Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 9 June, 2014

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 9 June, 2014

 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, 
                     CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI


CC No: 41/12
RC No: 0712009(E)0005/CBI/EOUII/New Delhi
Unique Case ID No: 02403R0494432009

Title : State (CBI)

               Vs.

          S.P. Singh, S/o Late Sh. Chottan Singh, R/o R8/1, Raj Nagar, 
          Ghaziabad.

          Manoj Kumar Chachan, S/o Devki Nandan Chachan, R/o Laxmi Devi 
          Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chikani, Alwar.

          Sanjay   Aggarwal,   S/o   Sh.   M.P.   Aggarwal,   R/o   Hanumanji   Ki   Gali,  
          Bajaj Bazar, Hope Circus, Alwar.

U/s:    Section 120B, 420 & Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention 
          of  Corruption Act, 1988.  


                              Date of Institution                        :          14.12.2009
                              Date of Reserving Order  :                            29.5.2014
                              Date of Pronouncement :                               09.6.2014
(Appearances)

Sh. Raman Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI.

Sh. P.K. Dubey, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 S.P. Singh.

Sh. Tanmay Mehta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Manoj Chachan.

Sh. Naresh Kumar Beniwal, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for Sanjay Aggarwal.




CC No. 41/12                               State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc.                             Page No. 1 of 82
 J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

     1.

Brief facts of the case are that the instant case has been registered on the allegations that M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Chikani, Alwar, Rajasthan applied to Regional Office, All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Chandigarh for Expert Committee Visit of its Integrated Campus for its group of institutions including Lord's Institute of Engineering and Technology at Village Chikani, District:

Alwar, beside others having undertaken that the required infrastructure and faculty arrangements etc. were in place with intent to start the same w.e.f. Academic Session 200910. It was further alleged that as a matter of fact, the society had not undertaken any construction as regards the different institutions including the said Lord's Institute of Engineering and Technology and instead in conspiracy with accused S.P. Singh, Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh, the convener of the Expert Committee organized inspection of the building of Lord's Institute of Engineering and Technology for women at Village Chachan, Alwar for which the AICTE had granted approval for the Academic Session 200809. Accused S.P. Singh was well aware of the same being Regional Officer. The alleged conspiracy was hatched between accused S.P. Singh and Manoj Chachan, Chairman, Sanjay Aggarwal, Member of the Society and Sh. Vivek Anand, Principal/Director of the CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 2 of 82 proposed institutes for ulterior consideration. The Expert Committee carried out visit of the premises on 28.6.2009 in the presence of the aforesaid persons and recommended for approval and the same as proposed was accorded by AICTE Headquarter, New Delhi for academic session 200910.

2. It is further alleged that accused Manoj Chachan, Chairman of the Society in conspiracy with accused S.P. Singh and other accused persons submitted an application dated 23.12.2008 addressed to accused S.P. Singh, Regional Officer, Regional Office, AICTE, NorthWest Region, Chandigarh, for approval of an integrated campus with multi discipline consisting of Engineering (240 Seats), PGDM (60 Seats), Architecture (60 Seats) and HMCT (60 Seats) and the integrated campus was purportedly to be constructed on contiguous land measuring 13.6 acres spread over various khasras. As per AICTE guidelines, 12.8 acres land is required to start an integrated campus consisting of aforesaid four disciplines. The application was processed to Chandigarh by accused S.P. Singh and some deficiencies were pointed out and communicated to the society. It is further alleged that accused Sanjay Aggarwal, Authorized Signatory of the society in conspiracy with accused S.P. Singh and other accused persons had submitted a copy of land use certificate No. 12267 dated 01.10.2008 issued by the Competent Authority and also submitted conversion order CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 3 of 82 bearing no. 12267 dated 01.10.2008 issued by District Collector, Alwar. He also submitted a map showing that the land was contiguous, however, no deficiencies pointed out by accused S.P. Singh were rectified and he had put up the proposal to Regional Committee and the Regional Committee consisting of accused S.P. Singh himself and one Sh. S.C. Loraiya forwarded the proposal to HQ, AICTE, New Delhi without scrutinizing the same and rectifying the deficiencies. A hearing committee was constituted and accused Sanjay Aggarwal appeared before the committee and furnished a false fund statement before it and the funds were wrongly shown to be in the bank account of the society, though the funds did not belong to the society in fact. Accused Sanjay Aggarwal also submitted an undertaking notarized on 26.2.2009 before the hearing committee that the proposed land is not mortgaged or shall not be mortgaged though a part of land was already mortgaged. It is also alleged that a fake and bogus conversion certificate bearing No. 14174 dated 22.01.2009 purportedly issued by District Collector, Alwar was also shown before the hearing committee though it was never issued by the office of District Collector, Alwar. Ultimately, on the basis of these documents and recommendations, the application of the society was approved and the approval of integrated campus of the society and accused S.P. Singh in conspiracy with these two accused did not ensure the fulfillment/removal of deficiencies raised by him and forwarded the application of the society which resulted into approval of CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 4 of 82 the proposal of the society on the basis of fake and forged documents.

3. Accused persons had appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them to their satisfaction.

CHARGE

4. The accused persons have been charged for committing an offence under Section 120B r/w 420 and 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate Charge under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w 120B IPC is also made out against accused S.P. Singh and separate Charge under Section 420 and 471 r/w 120B IPC is made out against accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal.

