at TE Building Tis 3,04,977/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/67) Hazari
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 5 of 95
6
13 EE (CM/NII/ Work at TE Building Tis 3,50,672/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/71) Hazari
14 EE (CM/NII/ Repair to damage sewer line 3,25,666/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0203/64) at TE Building Tis Hazari
15 SE C II/EE CV/ Repair to damaged door, 3,11,884/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0304/11 flooring, rolling shutter etc.
at TE Building Tis Hazari
16 SE C II/EE CV/ Repair to false flooring at II 3,09,187/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
MTNL/0304/10 Floor IIIrd EWSD, TE
Building Tis Hazari
17 EE C V/MTNL/0203/30 Repair to damage of pipeline 5,76,569/ M/s. Satya tank and other work, TE Constructions Building Tis Hazari 18 EE C V/MTNL/0203/31 Repair of damaged flooring 3,57,136/ M/s. Satya near scooter stand parking at Constructions TE building Tis Hazari 19 SE C II/EE CV/ Repair of damaged ceramic 3,17,407/ M/s. Satya MTNL/0304/08 tile flooring at 1st and 2nd Constructions floor, TE Building, Tis Hazari 20 EE CV/ MTNL /0203/35 Repair of damaged flooring 4,17,254/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders at DGM Office at Old Bldg., TE Building Tis Hazari Allegedly, the above said bills have been prepared, passed and paid in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy amongst the public servants i.e XEN (Civil) RL Ghera, NS Dabas AE (Civil) MTNL Sub Division Tis Hazari, Anil Kumar JE (Civil), Sub Division Rohini, Hari Shankar Sharma , AO (Cash), Eastern Court, Prem Singh Mural Sub Division Clerk, Sub Division Rohini and contractors Sh. Mahavir Singh Proprietor M/s Pee Aar Builders and Sh. Pradeep Maan Proprietor M/s Satya Constructions during CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 6 of 95 7 the period 2001 to 2004. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. HS Sharma, AO (Cash) was not chargesheeted as the investigation revealed that Sh. HS Sharma was only to make provision of the funds and to make payments of the bills already passed by the Executive Engineer.
The first and final bills Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/T pertains to the SubDivision (Civil) located at MTNL Telephone Exchange, Tis Hazari, Delhi. During the relevant period Sh. NS Dabas was posted as AE (Civil) and Sh. RR Meena was posted as JE (Civil). The concerned Sub Division was in the jurisdiction of Sh. RL Ghera, XEN, Idgah Exchange. In the year 2005, the office of XEN, Idgah was merged with the newly set up office of XEN, Karkardooma and therefore, after registration of the case on 30/11/05, the searches were conducted in the office of XEN Karkardooma on 1/12/05. In such search, 15 agreements, 01 handing / taking over charge memo of Sh. Kailash Chander, EE, 01 MB No. 557 of CIV Division was recovered. The agreements included agreement No. EE/(CM)NII/MTNL/AGP/0203/03 & 04 and the concerned MB having bearing upon the investigation of this case were recovered. During the course of investigation the measurement books, agreement, work order, financial sanction with regard to the most of the above said bills were not found / made available and even AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena denied the execution of the work. The bills Ex.PW4/A to CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 7 of 95 8 Ex.PW4/T were prepared on the basis of 13 measurement books out of which only 02 measurement books were found during the investigation and the MTNL authorities despite repeated requests failed to produce the remaining measurements books on the pretext that the same were not traceable / available at their end. Since the measurement books were not available and the bills were not backed by the aforesaid documents i.e., agreement, work order, financial sanction etc., and therefore, the bills were apparently fake / forged. CBI has pleaded that since the registers maintained in the cash section indicate the movement of the measurement books and therefore, the existence of the same cannot be disputed.
The investigation revealed that bill 1 to 14 Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/N have been prepared by A4 Prem Singh Mural who was posted as Sub Divisional Clerk at the office of XEN, MTNL, Rohini. Sh. Prem Singh Mural prepared the bills despite the fact that he was not posted at the office of AE Tis Hazari or EE, MTNL, Idgah/Tis Hazari during the year 200203. Out of these 20 bills, 10 bills pertain to sanction dtd. 9/7/02 Ex.PW15/A regarding execution of civil work. The break up of sanction of Rs. 41,58,260/ can be segregated as follows:
1) partition and wall panelling work Rs. 16,11,756/
2) false / raised flooring work Rs.20,22,240/
3) false ceiling work Rs. 4,89,713/ CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 8 of 95 9 The work sanctioned as above was carried out at 2nd floor. The investigation revealed that the bills Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/T were signed by AE NS Dabas (since died) in token of test checking of work and by XEN RL Ghera (since died) in token of test checking of work and passing the same for payment. The bill were duly accompanied by extract of work duly authenticated by A2 NS Dabas. The payment of the following bills were made by cheque in favour of Satya Constructions and the same were received by Pradeep Maan and deposited in the account No. 802 of Satya Constructions maintained at Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Bill Sl. No. Cheque No. and date Amount Exhibit 1 to 3 562282 dtd. 10/1/03 Rs. 4,67,452/ Ex.PW4/A to C 4 618735 dtd. 22/3/03 Rs. 7,88,817/ Ex.PW4/D 5 & 6 413568 dtd. 8/7/02 Rs. 4,13,568/ Ex.PW4/E & F 17 & 18 702082 dtd. 30/6/03 Rs.21,35,306/ Ex.PW4/Q & R 19 702295 dtd. 17/7/03 Rs. 5,30,666/ Ex.PW4/S Similarly, the payment of the following bills pertaining to Pee Aar Builders were made by cheque and the same were also received by Pradeep Maan and deposited in A/c No. 1119 of M/s Pee Aar Builders maintained at Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd. Accused Mahavir Singh, proprietor M/s Pee Aar Builders upon credit of the funds in the account in turn issued cheques for approximately the same amount in favour of Satya CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 9 of 95 10 Constructions which were credited in the account of the said company.
Bill Sl. No. Cheque No. and date Amount Exhibit 7 413569 dtd. 08/7/02 Rs. 4,71,775/ Ex.PW4/G 8 to 11 618595 dtd. 07/3/03 Rs.10,62,201/, Ex.PW4/H to K 12 & 13 618707 dtd.21/3/03 Rs.11,28,193/ ,Ex.PW4/L & M 14 618736 dtd. 24/3/03 Rs. 8,66,278/ Ex.PW4/N 15 & 16 702296 dtd. 17/7/03 Rs. 6,40,882/ Ex.PW4/O & P Bank voucher No. 565 dtd. Rs. 3,60,013/ Ex.PW4/T 20 30/6/03 The investigation revealed that in respect of bill at S. No. 8, 10, 14 pertaining to the installation of water tanks, the inspection was conducted on 8/12/05 in which 03 water tanks were found installed on the roof of new building Tis Hazari and 05 water tanks of different capacity were found installed at old building, Tis Hazari regarding which a memo dtd. 8/12/05 was prepared. The physical inspection revealed that though the water tanks were found installed but the same was not installed during the period of execution of work covered by the bills and therefore, the payment was made against the fake / forged document. Inspt. DD Sharma PW30 carried out inspection of 17 sites relating to remaining 17 bills on 19.12.06 to verify the work executed by the contractors in the presence of PW29 Inspt. Prem Nath, PW25 Sh. Ramroop Meena, PW17 Rakesh Dutt, PW16 Sh. VK Tyagi, PW15 Brijesh Kumar Yadav, PW10 Sh. Alok Mittal, PW9 Sh. Rakesh Kumar CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 10 of 95 11 Mittal, PW8 Sh. SK Shukla and PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma. Inspt. DD Sharma also carried out inspection in respect of the above said 03 bills No. 8, 10, and 14 on 20/12/06 and prepared the inspection memo. The physical inspection conducted during the investigation revealed as follows:
1) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/10) Ex.PW4/A.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Repair of damage of roof at Generator Room,
Cycle stand and other works at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena denied knowledge of any such work.
Sh. Pradeep Maan, Contractor stated that he had executed this work but later on ½ portion of AC sheet roof of cycle stand was dismantled and converted into permanent building. However, electrical staff posted there informed that Generator shed was constructed through Electrical Wing during 2004.
(d) Documents: The administrative approval / financial concurrence attached with the bill was not in respect of the aforesaid work The bill was accompanied with test check statement signed by XEN RL CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 11 of 95 12 Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Pradeep Maan.
2) Bill No. :
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/04) Ex.PW4/B.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : MS Pedestal Strings, 2nd Floor, TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that this work was got executed by them during the second half of the year 2004 through approx. 1520 different agreements and AE NS Dabas also denied his signatures on the bills. It was also found that agreement was with M/s PVC Partition Enterprises whereas the bill was made to M/s Satya Constructions.
(d) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Pradeep Maan.
3) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/03) Ex.PW4/C.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : MS Pedestal Strings, 2nd Floor, TE Building, Tis
Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 12 of 95
13
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena denied execution of any such work. The agreement related to this bill did not tally with the work executed.
Besides, the fact that the agreement was with M/s PVC Partition Enterprises.
(d) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Pradeep Maan.
4) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/61) Ex.PW4/D.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Civil / Engineering work N. THD III, TE Building,
Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work has been carried out at Tis Hazari TE and AE NS Dabas denied having signed the bill.
(d) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Pradeep Maan.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 13 of 95 14 5) Bill No. : AE C1/MTNL/0203/04) Ex.PW4/E. (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : A/R El M/o Bld., TE building, Tis Hazari. (c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06 :
MB No. 559 related to this work did not indicate location of work and measurement recorded was also not signed by the JE who recorded the measurements. Similarly, as per MB, item No. 3 regarding demolition of the chequerred tiles and item No. 2 i.e. new chequerred tiles was measured at one and the same time which is not possible in view of the execution process of these items. Sh. RR Meena, JE, expressed ignorance about the execution of work and stated that MB was not recorded by him. Similarly, Sh. VK Tyagi, PW16 Caretaker who was posted since 1996 stated that no such work was executed. The work detailed in the bill register was found different. JE Anil Kumar who was posted in the Rohini Division of MTNL unauthorisedly recorded measurements in the MB.
(d) Documents:The administrative approval / financial concurrence for the work was not found attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, JE Anil Kumar, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Pradeep Maan.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 14 of 95 15 6) Bill No. : AE C1/MTNL/0203/08) Ex.PW4/F. (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : A/R El M/o Bld., TE Building, Tis Hazari. (c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
In MB No. 557, location of the work was not found recorded and Sh. RR Meena JE informed that original work of false flooring at 1st and 2nd floor was executed in the month of September, 2002 whereas, the repair work as shown to be executed in the bill was carried out in the month of June 2002.
(d) Documents: The bill was not backed by the administrative approval / financial concurrence and JE Anil Kumar had unauthorisedly recorded the MB whereas he was not concerned with the work executed at Tis Hazari.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural, JE Anil Kumar and contractor Pradeep Maan.
7) Bill No.
:
AE CI/MTNL/0203/05) Ex.PW4/G.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Annual Repairing Electrical Maintenance and
others at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 15 of 95
16
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
The bill was raised with regard to repair of damaged false flooring. The test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bear the signatures of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas. The entries in MB No. 559 related to this work at page 81 to 88, Sh. NS Dabas AE stated that he had test checked the item No. 2 (sun controlled film), item No. 3 (providing & fixing venetian blinds) & item No. 5 (dismantling tile work). The measurement test checked by him were not verifiable as the exact location for the same was not recorded in the MB. The measurement for item No. 2 & 3 shown by AE NS Dabas were not matching / tallying with the measurement recorded in the MB. AE NS Dabas stated that the test check was done without physical verification at site and the venetian blinds were not executed in this building and were provided in the residence of Sr. Officers of MTNL. JE RR Meena stated that neither the measurement nor abstract of this bill was recorded / made by him.
