Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Jaibhagwan Saini on 22 September, 2025
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAI BHAGWAN SAINI AND OTHERS
The accused persons have been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally signed
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:22.09.2025 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:32:46 +0530 Page 1 of 71
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAI BHAGWAN SAINI AND OTHERS.
CNR No. : DLCT12-000301-2019
CASE No. : 77/2019
FIR No. : S19/99/E-0004
Offence complained of : Under Section 120-B r/w
420, 468, 471 IPC and
Substantive Offences
thereof.
Name of Branch : CBI/SIU-IX/ND
Date of Commission of Offence : 1997-98
Name of the Complainant : Source Information
Name, Parentage and Address :(1) Jai Bhagwan Saini S/o
of accused persons Sh. Mohan Lal Saini R/o
A-261/2, LIG Flats, Phase-I
Ashok Vihar, Delhi
(Proprietor of M/s. Jyoti
International)
(2) Bal Krishan Malhotra
(B.K. Malhotra) S/o Sh.
Ram Lal Malhotra,
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR Page 2 of 71
NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:33:03 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Proprietor of Ruchi
International, 203, Anand
Chambers, 25/34, East
Patel Nagar, New Delhi,
R/o 49/25, East Patel
Nagar, New Delhi.
(3) Lalit Dogra S/o Ashok
Kumar Dogra, R/o H-453,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
(Convicted vide order
dated 04.01.2005)
(4) Rakesh Kumar Chopra
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Chopra
R/o RC92, Jain Chowk,
Lal Masjid, Bhiwani
(Haryana)
*****
Date of institution of case : 17.10.1999
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Final Judgment : ACQUITTAL
Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025
Age of the case : 25 Years 11 Months and
05 Days Old.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan Saini, Bal Krishan Malhotra, Lalit Dogra and Rakesh Kumar Chopra were sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of the offences punishable (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 3 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:33:16 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and substantive offfences. It is pertinent to mention that accused Lalit Dogra pleaded guilty and was convicted vide order dated 04.01.2005. Accused Jai Bhagwan Saini expired during the trial and proceedings were abated against him vide order dated 22.12.2023.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the allegations are that during the period 1997-98, Ashok Kumar @ Jai Bhagwan Saini entered into a criminal conspiracy with B.K. Malhotra and other unknown persons to cheat the Government of India by claiming Duty Entitlement Pass Book credits (DEPB) worth Rs. 16,25,900/- from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi on the basis of false/forged shipping bills and Bank of Realisation Certificates purported to have been obtained from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina, New Delhi without having made any exports.
2.1 Investigation revealed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini not only opened one proprietorship firm M/s. Jyoti International giving its address as UG-59, Palika Place, Panchkulan Road, New Delhi but also opened Current Account No.1882 on 22.6.98 in favour of M/s Jyoti International by posing himself as Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of the firm in Lord Krishna Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Thereafter, accused Jai Bhagwan Saini obtained Importer Exporter (IEC) Code number in favour of the (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 4 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:33:25 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
said firm on 22.07.98 from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi (Jt. DGFT) and also obtained Registration-cum-Membership Certificate (RCMC) dated 16.09.98 in favour of the said firm from the office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts (EPCH), New Delhi by posing and signing the required documents as Ashok Kumar. 2.2 It has transpired during investigation that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with co-
accused filed an application dated 29.10.98 dishonestly in the office of Jt.DGFT, enclosing therewith forged copy of shipping bill No.14482 dated 22.08.98 showing exports of Acrylic Sheets Extruded for a value of Rs.31,00,320/- from Inland Containers Depot (ICD) Customs, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, forged Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) No.FOBC/68/98 dated 07.09.98 purported to have been issued from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina, New Delhi, self attested copies of IE Code and RCMC with a request to issue Duty Entitlement Pass Book Credit (DEPB) licence worth Rs.6,08,500/- and signed there as Ashok Kumar. Similarly, accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra had also impersonated and signed as Ashok Kumar on some of the documents posing himself as proprietor of the firm M/s.Jyoti International. Whereas accused Lalit Dogra typed the BRCs by using the typewriter of accused B.K.Malhotra and also forged the signature of Branch Manager of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina. Accordingly, the accused persons succeeded in (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 5 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:33:34 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
obtaining a DEPB credit licence No.0101041 dated 09.12.98 for Rs.6,08,500/- on the basis of forged shipping bill and BRC whereas no such export were ever made.
2.3 Investigation further revealed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini by posing himself as Ashok Kumar and in criminal conspiracy with other accused B.K.Malhotra and Lalit Dogra also filed another application dated 11.12.98 in the office of Jt.DGFT, for issue of DEPB Credit licence worth Rs. 10,17,409/-
dishonestly and fraudulently. He had enclosed forged copies of shipping bills No.14483, 14484 both dated 22.08.98 for Rs.27,12,780/- and 24,70,567/- showing export of Acrylic Sheets Excruded from ICD, Customs, Tuglakabad, forged BRC No. FOBC/50/98 and FOBC/49/98 dated 07.09.98 purported to have been issued from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina, New Delhi and self certified copies of IE Code and RCMC. Accordingly, the accused persons succeeded in obtaining DEPB Credit licence No.0101118 dated 30.12.98 worth Rs.10,17,400/- in favour of firm M/s. Jyoti International dishonestly by inducing and cheating the office of Jt.DGFT, New Delhi on the strength of forged shipping bills and Bank Realisation Certificates (BRCs) as no such exports of consignments were ever made. It was revealed during investigation that accused Lalit Dogra prepared the said forged BRCs by forging the signature of Bank Manager of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur.
2.4 Thus, the accused persons committed offences punishable
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
by NEETU
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:22.09.2025
NEETU NAGAR
Page 6 of 71
NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22
17:33:42 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
under Section 120-B IPC read with 419,420,467,468,471 IPC and substantive offences thereof. However, no offence has been caused on the part of firm M/s. Jyoti International being a proprietorship concern of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini. 2.5 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 05.12.2000, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons as disclosed in the chargesheet.
3.1 Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3.2 Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B, 419/468/471 and 420 IPC were framed against accused Jai Bhagwan Saini on 27.10.2004 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC and 467 IPC were framed against accused Bal Krishan Malhotra and charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC, 419 IPC and 468 IPC were framed against accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra. Charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 7 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:33:49 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B and 467 IPC were framed against accused Lalit Dogra to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim to be tried. Accused Lalit Dogra was accordingly convicted and sentenced vide orders dated 27.10.2004 and 04.01.2005 respectively.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses in total. Their testimonies in brief are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Sh. S.S. Vaidya:- This witness was posted as Deputy Vice President in Lord Krishna Bank, K-II Chaudhary Building, Middle Circle, Cannaught Place, New Delhi in the year 1992. He has deposed about his role at the time of opening of bank account bearing no. 1882 in the name of M/s. Jyoti International and about the documents submitted at that time by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini.
(ii) PW-2 Sh. A.K. Sakuja:- This witness was working as Export Promotion Officer in the office of Export Promotion Council for handicraft and proved the correspondence and documents of original file relating to M/s. Jyoti International.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Giyanesh Kumar Jain:- This witness was working in Punjab National Bank on 09.03.2000. He deposed that the typewriter material typed with typewriter Godrej bearing no.
577313 vide Ex. A bearing his signatures on each page was typed by the steno Sh. Vinod Kashyap and the headlines on each page were written by Inspector Rajesh Chahal who also signed on Digitally signed (Neetu Nagar) by NEETU ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 8 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:33:57 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
each page. He has proved specimen typing pages vide Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/38.
(iv) PW-4 Sh. A.K. Mohanty:- This witness was posted as Assistant Manager in Lord Krishna Bank at K-2 Chaudhary Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He has proved the seizure memo dated 16.02.2000 (D-6) vide Ex.PW1/E through which he handed over the documents i.e. account opening form Ex. PW1/A, declaration for sole proprietor form Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/D.
(v) PW-5 Sh. Parijat Saurabh:- This witness was posted as Branch Manager at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Naraina Indl. Area PH-II (Loha Mandi Branch). He deposed that account A/C no. 1859 was not running in their branch in the name of M/s.
Jyoti International as it belonged to M/s. V.K. Company. He further deposed that the Bank Realization Certificates were not issued by their branch and that the stamps, seals and signatures affixed on the forms were not of their bank and also not issued in favour of M/s. Jyoti International.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Harpal Singh:- This witness worked in FTDO in the office of Joint DGFT/CLA (Central Licensing Area) also known as Additional Export Commissioner New Delhi w.e.f. 1998 to 31.05.1999. He used to issue Advance License at DEPB (Duty Exemption Passbook Scheme) to the exporters. He deposed that on 29.10.1998, M/s. Jyoti International had applied for issuance of license DEPB and the application was put before (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 9 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:05 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
him. After verification of license, DEPB was issued to M/s. Jyoti International which was approved by Sh. Mahesh Chandra, Joint DGFT. Under the said scheme of Central Government for the purpose of import, 20% duty exemption was granted to the party/exporter. He proved application of M/s. Jyoti International for issuance of DEPB license vide Ex.PW6/A along with Annexure-1. He deposed that letter no. 1078 dated 16.11.1998 Ex. PW6/B was issued to M/s. Jyoti International in pursuance to that letter and reply Mark X was filed by M/s. Jyoti International with the signatures of Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of the firm. He also proved letter no. 1702 dated 14.12.1998 vide Ex. PW6/C and letter CR1 dated 26.02.1999 vide Ex. PW6/D. He also identified his signatures and that of Sh. Mahesh Chandra on Ex.PW6/E in the application dated 30.11.1998 sent by Jyoti International which was acknowledged in the office vide acknowledgement dated 23.12.1998. He proved letter no. 2024 dated 01.01.1999 vide Ex.PW6/F, letter no. 2973 dated 05.03.1999 vide Ex.PW6/G which was issued to the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina Delhi, reply to the letter vide Ex. PW6/H, letter dated 05.02.1999 vide Ex. PW6/I, letter no. CR2 dated 26.02.1999 vide Ex. PW6/J sent to Assistant Commissioner of Customs with the request to cancel both DEPB which were issued to M/s. Jyoti International with the approval of Joint DGFT Sh. Mahesh Chandra and approval obtained with the permission of Sh. Ali Raza Rizwi, Additional DGFT vide (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 10 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:13 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Ex.PW6/K. He further testified that DEPB license was thereafter cancelled. He also proved the check sheet DEPB allocation and notesheets dated 26.02.1999 and 01.03.1999 and check list at page no. 3 in the file no. 05/82/05/02/051/400/AM99. He deposed that the application was received at the counter which was proceeded by Sh. Vinod Garolla, UDC and then it was put up before him and he accordingly submitted the file to the Joint Director General Foreign Trade, Sh. Mahesh Chandra.