5. CBI in support of their case have examined 39 witnesses.

6. PW1 Sh. R.A. Khan, Professor, Jamia Milia University stated that through a telephonic call he was requested to attend the meeting of Hearing Committee of AICTE scheduled for 24.4.2009 at AICTE Headquarter, New Delhi. He stated that the meeting was also attended by Professor M.S. Plami Chami, Professor C.P. Gupta and Professor CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 5 of 82 D.K. Bandupadhayya. He stated that in the meeting, certain deficiencies which were earlier communicated to the institution i.e. Chachan Educational and Welfare Society, Alwar were considered by the Hearing Committee. He stated that the first deficiency was that the Land Conversion Certificate was obtained after the cut off date and the second was in respect of Building Plan which did not mention proposed groups of institutes name. He has proved the letter regarding deficiency no. 1 received from the Sarpanch submitted alongwith the proposal with a link document by District Collector dated 22.01.2009 which was Ex. PW1/1. The document Ex. PW1/1 was with the remark that deficiency no. 1 was complied with which was considered by the Hearing Committee as sufficient compliance of deficiency no. 1. He has further proved Ex. PW1/2 which was in respect of deficiency no. 2 i.e. Building Plan and the name of Institute and the same was approved by Sarpanch of Chikani Village vide letter dated 24.12.2008. He has further stated that the two deficiencies in the meeting dated 24.4.2009 were recommended for issuance of Letter of Intent by AICTE for the academic session 200910 and the same was Ex. PW1/3. He stated that there was representation from the side of the institute that they have applied for the land use and conversion to District Collector concerned and the same document was taken as link document with the report of the Sarpanch that "My Report is Correct."

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 6 of 82 he admitted that he was also in the list of Expert Committee of the Members of AICTE. He stated that as Member of the Expert Committee, he had visited some of the institutions and for such visits of institutions, the request was being made by the concerned Regional Office of AICTE and such request were being made telephonically by the Regional Office concerned at relevant time. He admitted that on Ex. PW1/1, the members of the committee including him had not given any remarks/endorsement to show that they have seen these documents. He admitted that accused Manoj Kumar Chachan had not attended the meeting as his presence was not recorded in Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2. He admitted that no official from Regional Office concerned had attended the meeting dated 24.4.2009. He further admitted that meeting was between the officer bearer of the Educational Institution, Members of Hearing Committee and the Head office and none was included in the meeting from the Regional office concerned.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Manoj Kumar Chachan he admitted that in the meeting dated 24.4.2009 in their opinion, they considered the two deficiencies as complied generally and, therefore, they had given their recommendation for giving LOI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Sanjay Aggarwal he stated that he does not remember whether the CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 7 of 82 required land was 10.8 acre for the institution/for the integrated campus for three disciplines i.e. Engineering, Hotel Management and PGDM. He admitted that for the cut off dated i.e. 31.12.2008 for rural areas, the permission were accorded on the basis of letters issued by the Sarpanch in respect of the land use and land conversions. He stated that now it is required that certificate is being issued in respect of land use and land conversion by the District Collector. He denied that there was no requirement of certificate from District Collection concerned and only a certificate from Sarpanch is sufficient as per norms.

7. PW2 Professor Shankar S. Mantha, Vice Chairman of AICTE has proved the recommendation of the subcommittee of Executive Committee dated 30.6.2009 and the same was Ex. PW2/A. He stated that this recommendation was given on the basis of Expert Committee Report for the Block Period from 200910. He stated that Ex. PW2/A also bears the signatures of Sh. M.S. Palanichami and Professor Narain Rao. He stated that by recommendation Ex. Pw2/A, they recommended for approval for the block year 200910 for the faculty and courses subject to the experience of the Director of the Institute. He stated that their recommendation Ex. PW2/A was approved by the then Chairman Sh. R.A. Yadav. He has further proved letter dated 30.6.2009 which was Ex. PW2/B and corrigendum dated 13.7.2009 which was Ex. PW2/C. He stated that only the report of the Expert CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 8 of 82 Committee was placed before the EC Sub Committee but the approval of the Members of the Expert Committee were not being placed before the EC Sub Committee. He stated that it is the duty of the regional officer to check whether a particular member of the Expert Committee is duly nominated or not by the Chairperson and in case of emergency, the Member of the Expert Committee may be changed in case he is busy or otherwise unable to visit the particular institution and in those cases either prior or post approval of Chairman is required.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 S.P. Singh he stated that he does not remember whether there is a prescribed time limit for taking expost facto approval of the Chairman. He admitted that D2 shown to him is the approval process applicable at relevant time and the same was Ex. PW2/X1. He stated that the record was maintained in the form of file notings in the cases where due to nonavailability of an Expert Member, another Member was being requested or nominated. He denied that since no such noting was being prepared at file, therefore, he has not gone through any such noting in the present case. He stated that he had not seen who were the members of the Expert Committee in the present case or whether they were from the approved panel of AICTE. He does not know about the procedure at relevant time whether the members of the Expert Committee were being requested to visit a particular institute only by telephone and, therefore, he cannot say whether any thing in writing CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 9 of 82 was being taken on record in this respect from the Expert Members.

Ld. Counsels for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

8. PW3 Sh. Jitender Kumar, Data Entry Operator, AICTE, New Delhi has stated that during his tenure at Chandigarh accused S.P. Singh was posted as one of the Regional officer, AICTE, Chandigarh. He has correctly identified accused S.P. Singh who was present in the Court. He has proved the file of Chachan Educational & Welfare Society for getting the approval of different courses and the same was Ex. PW3/A. He has further proved letter dated 19.6.2009 addressed to the Principle Secretary and the same was Ex. PW3/A1. He has proved the recommendation of scrutinizing committee placed at sheet no. 47 and the same was Ex. PW3/A2. He has also proved check list which was Ex. PW3/A3, letter dated 24.01.2009 Ex. PW3/A4, check list proposal received on 31.12.2008 Ex. PW3/A5. He stated that in this case since some members nominated by Headquarter, Delhi were not available, the then Regional Officer accused S.P. Singh was informed regarding their non availability.

The witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI. On being crossexamined by Ld. PP for CBI he admitted that he had told CBI in his statement that on the direction of accused S.P. Singh they used to CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 10 of 82 contact the expert nominated by the Head Office, AICTE, New Delhi for inspection of institution over telephone and the same was Ex. PW3/A6.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh he stated that most of the work was assigned to him by his supervisory officer. He stated that the file Ex. PW3/A pertains to State of Rajasthan. He stated that the present file pertains to Rajasthan since few letters bears his signatures, he has put his signatures on those letters only for the purpose of forwarding the documents to the Head Quarter. He stated that as per normal practice followed in his office, experts are nominated by the Headquarter situated at Delhi for expert committee visits to different institutes. He stated that he does not know as to whether if any expert was nominated from the approved list by the Regional Officer in case of nonavailability of expert nominated by the Head Quarter, any postfacto approval was required or not. He further stated that it is nowhere mentioned in Ex. PW3/A1 that he had signed the document on the instruction of accused S.P. Singh. He admitted that no date is mentioned on Ex. PW3/A2. He admitted that document Ex. PW3/A3 has a noting against remarks of Regional Committee. He stated that he does not know as to who was the authorized signatory of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society on 24.01.2009.

Ld. Counsels for accused no. 2 Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused no. 3 Sanjay Aggarwal did not cross examine the said witness despite opportunity given to them.

CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 11 of 82

9. PW4 Dr. R.A. Yadav, has proved the format in which the facts in respect of issue of letter of intent with regard to Chachan Educational and Welfare Society Group of Institutions, Alwar, Rajasthan were mentioned and the same was Ex. PW4/A. He stated that the hearing committee consisted of three members including Dr. M.S. Pilanichamim, Dr. K. Narain Rao. He stated that the recommendation of Hearing Committee was put before member Secretary and the same was recommended by Member Secretary Dr. K. Narain Rao for issue of letter of intent and this recommendation of Hearing Committee was not recommended for issue of letter of intent since it was having two deficiencies i.e. Land Conversion after cut off date and Building Plan did not mention the name of the Institute. He state that Hearing Committee Recommendation dated 24.4.2009 were regarding the courses i.e. Engineering, Architecture, HMCT, and PGDM part of integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society and these recommendations were put before him by Member Secretary Dr. K. Narain Rao. He stated that as per the procedure, the lower staff checks the cut off date, land details and fund details in respect of the institute. He stated that the committee of Expert Committee was nominated by the Council as per the procedure and the same is communicated to the Regional Office for visit of the institute. He stated that at the time of LOA, he did not check whether the Members who CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 12 of 82 had submitted Expert Committee Report were nominated by the Council as per procedure. He stated that the InCharge of the Regional office is overall responsible to check the names of the Expert Committee members from the approved list. He stated that the land owned by the Institute for establishment of new institutions should be incumbrance free as per regulation of AICTE. He stated that if the land is mortgaged at the time of the submission of the proposal at the regional office, then the proposal would be verified by the Regional Committee consisting of Regional Officer and one Member of the Regional Committee and after verification if it is found to be mortgaged the same deficiency would be communicated to the applicant. If after rectification the same is not submitted by the applicant by the cut off date, the application would be rejected. He has proved Expert Committee Report Ex. PW4/B. He has also proved summary of application of development of integrated campus of new institutions and the same was Ex. PW4/C. He has proved letter dated 09.01.2009 Ex. PW4/D. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh he admitted that approval for establishment of new institute is granted as per procedure laid down in Ex. PW2/X1 (D2). He admitted that if the land is situated in rural area, the certificate issued by the Sarpanch is considered by the AICTE depending upon the rules regarding land use certificate/land conversion applicable in the respective state. He CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 13 of 82 stated that he is not aware whether the Chachan Educational and Welfare Society, Alwar had withdrawn the affiliation of Architect course. He is also not aware whether Chachan Education had intimated Expert Committee in writing that they have withdrawn architect course. He admitted that he had approved Ex. PW2/A for three programmes namely: Engineering, HMCT and PGDM. He stated that the original documents as per the check list were shown to the Hearing Committee by the applicant at the time of presentation of the case for verification.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he admitted that the funds required as mentioned Ex. PW2X/1 at clause 13.7 Table 8 of internal page no. 57. He denied that there is no rule in the Approval Process Handbook which requires submission of a certificate by an architect in respect of an already constructed building. He admitted that at the subsequent time when the Expert Committee visits the site, it verifies the construction of building, equipment, library and other infrastructures. He admitted that the Expert Committee who had visited the premises had given the positive response.

Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal has adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh.

10. PW5 Dr. S.C. Laroiya, Retired Director, National Institute of CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 14 of 82 Technical Teachers Training and Research has stated that Ex. PW3/A2 is recommendation of Scrutinizing Committee of North West Regional AICTE, for the proposal for establishment of new Technical Institutions for the Session 200910. He stated that accused S.P. Singh as Member Secretary of North West Regional Committee of AICTE had put up the proposal and had signed on it and the same was already Ex. PW3/A2. He stated that Ex. PW3/A2 is forwarding of the proposal by him on recommendation of accused S.P. Singh as well as verifying all the documents which are required for setting up any new technical institution. He stated that there is a check list provided by the AICTE for setting up new institutions and after fulfilling all these formalities, accused S.P. Singh is supposed to put up the proposal to the Advisory Committee i.e. NWRC Committee (North West Regional Committee). He stated that accused S.P. Singh had informed him in his office that since he had verified all the check lists specifications, he may go through the proposal so accordingly, he had he had forwarded the proposal Ex. PW3/A2 for consideration by the AICTE Headquarters.