(d) Documents: The administrative approval / financial concurrence for the above work does not tally with the said work and JE Anil Kumar had unauthorisedly made entries in the MB though he was not concerned with the work executed at Tis Hazari.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural, JE Anil Kumar and contractor Mahavir Singh.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 16 of 95 17 8) Bill No. : EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/51) Ex.PW4/H. (a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders (b) Work : Repair to damaged toilet at TE Building, Tis Hazari. (c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. The administrative approval / financial concurrence does not tally with the said work.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural, JE Anil Kumar and contractor Mahavir Singh.
9) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/53) Ex.PW4/I.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged tiles / PVC Flooring at TE
Building, Tis Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 17 of 95
18
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
Bill and deviation statement signed by AE NS Dabas and XEN RL Ghera. AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh.
10) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/46) Ex.PW4/J.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to Civil work at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. The administrative approval / financial concurrence not attached with the bill.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 18 of 95 19 (e) Persons involved: AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh. 11) Bill No. : EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/49) Ex.PW4/K. (a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders (b) Work : Civil Engineering Work at TE Building, Tis Hazari. (c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas. Bill in the handwriting of Prem Singh.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 19 of 95 20 12) Bill No. : EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/67) Ex.PW4/L. (a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders (b) Work : Civil Engineering Work at TE Building, Tis Hazari. (c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh.
13) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/71) Ex.PW4/M.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Misc. finishing work at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 20 of 95 21 carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh.
14) Bill No.
:
EE(CM/NII/MTNL/0203/64) Ex.PW4/N.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damage sewer line at TE Building, Tis
Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 21 of 95 22 (e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, Sub Divisional
Clerk Prem Singh Mural and contractor Mahavir Singh.
15) Bill No.
:
SE CII/EE CV/MTNL/0304/11) Ex.PW4/O.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged door, flooring, rolling shutter
etc at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06 :
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that the work was not executed. Test check certificates, abstract of work and deviation statements bear signatures of AE NS Dabas and XEN RL Ghera. Sh. BK Yadav, SE stated that he had not approved the work as indicated by this bill.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. The financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas and contractor Mahavir Singh.
16) Bill No.
:
SE CII/EE CV/MTNL/0304/10 Ex.PW4/P.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to false flooring at 2nd floor IIIrd EWSD,
TE Building, Tis Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 22 of 95
23
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06 :
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work and deviation statement bear signatures of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas. Sh. BK Yada, SE (civil) stated that he had not approved the work order as indicated by this bill.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas and contractor Mahavir Singh.
17) Bill No.
:
EE CV/MTNL/0203/30) Ex.PW4/Q.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions.
(b) Work : Repair to damage of pipeline, tank and other work
at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06 :
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates, abstract of work and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 23 of 95 24 (d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work
order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, and contractor Pradeep Maan.
18) Bill No.
:
EE CV/MTNL/0203/31) Ex.PW4/R.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Repair of damaged flooring near scooter stand
parking at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, and contractor Pradeep Maan.
19) Bill No.
:
SE CII/EE CV/MTNL/0304/08) Ex.PW4/S.
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Repair of damaged ceramic tile flooring at 1st and
2nd floor, at TE Building, Tis Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 24 of 95
25
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building. Test check certificates and the deviation statement bears the signature of XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas. AE NS Dabas had signed the abstract of work. SE BK Yadav stated that he had not approved the work order as indicated by the bill.
(d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order and financial approval letter not attached with the bill.
(e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas and contractor Pradeep Maan.
20) Bill No.
:
EE CV/MTNL/0203/35) Ex.PW4/T.
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair of damaged flooring at DGM office at old
Bldg., TE Building, Tis Hazari.
(c) Result of physical inspection dtd. 19/12/06:
AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena stated that no such work was carried out at Tis Hazari TE Building.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 25 of 95 26 (d) Documents: MB related to this work was not available. Work order not attached with the bill. (e) Persons involved: XEN RL Ghera, AE NS Dabas, and contractor Mahavir Singh.
The investigation revealed that page No. 38 to 41 of MB No. 557 and page No. 76 to 86 of MB No. 559 was recorded by JE Anil Kumar (A4), MTNL, Rohini unauthorisedly. The physical inspection revealed that no such work as recorded by JE Anil Kumar was actually executed. The investigation could not ascertain the author of the remaining part of the MB No. 557 and 559 (other than recorded by JE Anil Kumar) which also indicate of it being fake / forged in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. JE Anil Kumar also signed these bills in token of its test check whereas as per concerned JE / AE no such work was executed.
During the course of investigation, only 02 related agreements were recovered and the work executed as reflected in the bills did not tally with the agreements. During physical inspection, the work was verified in absence of measurement book on the basis of the details of the work mentioned in the bills.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 26 of 95 27 FACTS RC No. 64(A)/05 1.2 During investigation, in RC No. 51(A)/03, certain bills were
seized from the office of Accounts Officer Cash (MTNL). The investigation revealed that work shown to have been executed against the said paid bills were actually not executed but fraudulent payment to the tune of Rs. 50,81,582/ had been made to the contractors M/s. Satya Constructions and M/s. Pee Aar Builders. The MTNL officials entered into the conspiracy with the contractors. The MTNL officials even did not prepare the measurement books and therefore the same i.e. MBs were not available for examination.
1.3 The subject matter of the present case are 21 bills which are as
follows :
S. Bill No. Work Amount Contractor
No. (Rs.)
1 EE(M)/NII/MTNL / A/o & M/o TE Building, 99,599/ M/s. Satya Construction
0203/07) Idgah (repair to damaged
compound)
2 EE(M)/NII/ A/o & M/o TE Building, 99,975/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL /0203/08) Idgah (repair to lift portion)
3 EE(M)/NII / A/o & M/o TE Building, 99,676/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/09) Idgah (Misc. Civil/ work)
4 EE(M)/NII/ Repair to damaged lift 2,98,854/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/55) portion at TE Buldg., Idgah.
5 EE(M)/NII/ Repair to damaged gate 3,19,769/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/45) portion at TE Buldg., Idgah.
6 EE(M)/NII/ A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 2,93,365/ M/s. Satya Construction
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 27 of 95
28
MTNL/0203/50) Idgah repair to damaged
solting station.
7 EE(M)/NII/ Repair to damaged 3,02,587/ M/s Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/047) compound flooring at TE
Bldg., Idgah.
8 EE(M)/NII/ Repair to damaged toilet & 3,15,217/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/72) other Misc. Civil works at TE
Bldg., Idgah.
9 EE(M)/NII/ Treatment to cable chamber 3,12,867/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/063) for prevention of water
leakage at TE Bldg., Idgah
10 EE(M)/NII/ A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 2,93,431/ M/s. Satya Construction
MTNL/0203/066) Idgah. Misc. Finishing work
11 AE/C1/MTNL/0203/01 A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 77,009/ M/s. Satya Construction
Idgah. Repair to damange
W/Tank.
12 AE/C1/MTNL/0203/13 A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 77,729/ M/s. Satya Construction
Idgah. (SH: Misc. Al works).
13 AE/C1/MTNL/0203/10 A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 78,035/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
Idgah. Repair to toilet.
14 AE/C1/MTNL/0203/09 A/R & M/o to TE Bldg., 77,152/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
Idgah. Repair to damange
ceramic tiles.
15 EE(CM)N A/R & M/o TE Bldg., Idgah, 99,965/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/02 repair to damaged sheet &
other work.
16 EE(CM)N A/R & M/o TE Bldg., Idgah, 3,28,024/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/69 repair to damage B/wall,
Palaster & other works.
17 EE(CM)N Repair to damaged tank & 3,24,824/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/73 other civil work at TE, Idgah,
SH: Misc. finishing works.
18 EE(CM)N A/R & M/o TE Bldg., Idgah, 3,27,020/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/62 Prevention of leakage at roof.
19 EE(CM)N Rennovation of CSC at TE, 4,60,984/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
II/MTNL/0203/39 Bldg., Idgah SH: Repair to
flooring & other works.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 28 of 95
29
20 EE (C)II /MTNL / A/R & M/o TE Bldg., Idgah, 3,99,369/ M/s. Pee Aar Builders
0203/36 repair to damage Kota stone
flooring.
21 EE(C)II/MTNL/ A/R & M/o TE Bldg., Idgah, 3,96,171/ M/s Pee Aar Builders
0203/41 repair to damage AC GJ sheet
roofs & other works.
The investigation revealed that the aforesaid bills were prepared by A4 Prem Singh Mural Sub Division Clerk prepared the bills and A3 Anil Kumar JE, A2 NS Dabas and A1 RL Ghera, the then Executive Engineer signed the bills in token of execution of said works. The bills were sanctioned by RL Ghera who was the then Executive Engineer.
The investigation revealed that Late Sh. RL Ghera was working as Executive Engineer MTNL (Civil), Idgah Division, Idgah. Late Sh. NS Dabas was posted as AE at Idgah Subdivision alongwith RR Meena JE. A3 Anil Kumar was posted as JE at Shakti Nagar, SubDivision of MTNL under Rohini Division. The Idgah Division and Shakti Nagar SubDivisions of MTNL were under the Rohini Division. The work shown to have been executed in the abovesaid bills pertains to the period June 2002 to April 2003. As per chargesheet, the process for carrying out the civil work may be summarised as that initially the Client department submits requisition mentioning the work to be executed. Based upon the said requisition, a preliminary/detailed detailed estimate is prepared by the competent authority that is AE upto Rs. 60,000/ and EE from Rs. 60,001/ to Rs. 6 lakhs and CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 29 of 95 30 above Rs. 6 lakhs by the Supdt. Engineer. The investigation revealed that in respect of all the bills, Late Sh. RL Ghera, the then Executive Engineer was the competent authority.
During the course of investigation, concerned tender/contract file having the requisition of Client department, preliminary/detailed estimates, processing for notice inviting tender, work orders and other concerned registers like tender opening register were not found available with the department. Similarly, the comparative statement, justification of rates, Agreement, Award letter, payment details etc. could not be made available during the investigation. No record was made available despite request. These documents were also not found in the search made by the CBI. During search also, no document could be found except 3 MBs, i.e. MB No. MTNL/EE/IV/562 concerning work at Sl. No.11 regarding repair of water tank, MB No. MTNL/EE/IV/563 concerning work at Sl. No. 14 regarding repair of damaged ceramic tiles and MB No. MTNL/EE/CM/N II/01 concerning work at Sl. No. 7 and 12 regarding repair of damaged compound flooring and in miscellaneous aluminum work respectively.