(vii) PW-7 Sh. Ramesh Chander Dewan :- This witness retired from Custom and Central Excise in the year 1998. He deposed that he never worked for M/s. Jyoti International and his company's name is Ramesh Chandra "Dewan" in his seal and not Ramesh Chandra "Deewan." He further deposed that stamp used by M/s. Jyoti International as "Deewan" is forged.
(viii) PW-8 Ram Krishan Dudega:- This witness was working as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Loha Mandi, Narayana, Phase-II, New Delhi. On 20.06.2000, he handed over letter Ex.PW5/A written by him to Sh. Rajesh Chahal, Inspector CBI in the office of CBI. He proved photocopy of Foreign Outward Bills Register at Serial No. 25, 26 & 47 vide Ex. PW8/A, Ex PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. M.K. Nabi:- This witness was working as Commercial Officer in the Department of Container Corporation of India Ltd. on 17.04.2000 and was looking after commercial activities. He proved letter D-15 vide Ex. PW9/A. He deposed (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 11 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:21 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
that Jyoti International did not bring goods against the shipping bill bearing no. 1448284 dated 22.08.1998.
(x) PW-10 Sh. S.N. Ojha:- This witness was working as Assistant Director in the Directorate General of Inspection Customs and Central Excise, IP Estate, New Delhi. He proved shipping bills bearing no. 14482 to 14484 vide Ex.PW10/A to PW10/D respectively and deposed about the processing of shipping bills.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. Balak Ram Tyagi:- He was an independent person and knew accused persons. He proved his statement recorded by CBI official under Section 161 Cr.PC vide Mark-1.
(xii) PW-12 Sh. Satya Kukreja:- This witness was posted as Inspector in the ICD (Custom), Tuglakabad New Delhi from May, 1998 to November 1999. He deposed that Sh. Rakesh Chandra, S.S. Rathi, Naval Singh, P.P. Singh, M.K. Yadav, M.S. Bhatia and Dharam Singh were working in the ICD Export Shed. He deposed that the shipping bills, invoices and packing lists did not bear his signature or the signature of any of the official with whom he had worked.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Rakesh Chander:- This witness was also posted as Inspector in the ICD (Custom), Tughlakabad, New Delhi during May, 1998 to November 1999. He gave similar testimony as given by PW-12.
(xiv) PW-14 Sh. Ravindra Sharma:- He is the expert witness who examined the documents in the laboratory and testified that the documents of present case were received in their laboratory from (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 12 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:34:30 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
SP, CBI, SPE, SIU-IX, New Delhi vide letter no. 3262 dated 18.04.2000 (D-20) Ex.PW14/A and letter no. 5916 dated 10.07.2000 (D-21) Ex.PW14/B. He proved the questioned documents vide Ex. PW14/C to Ex. PW14/H, Ex. PW14/J to Ex.
PW14/M, Mark PW12/H as Ex. PW14/N, Ex. PW14/O to Ex. PW14/P, Ex. PW6/A as Ex. PW14/Q to Ex. PW14/Z, Ex. PW14/Z-1 to Ex. PW14/Z-9, Q-90 vide Ex. PW2/B, Q-91 as Ex. PW2/C, Q-92 on Ex. PW2/D, Q-93 as Ex. PW2/E and Q-94 vide Ex. PW2/K. He also got exhibited the specimen signatures of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini vide Ex. PW14/Z-10 to Ex. PW14/Z- 30 and that of Rakesh Kumar Chopra vide Mark PW14/Z-31, that of B.K. Malhotra vide Ex. PW14/Z-32, that of Lalit Dogra vide Ex. PW14/Z-33 as well as typewriting vide Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/38. He proved their opinion no. CX-189/2000 dated 31.07.2000 vide Ex.PW14/Z-34. He further deposed that the opinion along with the exhibits were sent back to SP, CBI, SIU- IX, New Delhi vide office letter no. CX-189/2000/1621 dated 22.08.2000 Ex.PW14/Z-35. He proved detailed reasoning vide Ex.PW14/Z-36 in support of his opinion.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. B.L. Sharma:- He was posted as Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise (Export Processing), Tuglakabad, Custom, Delhi during the year 1998. He deposed about the process of shipping bills at the Customs. He testified that S.N. Ojha was posted as Assistant Commissioner and Mr. Balwinder Singh was posted as Inspector Customs, Tugalkabad, Delhi (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 13 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:39 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
during August 1998. He identified his signatures and that of Balwinder Singh and Sh. S.N. Ojha on the Shipping Bills No. 14484 Ex.PW10/C, Shipping Bill No. 14482 Ex. PW10/A, (Ex. PW15/C) and no. 14483 Ex. PW10/B wherein M/s. Jyoti International is shown as exporter. He deposed that the said bills were first processed by Sh. Balwinder Singh and thereafter processed by him and ultimately, the same were put before Sh. S.N. Ojha. He further deposed that invoices enclosed with said bills marked as Mark PW12/A (Ex. PW15/A), Mark PW12/C and Mark PW12/E bear his signature and that of Sh. Balwinder Singh. He proved the packing lists enclosed with above said shipping bills marked as Mark PW12/B, Mark PW12/D and Mark PW12/F vide Ex.PW15/B, Ex. PW15/D and Ex. PW15/F respectively bearing his signatures and that of Balwinder Singh. (xvi) PW-16 Sh. Nand Lal:- This witness was posted as Junior Technical Assistant, Registrar of Company and was deputed in the office of ROC Delhi to act as an independent witness. He proved the specimen signature of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini which were obtained in his presence from S-1 to S-21 vide Ex.PW14/Z-10 to Ex.PW14/Z-30 and that of accused B.K. Malhotra from S43 to S57 vide Ex.PW14/Z-32(colly). He identified accused Jai Bhagwan Saini only in the court. (xvii) PW-17 Sh. Vinod Dhingra:- This witness was the introducer of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini in Lord Krishna Bank at the time of opening bank account bearing no. CA 1882 in the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 14 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:47 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
name of M/s. Jyoti International.
(xviii) PW-18 Sh. Vinod Gairola:- This witness was posted as UDC in the office of Joint DGFT and used to check various documents along with application, prepared check sheet and complete file and submitted the same for further processing. He testified that he dealt with File No. 05/82/051/400/AM99 of the office of Jt. DGFT relating to M/s. Jyoti International and checked the relevant documents i.e. letter of Jyoti International Ex.PW6/A, profile of Exporter/Importer Ex.PW14/Q and Ex.PW14/S, application form for duty entitlement passbook on post export basis Ex.PW14/R and Ex.PW14/P, Shipping Bill Ex.PW14/U, BRC of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur dated 07.09.1998 Ex.PW14/V, additional document i.e. bid of lading for combined transport of shipment or port to port shipment Mark PW18/A relating to the shipping bill no. 14482 dated 22.08.1998, IEC Ex.PW14/W, RCMC Ex.PW14/X and Ex.PW14/Z-3, affidavit placed by M/s. Jyoti International Ex.PW14/Z, declaration letter Ex.PW14/Z-1 and affidavit Ex.PW14/Z-4. He deposed that he sent the same to Sh. Harpal Singh FTDO who sent the same to DGFT for approval. He proved checklist vide Ex.PW18/1 and deposed that he made a noting in his own handwriting on the checklist and identified signature of Sh. Harpal Singh and Sh. Mahesh Chandra thereon. He deposed that Ex.PW6/B was sent to the party when Enforcement Section had not given the clearance of typing of (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 15 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:55 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
script. He testified that party had sent a letter Ex.PW14/Z-2 to Jt. DGFT, B.K. Ray Court to rectify the issues raised by their office. Thereafter, they sent the file to Enforcement Section for further proceeding. He further deposed that after giving the clearance, DEPB Script No. 0101041 dated 09.12.1998 was issued to the party under the signature of Sh. Harpal Singh through letter Ex.PW6/C. He proved DEPB Script No. 0101041 dated 09.12.1998 vide Ex.PW18/2. He deposed that it came to the knowledge of the office that the party moved an application for requesting the DEPB Script wherein the BRC was found forged. He deposed further that a letter Ex.PW6/D was sent to the Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for verifying the Bank Realization Certificate issued in favour of M/s. Jyoti International. In the response of the letter, bank sent a fax copy Mark X and confirmed that BRC No. FOBC/48/98 dated 07.09.1998 was not issued by the bank and informed the Custom Department accordingly.
Qua File No. 05/82/051/00539/AM99 dated 23.12.1998 of the office of Jt. DGFT related to M/s. Jyoti International, he deposed that it was dealt by him and that he checked the relevant documents i.e. letter of M/s. Jyoti International Ex.PW6/E, profile of Exporter/ Importer Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/F, application form for duty entitlement passbook on post export basis Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/B, Shipping Bill Ex.PW14/M and Ex.PW14/N, BRC of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur dated (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 16 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:35:03 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
07.09.1998 Ex. PW14/O and Ex.PW14/P, IEC Ex.PW14/K, RCMC Ex.PW14/L, Affidavit and Declaration Letter by M/s Jyoti International Ex.PW14/G and Ex. PW14/H and thereafter, he sent the same to Sh. Harpal Singh who further sent the same to DGFT for approval. He proved the checklist vide Ex.PW18/A. He deposed further that he sent a letter Ex.PW6/G to the Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur under the signature of Sh. Harpal Singh, FTDO for verification of BRC issued in favour of M/s. Jyoti International. He deposed that bank sent a reply Ex.PW6/H and informed that BRC No. FOBC/49/98 and FOBC/50/98 both dated 07.09.1998 had not been issued by the bank. He deposed further that they informed the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, ICD, Tuglakabad and mentioned therein to hold DEPBs that the BRCs submitted by the parties were forged and thereafter, the file was sent to the Enforcement Section of their office for further proceeding. He deposed further that after checking the relevant documents submitted by the applicant for issuing DEPB Script, same was issued with no. 0101118 dated 30.12.1998 under the signature of Sh. Harpal Singh, FTDO vide letter Ex.PW6/F to the applicant. He deposed that the documents submitted by the applicant for issuing DEPB was issued with the script no. 0101118 dated 30.12.1998 vide Ex.PW18/B bearing the signature of Sh. Harpal Singh. He deposed further that on 29.12.1998, Sh. V.K. Gupta Jt. DGFT mentioned noting that "After issue get BRC verified through speed post". Thereafter, he (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 17 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:35:12 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
sent the letter to the bank for verification. He informed the custom with the direction to hold DEPB and not issue any benefit on the direction of the higher official and sent the file to Enforcement Section of the office.