He stated that he has also seen the check list Ex. PW3/A3 and the same was prepared by accused S.P. Singh. He stated that accused S.P. Singh has mentioned in Ex. PW3/A3 that "May be forwarded to AICTE Headquarters for the session 200910", in his own handwriting. He stated that accused S.P. Singh had convinced him that he was the Head of the NWR Office and, therefore, he was the CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 15 of 82 person who had to verify all these documents before putting the recommendation before the Advisory Committee. He voluntarily stated that since large number of proposals were put up before the Advisory Committee, his contention for not bringing all the documents to his office, was correct. He stated that accused S.P. Singh had convinced him that accused had verified all the documents and he should forward the documents to the headquarters as one of the members of the advisory committee. He stated that usually this procedure is followed in most of the cases. After seeing Ex. PW3/A4 which was written by accused Sanjay Aggarwal of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society to the Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh vide which he had informed about the deficiencies he stated that since these letters were not brought to his knowledge he could not have known whether there were any deficiencies or they were communicated to the applicant. He stated that if the deficiencies were brought to his notice, he would not have forwarded the documents of the concerned committee. He stated that Ex. PW3/A2 and Ex. PW3/A3 were signed by him in his office which were brought by accused S.P. Singh.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh he stated that as per rules, the designated Director of North West Regional Advisory Committee automatically becomes one of the Member of the Advisory Committee. He stated that it is never by name and any Director or Officiating Director automatically becomes one of CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 16 of 82 the members of the Advisory Committee. He stated that from August, 2006, he was the officiating Director of North West Regional Advisory Committee. He stated that it is neither obligatory nor mandatory for nominating Members of North West Regional Committee to be a regular Member, therefore, he cannot say the exact period as to when he was Member of the Advisory Committee. He stated that he had handed over the charge of the Regional Director on July, 2009. He stated that inquiries were made from him by CBI regarding this case only once in Delhi. He stated that he does not know whether his statement had been recorded or not as he had not seen. He stated that the written procedure is followed by the Regional Officers for granting approval to set up new institutions. As per procedure, first of all accused S.P. Singh was to invite proposals then he was to check it along with Experts then he was to himself verify as Head of Regional Office and as Member Secretary of Regional Committee he is required to put up on the proposals to the North West Regional Committee and make a presentation to all the Advisory Committee Members including himself. He stated that he does not know how many members of lower staff, Members of AICTE are employed for the purpose of verification of the documents. He stated that Ex. PW3/A2, Ex. PW3/A3, Ex. PW3/A4 and Ex. PW4/D were shown to him for the first time in the Court. He stated that he cannot state the nature of deficiency in the proposal made by M/s Chachan Educational and Welfare Society since CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 17 of 82 it was never shown to him. He stated that on the basis of photocopies of the documents submitted by the applicant, the proposal is considered for processing it further and thereafter, it is forwarded to AICTE, New Delhi for necessary action. He stated that the validity of the land documents and other documents submitted by the applicant can be confirmed by verification of original documents at the time of hearing committee meeting by AICTE Headquarter, New Delhi. He stated that he had not signed Ex. PW3/A after verifying them. He stated that accused S.P. Singh had given him assurance regarding verification of documents. He had not returned this document neither he had reported about it to any other Member of Superior Authority.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal he admitted that the Regional Officer communicates the correspondence to the applicant concerned. He stated that he does not remember whether he had seen any authorization in this case. He had seen the authorization letter in favour of accused Sanjay Aggarwal in the file of M/s Chachan Educational and Welfare Society. He again said that he had not seen the authorization letter but accused Sanjay Aggarwal had signed as Authorized Signatory on Ex. PW3/A4. He voluntarily stated that the deficiencies were not disclosed to him in this case.

Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.

CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 18 of 82

11. PW6 Sh. Dilip Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Vice Chancellor, Guru Gobind Sigh Indraprastha University, Delhi has stated that he was in the list of Experts Committee members of AICTE in the year 200809 for various committees. He has proved the Hearing Committee Recommendation dated 24.4.2009 which was Ex. PW1/3. He stated that this hearing committee meeting was held in connection with M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar, Rajasthan. He stated that the Sarparnch had issued a certificate to the effect that the land was owned by M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society and was proposed to be used exclusively to develop the Educational Society activities. The photocopy of the certificate of the Sarpanch was Mark PW6/A which was filed by the applicant. He has also proved building plan dated 20.12.2008 and the same were Mark PW6/B1 and Mark PW6/B2. The witness has also proved application for conversion of agricultural land for use of nonagricultural purposes and the same was Mark PW6/C. He stated that the committee consisting of Prof. M.S. Palinchamy, Prof. R.A. Khan, Prof. C.P. Gupta and himself had recommended for issuance of letter of intent. He stated that if any complaint is received by AICTE regarding process of issuance of LOI or any deviation from it, the AICTE can take punitive action after verification.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 19 of 82 Manoj Kumar Chachan he admitted that he had attended several Hearing Committee meetings pertaining to different institutes who have applied for establishment. He admitted that at the relevant point of time he was aware of the procedure specified in the Approval Process Handbook. He admitted that in case the applicant society/trust has already constructed the building for the proposed institution, the Hearing Committee may take into account the expenditure already incurred.

Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.

12. PW7 Sh. Harbans Lal Verma, Professor of Management, Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar, Haryana has stated that he used to be associated in Expert Committees as and when required by the AICTE in addition to his duties in the University. He stated that as Expert Member in the Committees, they were supposed to verify the fitness of the institutions for running academic programmes on the basis of infrastructure and other facilities available. He stated that he was called by accused S.P. Singh to act as one of the members of the committee to conduct the visit of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar. He stated that the Committee had taken round of the institution and interacted with the management committee to ascertain the fitness of the institution for running the courses in Engineering, CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 20 of 82 Hotel and Tourism Management and PGDM during the course of the visit. He stated that they had instructed the College Authorities as per the practice to prepare a video CD of various facilities and infrastructure available in the campus and accordingly, the video CD was prepared. He stated that before preparing the CD it was not played before them to ascertain that the same was blank or not. He stated that there is a proforma prescribed by the AICTE on expert visit and the report is submitted on the said proforma. He stated that since there is a proforma prescribed as mentioned, in this case only the proforma was given and nobody had informed regarding any new guidelines including preparation of CD. He does not remember the names of the representatives on behalf of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Soceity, Alwar, however, it has been mentioned in record. He stated that on inspection they found that the building and other infrastructure facilities of the institution were adequate in all respects, PDGM faculty building was as per the plan and so far as the building related to two other courses i.e. Engineering and Hotel and Tourism Management, there was slight variation from the building plan on higher side i.e. the size of the rooms were much bigger. He has further sated that Mark 7/1 to Mark 7/4 and Mark 7/4A were not shown to him during the expert committee visit. He further stated that the documents which were shown to him during the expert committee visit are not in the judicial file pertaining to building plan. He stated that the entire CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 21 of 82 institution was covered by one boundary wall and there was no separate demarcation of the building for courses applied for since there were different teaching blocks. He stated that the Expert Committee had seen Mark 7/5 during the visit as shown by the representative of the society. He stated that they had seen all the documents required as per AICTE norms.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh he admitted that the members of the Expert Committee were well respected of high repute and were senior and experienced members of the Committee. He stated that to the best of their judgment, they had given the correct report of the Expert Committee visit. He admitted that convener was not supposed to explain the guidelines of AICTE as they were already aware about the same.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that in the entire Expert Committee Report, they had not mentioned that there was any variation in the construction from the sanctioned building plan.

Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Sanjay Aggarwal had adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh and accused Manoj Kumar Chachan.

13. PW8 Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Principal, Engineering College, Bikaner had further proved the EC Sub Committee recommendation CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 22 of 82 pertaining to integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar which was already Ex. PW2/A. He stated that after verification of Director Experience he alongwith Sh. K Narayan Rao and Sh. S.S. Mantha recommended to issue LOA to the integrated campus of the institute and the same was approved by the then Chairman AICTE.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh, accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not cross examine the said witness despite opportunity given to them.

14. PW9 Sh. Surender Kumar Soni, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Alwar has stated that vide letter dated 08.9.2009 he had given the information to CBI about the record relating to M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society and the same was Ex. PW9/A1. He stated that vide Ex. PW9/A1, he had given the certified copy of account opening form to M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society having account no. 442201010036216 and the same was Ex. PW9/A2. He has also proved that he had given the certified copy of specimen signatures card of this account and the same was Ex. PW9/A3. He has also proved that he had given the certified copy of statement of account of M/s Marut Nandan Education Society for the period 01.01.2009 to 30.6.2009 and the same was Ex. PW9/A4. He stated that as per statement of account Ex. PW9/A4 dated 19.02.2009, debit balance in the account was Rs. CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 23 of 82 92,14,223.64 and on 18.3.2009 debit balance was Rs. 93,43,401.64 and both the cheques were returned and paid.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that he does not know whether M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society, Tijara Road, Chikani, Alwar had been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 7 crores vide letter dated 02.7.2008 issued by the Alwar Branch of Union Bank of India.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

15. PW10 Sh. Bhagwan Sahay Gupta, Retired Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank has proved letter dated 07.12.2009 and the same was Ex. PW10/A1. He has also proved letter dated 21.01.2008 submitted by M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society and the same was Ex. PW10/A2. He has proved letter dated 22.01.2008 and the same was Ex. PW10/A3. He stated that as per record, property bearing khasra no. 1090 and 1091 of village Chikani, Alwar was offered and mortgaged in favour of bank against credit facility. He has also proved letter dated 23.10.2009 and the same was Ex. PW10/A5.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he admitted that document D30 is the title deed for khasra no. 1090 which was mortgaged to the Bank. He stated that he CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 24 of 82 does not know whether Punjab National Bank had granted a consent to M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society for a loan of Rs. 6.50 crores as and when required.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not cross examined the witness despite opportunity given to them.

16. PW11 Sh. Ramji Lal Jain retired official of Punjab National Bank has stated that account no. 1611 in the name of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Soceity was running at Shivaji Park, Alwar Branch and this account was operated by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and Atul Chachan. He has proved pay in slip dated 18.02.2009 in connection of cheque no. 704830 of Rs. 5 crores and the same was Ex. PW11/A. He has also proved pay in slip dated 17.3.2009 relating to cheque no. 704833 of Rs. 5 crores and the same was Ex. PW11/A1. He has proved letter dated 04.9.2009 and the same was Ex. PW11/A2. He has also proved statement of account of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society from the period 23.12.2008 to 30.6.2009 and the same was Ex. PW11/A3.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that Atul Chachan and accused Manoj Kumar Chachan had never signed any document in front of him.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh and accused Sanjay CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 25 of 82 Aggarwal did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

17. PW12 Sh. Gopal Singh Ratiya, Office Assistant in the office of District Collector, Alwar has proved letter dated 26.10.2009 and the same was Ex. PW12/A. He has proved letter bearing no. Revenue/09/9602 dated 07.12.2009 and the same was Ex. PW12/A1. He has proved conversion order bearing no. 6074 dated 03.9.2009 and the same was Ex. PW12/A2. He has proved conversion order bearing no. 14174 dated 22.01.2009 and the same was Ex. PW12/A3.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding the present case except the fact that the CBI officials had verified the fact as to whether the conversion order Ex. PW12/A2 and Ex. PW12/A3 were issued by their office or not. He admitted that CBI officials had given photocopy of conversion order for verification. He admitted that the letter dated 26.10.2009 does not bear the stamp of collector office. He has voluntarily stated that since it was only a correspondence letter it was not required to bear a stamp as it bears the signatures of the author of the letter. He denied that the letter dated 26.10.2009 was never issued by the District Collector to CBI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal he stated that he had deposed on the basis of record of his CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 26 of 82 office shown to him in the judicial file. Ex. PW12/A was typed and signed in his present.

Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.