In order to ascertain whether the work /subject matter of the above said bills were actually executed or not, physical inspection of the sites was conducted by the CBI officials alongwith technical staff on 01.08.2006 and 03.08.2006 at the places where the said works had purportedly been CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 30 of 95 31 executed. The inspection revealed except the work mentioned at sl. no.11, no other work was found to have been executed. The MBs were supposed to be in the custody of AE NS Dabas (since died) were not found nor were explained satisfactorily. The MB No. 2,3,4,5,21,22,24,27,48,51,52, and 53 relating to the abovesaid bills were not made available. As discussed above, 3 MBs No. 1, 562 and 563 were found. The MB No.1 pertains to repair to damaged compound flooring at Telephone Exchange building, Idgah relating to bill no.7 of abovesaid charge and the work listed at Sl. No.12, the entries in MB No.1 were made by A3 JE Anil Kumar, whereas he was not posted at Idgah Sub division as per record, this MB was issued by late Sh. RL Ghera to AE NS Dabas on 16.05.2002. Similarly, in MB no. 563 regarding the execution of A/R and M/o, TE Building Idgah to repair the damaged ceramic tiles, the entries were made by Sh. Anil Kumar (A3) JE. However, no such work was found to have been executed. The investigation also revealed that A4 PS Mural prepared the bills whereas he was posted at Idgah Sub Division. The investigation revealed that the time of conducting pre checking of bills, members of prechecking team had received the bills alongwith measurement books, photocopy of Agreements, schedule of rates, test check statement and deviation statement and after finding the said documents in order, the bills were cleared.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 31 of 95 32 1) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/07 Ex.PW6/D2 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to damaged compound at TE Building, Idgah (c) Result of physical inspection : No work was found to be executed. 2) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/08 Ex.PW6/D3 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to lift portion at TE Building, Idgah (c) Result of physical inspection :
In respect of item No. 1, the complete left portion i.e. passenger as well goods lift were inspected from ground floor to 5th floor and no such granite stone was found except on 5th floor of passenger lift, where only 13.75 sqm granite stone on lift portion was found which was fixed prior to joining of JE RR Meena i.e. before 16/5/02 and in respect of item No. 3, no work was found to be executed.
3) Bill No.
:
EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/09 Ex. PW6/D4
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Miscellaneous civil / work at TE Building, Idgah
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 32 of 95
33
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed in respect of item No. 1 & 3 and 5 to 11. In respect of item No. 2, complete area was inspected where glazed screen printed tiles work executed, no such type of work was found to be executed through this work order. In respect of item No. 4, all the places were inspected where wash basins were installed, however, no such type of item was found to be executed through this work order in TE Building, Idgah. Also this was complete item of P/F wash basin with bracket which was not a A/R & MO work.
4) Bill No.
:
EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/55 Ex.PW6/D5
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Repair to damaged lift portion at TE Building,
Idgah.
(c) Result of physical inspection :
In respect of item No. 1, complete left portion i.e. passenger as well goods lift were inspected from ground floor to 5th floor and no such granite stone was found except on 5th floor of passenger lift where only 13.75 sqm granite stone on lift portion was found which was fixed before 16/5/02 and in respect of item No. 2, no work was found to be executed.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 33 of 95 34 5) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/45 Ex.PW6/D6 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to damaged gate and iron grill at TE Building, Idgah (c) Result of physical inspection : No work was found to be executed. 6) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/50 Ex.PW6/D7 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to damaged rolling shutter and other works at TE Building, Idgah. (c) Result of physical inspection : No work was found to be executed. 7) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/047 Ex.PW6/D8 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to damaged compound flooring at TE Building, Idgah (c) Result of physical inspection : No work was found to be executed. CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 34 of 95 35 8) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/72 Ex.PW6/D9 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Repair to damaged toilet and other miscellaneous work at TE Building, Idgah (c) Result of physical inspection : No work was found to be executed. 9) Bill No. : EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/63 Ex.PW6/D10 (a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions (b) Work : Treatment to cable chamber for prevention of water
leakage and other civil work at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
10) Bill No.
:
EE/(M)/NII/MTNL/0203/66 Ex.PW6/D11
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Miscellaneous finishing work at TE Building,
Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 35 of 95
36
11) Bill No.
:
AE/C1/MTNL/0203/01 Ex.PW13/D
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Repair to damage W/tank at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
Except the installation of polyenthylene water storage tank with cover and suitable locking arrangement and necessary holes for inlet and outlet and overflow pipes, but without fittings and the base support for tank of 1000 ltr capacity, no other work as mentioned in the first and final bill Ex.PW13/D relating to agreement No. AE/C1/MTNL/0203/01 was found to be executed. As per inspection report Ex.PW12/B, in respect of work order No. AE/C1/MTNL/0203/01:
1) in respect of item No. 1, one 10000 ltr capacity water tank was found installed.
2) In respect of item No. 2 to 5 item could not be located since location was not defined in the MB.
3) In respect of item No. 6, the same was not verifiable.
12) Bill No.
:
AE/C1/MTNL/0203/13 Ex.PW6/D12
(a) Contractor : M/s Satya Constructions
(b) Work : Miscellaneous A1 works at TE Building, Idgah
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 36 of 95
37
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
13) Bill No.
:
AE/C1/MTNL/0203/10 Ex.PW6/D13
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to toilet at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
14) Bill No.
:
AE/C1/MTNL/0203/09 Ex.PW6/D14
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged ceramic tile at TE Building,
Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
15) Bill No.
:
EE/(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203/02 Ex.PW6/D15
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged sheet and other works at TE
Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 37 of 95
38
16) Bill No.
:
EE/(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203/69 Ex.PW6/D16
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged B/wall, plaster and other works
at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
17) Bill No.
:
EE/(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203/73 Ex.PW6/D17
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged tank and other civil works at
TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
18) Bill No.
:
EE/(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203/62 Ex.PW6/D18
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Prevention of leakaged roof at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 38 of 95
39
19) Bill No.
:
EE/(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203/39 Ex.PW6/D19
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Rennovation of CSC i.e., repair to flooring and
other works at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
20) Bill No.
:
EE/(C)II/MTNL/0203/36 Ex.PW6/D20
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged Kota stone flooring at TE
Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
21) Bill No.
:
EE/(C)II/MTNL/0203/41 Ex.PW6/D21
(a) Contractor : M/s Pee Aar Builders
(b) Work : Repair to damaged AC GJ sheet roofs and other
works at TE Building, Idgah
(c) Result of physical inspection :
No work was found to be executed.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 39 of 95
40
As per the chargesheet the role of the accused persons were as follows:
1) Late Sh. RL Ghera, Executive Engineer, MTNL :
During the period April 2002 to Sept., 2003, he passed all the bills amounting to Rs. 53,39,192/ and Rs. 43,39,029/ in RC No. 63(A)/05 & RC No. 64(A)/05 respectively, for payment under his signatures. JE RR Meena, AE NS Dabas and others during inspection denied execution of most of the related works, besides the fact that the 14 fake / forged bills were prepared by Prem Singh Mural who was not concerned with the same. The measurements and amounts as recorded in the two MBs recovered covering 03 bills were found in the hand of JE Anil Kumar who was not concerned with the same. RL Ghera also signed the bills in token of its test check, even though the work was not executed as per the concerned JE/AE. The work executed as per the related bills did not tally with those as per the agreements. The GEQD gave positive opinion regarding the signatures of RL Ghera on the bills and its enclosures. During inspection, XEN RL Ghera plea that in the absence of MBs, the work cannot be verified is not maintainable as the details of the works executed have been mentioned on the bills.
Significantly, the exact location of the site of execution of the work has not been mentioned willfully and purposely as the related work was not executed and therefore, the requisite documents were not prepared / executed by the CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 40 of 95 41 concerned JE / SDC.
2) Late Sh. NS Dabas, AE (C), MTNL:
Late Sh. NS Dabas was posted as AE (Civil) Div/ Sub. Div. of Tis Hazari MTNL and during the period May 2002 to January 2005 signed all the bills amounting to Rs. 53,39,192/ and Rs. 43,39,029/ in RC No. 63(A)/05 & RC No. 64(A)/05 respectively, which were dealt by the account / cash department believing the same to have been signed by him. Late Sh NS Dabas signed the Test check statement and abstract of works of each work. He also signed some deviation statements. MB No. 557 and 559 also bears his signatures. As per NS Dabas also, these works were not carried out and if carried out, he carried out test check without visiting the spot. All these acts on his part speak of his involvement in commission of the offences and in pursuance of a conspiracy with the contractors concerned and others. Though Sh. RL Ghera and Sh. NS Dabas have since expired, however, since charge of conspiracy is also there, the facts relating to all the accused have been discussed.
3) Sh. Anil Kumar JE, Rohini, MTNL:
JE Anil Kumar though was not posted at the office of MTNL, Idgah / Tis Hazari Delhi during the period 200203 unauthorisedly recorded measurements and amounts in MB No. 557 (pages 38 to 41) and MB No. 559 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 41 of 95 42 (paged 76 to 86). His handwriting was identified by JE RR Meena. Entries in the MBs were in token of measurement of the work executed, whereas the related work was not executed as revealed during investigation and, therefore, there was no reason for JE Anil Kumar to make these fake / forged entries in the MBs. The GEQD has confirmed the writing of JE Anil Kumar in the MBs. The scrutiny of MB No. 01 reveals that JE Anil Kumar made entries whereas he was not posted in Idgah Sub Division.
4) Sh. Prem Singh Mural, Sub Divisional Clerk:
Sh. Prem Singh Mural was posted as Sub Div. Clerk, MTNL, TE Rohini and was not posted as Sub Div. Clerk , MTNL, TE Tis Hazari during the relevant period 200203 and yet he prepared fake / forged 14 bills out of 20 bills and the corrected records relating there to falsely purport to be pertaining to works executed at MTNL, TE Building, Tis Hazari. The GEQD has confirmed his writings.
5) Sh. Pradeep Maan, Prop. Of Satya Constructions:
Sh. Pradeep Maan received payments against the bills without any work having been executed through cheques and deposited these cheques in current account No. 802 maintained at Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rohini and lateron withdrew the same from current account. Account opening form, specimen signature card and statement of accounts of the said CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 42 of 95 43 account prove that Pradeep Maan had opened and operated account No. 802 in the name of M/s Satya Constructions.
6) Sh. Mahavir Singh, Prop. Of M/s Pee Aar Builders :
Sh. Mahavir Singh received payments of bills without work having been executed through cheques and the same were deposited in current account No. 1119 of the company maintained at Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rohini and he lateron transferred the said amount from current account No. 1119 of M/s Pee Aar Builders to current A/c No. 802 of M/s Satya Constructions. Account opening form, specimen signature card and statement of accounts of the said account prove that Mahavir Singh had opened and operated account No. 1119 in the name of M/s Pee Aar Builders. Therefore, he is a party to fraudulently obtaining of the funds from MTNL in respect of the work which was not executed in view of the aforegoing facts and circumstances.
The competent authority granted sanction for prosecution u/S 19 of PC Act, 1988 against serving public servants i.e., AE NS Dabas, JE Anil Kumar and Section Supervisor Prem Singh Mural.
After detailed investigation, the chargesheet in RC No. 63(A)/05 was filed on 31/3/08 and in RC No. 64(A)/05 on 31/12/05 u/Ss 120B r/w 420 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 43 of 95 44 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and u/S 120B IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CHARGE 2.0 Being a prima facie case, charge u/S 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec.
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 was made out against accused persons in RC No. 63(A)/05 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Being a prima facie case, charge u/S 120B IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 was made out against accused persons in RC No. 64(A)/05 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE IN RC No. 63(A)/05 3.0 Prosecution examined 30 witnesses to prove the charge framed against the accused persons in RC No. 63(A)/05.