(xix) PW-19 Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha:- This witness was posted as Assistant DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in May, 2000. He proved the receipt memo (seizure memo) dated 03.05.2000 (D-
12) vide Ex.PW19/A through which he handed over documents to CBI i.e. Import License No. 0101118 (D-13) and 0101041 (D-
14), both in the name of Jyoti International. (xx) PW-20 Sh. Vikram Jit:- He proved the specimen signature from S22 to S41 vide Ex.PW14/Z-31 written by the concerned person in his presence He deposed that he became witness to the specimen signatures. This witness could not identify the person concerned due to lapse of time.
(xxi) PW-21 Sh. Anjani Kumar Kaushil:- He deposed that the letter dated 02.11.1999 (D-5) addressed to Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, SP, CBI Ex.PW21/A was prepared by his junior to hand over the documents as mentioned in the letter to CBI. He testified further that the above said letter along with the document were given to the CBI.
(xxii) PW-22 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav:- This witness was posted as Superintendent in the expert cell of International Container Depot, Customs, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, dealing with the work of giving export clearance.
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:22.09.2025
NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR Page 18 of 71
NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:35:19 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
(xxiii) PW-22 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta (wrongly numbered as PW22):- This witness was posted as Joint Director General in the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in December, 1998. He proved notesheet dated 28.12.1998 (D-3) vide Ex.
PW18/A as he dealt with the same and made remark on 29.12.1998 from Point X to X1.
(xxiv) PW-23 Sh. O.N Sharma:- This witness was posted as Superintendent (Export Processing Cell, IOD Tuglakabad, New Delhi) and used to oversee the processing of shipping bills and administrating work pertaining to the processing of export cell only. This witness could not be examined-in-chief completely due to his death.
(xxv) PW-24 Sh. Vivek Chopra:- He testified that he knows Rakesh Chopra who is son of his uncle Sh. Dharam Pal Chopra and to his knowledge, Rakesh Chopra is not known by other name. He corrected identified accused Rakesh Chopra in the Court.
(xxvi) PW-25 Sh. Mahesh Chandra:- This witness was working as Joint Director General, Office at Zonal Office of DGFT and was looking after the work of DEPB and advance license. He deposed that DEPB (Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme) certificate was issued to the party under the DEPB Scheme on the basis of the application of the exporters alongwith the export documents namely, Export Promotion Copy of Shipping Bills and corresponding Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 19 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:35:27 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
submitted by the exporter duly supported with Treasury Challan (TR), photocopy of Importer/Exporter code no. and photocopy of RCMC (Registration cum Membership Certificate). He deposed that there was no provision for the verification of the export document submitted by the exporter. However, the competent authority for issue and sanction of DEPB used to direct verification of central documents as observed by him. The DEPB used to be sent to the exporter through post and exporter was free to utilise the DEPB from the concerned custom which issued the shipping bills. He deposed that the Government had notified DEPB Scheme under which against an export product, the export incentive rate was declared and at that rate on the basis of the export document, DEPB was issued to the concerned exporter.
The witness further deposed that file no. 05/82/05/00539/AM-99 (D-3) of the office of the Joint DGFT,CLA Sh. B.K. Roy pertained to issuance of DEPB license no. 0101118 dated 30.12.1998 of Rs. 10,17,400/- in favour of Jyoti International which was issued to M/s. Jyoti International and Mr. Ashok Kumar was proprietor thereof as per Ex.PW14/L. The firm had applied for issuance of DEPB along with requisite documents. He deposed next that file was submitted to Mr. V.K. Gupta, Joint DGFT as per office arrangements Ex.PW18/A proved by him. He testified that there was no policy and procedure for verification of the genuineness of the documents prior/after issue of DEPB. He deposed that while approving issue (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 20 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:35:35 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
of DEPB, Mr. V.K. Gupta, Joint DGFT observed on file 'after issue get BRC verified through speed post please'. He stated that State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Lohamandi, Naraina, New Delhi had replied that the BRCs were not issued by them and hence, they were unable to verify the BRCs (Ex.PW6/H). He deposed that bank's reply was processed by the dealing hand Mr. Vinod Gairola and Mr. Harpal Singh, FTDO on 26.02.1999 and the file was submitted to him. He checked the record for issuance of DEPB and advance license to the concerned firm. The file was submitted along with file no. 400/AM97 from which DEPB no. 0101041 for Rs. 6,08,500/- was issued to the firm on 09.12.1998. Thereafter, he recorded his order to advise ICD, Tuglakabad not to honor both DEPBs (Ex.PW18/A).
Qua File No. 05/082/051/400/AM99/ALS3/CLA (D-2) of office of Joint DGFT, CLA, B.K. Roy, Court Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, this witness deposed that same pertained to license no. 0101041 dated 09.12.1998 for Rs. 6,08,500/- in favor of Jyoti International, New Delhi. DEPB was issued to M/s. Jyoti International and Mr. Ashok Kumar was proprietor of firm (Ex.PW14/X), as per Ex. PW18/Z. He further deposed that shipping bill no. 14482 dated 22.08.1998 purported to be issued by ICD, Customs, Tuglakabad, New Delhi showing export of acrylic sheet extruded vide Ex.PW14/U. He testified that application of exporter under reference was processed by dealing hand Mr. Vinod Gairola and Mr. Harpal Singh, FTDO who (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 21 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:35:42 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
submitted file to him, for necessary approval and sanction and he proved the same vide Ex. PW18/1 through which DEPB No. 0101041 dated 09.12.1998 for duty credit of Rs. 06,08,500/- was issued to M/s. Jyoti International. He deposed that CLA office used to maintain a black list register and each file before issue of export benefit used to be forwarded to that section to get black list clearance, i.e. name of firm not appearing on black list register. He deposed further that letter used to be issued to concerned firm if clarification was required from applicant firm. After seeing check list of DEPB application (D-2), he deposed that black list section had informed that firm of same name having different address was on black list and no DEPB can be issued to the firm as per Ex.PW18/1. After seeing bank fax dated 03.03.1999, D-2(Mark X), he deposed that Bank's fax letter was examined and placed on file which was under transfer to ECA (Enforcement cum Adjudication) section of CLA office for necessary action. He deposed further that letter dated 26.02.1999 had already been issued to concerned Customs Authority not to honor the two DEPBs issued to firm, and his office did not receive any shipping bill from Customs authority as well as any BRCs from issuing bank. He stated further that export promotion copy of shipping bills and bank realization certificate were required to be submitted by applicant firm with their application.
After seeing copy of DEPB, (D-2), Ex.PW18/2, he deposed that every DEPB was issued with three conditions i.e. 1) (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 22 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:35:49 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
before allowing import against DEPB, the custom shall verify the details of export as given on DEPB, 2) DEPB license is subject to verification of shipping bills by customs authority as endorsed on DEPB license and 3) DEPB license is issued under custom notification no. 34/97 dated 07.04.1997, and the said conditions were clearly mentioned on DEPB itself. After seeing shipping bill no. 14482 dated 22.08.1998 Ex.PW14/U, he deposed that same is bearing endorsement 'passed for shipment' and stamp of Inspector Customs, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. He deposed further that shipping bills and bank realization certificates were submitted by applicant firm with their application were assumed to be genuine and there was no guidelines to verify the genuineness of said document. He deposed next that while processing any DEPB application, they were required to ensure that DEPB application contained all the export documents and other documents as prescribed with application. He stated further that BRC was issued on basis of shipping bill and DEPB credit was allowed at the end of Customs.
(xxvii) PW-26 Sh. Sudresh Choudhary:- This witness was working as Foreign Trade Development Officer (FTDO) in office of Joint DGFT, Asaf Ali Road. He deposed that D-17 i.e. Import/Export Code, File No. 05/04/130/02010/AM99 is dated 20.07.1998 which was after his retirement on 30.04.1998 and the signature thereon did not pertain to him. The said document was marked as Mark PW26/A. (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 23 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:35:57 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
(xxviii) PW-27 Sh. Rajesh Chahal:- He is the IO of the present case registered on 11.10.1999 and proved the steps of the investigation as well as filed the chargesheet in the court. He proved FIR (D-1) vide Ex.PW27/A which was marked to him for investigation. He took over the file for investigation in the present case vide letter dated 02.11.1999 (D-5) Ex. PW21/A of Sh. AK Kaushal, the then Deputy Director, DRI, Delhi Zone addressed to Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, SP, CBI vide which four files were forwarded for the purpose of the investigation in the matter of M/s. Jyoti International. He proved seizure memo (D-6) dated 16.02.2000 vide Ex. PW16/E through which he seized four documents from Sh. A.K Mohanty, the then Assistant Manager, Lord Krishna Bank and forwarding letter dated 20.06.2000 (D-
11) Ex.PW5/1 of Sh. Ram Krishan, the then Assistant Manager, SBBJ, New Delhi vide which he provided the documents mentioned therein to him. He further proved seizure memo dated 03.05.2000 (D-12) already exhibited as Ex.PW19/A vide which two documents which were seized from Mr. A.K. Sinha, the then Assistant DGFT, New Delhi, which were counter foils of Duty Entitlement Passbook Credit License No. 0101118 dated 30.12.1998 (D-13) and number 0101041 dated 09.12.1998 (D-
14) and he proved the same vide Ex. PW27/B and Ex.PW27/C and same were issued in favour of M/s. Jyoti International from the office of Joint DGFT, New Delhi. He further proved D-15 i.e. letter of Sh. S.K. Tyagi, the then DJM Container Corporation of (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 24 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:04 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
India Ltd., New Delhi addressed to SP, CBI, SIU-IX, New Delhi (D-15) already exhibited as Ex.PW9/A through which it was informed that goods cannot be brought to ICD, Tuglakabad by the party for export purpose. He proved D-16 letter dated 17.04.2000 vide Ex.PW27/D of Sh. AK Sinha, the then Assistant, DGFT, New Delhi addressed to SP, CBI, SIU-IX, New Delhi vide which IEC file no. 5/4/130/2010/AM99 of M/s. Jyoti International was provided for the investigation. He proved the forwarding letter dated 18.04.2000 addressed to GEQD, Shimla (D-20) Ex.PW14/A(colly) vide which specimen signature/handwritings along with the questioned signature/handwritings were sent for comparison and expert opinion, specimen signature of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini vide Ex. PW14/Z-10 to 30, that of accused Rakesh Chopra vide Ex.PW14/Z-31(colly), that of accused B.K Malhotra vide Ex.PW14/Z-32(colly) and that of accused Lalit Dogra vide Ex.PW14/Z-33(colly) as well as identified his signatures on the specimen typewritings of typewriter make Godrez Prima on Ex.PW3/1. He deposed that some more specimen (D-21) vide Ex.PW14/B were sent to GEQD, Shimla for comparison and expert opinion. He proved receipt memo dated 20.04.2000 (D-
23) of passport in the name of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini vide Ex.PW27/E, receipt memo dated 25.04.2000 (D-24) vide Ex.PW27/F through which he received two documents from Sh. N.K Sharma LDC, ICD, Custom, Tuglakabad and receipt memo (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 by NEETU Page 25 of 71 NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:36:12 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
dated 05.06.2000 (D-27) already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A, through which he received original file no. EPCH/MEM/REGN/14443/98-99 of the office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, New Delhi. He deposed that the statement of Sh. Balwinder Singh and Sh. R.P Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by him. He proved the original recovery memo-cum-identification dated 24.02.1999 (D-
18) vide Ex.PW27/G made on the identification of accused Lalit Dogra and accused B.K Malhotra through which the typewriter make Godrej bearing no. 577313 was seized. He proved the case property typewriter make Godrej marked as "typewriter"
RC-4/E/99-SIU-IX vide Ex.PW27/G which was seized from the office of accused B.K. Malhotra vide Ex.PW27/H. He correctly identified accused B.K. Malhotra and Rakesh Kumar Chopra in the court.