18. PW13 Ms. G. Manusree, Assistant Director, All India Council for Technical Education, Delhi has stated that she was dealing with the matter relating to North West Region which includes Rajasthan from March, 2009. She stated that accused S.P. Singh was working as a Regional officer, AICTE, North West Region at Chandigarh. She had proved letter dated 31.01.2009 bearing no. 037 and the same was Ex. PW13/A. She has further proved regional committee recommendation and the same was Ex. PW13/A1 and check list which was Ex. PW13/A2. She stated that the proposal was sent by accused S.P. Singh for the approval of integrated campus for the courses of Engineering for 240 seats, PGDM for 60 seats, Architecture for 60 seats and HMCT for 60 seats. She stated that in the proposal for approval of an integrated campus, the campus was proposed to be constructed on the land and the details of the land is mentioned at internal page no. 6 of the proposal and the same was Ex. PW13/A3. She has further proved Ex. PW13/A4. She has further proved seizure memo dated 28.8.2009 and the same was Ex. PW13/A5. She has also proved letter dated 08.4.2009 signed by accused S.P. Singh and CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 27 of 82 the same was Ex. PW13/A6. She has proved letter dated 02.4.2009 and the same was Ex. PW13/A7. She has stated that for technical campus the norms are different than Clause 13.7 (Funds). She stated that if the require fund is not available, the proposal for the institution may be rejected and similarly, if the institution does not produce the encumbrance and the land use certificate, proposal may be rejected. She stated that one the proposal is received at the headquarter, the Adviser (E & T) will constitute a committee for hearing with the approval of the competent authority. She stated that the original letter of intent and the deficiency letter addressed to Chairman, M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society was sent to the institution and the photocopies of the documents were retained in the AICTE Office.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 S.P. Singh she stated that there is requirement of classification of the land for construction of the institution alongwith the proposal. She admitted that if the proposal containing the land use certificate issued by the Sarpanch or anyone for the land situated in the rural area, there is no deficiency qua the land user certificate in the proposal since the RO concerned is suppose to see only the check list and no other document. He admitted that if the nominated member for the expert committee visit is not available, the RO concerned is empowered to select the member from the list of the Expert Committee provided by AICTE and RO is further supposed to obtain postfacto approval from CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 28 of 82 the AICTE/Competent Authority in respect of the member selected from the list of the expert for expert committee visit at the site. She admitted that there is requirement to submit the Khasra Plan alongwith the proposal by the institution. She admitted that the institution is required to show all the original document before the hearing committee meeting at the headquarter. She stated that the RO office is not required to examine the genuineness of the documents as they are supposed to forward the same to the headquarter as the documents are not submitted in original as well as if mentioned in the check list, the same will be forwarded to the headquarter. She admitted that if the document which is not submitted to the Registrar Office and directly submitted before hearing committee in the head office, concerned RO is not responsible for the same as the hearing committee has to scrutinize the said document on their own after seeing the original.

On being cross examined by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan she admitted that the land use certificate should have been issued by the competent authority. She stated that AICTE does not maintain the account of the fund of the institution. The fund disclosed before hearing committee by the institution is meant for infrastructure of the institution. She admitted that in the year 2010, the AICTE had made an amendment permitting the institution to mortgage the land after the approval from AICTE for the development of the institution.

Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 29 of 82 witness despite opportunity given to him.

19. PW14 Dr. DevVrat Singh, Senior Scientist, Directorate of Soyabean Research has proved the documents relating to M/s Chachan Education and Welfare Society, Alwar vide letter dated 26.10.2009 and the same was Ex. PW14/A1. He has also proved letter dated 04.12.2009 vide which he had handed over the record in connection of Chachan Educational & Welfare Society to CBI and the same was Ex. PW14/A2. He stated that on 30.6.2009 he had sent letter for approval to Commissioner and Secretary, Higher and Technical Educational Department, Government of Rajasthan for issuance of letter of approval for development of a new integrated campus for Chachan Educational & Welfare Society. He stated that he had also issued another letter of approval dated 30.6.2009 with reference to Part II, Faculty of Engineering for the courses i.e. Automobile Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering. He stated that the letters of approval were sent to Commissioner and Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and copies thereof were sent to Regional Office, AICTE, Chandigarh for monitoring the compliance of conditions as laid down in the approval letter and to the Chairman/President, Director/Dean/Associate Director for Chachan Educational & Welfare Society for ensuring submission of CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 30 of 82 compliance report as per AICTE Department. He stated that accused S.P. Singh vide letter dated 28.5.2009 had requested for approval for expert committee visit for the programme mentioned in the letter and had also shown the joint FDRs/inspection Fees. He stated that he had also mentioned the refundable performance guarantee fees for each course, particularly for Engineering and Technical Degree Rs. 35 lakhs and for Architecture/PGDM Rs. 15 lakhs. He stated that when the institution submits the application for approval of integrated campus and on scrutiny, the Regional officer raises any deficiency in the proposal regarding documents and terms and conditions of the approval as per AICTE norms, in such case the Regional Officer shall intimate the deficiency to the institution for compliance. He has further stated that the proposal complete in all respect is forwarded to the Head Quarter, AICTE, New Delhi. He voluntarily stated that the deficiencies communicated by the Hearing Committee have to be scrutinized exclusively by the Hearing Committee itself as it is the Hearing Committee which forwards the proposal.

He stated that the application for development of integrated campus was received by the Regional Office and the Regional Officer i.e. Accused S.P. Singh had forwarded the proposal to Adviser, E & T, AICTE Headquarter, Delhi. He stated that the copy of corrigendum dated 13.7.2009 was sent to Regional Office, AICTE/Chairman/President/Dean/Associate Director of Chachan CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 31 of 82 Educational and Welfare Society, Alwar and the said corrigendum was marked as Mark PW14/A16. He stated that the corrigendum was issued in continuation of letter dated 30.6.2009 in the name of institution of the body and the same was issued with reference to Faculty of Engineering and another corrigendum dated 13.7.2007 which was marked as Mark PW14/A17 with reference to Faculty of PGDM.

He has also proved request letter dated 23.12.2008 and the same was Ex. PW14/A3. He has also proved annexure II application form dated 18.12.2008 and the same was Ex. PW14/A5. He stated that Ex. PW2/X1 is the approval process for establishment of new technical institution of AICTE for the year 2008 and as per approval process and Sub Rule 4.3.1 stageI, procedure for submission of proposal is given and as per procedure the proposal form shall be submitted alongwith land conversion certificate issued from the competent authority. He stated that with reference to the deficiencies raised vide letter dated 09.01.2009, authorized signatory accused Sanjay Aggarwal of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society had informed to RO, AICTE, Chandigarh about compliance of deficiencies alongwith the relevant documents. He stated that while he was working as Adviser (E & T) he had sent a letter dated 12.6.2009 to Regional Officer, Chandigarh about the list of expert committee visit members with reference to M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Rajasthan.

CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 32 of 82 On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh he stated that there is a requirement of classification certificate pertaining to the land for institution. He does not remember whether the certificate issued by the Sarpanch for the classification of land filing in Rural Areas is permissible by AICTE. He does not remember whether in State of Rajasthan, a certificate from the Sarpanch is sufficient for classification of the land. He admitted that the hearing committee applies its independent mind on proposal sent by Regional Committee and the said proposal is not binding on them. He further admitted that the members of the hearing committee themselves scrutinized the documents forwarded by the Society. He stated that he does not remember whether in case of M/s Chachan Institute, no member of the Regional Committee was member of the Regional Committee. He admitted that on the basis of affidavit and undertaking given by the society or institute, the Regional Committee forwards the proposal for consideration by hearing committee at headquarter. He admitted that the expert committee while examining the infrastructure, facilities, faculty etc. will verify as to whether the development is in consonance with the proposal in the Detail Project Report and shall obtain a complete video CDs of all the facilities.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that he does not know whether khasra no. 1090 measured 91 ares. He stated that he is not aware of any rule or CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 33 of 82 procedure by which AICTE can verify whether an institute has mortgaged their land after approval is granted by AICTE. He admitted that original title documents are returned to the applicant by the Regional Committee after taking undertaking from them that they will not mortgage the same. He voluntarily stated that surprise visits are also occasionally conducted to verify whether the land was mortgaged after approval of his land. He stated that he does not know whether similar concession in funds can be given if a society already has library, laboratory or any other infrastructure. He stated that he does not know whether it was common practice to accept Sarpanch letter for showing land use conversion.

Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.

20. PW15 Sh. Kailash Chandra Thakuria has proved that he had notarized the undertaking of accused Manoj Kumar Chachan, Chairman, Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar regarding the fact that all the documents were submitted in original before hearing committee for issuance of LOI to be correct and genuine on the identification of accused Sanjay Aggarwal and the same was Ex.PW15/A. He has proved affidavit dated 26.6.2009 and the same was Ex. PW15/B. He has further proved Ex. PW15/C. He has proved undertaking dated 26.6.2009 and the same was Ex. PW15/D. He has CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 34 of 82 also proved Ex. PW15/E, Ex. PW15/F, Ex. PW15/G, Ex. PW15/H and Ex. PW15/J. He stated that all the said exhibits were produced and were signed before him by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh, accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

21. PW16 Sh. Satya Narayan Sharma, Manager, Punjab National Bank has stated that vide letter dated 21.01.2008 accused Manoj Kumar Chachan had submitted the title deeds mentioned in this letter alongwith affidavit, receipts, legal opinion and conversion order and these documents were submitted with reference to loan, TLNF74, 38, 56 and 65 and thereafter Punjab National Bank had issued an acknowledgment dated 22.01.2008 of these documents. He has proved letters dated 18.8.2008 and 27.10.2008 submitted by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and the same were Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/A1. He has proved annexure 2 dated 01.9.2007 which was Ex. PW16/A2 and certified copy of acknowledgment dated 03.9.2007 which was Ex. PW16/A3. He has proved annexure 2 dated 19.8.2008 and the same was Ex. PW16/A4. He has also proved annexure VI dated 18.8.2008 which was Ex. PW16/A5. He has proved acknowledgment receipt dated 20.8.2008 and the same was Ex. CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 35 of 82 PW16/A6. He has proved Certificate under Section 2 of Banker's Book of Evidence and the same was Ex. PW16/A7. He has further proved Samvidhan Patra Ex. PW16/A8 and Vidhan Niyamavali Ex. PW16A9. He has proved certified copy of true copy of the meeting of the Management Committee held on 01.5.2004 relating to M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society and the same was Ex. PW16/A10.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he admitted that document no. D30 is the title deed of Khasra No. 1090 which was mortgaged to the Bank. He stated that he does not know whether Punjab National Bank had granted a consent to M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society for a loan of Rs. 6.50 crores as and when required.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

22. PW17 Dr. Kanwar Singh Kasana, Retired Professor and Chairman and Mechanical Engineer has stated that he had visited the Integrated Campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society at Alwar. He stated that there was one person from AICTE, Chandigarh who guided the members of the Expert Committee and he was responsible for paying the Travel Allowance Bills etc. of the visit through AICTE, whose name he does not remember. He stated that there is a CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 36 of 82 procedure to visit an institute i.e. Head of the Institute will give the power point presentation of the Institute Documents and facilities and then the Expert Committee visits the various laboratories, library, lecture halls, tutorial rooms and workshops etc. He stated that having visited the integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar and having seen the facilities as per the AICTE norms, the Committee had found that the facilities met that recognition for the next session may be given for establishment of new integrated campus.

He stated that having visited integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar and having seen the facilities as per the AICTE norms, the committee had found that the facilities met the standard of the AICTE Norms and, therefore, recommended to AICTE that recognition for the next session may be given for establishment of new integrated campus. He stated that the format was not as per requirement and the same was reflected in category 2 at point F on the same page which is in a correct format. He admitted that the documents pertaining to land user certificate was shown to Expert Committee members by the Institute through the Director and after seeing the same, they asked for an affidavit from the Institute in respect of the land user certificate which was submitted by the institute.

The witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI and after court permission, Ld. PP for CBI crossexamined the witness. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. PP for CBI, the witness denied CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 37 of 82 that he had stated in the statement that accused S.P. Singh, Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh had contacted him over telephone and had requested him to act as a member of Expert Committee to conduct the check of the preparedness of integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar. He denied that accused S.P. Singh was the convener or supervising authority of their visit to the institute of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar or that he had guided them through their visit to the campus. He denied that accused S.P. Singh was one of the members with the Expert Committee from AICTE when they had visited the integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society.