(A) Prosecution witnesses regarding procedure:
3.1 In respect of the procedure the prosecution examined PW14 Sh. SC Vijay. Sh. SC Vijay had been in the position of Chief Engineer in March 2007. Sh. SC Vijay stated that the provisions contained in paragraphs 10.2.7 to 10.2.11 of the CPWD Accounts Code are applicable to MTNL and in addition to that, the CPWD Works Manual 2003 is also applicable. In addition thereto, Accounts Department also issued instructions from time to CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 44 of 95 45 time. Sh. SC Vijay stated that accounts officer of the department were authorised to issue MBs duly numbered and as regards procurement maintenance and custody of measurement books, instructions are issued by the department from time to time and the general instructions are printed in the measurement books itself. Sh. SC Vijay stated that accounts officer of the department were authorised to issue MBs duly numbered to the relevant divisions and the relevant divisions are then the custodian of the measurement books. The movement of the measurement books are recorded in the measurement book movement register by the staff of the concerned division. If there is any loss of MB, then the matter is reported to the police.
In respect of the tender process the witness stated that for any project work, requisition is placed by the respective telecom department, then the estimate is prepared and submitted, on that basis, sanctions are issued by the competent telecom authorities. The project work is usually done on the basis of a single consolidated estimate of the concerned Engineer who would accord technical sanction according to his financial powers. First the work is assessed and the tenders are invited by the delegated officers and are awarded within the delegated powers. The issuance of the tenders are given publicity and the same are invited on particular date and duly processed by the competent persons to whom the CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 45 of 95 46 powers are delegated, depending upon the amount of the work. Upon the work being awarded on acceptance of tender, an agreement is drawn up with the contractor.
Sh. SC Vijay stated that generally splitting is not permitted, however depending upon the trade of work, the same is possible under sub head. However, splitting up of the estimate for the purpose of obtaining administrative approval and expenditure sanction is not permitted under the rules. He stated that after the execution of the work JE/AE concerned with the work record the measurements and prepare the bill according to the agreement conditions and thereafter, test checks are carried out as per the delegated powers. Then the bill is passed by the X'en and passed on to the Pay and Accounts Unit of the Division. After the bill is passed and finally paid, the measurement books are returned to the concerned JE /AE of the department. In the cross examination, the witness stated that Accounts Unit tracks the details of the payment made to the contractors. He also stated that MTNL has introduced a centralized Financial Monitoring System to monitor all the steps starting from the grant of administrative sanction and expenditure sanction till the final payment is made. The witness admitted that Accounts Officer sends a monthly report to X'en /SE regarding all the payments made during that particular month.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 46 of 95 47 3.2 PW7 Sh. HK Bansal remained Supdt. Engineer for the period
2000 to 2005 in MTNL. He stated that he has no knowledge regarding the bills being maintained and prepared as the same are prepared in the office of Assistant Engineer on the basis of abstract prepared by JE and then forwarded to XEN. The bills are never received / sent to the level of SE. The witness identified the office memorandum dtd. 5/3/04 Ex.PW7/A having been issued under his signatures. Sh. HK Bansal, also stated that in the first few pages of measurement book, some instructions are printed, which are according to the CPWD Works Manual and Accounts Code and those instructions are to be followed regarding the procurement, maintenance and transmission of measurement books. In the cross examination, the witness stated that as per CPWD Work Procedure after the bills are passed and paid, the MB's go back to the same JE through AE, who had prepared the abstract. However, the witness stated that he is not aware that actually this practice is being followed or not in the MTNL.
3.3 PW20 Sh. Raghubir Singh proved the letter Ex.PW2/A dtd. 27.05.2004 regarding revalidation of civil work by different contractors. This document finds the name of Sh. Mahavir Singh, Proprietor of Pee Aar Builders for the period of 5 years from 30/10/01, implies that Sh. Mahavir Singh, Proprietor M/s Pee Aar Builders was an enlisted contractor for MTNL during this period.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 47 of 95 48 3.4 Sh. Rajender Mathur PW2 had produced the office memo
No. CE (BW) MTNL/1(58)2004/706572, dated 532004 and Nabhi's compilation of CPWD Accounts Code, CPWD Works Manual - 2003 and Photocopies of Manual issued with title "Delegation of Financial Powers of Officers of MTNL, Delhi". In regard to the procedure in cross examination Sh. Rajender Mathur stated that MB Movement Register is maintained and kept at SubDivisional Office of the area as well as Divisional Office as the custodian of the MB Movement Register is Executive Engineer of the particular division. The witness stated that if MB Movement Register remains untraceable then a lookout / search notice is issued by the XEN of the concerned division and even if it remains untraceable the department makes a new MB Movement Register at his and own will. Sh. Rajender Mathur stated that FIR is registered in case the measurement book is lost. However, he was not aware whether any FIR was registered in connection with the MB of the present case. The witness stated that it is the duty of the XEN to make a complaint for registration of FIR in respect of lost MB. (B) Prosecution Witnesses regarding Bank transactions to Private Contractors:
3.5 PW1 Sh. Mohinder Singh, an official from Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd., New Delhi handed over the bank statement of current A/c No. CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 48 of 95 49 1119 of M/s Pee Aar Builders and bank statement of current A/c No. 802 of M/s Satya Constructions, proprietor Sh. Pradeep Maan. He also handed over photocopy of account opening card of M/s Satya Constructions and M/s Pee Aar Builders. The bank statement of current A/c No. 802 of M/s Satya Constructions for the period 4/6/02 to 30/6/03 Ex.PW2/B1 to B42 were handed over and seized vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Cheque No.413568 of Rs.471775/ and cheque no. 56282 of Rs.467452/ were credited in the account no. 802 of M/s Satya Construction. The witness stated that as per the statement of account :
Cheque No. Amount 413569 Rs.398274/ 618595 Rs.1062201/, 618707 Rs.1128193/ 618736 Rs.866278/ 702296 Rs.640882/
were issued from the account of M/s Satya Construction in favour of M/s Pee Aar Builders proprietor Sh Mahavir Singh and the same were credited in the current account no. 1119 of M/s Pee Aar Builders Prop. Sh.
Mahavir Singh.
3.6 PW13 Sh. Divya Kumar an officer from State Bank of India, CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 49 of 95 50
Main Branch, Commercial Division, New Delhi handed over cheques Ex. PW3/A, PW3/B, PW3/C and PW3/C1 to C7 to the CBI which was seized vide production cum seizure memo dtd. 26/2/07 Ex.PW13/A. 3.7 PW19 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Rama Market, Pitam Pura, Delhi proved the statement of current A/c No. 01050060186 in respect of M/s Satya Constructions, Proprietor Pradeep Mann Ex.PW19/B in which vide relevant entry Ex.PW19/B1 and amount of Rs. 7,88,817/ was deposited in the said current A/c on 25/2/07 by cheque. 3.8 PW24 Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Branch Manager, Kangra Co operative Bank Ltd., handed over certain documents which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/A on 15/5/07. He also identified letter dtd. 14.05.2007 Ex.PW24/B pursuant to which the copies of cheque Ex.PW 24/C1 to C11 were handed over.
3.9 PW26 Sh. Sanjay Katoch, Branch Manager Kangra Co operative Bank Ltd., produced details of 12 cheuqes Ex.PW26/B1 to B11 alongwith the letter Ex.PW26/A. The 12 cheques Ex.PW26/C1 to C12 were also duly identified. The statement of A/c No. 1119 of M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW26/E1 to E8 and statement of account Ex.PW26/F of account no. 802 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 50 of 95 51 of Satya Constructions were also handed over. The witness stated that as per statement of account, the following amounts were credited in current A/c No. 802 of M/s Satya Constructions:
Date Amount Exhibit 15.07.2002 Rs. 4,71,775 Ex. PW26/G. 10.03.2003 Rs. 10,61,000/ Ex. PW26/H. 26.03.2003 Rs. 18,15,000/ Ex. PW26/J. (C) Prosecution witnesses regarding Sanction: 3.10 Sh. Kuldeep Singh PW11, the then Director (Technical),
MTNL Corporate Office accorded the sanction for prosecution Ex.PW11/A against NS Dabas (since died). He had also accorded the sanction dtd. 28/3/08 Ex.PW11/B against Anil Kumar. Sh. Kuldeep Singh stated that he granted sanction order after perusal of the materials placed before him for his consideration. The sanction was accorded after studying the same and with application of mind. Sh. Kuldeep Singh specifically stated that he was the competent authority to remove the said officers. In the cross examination, Sh. Kuldeep Singh stated that it was not in his knowledge that whether any internal enquiry was conducted by MTNL to ascertain the nonexecution of the work alleged in the present case. He admitted that in MTNL, every year internal audit and statutory audit is conducted. The witness admitted that CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 51 of 95 52 some of the items / work subject matter of the case were non verifiable like repair of bathroom/leakage etc. The witness also admitted to have not ascertained the monetary loss suffered by MTNL in this case. The witness voluntarily stated that he had seen the bills against which the payments were made and those bills were alleged to be fake.
3.11 PW18 Sh. Raj Kumar, Chief Engineer (Building Works) MTNL, proved the sanction for prosecution against Sh. Prem Singh Mural, Sub Division Clerk, MTNL Ex. PW18/A. Sh. Raj Kumar stated that the sanction was issued on the basis of a report from the vigilance office and perusal of the documents and there was due application of mind. The witness also stated that he was competent authority to remove Sh. Prem Singh Mural from his service/office.
(D) Prosecution witnesses regarding first and final bills and payments:
3.13 PW4 Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi, the then Section Supervisor under AO (BDVII) MTNL. The duty of Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi was to check the bills received from Divisional Office / SubDivision Office for payment.
Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi proved the 20 first and final bills as follows:
Work order Contractor Bill Exhibit EE (CM/NII/0203/10 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/A EE (CM/NII/0203/04 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/B EE (CM/NII/0203/03 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/C CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 52 of 95 53 61/EE(CM) NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/D 04/AE(I)/MTNL/0203 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/E 8/AE(I)/MTNL/0203 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/F 05/AEC1/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/G 51/EE(CM)NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/H 53/EE(CM)/NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/I 46/EE(CM)NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/J 49/EE(CM)NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/K 67/EE(CM)NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/L 71/EE(CM)NII/ MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/M 64/EE(CM)NII/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/N SE CII/EE CV/MTNL/0304/11 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/O SE CII/EE CV/MTNL/0304/10 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/P 30/EE(C)V/MTNL/0203 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/Q 31/EE(C)V/MTNL/0203 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/R SE CII/ EE CV/MTNL/0304/08 M/s Satya Construction Ex.PW4/S 35/EE (C)V/MTNL/0203 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW4/T
He also identified the signature of AE NS Dabas, XEN RL Ghera and AO (Cash) HS Sharma. In the cross examination, Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi admitted that at the time of pre checking of the bill, he verified Original Agreement, Measurement Book, Bills Scrutiny Performs, Bill Proforma, Abstract of cost of bill, Test check statement, Extra item and deviation statement, if required. He stated that all the required documents were in order when he pre checked the bill.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 53 of 95 54 3.14 PW3 Sh. Kulbhushan proved the payment made to M/s Pee
Aar Builders and M/s Satya Constructions as follows:
Cheque No. & Date Contractor Exhibit 413568 dated 872002 Satya Construction Ex.PW3/A 618595 dated 732003 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW3/B 702296 dated 1772003 M/s Pee Aar Builders Ex.PW3/C 3.15 PW5 Sh. Shiv Kumar produced original bank vouchers relating
to M/s Satya Constructions which was seized vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Similarly, on 2512008 he produced certain documents being bank vouchers which was seized vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. The information was forwarded vide letter bearing no. MTNL/DLI/CBI Investigation/AO/ /Civil/200708/ dated 1812008, Ex.PW5/C. The witness also proved the scrutiny notes Ex.PW5/C1 to Ex.PW5/C20.