4.1. After conclusion of the list of witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 09.06.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
5. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded vide order dated 17.07.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations.
5.1 Accused Bal Krishan Malhotra stated that he has no connection with Jyoti International. His specimen signatures were not obtained by investigating officer. He stated further that he was compelled to sign on blank white paper by the (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 26 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:21 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
investigating officer while he was in custody. He did not identify the typewriter and stated further that he had told to the investigating officer that the typewriter did not belong to him. He stated next that he is innocent and his name was not in the FIR. Later by manipulation, the investigating officer falsely implicated him in the case. He was falsely arrested by the investigating officer. He did not own the alleged Godrez Typewriter. It belonged to Lalit Dogra. He has never used the said typewriter. Nothing was recovered from him and the typewriter was seized from Lalit Dogra before his arrest. The typewriter was never found in his office and thus the seizure of typewriter from his office is completely false. 5.2 Accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra made similar statement in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Accused persons have preferred not to lead evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard Sh. Navneet Jawa, learned PP for CBI and the learned counsel for the accused persons Sh. M.K. Pathy.
8. Learned PP for CBI argued that the oral and documentary evidence in the present case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons. It was further argued that the circumstantial evidence duly proved on record bring forth the role of the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 by NEETU Page 27 of 71 NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:36:29 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
accused persons in the commission of the offence alleged. It was lastly contended that the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, committed offence of forgery of BRCs and shipping bills for the purpose of cheating the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Jt. DGFT), used forged documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating and thus caused wrongful gain for themselves to the tune of Rs. 16,25,000/-. It was prayed that the accused persons be convicted for their overt acts and omissions which constitute commission of offences as alleged. He has relied on the following case laws:-
(i) Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India Crl. Appeal No. 1259/2007 decided on 21.01.2011. (ii) The State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and others 1961 AIR 1808 (iii) Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443 (iv) Shivnaryan Laxminarayan Joshi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465 (v) Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540.
9. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of accused persons that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the evidence is not sufficient for the conviction of the accused persons. Learned counsel of accused relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Basi Bewa & Ors. Vs. Raimani Majhani S.A. No. 291/1991 decided on 04.05.2023 (ii) S.P.S.Rathore Vs. CBI 2017 (5) SCC (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 28 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:37 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
817 (iii) Dil Bagh Singh @ Dilbagh Sandhu Vs. Union of India and another Crl. M-2191/2024 decided on 08.02.2024 (iv) Yogarani Vs. State by Inspector of Police Crl. Appl. No. 477/2017 decided on 23.09.2024 (v) Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Vs. The State of Karnatak Crl. Appl. No. 451/2022 decided on 21.03.2022 (vi) Nand Lal Bharti Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Crl. Appl. No. 64-65/2022 decided on 13.10.2022 (vii) Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 367 (viii) Delhi Administration Vs. Bal Krishan and Ors AIR 1972 SC 3. (ix) Rajesh Bhai Muljibhai Patel Vs.The State of Gujrat in Crl. Appl No. 251-252 decided on 10.02.2020 (x) State Vs. Dharmender Singh Mehra and Anr. In Crl. L.P. 404/2011 decided on 17.10.2011 (xi) Sapan Haldar and Anothers Vs. State in Crl. Appl. 804/2012 decided on 25.05.2012 and (xii) Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar 1964 AIR 1184 and Padum Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2020 Supreme Court 447.
10. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of CBI as well as accused persons and same is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity and shall be dealt with hereinafter.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
11. It is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence. This court is therefore required to critically examine the evidence in the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 29 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:44 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
present case, which is based on circumstantial evidence against the accused persons facing the trial.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Jai Bhagwan Saini along with accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra, Bal Kishan Malhotra and Lalit Dogra entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain Duty Entitlement Pass Book from Govt. of India on the basis of forged shipping bills and Bank Realization Certificates. It is alleged that the accused Jai Bhagwan Saini and accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra impersonated themselves as Ashok Kumar at the time of moving applications and thus managed to obtain DEPB Credit worth Rs. 16,25,900/- in favour of M/s. Jyoti International dishonestly in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and with the aid of accused Balkrishan Malhotra and Lalit Dogra. Let we deal with all the aspects one by one.
IMPERSONATION AS ASHOK KUMAR
13. Learned PP on behalf of CBI pointed out specifically that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini has impersonated as Ashok Kumar at the time of opening of the bank account and to prove the same, he has relied on the testimony of PW-1 Sh. S.S. Vaidya.This witness was posted in Lord Krishna Bank. He categorically deposed that Ashok Kumar, proprietor of Jyoti International whose photograph was on account opening form had approached him in the bank alongwith already filled up account opening form and requested him to open a current account in the name of his firm M/s. Jyoti International. He further deposed that the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 30 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:52 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
current account no. 1882 was opened in his branch by Ashok Kumar on 22.06.1998. He has proved account opening form vide Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that Ashok Kumar had deposited Rs. 7500/- as initial amount in the bank. He proved the copy of statement of account vide Ex.PW1/B. He correctly identified Ashok Kumar as Jai Bhagwan Saini and further deposed that this is the same person who had come to their bank to open current account no. 1882 as Ashok Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International. He proved the declaration form dated 22.06.1998 vide Ex. PW1/C for sole proprietorship. He deposed that the same was given by Ashok Kumar to their bank in current account no. 1882 and the signatures of Ashok Kumar and introducer were verified by Sh. K.S.B. Murli. He further deposed that they had sent thanks letter in case of current account no. 1882 vide Ex. PW1/D which was given to Ashok Kumar proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International having address UG-59, Palika Place, Panchkuiya Road, New Delhi and its second copy was given back to him by Ashok Kumar as acknowledgment of thanks letter. He has also identified attestation of the photograph of Ashok Kumar on 04.07.1998 in the file no. 5/4/130/2010/AM/99 of the office of the Joint DGFT CLA New Delhi of M/s. Jyoti International regarding issue of Import and Export Code number to the firm. He also proved seizure memo Ex. PW1/E dated 16.02.2020 vide which documents wered handed over to the investigating officer and Declaration undertaking vide (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by NEETU ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 31 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:37:00 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that on page 5 of the said file the photograph of Ashok Kumar was not available but he identified half of their seal and stamp of their bank as well as half of his signature thereon and proved the same vide Ex.PW1/G. He proved bank certificate dated 04.07.1998 which was issued by their bank on the request of Ashok Kumar for onward submission to the office of Joint DGFT vide Ex. PW1/H and also identified the official stamp affixed on it. He deposed that photo of Ashok Kumar was attested by Sh. B. Santosh, the then Assistant Manager of their bank in the said file and he correctly identified signatures of Sh. B. Santosh on the photograph of Ashok Kumar vide Ex.PW1/I. He further proved the certificate of their bank giving details of current account of M/s. Jyoti International which was issued under his signatures and addressed to the Director EPCH 6, Community Center, Basant Lok, Basant Vihar, Delhi for maintaining current account with their bank vide Ex.PW1/J. He further deposed that the certificate Ex.PW1/J was issued on the request of Ashok Kumar and was handed over to him in the sealed envelope for onward delivering in the office of Director EPCH, Basant Vihar, Delhi.
14. It was suggested to PW1 at the time of cross-examination by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini that he had gone to the bank with his Janam Kundli wherein his name has been written as Ashok Kumar. However, the same is unbelievable as no bank opens any bank account with the name of an applicant as reflected in Janam (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 32 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:37:07 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Kundli. In fact, same is so deposed by PW1 that they do not take Janam Kundli for opening an account. Hence, it is successfully proved by CBI that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini played an instrumental role in opening of bank account showing him as Ashok Kumar and represented that he is proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International. On the basis of the said current bank account which was opened by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini by way of impersonation as Ashok Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International, Bank Certificates Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/J were sent to office of Jt. DGFT and Director EPCH respectively for further proceeding. If this account was not so opened in the impersonated name, then the situation of issuance of DEPB Credit License would not have arisen.
15. The learned PP on behalf of CBI then relied on the testimony of PW 17 in order to further confirm that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini impersonated as Ashok Kumar as this witness played the role of his introducer. PW-17 Sh. Vinod Dhingra testified that he introduced bank account of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini in Lord Krishna Bank vide Ex.PW1/A bearing no. CA 1882 in the name of M/s. Jyoti International. He identified his signature and seal of JMD Tour & Travel thereon. A perusal of account opening form Ex. PW1/A shows that photograph of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini affixed on the account opening form was identified by this witness. Apart from the account opening form, he also signed the declaration of sole proprietorship form (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 33 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:37:14 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
and identified his signature thereon vide Ex.PW1/C. This witness correctly identified the accused Jai Bhagwan Saini in the court.