He stated that he does not remember whether the land user certificate issued by the District Collector, Alwar was shown to him by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan or not during their visit. He denied that all the documents which were required to be shown to the Expert Visiting Committee had been shown by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh, accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

23. PW18 Sh. Navin Kumar, Retired Principal, Institute of Hotel Management has stated that he had inspected the Library, the CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 38 of 82 classrooms, the laboratory, washrooms, locker rooms of the boys and girls etc. and video recording of the inspection was also conducted, as per practice by the institute. He stated that video recording is mandatory as per AICTE norms. He stated that he had seen the land user certificate and building plan during the inspection since it was not his area of specialization and the other members of the Expert Team had seen the documents presented by accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal. He stated that the inspection of the building revealed that the building was completely constructed as per the AICTE Norms except for the exterior walls on which they were told tiles/stones will be used.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated the the members of the Expert Visiting Team generally meet the management/representatives of the Institutes when they conduct the visit for the inspection. He denied that he does not recognize any of the accused nor did he met them during the inspection and he is identifying the persons only at the instance of CBI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal he denied that he had not met or seen accused at the campus on 28.6.2009 and he is falsely identifying accused. He further denied that since he had neither met nor seen accused Sanjay and Manoj, therefore, he is not able to specify as to who is Sanjay and Manoj Kumar Chachan.

CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 39 of 82 Ld. Counsel for accused S.P. Singh did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.

24. PW19 Sh. Chandra Shekhar Verma, Assistant Director, AICTE Headquarter, Delhi has stated that in Regional Office, they deal with process of verification of documents and the applications of the applicants for starting new technical institutes such as engineering, management, architecture etc. In case, the applicant fulfills all the norms and guidelines after verification of the documents, the same is sent to Headquarter for approval and the Regional Office also deals with granting extension to already approved colleges for starting new courses or extensions. He has proved the search list which was exhibited as Ex. PW19/A1. He has further proved note sheet dated 12.5.2008 related to Expert Committee Visit for issuance of letter of Approval for the Session 200809 for M/s Chachan Educational Society, Alwar Rajasthan and the same was Ex. PW19/A2.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 S.P. Singh he admitted that Ex. PW19/A1 was not prepared in his presence and as such he has no personal knowledge regarding correctness of contents of the same.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Manoj Kumar Chachan he stated that he has seen the Member Secretary writing and signing in his presence during the course of his CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 40 of 82 official duties whenever he used to visit his room. He stated that he does not identify signatures of any other person on Ex. PW19/A2.

Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Sanjay Aggarwal did not examined the witness despite opportunity given to him.

25. PW20 Sh. S.N. Lahiri, Principal, College of Art has proved letter dated 25.9.2009 and the same was Ex. PW20/A. Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh, accused Manoj Kumar Chachan and accused Sanjay Aggarwal did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

26. PW21 Sh. Atul Chachan, has stated that he is the Member of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar since 2005 till 2011. He stated that accused Manoj Kumar Chachan was working as a Secretary of M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society from 2002 to 200910. He has proved account opening form of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society and the same was Ex. PW21/A. He stated that he himself and accused Manoj Kumar Chachan were the authorized signatory of this account. He stated that M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society was having current account with Union Bank of India, Near Over Bridge, Alwar and he himself and accused Manoj Kumar Chachan were the authorized signatory of the said account. He stated that M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society was also having a CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 41 of 82 Bank account in Punjab National Bank, Shivaji Park, Alwar. He does not remember as to whether he had issued any cheuqes in favour of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar on behalf of M/s Marut Nandan Educational Society. He admitted that one Avinash Bhardwaj was working with M/s Marut Nandal Educational Society, Alwar but he cannot identify his signatures. He also cannot identify the signatures of accused Sanjay Aggarwal.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Aggarwal he admitted that accused was the employee in M/s Laxmi Devi Institute of Engineering and Technology from 200102 to 2009. He stated that accused Sanjay Aggarwal was dealing with the admission related work of M/s Laxmi Devi Institute of Engineering and Technology which included AICTE work also. He admitted that accused Manoj Kumar Chachan is the son of his real maternal aunt (Mausiji). He admitted that Professor Surender Lal Bhargava, Sh. R.C. Gupta and accused Sanjay Aggarwal remained employees of M/s Laxmi Devi Institute of Engineering and Technology who are founder members of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, but he is not aware about the exact tenure of service of Professor Surender Lal Bhargava and Sh. R.C. Gupta. He admitted that accused Sanjay Aggarwal had never mortgaged or donated the land of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar. He admitted that as per his knowledge, accused Sanjay Aggarwal was never authorized by the Society to operate any account CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 42 of 82 of the Society in the Bank. He denied that accused Sanjay Aggarwal was not the active member in the Society and he was not looking after the accounts and other related works of the society.

Ld. Counsels for accused S.P. Singh and accused Manoj Kumar Chachan did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.

27. PW22 Professor A.K. Saxena, Institute of Management Studies, Bundelkhand Univesity has stated that CBI had sent a letter dated 17.9.2009 for conformation as to whether he had received any communication from either Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh or AICTE Headquarter, New Delhi to visit M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar, Rajasthan for establishment of PGDM Campus. He has proved letter dated 23.9.2009 sent to CBI in respect of reply to letter dated 17.9.2009 and the same was Ex. PW22/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 S.P. Singh he admitted that as per procedure, a person from Chandigarh Regional Office used to call the Expert Committee Members in connection with any visit through phone. He denied that a person named Jitender had called him from Chandigarh Regiona Office to check his availability for visit to conduct this expert committee visit. He denied that since the letter was written as per the dictates of CBI that is why he had not informed to Chairman, AICTE to conduct the visit to CC No. 41/12 State (CBI) Vs. S.P. Singh etc. Page No. 43 of 82 examine the preparedness of PGDM Campus part of integrated campus of M/s Chachan Educational & Welfare Society, Alwar, Rajasthan.