In the cross examination PW5 admitted that MB return register is maintained at Accounts Department and the MB(s) are returned back to the division concerned after the release of the payment. The witness stated that MB(s) are received at Sub Divisional Office from the Division. 3.16 PW15 Sh. Brijesh Kumar Yadav proved the expenditure sanction of Rs. 41,58,260/ regarding Environmental works at Tis Hazari.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 54 of 95 55 PW15 further stated that he had not accorded the sanction relating to bill Ex. PW4/O of Rs. 3,11,884/, bill Ex. PW4/P for Rs. 3,09,187/ and bill Ex. PW4/S for Rs. 3,17,407/ as the financial power of SE was only upto Rs. 3 lacs for each work order and these bills were beyond Rs. 3 lacs. PW15 in the cross examination voluntarily stated that there was acute shortage of staff and the system was not properly working. In the cross examination, he further voluntarily stated that the environmental work includes partition, false ceiling, false flooring etc. In the cross examination PW15 stated that work order register is maintained in which entries of the work order accorded by SE in a financial year is recorded. The witness stated that no such register is demanded by the IO from him.
E. Witnesses regarding physical inspection:
In order to prove the fact that the work as shown to have been executed as per 20 first and final bills Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/T and actually no work was executed, the inspections were carried out on 19/12/06 and 20/12/06. The inspection on 19/12/06 were carried out in respect of 17 sites relating to 17 paid bills at TE Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi for remaining 03 sites the inspection was carried out on 20/12/06. A physical inspection and videography proceedings were also conducted on 8/12/05 relating to physical CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 55 of 95 56 inspection of water tanks installed on roof of telephone exchange building at Tis Hazari, Delhi. The physical inspection and videography memo prepared on 8/12/05 has been proved as Ex.PW25/A. The proceedings of the inspection conducted on 19/12/06 have been reproduced in the inspection memo Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C and the result of the inspection proceedings conducted on 20/12/06 have been reproduced in the inspection memo Ex.PW8/A. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution has examined 09 prosecution witnesses. These witnesses are the most important witnesses for the prosecution for substantiating the charge.
PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, the then Executive Engineer (Vigilance)IV identified his signature on the inspection memo Ex.PW6/A to C. The witness stated that these are the inspection memo of different sites of work of the inspection conducted by him and the result of the site inspection have been minutely and complete details have been reflected in the said inspection memo. The witness admitted that there is procedure in the CPWD Manual regarding recording of measurement etc which has not been strictly followed. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination, the witness stated that after inspection of around 34 work it was found that execution of such work on ground were nonverifiable to the large extent and only 3/4 of the work executed was verified. The witness stated that in the present case no MB was produced and therefore, he does not know whether CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 56 of 95 57 measurement was actually recorded or not.
PW8 Sh. SK Shukla had also taken part in the inspection proceedings recorded in inspection memo Ex.Pw6/B and stated that the proceedings that took place have been correctly recorded in the said inspection memo. In the cross examination, Sh. SK Shukla stated that he was XEN of the TE Building, Tis Hazari on the date of inspection. He stated that no enquiry was conducted by him regarding execution of work after he came to know about the registration of the case. In the cross examination, Sh. SK Shukla stated that no measurements were taken at the site as nothing was found and the work which CBI was looking for was not found to be existing at the spot and therefore, the same were not verifiable. Sh. SK Shukla had also taken part in the inspection conducted on 20/12/06 proved the inspection memo Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mittal, the then AE (Vigilance) - III from CVO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan took part in the inspection conducted on 19/12/06 and proved the inspection memo Ex.PW6/A to PW6/C. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mittal also proved the inspection memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW8/A. He specifically stated that the events that took place in the proceedings have been correctly reflected in the said inspection report / memo.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 57 of 95 58 Sh. Alok Mittal, the then AE, MTNL (PW10) had also taken part in the inspection conducted on 19/12/06 and 20/12/06 and proved the inspection memo Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW8/A. The witness stated that the contents of the same are true and correct account of the proceedings which took place on that day and he had signed after going through the same. Merely, the suggestion was given to the witness that he had not taken part in the inspection proceedings and he had signed at the instance of the CBI.
Sh. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, the then SE, PW15 had taken part in the inspection conducted on 20/12/06 and proved the inspection memo as Ex.PW8/A. PW16 Sh. VK Tyagi, the then Caretaker had taken part in the inspection conducted on 20/12/06 and proved the memo Ex.PW8/A. In the cross examination, interestingly the witness stated that he did not read the inspection memo Ex.PW8/A before putting his signatures on the same.
PW17 Sh. Rakesh Dutt, the then JE (Civil)/CBI/ACB/New Delhi took part in the inspection conducted on 19.12.2006 and proved his signature on the same. Sh. Rakesh Dutt had also taken part in the inspection conducted on 20/12/06 and proved the inspection memo Ex.PW8/A. The CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 58 of 95 59 witness stated that the proceedings of the inspection were correctly recorded in inspection report Ex. PW8/A. In the cross examination, Sh. Rakesh Dutt stated that after the registration of RC No. 51, CBI team had seized all the bills relating to M/s Pee Aar Builders and Satya Constructions and these bills were given around 1 ½ year before the registration of the present case to him to identify the work which were verifiable and having superficial/exterior measurement. The witness stated that he completed the scrutiny of the bills within 1 or 1½ month. Sh. Rakesh Dutt stated that the MBs only relating to three bills were produced before him and MBs of remaining 17 works were not produced and even in the 3 MBs produced, the locations were not mentioned. The witness stated that in absence of MBs during secret verification, he had made enquiry from the Incharge of the building, who told him that they were not aware of any such work.
Sh. Ram Roop Meena (PW25) had taken part in the physical inspection and videography proceedings conducted on 8/12/05 and proved the physical inspection videography memo Ex.PW25/A. He had also taken part in the said inspection conducted on 19/12/06 and 20/12/06 and proved his signature on inspection memo Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW8/A. The witness stated that the results of the proceedings have been recorded in the said site inspection memo. In the cross examination, JE RR Meena stated that he does CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 59 of 95 60 not remember that how many water tanks were installed on the day when the inspection was conducted and he had not taken any record with him to CBI office regarding the installation of water tanks. The witness also stated that there is no display board on the water tanks regarding date of installation and the date is only mentioned on the bill.
PW29 Inspt. Prem Nath conducted the inspection of old and new water tanks installed at TE building and also did the videography and proved the inspection memo Ex.PW25/A. The witness stated that all the proceedings conducted at new and old buildings were truly and correctly recorded in the inspection memo. The video cassette was played in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no dispute regarding the contents of the same. In the cross examination, the witness was not able to recall that how many water tanks were found to be installed on 8/12/05. However, he voluntarily stated that the water tanks were old. He did not remember whether there was any endorsement on the water tanks regarding the year of installation. In the inspection memo Ex.PW25/A, the year of installation of all the water tanks have been mentioned on the basis of bills.
The most important document in the present case were the measurement books. The case of the prosecution is that MB's relating to CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 60 of 95 61 only 03 works were found and even in these MB's the location of the work was not mentioned and the MB relating to remaining 17 works were not traceable. In this regard, PW3 Sh. Kulbhushan, the then SDE, Sanchar Haat, Faridabad proved MB No. 557 and identified the signature of Shri H.S Sharma on MB No. 557 Ex.PW3/E and MB No. 559 Ex.PW3/F. In the cross examination, the witness stated that at the relevant time, as a cashier his duty was confined to the preparation of cheques after the payment is passed by AO (cash) and MB(s) were used to be sent alongwith the bills. He also stated that in this case, MB(s) must have been produced along with the bills, because he must not have prepared the cheques without MB(s) being produced.
PW5 Sh. Shiv Kumar, the then Section Supervisor in the office of Account Officer (Work) proved the photocopy of MB Return Register as Ex.PW5/D. This register reflected movement of MB except 21, 22, 27, 41, 46, 51 and 52. It also reflected movement of MB No. 2,3,4,48 and MB No. 557 and 559. He stated that MB's are signed by the JE. In the cross examination, the witness stated that MB Return Register is maintained at Account Department and the same are returned back to the division concerned after the release of the payment. The MB(s) are received in the Account Department from the concerned division. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/DA wherein he had CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 61 of 95 62 stated that MB No. 557 and 559 were received by JE RR Meena (PW25) as per AO (Cash) MB Return Register.
In respect of the MB's, PW9 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mittal in the cross examination stated that MB is the basic record of the verification of any work and it is a necessary document for doing verification of execution of any civil work. The witness stated that as far as he remembers, some MB's were made available and it was told that some MB's were not available. The witness admitted that it must have been discussed in the inspection that without MB's it is difficult to carry out the inspection. Similarly, in the cross examination of PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma stated that as per CPWD Manual the JE is required to record the 100% measurement in the MB and thereafter, AE is bound to Test Check 50% of such measurement and thereafter, Ex. Engineer is required to Test Check the 10% of the gross work and only thereafter, the bill can be passed. The witness had stated in the cross examination that in the present case no MB was produced and therefore, he did not know whether the measurement was actually recorded or not in these cases.
In respect of MB, PW17 Rakesh Dutt in the cross examination also stated that in this case, the MB's only relating to three bills were produced and no MBs were produced regarding remaining 17 bills. He stated CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 62 of 95 63 that even in the 3 MBs produced, the locations were not mentioned and he told the IO that in absence of MBs or the location in the MBs the verification cannot be conducted.
PW25 Sh. RR Meena, the then JE stated that in the MB No. 557 Ex.PW3/E and MB No. 559 Ex.PW3/F, the entries made at page No. 32 to 43 and page No. 76 to 88 respectively are not in his handwriting whereas he was authorised person to make the entries in the same. Sh. RR Meena stated that he did not make any such entry as he was not directed to do so. Sh. RR Meena was not able to identify the writing of the person who had written in words. However, he stated that numericals seems to be in the handwriting of JE Anil Kumar. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he was asked to produce a particular MB and have given the same to the IO. Sh. RR Meena stated that AE is the custodian of the MB in the division. This is contrary to what he stated in the statement Ex.PW25/DA. In this he had stated that JE is the custodian of the MB. He further stated that after passing of the bill, the concerned MB is returned to the division clerk. It was also in contradiction to his earlier statement Ex.PW25/DA wherein he had stated that after passing the bill, the MB used to be returned to the JE through AE. Interestingly, he stated that during his tenure at Idgah Division, he only used to keep the MBs at the direction of AE but did not use to CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 63 of 95 64 maintain the same. Sh. RR Meena admitted that in the year 2003, he had received certain MBs from the Accounts Office as per register Ex.PW5/D. PW28 Dr. BA Vaid, Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents stated that he received the documents of this case alongwith letter Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B. Dr. BA Vaid stated that he himself and Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then Dy. GEQD had independently examined the documents and proved the reports Ex.PW28/C and Ex.PW28/D. The reasons of the opinion have been proved as Ex.PW28/E and Ex.PW28/F. The reports alongwith the requests were sent to the CBI vide letters Ex. PW28/G and PW28/H. The witness proved specimen as well as admitted writing of person concerned.