16. Hence, from a cumulative reading of the testimony of PW1 and PW17, it is manifest that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini has impersonated as Ashok Kumar at the time of opening of bank account No. 1882 in Lord Krishna Bank and same is clear not only by the identification of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini by PW1 and PW17 in the court but also by the fact that his photograph was appended on the applications. It has not been suggested by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini to both PW1 and PW17 that the photograph on the account opening form Ex. PW1/A and declaration for sole proprietorship form Ex. PW1/C do not belong to him at the time of their cross-examination. It is also not denied that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini was not the proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International. The real man in the entire transaction was thus accused Jai Bhagwan Saini.
REGISTRATION UNDER EXPORT IMPORT POLICY
17. Learned PP for CBI has next argued that it was accused Jai Bhagwan Saini who had also applied for registration under Export Import policy for membership in the name of Ashok Kumar. In order to substantiate the same, he relied on the testimony of PW2 A.K. Sakuja. This witness was working as Export Promotion Officer in the office of Export Promotion Council for Handicraft. Vide receipt memo dated 05.06.2000, Ex.
PW2/A, he handed over original file relating to M/s. Jyoti (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 34 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:37:21 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
International to Sh. Rajesh Chahal, Inspector CBI in the Office of SP, CBI, CGO complex, Lodhi Road. He proved application dated 24.08.1998 vide Ex.PW2/B for registration under export and import policy for membership. He deposed that the registration was submitted in their office on 10.09.1998 vide diary no. 8292 by Ashok Kumar proprietor of M/s. Jyoti International. He has further deposed that the application Ex.PW2/B was enclosed with demand draft no. 769818 dated 09.09.1998, application for membership, photocopy of Import Export Code duly attested by the proprietor, form of application for registration, registration-cum-membership certificate and bank report in sealed cover. He testified categorically that application for registration under import and export policy Ex. PW2/B was signed by Ashok Kumar and he proved the same vide Ex.PW2/C. He has also proved true copy attested by Ashok Kumar vide Ex. PW2/D, the application for membership signed by Ashok Kumar vide Ex.PW2/E which was processed in their office and approved by him on 16.09.1998 vide his signature Ex.PW2/F. He has deposed that the said file was processed by Smt. Shree Kumari vide Ex.PW2/G and was again put up before him on 16.09.1998 vide initial Ex.PW2/H of Smt. Shree Kumari. He proved certificate of enrollment as member of council for the year 1998-99 which was issued by him after ascertaining and verifying documents attached by the firm with its application vide Ex.PW2/1, certificate of registration for exporter of (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 35 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:37:29 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
handicrafts under ITC policy dated 16.09.1998 which was also issued by him vide Ex.PW2/J and duplicate RC MC no. EPCH/REGN/14382/98-99 which was also issued to the firm M/s. Jyoti International by him vide Ex.PW2/K. He deposed that the original certificate was sent to the firm M/s. Jyoti International at its address UG-59, Palika Place, Panchukiya Road, New Delhi and the duplicate was kept in the file of the office. He deposed further that the RCMC was issued to the firm to register it as a exporter required for the exporter to get incentive from the concerned department i.e. DGFT and Custom.
18. During cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that at the time of submitting the application the presence of applicant is not necessary and anyone can submit the application along with the documents. This witness has further stated that he did not know whether the applicant had come to submit the application or not. It seems that it was to be suggested on behalf of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini that he did not come at the time of filing the application but no such specific suggestion has been given to the said witness by learned counsel on behalf of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini. It is pertinent to note that all the above mentioned correspondence with regard to the proceedings for issuance of RCMC which was prime document for the purpose of getting incentive from DGFT and Custom carries the signature of Ashok Kumar and same have been duly sent to the CFSL.
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU
Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 36 of 71
NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22
17:37:36 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
19. Learned PP for CBI vehemently argued that the signatures taken from all the correspondence matched with the specimen signature of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini. From a perusal of CFSL Report Ex. PW14/2-34 proved by PW14 Dr. Ravindra Sharma, it has transpired that the application and the related documents bear signature of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini as the same matched with specimen signatures of accused Jai Bhagwan Saini marked as S1 to S22 which were exhibited as Ex.PW14/Z-10 to Ex. PW14/Z-30. Thus, it seems that the mastermind of the crime was accused Jai Bhagwan Saini but he had died during the course of trial.
FORGERY OF BRCs
20. Before we delve into the issue of forgeryof BRCs, let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions relating to forgery. The term "forgery" is defined in section Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows:
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
21. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 37 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:37:43 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
xxxxxx Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Xxxxxx Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery."
22. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
(i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 by NEETU Page 38 of 71 NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:37:51 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
(ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind;
or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document.
23. Harking back to the facts of the present case, it alleged on behalf of CBI that the accused had obtained forged Bank Realization Certificates of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Hence, it is to be seen whether the Bank Realisation Certificates issued from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur are forged documents or not.
24. In order to prove the forgery of Bank Realization Certificates, learned PP for CBI has relied upon the testimony of PW-5 Sh. Parijat Saurabh. This witness was posted as Branch Manager at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Naraina Indl. Area PH-II (Loha Mandi Branch). He deposed that the said bank was authorised to issue realisation certificate for the purpose of proof (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 39 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:37:58 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
of having received Foreign Inward Remittance in customers account. He deposed that account A/C no. 1859 was not running in their branch in the name of M/s. Jyoti International and the said account belonged to M/s V.K. Company. He further deposed that the realisation certificate issued against the foreign remittance was received in the bank account of their customers. He testified that the documents bank certificate of export and realisation form no. 1 both dated 22.08.1998 to the tune of Rs. 26,62,380/- and Rs. 24,24,667.50/- Ps. (D-3) and the realization certificate (D-2) for the amount of Rs. 30,42,720/- were not issued by their branch and the stamps, seals and signatures affixed on the forms were not of their bank and not issued in favour of M/s. Jyoti International. He deposed that fax dated 03.03.1999 was sent from the bank to DGFT in respect of query raised by DGFT regarding BRC issued to Jyoti International in his handwriting. (This document is not legible). He has correctly identified the signature and handwriting of Sh. Ramkishan, the then Assistant Manager Incharge FOREX Department in the letter dated 20.06.2000 sent to Inspector Rajesh Chahal, CBI from their bank i.e. Ex.PW5/1. Perusal of the letter Ex. PW5/1 clearly shows that it was certified that there is no entry related to M/s. Jyoti international in their register of the relevant period and no BRC have been issued to the said firm. Nothing favourable to the accused was elicited from the cross-examination of the said witness (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 40 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:38:04 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
25. Hence, it stands duly proved by the Prosecution through the testimony of PW5 Parijat Saurabh that the three original Bank Certificates of Export and Realization (BRCs) i.e. form no. 1 both dated 22.08.1998 to the tune of Rs. 26,62,380/- (Ex. PW14/10) and Rs. 24,24,667.50/- (D-3) (Ex. PW14/P) and realization certificate for the amount of Rs. 30,42,720/- (D-2) (Ex. PW14/V) are forged documents wherein it is stated that M/s. Jyoti International declare that they forwarded a documentary export bill to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Naraina.
WHETHER SHIPPING BILLS ARE FORGED OR NOT
26. It is further alleged on behalf of CBI that there was no exports made by accused Jai Bhagawan Saini and therefore, the shipping bills bearing no. 14482 to 14484 are also false documents.
27. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the shipping bills bearing no. 14482 to 14484 placed on record are forged or not.
28. All the bills i.e. (1) Shipping bill bearing no. 14482 EX.PW10/A (accompanied with Invoice dated 19.08.98 Mark PW12/C (Ex. PW15/C) and Packing List Mark PW12/D (Ex. PW15/D) with regard to 320 boxes 536 to 855), (2) Shipping Bill No. 14483 Ex. PW10/B (accompanied with Invoice dated 19.08.98 i.e. Mark PW12/E (Ex. PW 15/E) and Packing List Mark PW12/F (Ex. PW15/F) with regard to 280 boxes from 01 to
280) and bill no. 14484 Ex.PW10/C (accompanied with Invoice (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 41 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:38:11 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
dated 19.08.98 Mark PW12/A/(Ex. PW15/A) and Packing List Mark PW12/B/ (Ex. PW15/B) with regard to 255 boxes 281 to
535) are original.
29. It is pertinent to note that there are two original shipping bills bearing no.14484 dated 19.08.98 i.e. Ex. Ex.PW10/C with regard to 255 boxes 281 to 535 and another bill bearing same no. Ex.PW14/M (Mark PW12/G) with regard to 255 boxes from 293 to 535. Likewise, there are two original shipping bills bearing same no. 14483 dated 19.08.98 i.e. Ex. PW10/B with regard to 280 boxes from (01 to 280) and another shipping bill bearing same no. 14483 dated 19.08.1998 Ex.PW14/N (Mark PW12/H) with regard to 280 boxes from 01 to 280. All these bills are original.
30. In order to prove the forgery of shipping bills, reliance was placed by learned PP for CBI on the testimony of PW-9 Sh. M.K. Nabi. This witness was Commercial Officer in the Department of Container Corporation of India Ltd. on 17.04.2000 and was looking after commercial activities. He deposed that the shipping bill no. 1448284 (the number of the bill seems to be wrongly deposed) dated 22.08.1998 was put up in the department of CONCOR for seeking permission for goods arrival and accordingly permission for goods arrival was granted. He further deposed that consignment/goods could not be brought to the ICD/TKD for export purpose and accordingly the goods arrival permission was cancelled and the containers were released to the (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 42 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:38:17 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
concerned shipping line. He further deposed that M/s. Jyoti International did not bring goods against the said shipping bill. He proved Letter dated 17.04.2000 Ex.PW9/A and same reads as follows:
"Please refer your letter no. 9324/3/4/(E)/99/SIUIX/ND dt. 29.12.99 regarding booking allotment of containers in respect of shipping bill no. 14482 to 14484 dated 22.08.1998. In this connection, this is to inform you that the carting was taken on 24.8.98 at 13.48 hrs. against the above mentioned shipping bill. Cargo against these shipping bills was not received till 24.11.98. Hence the carting was cancelled & the container was released on the request of shipping line M/s. Greenways Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
So far as the booking/allotment of containers are concerned it is to inform that the containers are allotted to the exporters by the shipping companies against the shipping bill issued by the Customs and the shipping line made a request to CONCOR on a prescribed format giving details of the shipping bills alongwith the allotted container number. CONCOR issues a carting number on the presentation of the above request for the arrival of the goods meant for export. In the above case the party has taken the carting but the goods could not be brought to the ICD/KD for export purpose.
Accordingly, the carting was cancelled and the container number GATU0140948 was released to the shipping line. The same container was allotted to M/s. N.K.Garments against shipping bill no. 103835 dated 24.11.98 and was sent to the port on 28.11.98."