Formal Witnesses:
Regarding production of documents:
3.12 Sh. Baburam AGM (EW), MTNL handed over certain documents to the IO of the case Ex.PW12/B1 to B16 in January 2007 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A. PW21 Sh. Ashok Chandok AO (P&A) Headquarters, handed over service record of JE Anil Kumar, containing option form, DT/3567 (D38) Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/A1.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 64 of 95 65 Sh. HK Bajaj XEN (Admn) PW22, proved the letter Ex.PW22/A dtd. 15/11/07 regarding posting detail of Sh. HS Sharma, Anil Kumar and Prem Singh Mural for the period 1/6/02 to 30/6/03.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE IN RC No. 64(A)/05:
3.13 The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case.
PW1 Sh. Prem Kumar Bhalla was posted as AE in Idgah Division, in the year 2002. He handed over handing over and taking over memo dtd. 16/5/02 Ex.PW1/B1 to B7 vide which he handed over the records to Sh. NS Dabas, AE on 16/5/02. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Ex.PW1/B4 he had handed over 31 measurement books, the numbers of which have duly been mentioned in the document. Sh. PK Bhalla stated that measurement book No. 563 Ex.PW1/C was issued to him on 3/7/00 by XEN (Civil) and he further issued the same to JE Narender Kumar on 30/10/00 and reissued the same to JE Sushil Kumar on 28/2/01. In the cross examination, Sh. PK Bhalla admitted his signature on MB No. 563. He admitted that signature of Anil Kumar do not appear anywhere. Sh. PK Bhalla admitted that in the entire measurement book signatures of Anil Kumar do not appear.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 65 of 95 66 PW2 Sh. Sunil R. Bhagwanani was in accounts branch at the relevant time and was assigned with the work of pre checking of contractors bill received from the concerned XEN on direction of the Accounts Officer, besides other duties. PW2 specifically stated that checking of bills cannot be carried out in absence of MBs and agreements. He stated that in case there is any irregularity in the bills and other supporting documents, the said bills were returned to the concerned division with mention of the irregularities for its rectification and resubmission of the bills. After prechecking of bills is over, the bills used to be sent to the concerned XEN for passing of the bills by him. The concerned XEN would pass the bill again and sent the same to Account Officer for payment. The witness identified the signature of the concerned persons and proved the bills as Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/12. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness admitted that on the bill Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/5 and Ex.PW2/9 there is a mention of head of account mentioned as 282501 in red pen which is maintenance head pertaining to office holdings in MTNL. It also came in the evidence that after completion of checking of the bills, concerned MBs were returned to the division for passing of the bills. This witness was also cross examined by the prosecution. He denied that the bills Ex.PW2/1 to ex.PW2/12 were prepared by accused Prem Singh Mural or the entries in the bill Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/E were made by accused Anil Kumar. In the cross examination, CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 66 of 95 67 PW2 stated that the prechecking of the bills were done on the basis of measurement books. The witness stated that it is not possible to make payment of the bills without preparation of the MBs. He reiterated that MBs are issued to the concerned AE and the same are further issued to concerned JE Incharge of the work and MBs which are in the custody of the AE cannot be transferred without the knowledge and permission of the concerned AE. The movement of MBs can be checked from MBs movement register in division office and Accounts Branch. He further stated that MBs cannot be destroyed and in case of damager or theft, an FIR is to be lodged by the concerned AE. The witness stated that the bills are being prepared by the clerical staff on the basis of entries in the measurement books. He also admitted that accused Prem Singh Mural prepared all the bills on the basis of entries in the concerned MBs. CPWD Manual Sec. 7 para 7.50 requires that in case of loss of MB it should be reported to the police. The relevant page of the manual is Ex.PW2/D1. It is a matter of record that movement of MBs can be ascertained through MB movement register. PW2 stated that Inspt. CK Sharma never demanded the MB books, agreements or other documents pertaining to this case from him He also stated that during his tenure, no fraud or irregularity was detected by CAG and other audit parties regarding these works and bills in question. It also came in the cross examination that as per CPWD Manual para 58.9 page 1.843, every maintenance work which CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 67 of 95 68 is costing more than Rs.50,000/ has to be inspected twice by SE (Civil). The copy of the relevant page was proved as Ex.PW2/D4.
PW3 Sh. RSP Sinha accorded the sanction for prosecution against JE Anil Kumar and Sub Divisional Clerk Prem Singh Mural and proved the sanction orders as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. It is pertinent to mention here that in the sanction order it was mentioned that allegedly neither MB books were prepared nor they were made available for examination.
PW4 Sh. Manoj Kumar identified the signatures of deceased RL Ghera in MB No. 01 Ex.PW1/E and certified that no page from the MB was missing or torn. He also identified the signature of the then XEN on MB No. 563 Ex.PW1/C. PW5 Smt. Santosh Syal was also a formal witness who identified the signatures of the concerned persons on MB No. 563 and 554. The witness identified regarding the fact that MBs were complete and no page was missing or torn. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that it is not possible to release the payment to contractor without preparing any MB.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 68 of 95 69 PW6 Sh. Rajkumar deposed about the procedure pertaining to execution of civil work. The procedure has already been discussed while discussing the evidence of RC No. 63(A)/05, hence, the same is not reproduced. The witness stated that the work subject matter of the bills in question were not annual repair and maintenance work. However, he stated that such work can be executed as special repair works on direction of senior officers as well as on requisition of user department. In the letter Ex.PW6/A, PW6 stated that the prevailing practice at the relevant time that MBs were issued by the Accounts officer and the same were kept in safe custody of AE (Civil) or issued to the JE after making payment for work by the Accounts Officer (Cash). He also informed vide this letter Ex.PW6/A that the MB issue register is not available in his office as informed by EE (C), CGO. In absence of MB issue register he was unable to ascertain by whom the MB Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 22, 24, 27, 48, 51, 52, 53 & 563 were issued. In the cross examination, the witness stated that in the absence of MB books it would not be possible to verify the bills D4 to D23 Ex.Pw6/D2 to D21. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination, the witness stated that from the documents Ex.PW6/D22, one can know as to where any particular MB book has gone.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 69 of 95 70 PW7 Sh. Ravi Kumar, the then Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, handed over certain documents pertaining to A/c No. 386 in the name of Sh. Satpal Singh.
PW8 Sh. Mohinder Singh, an official from Kangra Co operative Bank Ltd., handed over documents pertaining to A/c No. 802 of Satya Constructions proprietor Pradeep Maan.
PW9 Sh. Kailash Chandra deposed about the procedure of awarding tender. In the cross examination, PW9 stated that Supdt. Engineer verifies physically whether job has been done actually or not.
PW10 Sh. Divya Kumar, an officer from the State Bank of India proved certain cheques received in the branch from MTNL.
PW11 Sh. AK Gupta was again the witness regarding procedure for award of tender. PW11 stated that some of the bills Ex.PW6/D2 to D21 are pertaining to AR & MO and some works are of special repair works. In the cross examination, the witness stated that no work can be checked without having been in possession of concerned MB CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 70 of 95 71 alongwith the bills. He reiterated that in case MBs are lost, normally FIR is to be lodged and report is sent to the senior officers in this regard.
PW12 Sh. RR Meena was associated with physical inspection team to conduct physical inspection of 21 instances of civil work i.e. subject matter of the present case. The inspection was conducted on 1/8/06 and 3/8/06. PW15 Rakesh Kumar Mittal and PW18 Rakesh Dutt were also part of the inspection team. PW12 proved the inspection report on 1/8/06 as Ex.PW12/A and the report dtd. 3/8/06 as Ex.PW12/B. Sh. RR Meena also identified the signature of Sh. NS Dabas and Sh. RL Ghera in the bills. He stated that except the work regarding water storage tank, no other work was found to have been executed. The witness also proved the seizure memo Ex.Pw12/C vide which MB No. 554, 559, 562 and 563 were seized from him. In the cross examination, Sh. RR Meena admitted that he was JE, Incharge of Telephone Exchange Building, Idgah since 16/5/02. PW12 admitted that MB No. 554 Ex.PW1/D, MB No. 563 Ex.PW1/C and MB No. 01 Ex.PW1/E, the signatures of accused Anil Kumar is not appearing anywhere. It is interesting to note that in the cross examination, PW12 admitted that he was named as an accused in a case registered by the CBI. He admitted that the bills in question pertain to civil and maintenance work. This witness also admitted that civil work pertaining to annual repair and CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 71 of 95 72 maintenance work cannot be verified without the copies of measurement book. The witness admitted in the cross examination that the inspection team did not measure the granite work executed in the TE Building. Sh RR Meena stated that he could have verified the work which were executed by him and was unable to get the verification done for other works. However, Sh. RR Meena stated that he did not tell the IO that no work pertaining to 21 bills regarding which the inspection took place was executed. It seems that Sh. RR Meena only verified the work which were executed by him. Interestingly, he admitted in the cross examination that the location of the repair work is not mentioned by him in MB No. 562. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination, the witness stated that he produced the MB in his possession before the IO and IO returned the MB after retaining some of them with him. Sh. RR Meena admitted that he never lodged any FIR regarding the loss of MB. In the reexamination, PW12 Sh. RR Meena stated that page No. 92 to 99 in MB No. 562, were written by him. He stated that JE Anil Kumar had no authority to write the measurement book. However, in the cross examination, the witness admitted that he never made any complaint to his senior officers that in the measurement books related to his sub division, JE Anil Kumar made some entries. The witness admitted in the cross examination that there was shortage of staff in MTNL and in 2003 also there was shortage of staff. In reply to a Court question, PW12 admitted that CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 72 of 95 73 in the MB No. 01, the numericals are in the handwriting of JE Anil Kumar.
PW13 Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi deposed on oath regarding the pre checking of the bills in question. In the cross examination, Sh. Dhiraj Singh Negi stated that all the documents were complete in all respects in relation to the 20 bills i.e., subject matter of the case in question and the the same were prechecked by him. The witness stated that the bills have been paid under the head 282501 which is budget head for maintenance work.
PW14 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, GEQD proved his report as Ex.PW14/G. PW15 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mittal another member of the inspection team stated that during the inspection, certain MBs were produced. However, the witness could not recall that actually how many work was carried out. The witness stated that the entire details were mentioned by him in the inspection memo. In the cross examination, the witness stated that at the time of inspection of any civil work, MB is the most essential document to verify the execution of work. The witness stated in the cross examination that besides MB, technically sanctioned estimate, if available, is also helpful in doing the verification. The witness stated that in CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 73 of 95 74 case of original work, the execution can be ascertained without MB. However, in respect of existing building, it is very difficult to ascertain the maintenance work in the absence of MBs. The witness stated that the nature of work is clearly reflected in the title of name of work and if A/R & M/O is mentioned, the same relates to important document. The witness stated that at the time of inspection itself, they informed the IO that the maintenance work cannot be verified in the absence of MBs and in the absence of MBs, they were not in a position to ascertain the location in respect of work executed as per the bills. The witness stated that the inspection report were based on the statements of NS Dabas and RR Meena and had they not shown the inspecting team the places where the work was alleged to have been executed, the inspecting team were unable to verify the same in the absence of MBs.
PW16 Inspr. C.K. Sharma, IO of RC No. 51(A)/03 had seized the bills in question. Inspt. CK Sharma stated that no MBs in respect of the present works could be found and the said MBs if prepared, were destroyed. The FIR was proved as Ex.PW16/A. In the cross examination, Inspt. CK Sharma admitted that these 21 bills were seized in a raid conducted by Sh. RK Rishi during investigation in RC 51/03 and the same were kept in CBI Malkhana. Inspt CK Sharma took over investigation of RC No. 51 in June CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 74 of 95 75 2004 and did the scrutiny of the bills in November 2005 alongwith PW18 Rakesh Dutt. Interestingly, Inspt. CK Sharma stated that he did not prepare any verification memo at the time of verification of the work as mentioned in the bills. Inspt. CK Sharma stated that he named accused Anil Kumar as his signatures appeared on bills D14 Ex.PW2/1, D15 Ex.PW2/5, D16 Ex.PW2/9 and the first and final bill Ex. PW13/D. Inspt. CK Sharma stated that he named accused Prem Singh Mural as he has prepared all the bills in the present case. Inspt. CK Sharma admitted that Prem Singh Mural had not put any signature on any of the bill in the present case. He also admitted that in the similar facts and circumstances, he did not chargesheet Prem Singh Mural as an accused in another case. The witness denied the suggestion that all the MBs were available with him at the time of verification and he intentionally withheld them.
PW17 Sh. Shiv Kumar, merely proved that Sh. Charan Singh who had also prepared the bills had expired and his death certificate was duly taken on record. HE also proved on record the seizure memo Ex.PW17/A vide which documents Ex.PW17/A1 to A3 were handed over to CBI.
PW18, Sh. Rakesh Dutt another member of the inspection team proved the inspection reports. In the cross examination, PW18 stated CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 75 of 95 76 that he came to know about the bills in question in February March 2004 and after doing scrutiny of the bills, conducted secret inspection. Howevr, he did not prepare the inspection report. The witness admitted in the cross examination that maximum paid vouchers in respect of 21 bills in the present case were charged to Maintenance head. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness admitted that in the present matter, the verification was carried out in the absence of MBs as the concerned AE and JE told that the work mentioned in the 21 bills have not been executed.
PW19 Inspr. Sushil Kumar, formally proved the inspection conducted by him. IO stated that in response to the letter dtd. 15/2/06 of SP NM Singh (Ex.PW19/A), a reply was received from MTNL vide letter dtd. 27.02.2006 (Ex.PW19/B) intimating that except certified copy of list of agreements and measurement books handed over by accused NS Dabas and Dilip Kumar AE, original agreement and MBs are not available / traceable with MTNL. IO stated that physical inspection was conducted without measurement books.
In respect of Anil Kumar, IO stated that measurement of two works were made by JE Anil Kumar and payment of the such work was made vide bill Ex. PW6/D8 (D10) and Ex. PW8/D2 (D14). JE Anil Kumar also made entry of another work MB No. 563 and payment for the same was CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 76 of 95 77 made vide bill Ex. PW6/D14 (D16). JE Anil Kumar made entries in the MBs whereas he was not posted in Idgah and therefore, was not authorised to make entries in MBs. During the relevant period, JE RR Meena was posted at Idgah and was authorised person to make the entries. IO further stated that in regard to the work at S. No. 11, relevant MB 562 was found to have been executed by JE RR Meena and the payment of the same was made vide bill Ex.PW13/D. IO further stated that Late Sh. NS Dabas got the bill prepared by accused Prem Singh Mural and Late Sh. Charan Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that IO stated that pre checking of the bills was carried out by the prechecking team and at the time of prechecking, all the relevant MBs and other documents were made available to the prechecking team. IO further stated that Late Sh. NS Dabas made available MBs to Anil Kumar who made entries of measurements, which actually were not executed. IO admitted that the 21 bills pertain to annual repair and maintenance work. He admitted that PW18 Sh. Rakesh Dutt informed him that annual repair and maintenance work could not be verified in the absence of MBs. However, at the second thought, he stated that the works in the present case were different from annual repair and maintenance work. IO denied the suggestion that all the MBs were available and that is why, their absence is not recorded in the inspection report.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 77 of 95 78 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED IN RC No. 63(A)/05 4.0 In their statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, accused persons denied all the
allegations levelled against them and stated that works have been executed and they have been implicated falsely by the IO.
Accused Anil Kumar denied all the allegations and stated that physical inspection memo was prepared falsely by the CBI only in order to strengthen their case. Accused Anil Kumar admitted that he made entries at page at page 38 to page 43 of measurement book no. 557 at the specific request of NS Dabas AE. Accused Anil Kumar stated that he filled up the numericals as the handwriting of RR Meena was very bad and objections used to be raised against him by the Accounts Deptt. No MB was signed by him and it was duly signed only by the authorised AE and XEN. The MB's were duly returned to RR Meena and this was duly accepted by him only. Accused Anil Kumar stated that during the relevant period, there was acute shortage of staff. Out of the sanctioned strength of total staff of 145 as per yardstick, only 27 were working. Though he was not posted in Tis Hazari Sub division but at the request of AE NS Dabas, he filled up only the numericals in MB No. 557 and 559, for the reason that the concerned JE RR Meena had a very poor handwriting and therefore, account branch used to put objections while clearing bills. For this reason, AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena requested him to write only the numericals in the above said MBs.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 78 of 95 79 Otherwise, the entire MB was filled up in the handwriting of JE RR Meena and it used to be in the custody of AE NS Dabas. The MB's were also seized from JE RR Meena. Accused Anil Kumar stated that he was not posted in the Tis Hazari Sub Division, therefore, it was not his duty to conduct the test check and therefore, he has no knowledge about execution of work. In respect of the sanction, accused Anil Kumar stated that sanction was invalid and was not accorded by the competent authority. Accused stated that he has been implicated falsely.
Similarly, accused Prem Singh Mural stated that physical verification memo has been prepared falsely by the CBI to strengthen their case. Accused Prem Singh Mural stated that he only filled up the proforma of first and final bill on the basis of the bills prepared in the MB.
Accused Pradeep Maan and Mahavir Singh also stated that they had duly executed the work awarded to them and they have been falsely implicated.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED IN RC No. 64(A)/05 4.1 In their statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, accused persons denied all the allegations. They stated that works have been executed and they have been implicated falsely by the IO.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 79 of 95 80 Accused Anil Kumar stated that Inspt. CK Sharma selectively made accused persons and did not chargesheet the one whom he wanted to favour. RC No. 63, 64 & 65 were registered on the same day with the interval of 30 minutes. On the similar facts, the closure report was filed in RC No. 65 as the fair investigation was conducted by Inspt. AS Sandhu and on the similar facts, another IO malafidely filed the chargesheet. Accused Anil Kumar stated that there was no complaint on the part of the MTNL and even during the evidence, only PW RR Meena had stated about non execution of work and he stated so because he himself was the culprit of some irregularity and only in order to save his skin, he made the false statement implicating others. In respect of entries made in MB No. 001 and 563, accused Anil Kumar stated that he made the entries on the request of Late NS Dabas AE and JE RR Meena in good faith. Accused Anil Kumar stated that during the relevant period, there was acute shortage of staff. Out of the sanctioned strength of total staff of 145 as per yardstick, only 27 were working. Though he was not posted in Idgah Sub division but at the request of AE NS Dabas, he filled up only the numericals in MB No. 001 and 563, for the reason that the concerned JE RR Meena had a very poor handwriting and therefore, account branch used to put objections while clearing bills. For this reason, AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena requested him to write only the numericals in the above said MBs. Otherwise, the entire MB was filled up in the CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 80 of 95 81 handwriting of JE RR Meena and it used to be in the custody of AE NS Dabas. The MB's were also seized from JE RR Meena. Accused Anil Kumar stated that he was not posted in the Idgah Sub Division, therefore, it was not his duty to conduct the test check and therefore, he has no knowledge about execution of work.
Accused Prem Singh Mural stated that he only filled up the proforma bill on the basis of measurements recorded in the MBs. Accused Prem Singh Mural also stated that CBI had malafidely filed the chargesheet against him.
Accused Pradeep Maan stated that physical inspection memo was got prepared falsely by the CBI. The accused stated that he had carried out the work awarded to him. Accused also stated that he was implicated falsely by Inspt. CK Sharma.
Accused Mahavir Singh also in his statement denied all the allegations and submitted that he had executed all the work awarded to him. The accused stated that the entire work subject matter of the present case relate to annual repair and maintenance.
ARGUMENTS 5.0 Sh. Roopansh Purohit, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 81 of 95 82 the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It has rightly come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that measurement books, which is heart and soul, to prove the fact regarding execution of work, has not been produced by the prosecution. In absence of measurement books, execution of work cannot be verified. The inspection was held belatedly by the CBI with malafide intentions. The CBI filed the chargesheet in the present case only to cover up the lapses conducted by their officers. Sh. Roopansh Purohit, Ld. Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in RC No. 63(A)/05 and RC No. 64(A)/05.
5.1 Per contra, Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that inspection in the above noted cases were conducted by the CBI alongwith officials of CPWD. There is no reason to believe the testimony and inspection report prepared by such officials. Ld. PP has submitted that unless and untill there is anything substantially proved against the reports, inspection reports are entitled to be believed. In support of his contentions, Ld. PP has relied upon Khalek Sheikh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2006) 7 SCC 439, State of Gujarat Vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi, 1985 CrLJ 1357(1). Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP has also submitted that accused persons themselves managed to withhold the measurement books and therefore, for CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 82 of 95 83 this act, the CBI cannot be penalised. Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP submitted that in view of the cogent and creditworthy material on record, the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Reliance is placed upon State of Kerala Vs. MM Mathew & Anr., AIR 1978 SC 1571.
FINDINGS:
6.0 I propose to present my finding in case RC No. 63 & 64 together as the question involved in both the cases is common. The proposition to be answered by the Court in both of these cases are that whether the inspection of the work and particularly repair and maintenance work could have been carried out in absence of the measurement book and secondly, if the measurement books are not available or have not been produced before the Court, then who is to be blamed for it. Before coming to this point, there are certain important points in this case. In case RC No. 63(A)/05, the work, subject matter of the bills in question, were purported to have been executed during the year 200104 and similarly, in case RC No. 64(A)/05, the work pertaining to 21 bills in question were purported to have been executed between June 2002 to April 2003. The bills of both the cases were seized in 2003 by Inspt. CK Sharma during the investigation in case RC No. 51(A)/03 vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Pursuant to the recoveries of these bills, it has come in the evidence of PW18 Rakesh Dutt and PW16 Inspt. CK Sharma CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 83 of 95 84 that the scrutiny of the bills were conducted and some verifications were also conducted. However, RC No. 63(A)/05 and RC No. 64(A)/05 were lodged on 30/11/05. After registration of FIR, the inspection in RC No. 63(A)/05 were conducted on 8/12/05 and thereafter, on 19/12/06 and 20/12/06. Similarly, inspections in RC No. 64(A)/05 were conducted on 1/8/06 and 3/8/06. The chronology as discussed above would indicate that CBI acted in their own leisure and despite recovery of bills during investigation of case RC No. 51(A)/03, they took their own time, despite having suspicion that the work pertaining to these bills were not executed and decided to register FIR only in November 2005. Even after registration of FIR in RC No. 63(A)/05, CBI took more than 01 year in conducting the inspection and in RC No.63(A)/05 they took around 09 months in conducting the inspection of the site. The importance of measurement books have already been discussed in detail during the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It has also come on record that in case of loss of MB, the CPWD Manual mandates that and FIR is required to be registered. CBI has merely taken a plea that MBs were not made available. I have gone through the case diary of RC No. 63(A)/05 and RC No. 64(A)/05 and as expected, I did not find any sincere efforts on the part of the respective investigation officers to recover the measurement books. It has rightly come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that in absence of the measurement books, the verification of the work executed could not have CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 84 of 95 85 been conducted. Perusal of the inspection report in RC No. 63(A)/05 and RC No. 64(A)/05 would indicate that inspection reports have primarily been prepared on the basis of the version given by AE NS Dabas and JE RR Meena. It is pertinent to mention here that AE NS Dabas was made as an accused, who lateron unfortunately expired and Sh. RR Meena who was the concerned JE of the division merely stated that the works were not executed. In RC No. 63(A)/05, CBI took an initial position that either no MBs were prepared or MBs were destroyed. However, it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly relating to the prechecking of the bills that all the MBs were produced at that time. It has also come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that in absence of MBs no bill could have been passed. In view of this evidence, there are two possibilities. One is that the MBs were present at the time of the processing of the bills and the same were destroyed or damaged later and secondly, the MBs were not at all prepared. If the MBs were not at all prepared, it would mean that all the officials of the Accounts Section were also hand in gloves with the accused persons, as they passed the bill without MBs. It is a matter of record that no official of the accounts section has been chargesheeted. Therefore, CBI has acted on the premises that MBs were available till the time the bills were passed and the same were destroyed lateron. As discussed above, the CPWD Manual provides strict action in case of loss of MBs. CBI has not uttered a single CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 85 of 95 86 word in the chargesheet or led an iota of evidence so as to fix the responsibility of the persons who had destroyed such MBs. The MBs were the crucial piece of evidence and if somebody destroys or damages the crucial piece of evidence such person is liable to be prosecuted according to the law. The CBI did not even proceed in this direction. If the MBs were damaged or destroyed by the accused persons or somebody else, concrete action was required to be taken against them. The CBI has also not brought any evidence on record to indicate that the department has proceeded against the accused persons or any other person.