31. Meaning thereby that against the said shipping bills bearing no. 14482 to 14484, no exports were made as the goods never arrived for the purpose of export due to which the containers were allotted to another party.
32. The next witness examined by the CBI is PW-10 Sh. S.N. Ojha. This witness deposed to basically how the processing of (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 43 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:38:24 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
shipping bills is done. This witness was posted as Assistant Director in the Directorate General of Inspection Customs and Central Excise, IP Estate, New Delhi in the year 2000 and he was working in that unit from 1999 to 2005. He proved shipping bills bearing no. 14482 to 14484 vide Ex.PW10/A to PW10/D respectively. It is pertinent to mention that there is no bill having endorsement of Ex.PW10/D. He deposed categorically that the shipping bills were processed in the processing Branch by the Inspector, then counter signed by Superintendant and then it was further put up to the Assistant Commissioner for his signature. He further deposed that after passing the said bills, same were handed over to the exporter or his authorized agent for onward submissions to the Inspector posted in the Export Shed (Godown). He testified that at the time of filing of shipping bills, same were required to be supported by invoice and packing list. He stated that the said shipping bills were supported by invoice and packing list. From the cross-examination of this witness, it has transpired that this witness could not tell by whom the said bills were presented due to lapse of 10 years.He has further submitted that there is no document to show the personal identity of the applicant or his authorised agent.
33. The other important witnesses with regard to the shipping bills are PW7, PW12, PW13 and PW22. Let us examine the testimonies of the said witnesses in detail.
34. PW-7 Sh. Ramesh Chander Dewan retired from Custom (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 44 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:38:32 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
and Central Excise in the year 1998. He deposed that he never worked for M/s. Jyoti International and in his seal, his company's name is Ramesh Chandra "Dewan" and not Ramesh Chandra "Deewan." He further deposed that stamp used by M/s. Jyoti International as "Deewan" is forged. A perusal of the seal affixed on the shipping bills of M/s. Jyoti International shows that same is bearing round seal with the contents "Ramesh Chander Deewan." This witness outrightly denied seal in the name of his company on all the original shipping bills which further confirms that all the shipping bills are forged documents.
35. PW-12 Sh. Satya Kukreja was posted as Inspector in the ICD (Custom), Tuglakabad New Delhi during May, 1998 to November 1998. He deposed that Sh. Rakesh Chandra, S.S. Rathi, Naval Singh, P.P. Singh, M.K. Yadav, M.S. Bhatia and Dharam Singh were working in the ICD Export Shed. On seeing shipping bill Ex.PW10/C, invoice mark PW12/A, packing list mark PW12/B, shipping bill no. 14482 Ex. PW10/A, invoice marked PW12/C, packing list marked PW12/D, shipping bill no. 14483 Ex. PW10/B, invoice mark PW12/E, packing list PW12/F, shipping bills mark PW12/G and mark PW12/H, he deposed that the same did not bear his signature or the signature of any of the officials with whom he had worked. He deposed that there is an endorsement at the back side of Mark PW12/G and Mark PW12/H at point X and Y respectively made for shipment above the stamp of Inspector Custom and deposed that passing the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 by NEETU Page 45 of 71 NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:38:40 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
shipment and making the endorsement to that effect was only with the authority of Superintendent and the concerned authority never put up signature or initial below his office stamp. Clearly, all these documents do carry the stamp of Inspector, however, it is clear from the testimony of PW12 that his signatures or that of any other Inspectors who worked in ICD (Custom), Tuglakabad at the relevant time are not appended thereon. During the course of cross-examination by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini, it was asked to this witness the exact number of inspectors posted in export shed at the relevant time but no such suggestion has been given if PW12 was not the inspector who was required to sign at the relevant time.
36. Similar is the testimony of PW-13 Rakesh Chander who was also Inspector in the ICD (customs) Tughlakabad, New Delhi. PW-13 Sh. Rakesh Chander also deposed that during the period from May 1998 to March 1999, he was posted as Inspector in the ICD (Custom), Tughlakabad New Delhi. He similarly deposed that Ex.PW10/C, invoice Mark PW12/A, packing list Mark PW12/B, Shipping Bill No. 14482 Ex.PW10/A, invoice Mark PW12/C, packing list Mark PW12/D, Shipping Bill No. 14483 Ex.PW10/B, Invoice Mark PW12/E, Packing List Mark PW12/F, Shipping Bill Mark PW12/G and another Shipping Bill Mark PW12/H did not bear his signature or that of any of the official with whom he worked. He also deposed that at the backside of Mark PW12/G and Mark PW12/H, there (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 46 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:38:48 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
were endorsement at Point X and Y "Passed for Shipment"
above the stamp of Inspector, Customs and he further stated that passing of the shipment and making the endorsement to the effect is only with the authority of the Superintendent and there is purported signature below the stamp at Point L and Point M respectively. He deposed further that concerned authority never put the said signature or initial below his official stamp. At Point P of Mark 12/G and Point P-1 of Mark PW12/H, there are endorsements to the effect "passed for shipment" which was never put by Custom Officer as the Superintendent put the remark "as let export allowed". During his cross-examination, this witness has categorically deposed that there were four inspectors posted in the export shed, ICD, Tughlakabad and Superintendent has the authority to put the mark "let export allowed" and no other officer was competent to pass such an order. In case, the superintendent is on leave, then his job was assigned to some other superintendent by the government authority. They examined the assignment wherever the same was required. In certain cases, they did not physically verify the goods.
37. PW-22 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav was posted as Superintendent in the expert cell of International Container Depot, Customs, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, dealing with the work of giving export clearance. After seeing export promotion copy of Shipping Bill i.e. Quarduplicate no. 14482 dated 22.08.1998 of M/s. Jyoti International (Part of D-2) Ex.PW14/U having the endorsement i.e. (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 47 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:38:55 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
passed for shipment, this witness confirmed that this endorsement should have been signed by the concerned Superintendent of Custom but same was passed by the Inspector at Point A. He was familiar with the signature and writing of the staff i.e. Dharam Singh (Superintendent), Sh. M.S Bhatia (Superintendent), Ms. Kukreja, Sh. Nawal Singh, Sh. Rakesh Chandra and Sh. S.S Rathi who were posted at the relevant time as Inspectors. He deposed that neither him nor any official who was posted at the relevant time signed Ex.PW14/U and stamp affixed thereon did not tally of being used in ICD, TKD at the relevant time. After seeing the export promotion copy of Shipping Bill i.e. Quarduplicate no. 14483 dated 22.08.1998 of M/s. Jyoti International (Part of D-3) Ex.PW12/H and Ex.PW14/N bearing the endorsement i.e. passed for shipment, he confirmed that the said endorsement should have been signed by the concerned Superintendent of Custom but herein it was passed by the Inspector at Point X with stamp at Point B. He deposed further that neither he nor any official as detailed above posted at the relevant time signed Ex.PW12/H and Ex.PW14/N and the stamp affixed thereon did not tally of being used in ICD, TKD at that time. After seeing export promotion copy of Shipping Bill i.e. Quarduplicate no. 14484 dated 22.08.1998 of M/s Jyoti International (Part of D-3) which is Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW14/M bearing the endorsement i.e. passed for shipment, he confirmed that the abovesaid endorsement should have been signed by the concerned Superintendent of Custom but herein it was passed by the Inspector at Point X with stamp at Point B. Neither he nor any (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 48 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:02 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
official who were posted at the relevant time signed Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW14/M and the stamp affixed thereon did not tally of being used in ICD, TKD at that time. He further deposed that after seeing Ex.PW14/U, Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW14/N, Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW14/M on the endorsements, he deposed that the signature made on the lower side of the stamps of the Inspector ICD, TKD, New Delhi was abnormal as normally officer used to sign/ initial on the upper side of the stamps. He deposed further that the Quaraduplicate copies were used to be issued to the exporter of the goods after export.
38. Hence, from a conjoint testimony of PW7, PW12, PW13 and PW22, it stands clearly proved that all the shipping bills accompanied with invoices and packing lists are forged documents.
39. It is next to be seen whether the above mentioned documents have been forged by the accused present in the court or not. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention that the mastermind of the present case namely accused Jai Bhagwan Saini has already died. It is the allegation of the CBI that the forgery has been committed by accused Lalit Dogra who had already been convicted on his plea of guilt on 04.01.2005. A perusal of the order dated 04.01.2005 shows that accused Lalit Dogra was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each under section 467 IPC and under section 419/420/468/471 read with section 120 B IPC. Order on charge dated 27.10.2004 relates to conspiracy and (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 49 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:09 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
forgery of three bank realisation certificates dated 07.09.98. Perusal of order dated 27.10.2004 further shows that accused Lalit Dogra pleaded guilty and did not claim any trial. He admitted the charge voluntarily. He stated that he had typed the documents at the office of accused B.K.Malhotra and got Rs. 10,000/- in consideration for typing one bill. Hence, it becomes clear from the plea of guilt and charge order dated 27.10.2004 of accused Lalit Dogra that the bills as well as BRCs have been forged by him in the office of accused B.K. Malhotra and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced.
40. It is next to be seen whether the accused facing trial presently namely Rakesh Kumar Chopra and Bal Krishan Malhotra were part of conspiracy as alleged.
41. Section 120A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines criminal conspiracy 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.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
42. In case titled as Mohammed Usman Mohammed Hussain (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Page 50 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:16 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Maniyar and others versus State of Maharashtra, (1981) Supreme Court Cases 443, it was observed as under:-
"For offence under section 120- B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication."
43. In case titled as Shivnarayan Lakshminarayan Joshi and Others versus State of Maharashtra (1980)2 Supreme Court cases 465, it was observed as under:-
"a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design."
44. Further, the principle contained in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other.
45. After having discussed the legal provisions related to conspiracy, let us see if the accused were party thereto. It was argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the accused Bal Kishan Malhotra and Lalit Dogra gave joint disclosure under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and subsequently, the typewriter was discovered which was allegedly used to type the forged documents by accused Lalit Dogra as admitted by him and hence, the role played by the accused persons is manifest from the recovery of typewriter from the office of accused Bal (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 51 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:24 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Kishan Malhotra as well as identification of signature of accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra on the various correspondence/documents. He placed heavy reliance on D-18 Recovery memo-cum-identification dated 24/12/94 (Ex.PW-27/G) prepared under section 27 of Evidence Act regarding seizure of typewriter Godrej bearing no. 577313 on the disclosure of accused Bal Kishan Malhotra and Lalit Dogra. It was next argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the accused Lalit Dogra himself admitted that he has typed documents at the office of accused B.K. Malhotra at the time of recording his plea of guilt which is sufficient to corroborate the role of accused B.K. Malhotra in the conspiracy alleged against him. It was thus contended on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the prosecution has been able to prove that the typewriter recovered has been used in typing the forged documents as clear from the CFSL report and same has been admitted by accused Lalit Dogra. It was highlighted by learned PP for the CBI that according to the GEQD report proved by PW-14 Ravinder Sharma vide his Reason for opinion (Ex. PW-14/Z-36), all typewritings Q- 48,50,51,59, 61 and 62 tally with the corresponding sample type writings.
46. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of learned counsel of the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to prove as to when the accused Bal Kishan Malhotra was arrested and what were the incriminating materials collected before his arrest and (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 52 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:31 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
what was the reason of his arrest. It was thus argued that the arrest of accused Bal Kishan Malhotra was illegal as there is no arrest memo qua accused Balkishan forwarded by the investigating officer along with the challan and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings after arrest is illegal. It is contended further that the investigating officer forcefully obtained signature of accused Bal Kishan Malhotra on white paper while he was in custody and thereafter manipulated D-18. It was further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the time of identification memo D-18. No witness has stated as to when the seizure-cum identification memo under section 27 Evidence act was prepared and hence, it is a doubtful document and the prosecution failed to prove the same.
47. A bare perusal of D-18 would reveal that said document is a torn document and half of the contents of D-18 is missing. It was argued on behalf of learned counsel for accused persons that the contents of the alleged photocopy of D-18 cannot be read as the prosecution has failed to rely on photocopy of D-18 as secondary evidence. To my mind, there is no substance in this argument as reliance can be placed on the clear photocopy thereof. It is not the defence of the accused that contents in the photocopy of Ex. PW27/G have been changed or tampered with. Hence, contention in this regard raised by defence stands rejected.
48. Let us now see the contents of D-18/Ex. PW27/G which is (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 53 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:40 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
the most important piece of evidence against accused Bal Krishan Malhotra. Same reads as under:-
"During custodial interrogation of B.K. Malhotra in the above mentioned case, a disclosure was made by him to the effect that the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) has been typed on Godrej Priva Typewriter available in his office located at Anand Chambers, 203, Rajendra Place of Ruchi International. He also disclosed that BRC was typed by Lalit Dagar another accused arrested in RC2E/99- S10X/ ND against M/s.Neetu Enterprises and others. The same fact was also confirmed during the interrogation of Lalit Dogra in this case.
Accordingly today, i.e 24.12.99, myself along with Inspr. S Balasubramony, and accused Lalit Dogra and B.K. Malhotra reached the office premises of Ruchi International located at 203, Anand Chambers along with witness from Registrar of Companies by name of Laxman Singh Dhik Junior Technical Assistant around 2:15 p.m (time is not clearly legible). The said typewriter Godrej Priva Make with No. 577313 was found in the office premises and identified by Lalit Dogra to have typed the BRC used in Jyoti International and also for typing the export documents like Shipping bills, invoices etc used for claim of duty drawback in respect of firms Neetu enterprises and Exports, Maitri Exports, Pooja Enterprises, Priyanka Enterprises, B.R. Enterprises in RC 2(E)99.The typewriter was also identified by B.K. Malhotra in the presence of witnesses.
Accordingly, the said typewriter No. 577313 Godrej Priva make was taken into custody in presence of witness from ROC Shri Laxman Singh after noting the proceedings in the memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act in this RC4(E)/ 99- SIVIX."
49. Perusal of the recovery memo D-18 ( Ex. PW-27/G) shows that same is joint disclosure of both the accused Bal Kishan (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 54 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:39:47 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
Malhotra and Lalit Dogra prepared while the accused were in police custody. PW27 Rajesh Chahal, the investigating officer, PW Laxman Singh and Inspector Balsubramani were the witnesses to the identification Memo D-18.
50. In case titled as Mohd. Abdul Hafeez V. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 23 November, 1982 (AIR 1983 SC 367), Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to simultaneous disclosure of the accused persons observed as under:-
"it is impossible to believe that all spoke simultaneously. This way of recording evidence is most unsatisfactory and we record our disapproval of the same. If evidence otherwise confessional in character is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the investigating officer to state and record who gave the information; when, he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against that person."
(emphasis supplied)
51. Similar observations were made in case law titled as Ramanand @Nand Lal Bharti v. The State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 13th October 2022 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 64-65 of 2022.
52. In case titled as Delhi Administration V. Bal Krishan and ors AIR 1972 SC 3 decided on 15th October 1971 also, there was no independent evidence with regard to alleged recovery of stolen articles made in pursuance of a statement by accused and therefore, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 55 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:39:54 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
would not have been safe in the said circumstances of the case to rely only on the evidence of police officers. In that case, a disclosure statement was made by accused Ram Singh (accused therein) and in consequence thereof stolen property was recovered from the house of Ram Singh. There were three witnesses for the said recovery. The two Panchas examined by the prosecution turned hostile and the third Pancha witness was not examined. In such circumstances, in spite of the police witnesses giving evidence with regard to the recovery, the learned judge was not inclined to act upon that evidence and it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that they cannot say that the learned judge was wrong in doing so.
53. However, the investigating officer PW27 during his testimony did not say as to which accused made the disclosure and to what extent. Further, the investigating officer only identified the signature of the attesting witnesses to D-18 and no independent witness was examined.
54. Pertinently, the CBI has not examined Balsubramany as witness in the present case. The IO PW27 admitted during his cross-examination that he did not record the statement of Inspector S. Balasubramany. Moreover, another independent witness Sh. Laxman Singh from ROC, has not been examined since he had expired. As per the deposition of PW 27 Rajesh Chahal, duty officer had arranged the witness from the office of ROC, however, the investigating officer has failed to prove a (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 56 of 71 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:40:03 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
single document that Sh. Laxman Singh was called to join the investigating team. Further, after death of Laxman Singh, the prosecution has not examined any witness from ROC to prove the signature of Laxman Singh on D-18. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the contents of D-18.
55. Another missing link is that the ownership of the alleged typewriter has not been proved by CBI. Not a single witness has been examined in this regard. The investigating officer has miserably failed to investigate qua the ownership of typewriter as rightly urged by learned counsel on behalf of the accused persons. During the cross-examination, PW27 admitted that he did not investigate as to from where typewriter was purchased and as to when it was sold. Not a single independent witness stated that the accused Bal Kishan Malhotra was owner of the type writer. Merely, for the reason that the typewriter was found available in the office of accused B.K. Malhotra does not lead to conclusion that he was the owner thereof. Even accused Lalit Dogra did not say so in his plea of guilt. Besides, the investigating officer PW27 stated during his cross-examination that such typewriter is available in market. For these reasons, therefore, the contentions raised in this regard by learned PP for CBI must be overruled as they do not appear to be tenable at all.
56. The disclosure statement D-18 is the solitary piece of evidence against the accused B.K. Malhotra and it is not sufficient to connect him with the crime and the charge is not (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 57 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:40:10 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
brought to the accused.
57. It was contended on behalf of accused persons that the alleged documents were sent in sealed cover however, the seal was never sent to the Forensic Examiner nor any witness examined by prosecution has stated the description of seal. It was argued further that there was no seal of the expert opinion report which was received in a sealed cover. As such the entire proceeding is vitiated and manipulated. It was further argued by learned counsel of the accused that without any corroboration and any substantive evidence, expert opinion qua specimen signatures and typewritings cannot be relied against the accused persons. It was strenuously urged that the investigating officer has failed to take the specimen handwriting of the accused persons with permission of the court and, therefore, the expert opinion is liable to be ignored.
58. It is settled principle of law that the expert opinion is not conclusive evidence. Reliance can be placed on case law titled as Rajesh Bhai Muljibhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat decided on 10 February, 2020 in Criminal Appeal no.s 251-252 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:-
"19. It is also to be pointed out that in terms of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of the handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence but it is not a conclusive evidence..."
(emphasis supplied)
59. In State v. Dharmender Singh Mehra and another decided on 17 October, 2011 by High Court of Delhi in Crl.L.P. 404/2011 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 58 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:40:17 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
(Para 7), it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the following reasoning adopted by the trial court while acquitting the accused is not an implausible or unreasonable one and accordingly, the petition challenging the conviction of accused was dismissed.
"xxx10.6 In the present case it is not disputed that the specimen handwriting and fingerprints were taken by IO without permission of the court. It is quite strange that despite provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act, the investigating agency does not care to take specimen fingerprints as provided under the Act. Only on account of casual approach of IO, such evidence is going to be excluded. The senior police officer must give suitable direction to IO's that specimen finger prints should be taken in accordance with the provision of Identification of Prisoners Act. Thus, the entire evidence regarding the fingerprint and handwriting has to be excluded for consideration...".
(emphasis supplied)
60. Reliance can also be placed on case law titled as Sapan Haldar & An V. State decided on 25th May 2012 by three Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. A 804/2012. In this case, on the subject of admissibility of sample handwriting or signature obtained from a person accused of having committed an offence or during investigation of a crime by the Investigating Officer, it was observed as follows:-
"19. Thus, it is apparent that neither Section 4 nor Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 would encompass a handwriting. Thus, neither a police officer during investigation, nor even a Magistrate can direct a person accused of having committed an offence to give his sample signature or handwriting sample, the former under Section 4 and the latter under Section 5. The power is that (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 59 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:40:25 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
of the Court concerned and is to be found in Section 73. The relevant observations read as under:- "29. We note that the legislature has taken corrective action, when by virtue of Act No.25 of 2005, with effect from June 23, 2006, Section 311A has been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has empowered a Magistrate to direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting. Section 311A reads as under:-
"311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting. - If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding."
30. Thus, with effect from June 23, 2006 the legislative empowerment has empowered the Magistrate concerned with reference to signatures and handwriting; the lacuna in the law which was noted by the Supreme Court in the year 1980 when Ram Babu Mishra‟s case (supra) was decided has been removed.
31. We answer the reference as follows:-
(i) Handwriting and signature are not measurements as defined under clause (a) of Section 2 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Section 4 and Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 will not apply to a handwriting sample or a sample signature. Thus, an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 60 of 71 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:40:32 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
committed an offence.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, when Act No.25 of 2005 was notified, inter-alia, inserting Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even a Magistrate could not direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting samples. In cases where Magistrates have directed so, the evidence was held to be inadmissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Babu Mishra‟s case (supra). According to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the Court concerned can direct a person appearing before it to submit samples of his handwriting and/or signature for purposes of comparison".
(emphasis supplied) Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the investigation could not have obtained the specimen signatures of the accused persons, on his own and that too without the permission of the Magistrate. In view of the above decision, the opinion of the handwriting expert, based on the specimen signatures of the accused persons is therefore inadmissible and have to be discarded.
61. It is also noteworthy that the investigating officer PW27 has also failed to examine the stenographer who typed the typewriting specimen documents in the presence of PW3 Giyanesh Kumar Jain. Further, the alleged type writer was never produced before PW3 Gyanesh Kumar who was the only attesting witness of the typewriting specimen documents. As such, the use of the alleged typewriter in preparing the typewriting specimen documents is also highly doubtful as rightly urged by learned counsel of accused persons.
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR Page 61 of 71
NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:40:38 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
62. PW 16 Nand Lal failed to state as to when the alleged hand writing were taken and when he was called by investigating officer. PW 16 during cross-examination by the accused persons categorically stated that he did not remember the name of CBI officer he met nor did he know the name of investigating officer. Besides, said witness has failed to identify the signatures of investigating officer and accused Bal Kishan Malhotra. As such, the alleged specimen hand writings of accused Bal Kishan is also doubtful.
63. Learned PP for CBI then vehemently relied on the testimony of PW11 Balak Ram Tyagi to prove the conspiracy between accused person. On the contrary, it was contended on behalf of learned counsel of the accused that only after arrest of accused Bal Kishan Malhotra, the investigating officer planted a witness i.e PW11 Balak Ram Tyagi and he is not a trustworthy witness.
64. Perusal of testimony of PW11 shows that he deposed that he came in contact with accused Balkrishan Malhotra through Mr. Prem Aneja who came to him for the purchase of leather purse in the year 1992. He met accused Jai Bhagwan Saini at Kashmere Gate when he went there for loan purpose. He correctly identified the accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan Saini and B.K. Malhotra. He further deposed that in the year 1997 to 1998, accused Jai Bhagwan Saini asked accused B.K. Malhotra do some business in the export in his presence. Thereafter, learned (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 62 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:40:45 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
PP sought permission to cross-examine this witness as he did not disclose the true facts due to lapse of time. He then deposed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini asked him to do some business in export for readymade garments with accused B.K. Malhotra and insisted him to remain as mediator. He further deposed that in the year 1998 he and accused Jai Bhagwan Saini went to the office of accused B.K. Malhotra at Anand Chamber, Patel Nagar, New Delhi and during discussion it was decided by accused B.K. Malhotra and Jai Bhagwan Saini to open firm in which export would be shown and duty drawback would be obtained on the basis of said export. He further deposed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini had opened proprietorship firm M/s. Jyoti International giving its address at Palika place, Panchukiya Road, New Delhi. He deposed next that for opening of firm Jyoti International SSI certificate was prepared by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini and all the relevant documents relating to formation of company were also made by accused Jai Bhagwan Saini with the help of accused B.K. Malhotra. He correctly identified accused Rakesh Chopra also in the court who met him in the office of accused B.K. Malhotra. He deposed next that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini asked him for help to arrange any person who was having any bank account which accused Jai Bhagwan Saini needed for introduction. He further deposed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini was also known to Vinod Dhingra and requested him as introducer for opening bank account in the (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 63 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:40:54 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
name of M/s. Jyoti International. He deposed that he also knew Lalit Dogra who used to do the typing work in the office of accused B.K. Malhotra. He further deposed that accused Jai Bhagwan Saini told him that there was no export of goods running in the firm of M/s Jyoti International and it was only paper based firm. However, during his cross-examination, he denied that Jai Bhagwan Saini told him that shipping bills and other documents were forged. He further denied that all export documents were prepared by Jai Bhagwan Saini, B.K. Malhotra and Rakesh Chopra. Strangely, during the suggestions put by learned counsel for the accused, PW11 Balak Ram denied the contents what he stated in his examination-in-chief. He deposed categorically that he did not know anything about accused Rakesh Chopra. He admitted that no discussion in respect of opening of export firm and clearing of the duty drawback took place. He did not remember as to when accused Jai Bhagwan Saini had told him that there was no export of goods running in the firm of M/s. Jyoti International and that it was only a paper based firm.
65. Hence, PW11 primarily deposed against accused Jai Bhagwan Saini who is already dead and not much reliance can be placed on his testimony qua present accused persons due to his wavering statements and therefore, he is not a reliable witness.
66. The prosecution has thus failed to connect accused B.K. Malhotra with the typewriter in question. Simply for the reason (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 64 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:41:02 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
that the said typewriter was openly lying in his office does not lead to the conclusion that the same was owned by him. The plea of guilt of accused Lalit Dogra cannot be taken as incriminating against accused B.K. Malhotra as the same is missing with regard to the fact if the bills/documents in question were typed at the direction or instance of accused B.K. Malhotra or if it was accused B.K.Malhotra who had paid him Rs.10,000/- for one bill. Hence, the reliance of learned PP for the CBI on the plea of guilt of accused Lalit Dogra is not sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused B.K. Malhotra.Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be assumed that accused became B.K.Malhotra was also part of conspiracy alleged simply for the reason that typewriter has been recovered from his office. As such, the CBI has miserably failed to connect accused B.K. Malhotra with any of the offence in question.
EVIDENCE AGAINST RAKESH KUMAR CHOPRA
67. It was vehemently argued on behalf of learned PP for CBI that accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons signed various documents impersonating as Ashok Kumar namely profile of import/export declaration cum undertaking forms, application form for duty entitlement pass book ( DEPB) on export import basis etc which are mostly in D-2 file Question mark as Q-21 (page 2 of D-2, Profile of exporter/ importer signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-23 (page 3 of D-2, Application form for duty entitlement pass book (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 65 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:41:08 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
(DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar), Q- 23/page 3 of D-2, Application form for duty entitlement pass book ( DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar),Q-24 / back page 3 of D-2, Application form for duty entitlement pass book (DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar),Q-27 (page 4 of D-2, Profile of exporter/ importer signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-29 (page 5 of D-2), Application form for duty entitlement pass book (DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-31 ( back page 5 of D-2), Application form for duty entitlement pass book (DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-38 & Q- 39 (page 11 of D-2) Affidavit dated-28.10.1998 signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-43 & Q-44 (page of D-2) Affidavit dated-27.11.1998 signed as Ashok Kumar),Q-67 (page of D-3), Application form for duty entitlement pass book(DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar), Q-70 & Q-71 (page of D-3) and application form for duty entitlement pass book ( DEPB) on post export import basis signed as Ashok Kumar).It was further highlighted by learned PP for CBI that as per GEQD PW-14 Ravinder Sharma in his Reason for opinion(Ex.PW-14/Z-34), all Q-21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 38, 39, 43, 44, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 were written by accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra whose specimen signatures were taken from Mark S22 to S41. It was thus urged that accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra played an important role in the conspiracy alleged.
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR
Page 66 of 71
NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:41:15 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
68. On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of learned counsel of the accused persons that the alleged specimen writings i.e. S22 to S41 attributed to accused Rakesh Chopra cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. The only attesting witness PW 20 Vikram Jit has failed to identify the accused Rakesh Chopra whose handwritings were allegedly taken. Further, PW20 failed to state as to when he was called to identify the said specimen hand writings. Besides, the said witness has failed to identify the signature of accused Rakesh Chopra and investigating officer nor did the investigating officer identified the signatures of PW20 on the alleged specimen hand writing of Accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra. Besides, no permission from court was taken for taking specimen hand writings of accused Rakesh Chopra. As such, it was argued that it is highly doubtful that the accused Rakesh Chopra gave his specimen writing in the case. To my mind, the said contentions raised by learned counsel for accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra are totally tenable. Perusal of the file shows that there is nothing incriminating against the accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra except for GEQD opinion. Nothing was recovered from accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra. There is no arrest memo qua the arrest of Rakesh Kumar Chopra on record. The investigating office has failed to explain the reason of arrest of accused Rakesh Chopra. It is also pertinent to mention that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed to the fact that accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra signed on the relevant documents in their (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU NAGAR Page 67 of 71 NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:41:22 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
presence or ever saw them signing.
69. Learned PP for CBI has tried to connect the role of accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra only on the basis of his signatures appended on the documents which has been confirmed to pertain to him on the basis of CFSL report. However, the expert opinion is a weak piece of evidence. Reliance can be placed on case titled as S.P.S.Rathore versus CBI and another decided on 23 September 2016.The relevant observations read as under:
"27) With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused that the signature of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum was forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms. Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 68 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:41:30 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence (emphasis supplied)
70. Similarly in case titled as Smt. Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma and others (1973) 4 SCC 46, it was held as under:-
"26.....It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting between (PW 1/A) and other admitted writings of the deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in view of the main essential features of the case, not much value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. In Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat this Court observed that conclusions based upon mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case."
30) It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR
Page 69 of 71
NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22
17:41:37 +0530
CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
71. Hence, the prosecution failed to bring any other corroborative evidence to link the accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra with the offence alleged except for expert opinion. Moreover, the expert opinion cannot be relied upon in view of the judgment of Sapan Haldar (supra) as discussed above.
72. This court cannot lose sight of the golden principle which runs through the entire criminal justice system of burden upon the prosecution of proving their case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt against accused. The prosecution is required to complete the journey of their case by showing that the proved material shows that accused must have committed the offence and not merely may have committed the offence. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense.
85. As a sequel of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the role of accused persons in the commission of the offence alleged beyond shadows of reasonable doubt and the benefit of the same deserves to be given to them.
CONCLUSION
73. In view of the above discussed findings, it has to be concluded in the end that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has several gaps and too many material (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed Delhi:22.09.2025 NEETU by NEETU NAGAR Page 70 of 71 NAGAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:41:46 +0530 CBI 77/2019 CBI VS. JAI BHAGWAN SAINI & ORS.
contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses as discussed above, due to which the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Bal Krishan Malhotra stands acquitted for the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC and 467 IPC and Accused Rakesh Kumar Chopra also stands acquitted for charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC, 419 IPC and 468 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
74. Accused to furnish bail bond under Section 481 BNSS 2023 (437-A Cr.P.C).
75. Copy of this judgment be given to learned PP for CBI as well as to the accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 22.09.2025 (This Judgment contains 71 pages Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU signed by the undersigned) NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.09.22 17:41:54 +0530 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi 22.09.2025 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:22.09.2025 Page 71 of 71