6.1 Inspt. CK Sharma PW16 and PW18 Rakesh Dutt stated that before registration of the FIR, some verification was conducted. However, the Court has been kept aloof from such verification report. This verification report becomes very important in view of the fact that the case was registered at a much belated stage. There was a huge delay in registration of FIR. It is a settled proposition that in case of delay in registration of FIR, the prosecution is liable to explain the same. The CBI not only failed to explain the delay, it also withheld the material document pertaining to this period which could have thrown some light on the facts of the case. It came in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that in absence of measurement books , the work relating to annual repair and maintenance cannot be CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 86 of 95 87 verified. Similarly, PW6 Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma admitted that procedure in the CPWD Manual regarding recording of measurement etc has not been strictly followed. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination, the witness stated that after inspection of around 34 work it was found that execution of such work on ground were nonverifiable to the large extent and only 3/4 of the work executed was verified. It also came in the testimony of PW8 SK Shukla that the work relating to subject matter of the present case was non verifiable. PW9 Rakesh Kumar Mittal also stated that without MBs it is difficult to carry out inspection. PW17 Rakesh Dutt also stated in the cross examination that only 03 MBs were produced. The defence has rightly emphasized that PW6 Tilak Raj Sharma, PW8 SK Shukla, PW9 Rakesh Kumar Mittal and PW17 Rakesh Dutt are the witnesses to bring home the point that the work in respect of the bills in question were non verifiable. The case of the CBI is that the bills in question were seized by Inspt. RK Rishi, the first IO in RC No. 51(A)/03, however, Inspt. RK Rishi have neither been produced in RC No. 51 nor in the present case. It is also pertinent to mention here that CBI heavily relied upon PW16 Sh. VK Tyagi, the then Caretaker to prove that no work was executed. However, in the cross examination, PW16 Sh. VK Tyagi stated that he was only concerned about the house keeping and has no knowledge about the civil work. PW16 VK Tyagi also stated that he did not read the inspection report Ex.PW8/A before putting his signatures on CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 87 of 95 88 the same. Accused persons in the present case have been chargesheeted for the offence u/Ss 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. CBI has alleged that accused persons were working in the conspiracy of each other. The offence of conspiracy has been defined u/S 120A IPC which reads as under:
"120A - Definition of criminal conspiracy -
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
1. an illegal act, or
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
The ingredients of the offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal.
The mere perusal of the provision would make it clear that there has to be some meeting of the minds amongst the accused persons to hold CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 88 of 95 89 them liable for the act of conspiracy. The word "conspirator" has been derived from the word "corespirator", which means that if two persons are so close to each other that they are respiring together, this would mean conspiracy. There has to be some meeting of minds amongst the accused persons. It is correct that in all the cases of conspiracy there might not be direct evidence because most of the time the conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and darkness but at the same time, the accused persons cannot be held liable for conspiracy merely at the asking of the prosecution. There has to be some concrete material / fact available on the record. The proposition of criminal jurisprudence are very well settled. The accused cannot be convicted unless the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court is conscious of the fact that prosecution is not supposed to prove its case beyond all doubts. The mere whims and fancies of the accused cannot displace the otherwise credible story of the prosecution. The doubts raised by the accused has to be reasonable doubts. If the doubts are not reasonable, then the same cannot be given any credance. Therefore, the question would be that in the present case whether there is any fact which could prove the conspiracy amongst the accused persons. 6.2 In the present case, there are two set of accused persons. One are MTNL officials and another are the contractors. Unfortunately, the key CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 89 of 95 90 persons in the present case XEN RL Ghera and AE NS Dabas have expired. If the prosecution is able to prove that no work pertaining to the bills subject matter of RC No. 63(A)/05 and RC No. 64(A)/05, were executed, it would be sufficient to hold the accused persons responsible for conspiracy without any other material on record. However, the important question would be that the prosecution is liable to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. 6.3 Accused Anil Kumar in RC No. 63(A)/05 has been chargesheeted primarily on the allegations that his signatures were found on Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/G and besides this, he was also found to have filled up MB No. 557 unauthorisedly.
In respect of alleged signature of Anil Kumar at Q60, Q82 and Q94 on bills Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/G, the GEQD in his report Ex.PW28/C has not approved the same. However, in respect of the entries made by accused Anil Kumar in MB No. 557, accused Anil Kumar has given an explanation that he made these entries at the request of AE NS Dabas. It is a matter of record that signature of Anil Kumar are not appearing on any of the MB in which allegedly he had made the entries.
6.4 Accused Prem Singh Mural has been chargesheeted because he filled up the proforma of first and final bill. The case of the defence is that CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 90 of 95 91 the IO has acted malafidely as on the similar facts and circumstances, Prem Singh Mural was not chargesheeted in the five bills whereas in the present case, the IO smelled conspiracy and chargesheeted accused Prem Singh Mural.
It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 Sh. PK Bhalla admitted in the cross examination that white washing, cleaning of sewer lines, repair to toilet, repair to rolling shutter, repair to collapsible shutter, change of taps, repair of water tanks, repair to floor springs, water proofing cement paint, fixing and repairing of sun control film, repairing of vanishing blinds, repair of floors, repair to cistern, stopcock, bibcock, repair to cycle stand frames, CC repair cannot be verified as per CPWD Manual. He also stated that every work is verified atleast three times, first by AE and then by EE and then by SE. Similarly, every work is audited four times, first by internal audit, second external audit, third CAG audit and lastly, by audit team of the MTNL. It is worth mentioning here that IO has not placed on record any such audit report. PW1 also admitted in the cross examination that every required procedure was followed while releasing the payment.
It is pertinent to mention here that most of the witnesses have stated that work subject matter of the present case was non verifiable. PW1 Sh. PK Bhalla in his cross examination has specifically stated so. It also came in the cross examination of PW1 that every work is verified for three CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 91 of 95 92 times and audited for four times. I have also observed during the perusal of the case diary that certain audit reports were made available to the IO, however, these audit reports did not see the light of the day and were not produced. PW2 Sh. Sunil R. Bhagwanani in RC No. 64(A)/05 also submitted that bills cannot be checked in absence of measurement books. The prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that Inspt. CK Sharma never demanded MB from them. It also came in the testimony that in the audit or inspection, no fraud was detected. It has also come in the evidence that as per CPWD Manual para 58.9 page 1.843 every maintenance work of more than Rs.50,000/ is to be inspected by SE. The photocopy of the extract has been proved as Ex.PW2/D4. In both of the above noted cases, the CBI moved at a very slow pace despite having recovered / discovered certain bills. They had a suspicion that work was not executed against these bills. Though they were required to take immediate steps, yet for the reasons best known to them they took years together even to register the FIR. Even as per the case diary, the CBI did not show sincerity in carrying out the inspection and recovering the important documents like MBs. It is pertinent to mention here that that in RC No. 64(A)/05, it has come in the cross examination of PW6 Rajkumar that from document Ex.PW6/D22, the movement of the measurement book could be ascertained. However, CBI did not take any step to ascertain the movement of measurement book. It is surprising that despite CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 92 of 95 93 CBI having been in possession of Ex.PW6/D22, IO did not make any effort to recover the MB or fix the responsibility of the person who withheld it. 6.5 It is really surprising that in a case which had allegation of non execution of work of around Rs. 1 crore (taken together of RC No. 63 & 64), the CBI did not act promptly. Even after registration of case, they took their own time in conducting the inspections. The perusal of the case diary would indicate that even there was lack of supervision in these cases. It does not require great wisdom to ascertain that in a case where there are allegations of non execution of work and that too relating to repair and maintenance, the inspections were required to be conducted immediately. It is not the question of disbelieving the inspection reports, because, if we see the inspection reports, it is clear that at most of the instances, the inspection team itself was of the view that work could not be verified and where it was held that work was not executed, it was at the instance of AE NS Dabas (since died) and JE RR Meena. It is also surprising that how and on what basis, IO decided to exonerate JE RR Meena who was the concerned JE at the relevant time. The MB was issued in his name. He was the person responsible to fill up the same and if somebody else i.e. JE Anil Kumar had made the entries, that could have been possible only in the case that JE RR Meena colluded with him or JE Anil Kumar did the same forcibly or by playing some trick.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 93 of 95 94 Though the prosecution has not led any material evidence in this regard, the plea of JE Anil Kumar that he did so at the request of AE NS Dabas seems to be plausible.
6.6 CBI did not make any sincere effort to recover the measurement book. They also failed to fixed the responsibility of the erring officials or the persons who have allegedly destroyed / damaged the measurement book. The principles of criminal jurisprudence are very well settled. The prosecution is entitled to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7.0 It is a settled canon of jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The charge against the accused persons should be proved against them beyond reasonable doubt either by "direct or even by circumstantial evidence" by establishing each link of the events pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances as placed on record by the prosecution are undoubtedly very intriguing and raise considerable doubt but in the absence of unimpeachable direct evidence about the non execution of work, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. Conviction cannot be based on circumstances indicating that the prosecution case is quite likely to be true. In order to pass a conviction, the facts CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11 CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 94 of 95 95 established must rule out any likelihood of innocence of the accused. 7.1 I consider that prosecution in the present case has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Anil Kumar, Prem Singh Mural, Pradeep Maan and Mahavir Singh are acquitted of the charge u/S 120B IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of the PC Act, 1988 in RC No. 63(A)/05 and u/Ss 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 in RC 64(A)/05.
All accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Original documents if any, be returned to them against proper acknowledgment.
The original judgment be kept in CC No. 41/11 of RC No. 63(A)/05 and a copy of the same be kept in CC No. 46/11 of RC No. 64(A)/05.
7.2 File be consigned to RR.
Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 19.12.2012 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 41/11
CBI Vs. RL Ghera & Ors. CC No. 46/11 Page 95 of 95