Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Jai Biswas Verma on 24 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR-II, ACMM-2 CUM ACJ,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma
Case No. : CBI No. 495/2019
FIR No. : RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI
dated 16.05.2000
U/s : 120B r/w 380/411/420/467
IPC and substantive
offences thereof.
Name of Branch : EOW-I/CBI/ New Delhi
JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : 02406R0069992001
b) The date of commission of the
offences : 09.01.1999 and during the
year 1999
c) Name of the Complainant : R.K. Punj, the then Assistant
General Manager, SBI,
Personal Banking Branch,
Parliament Street, New
Delhi.
d) Name, parentage & address
of accused : (1) Jai Biswas Verma S/o
Late Sh. Santosh Kumar
Verma, R/o House No. 4/R-2,
Gali no. 16, Balbir Nagar
Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-
110032.
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma
CBI No. 495/2019
RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI
U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 1 of 21
(2) Hemant Kumar S/o Late
Sh. Ganga Ram (proceedings
against him stands abated
vide order dated 13.10.2015).
(3) Hemant Bhatt @
Himanshu Rajender Bhatt
S/o Sh. R.C. Bhatt
(proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 28.08.2021).
(4) Sudhir Kumar Gupta S/o
Sh. B.D. Gupta (proceedings
against him stands abated
vide order dated 02.11.2022).
e) Offences complained of : 380/411/414/467 IPC and
120B r/w section
380/420/467 IPC.
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal.
h) Date of institution of case : 02.01.2002
i) Date of Judgment : 24.02.2023
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. The present case was registered against unknown persons vide order No. 14036/125/99-UTP, Govt. Of India dated 18.10.1999 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which inter alia directed the CBI to take over the investigation in case FIR No. 21/99, dated CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 2 of 21 15.01.1999 registered at PS Parliament Street, New Delhi, from Delhi Police for further investigation.
2. The allegations in brief are that some unknown persons in conspiracy with bank officials had committed the theft of demand drafts from the SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi on 09.01.1999. It has been alleged that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused persons had cheated the SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi by fraudulently encashing the 241 stolen demand drafts/ banker cheques. During investigation it has transpired that accused Jai Biswas Verma in conspiracy with other co- accused persons had stolen the aforesaid demand drafts/ banker cheques from SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi on 09.01.1999 and had sold the same to co-accused Hemant Kumar. Accused Hemant Kumar had further sold two blank demand drafts bearing no. TL- 739332 and TL-739333 to co-accused Hemant Bhatt after forging the signatures of the bank officials thereon. It has been alleged that co- accused Hemand Bhatt in furtherance of criminal conspiracy filled up the main body of the aforesaid drafts, favouring in the name of Sh. H. Lal Maghiya and Smt. Zopari and that they both were persuaded by K.K. Patel, at the instance of Hemant Bhatt, to open current account in SBI, Mission Veng Branch, Aizwal and saving bank account in SBI, Bangkawn Branch, Aizwal so that abovesaid two demand drafts could be encashed. Accordingly, H. Lal Maghiya opened Current Account No. 4/255 in SBI Mission Veng Branch, Aizwal on 25.01.1999 in the name of CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 3 of 21 M/s Zoram Supply Agency and Smt Zopari opened her Saving Bank Account No. 1/420 in SBI, Bangkawn Branch, Aizwal on 03.02.1999. Draft No. TL-739332 dated 01.02.1999 for the sum of Rs. 9,97,320/- was deposited in Current Account No. 4/255 in SBI Mission Veng Branch, Aizwal on 05.02.1999 by H. Lal Maghiya, Proprietor of M/s Zoram Supply Agency and another draft no. TL-739333 dated 30.01.1999 for the sum of Rs. 9,98,100/- was deposited in SBI, Bangkawn Branch, Aizwal by Smt. Zopari on 05.02.1999. In connection with aforesaid DD's Mizoram Police registered case FIR No. 85/99 dated 05.02.1999 at PS Aizwal and FIR No. 65/99 dated 06.02.1999 at PS Bangkawn and arrested H. Lal Maghiya, Smt. Zopari and accused K.K. Patel. Accused Jai Biswas Verma also sold more stolen drafts to T.A. Krishanmurthy and Raj Kumar @ Ramesh @ Subhash who further sold these drafts to various other persons and made money fraudulently. Investigation further revealed that out of said stolen drafts, on 02.02.1999 another draft bearing no. OL-430488 was unauthorizedly found in possession of Sudhir Kumar Gupta and the same was filled up in the name of one Rajesh Gupta for the sum of Rs. 14,960/- payable at Surat, Gujarat.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and evidences collected during investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Accordingly, Ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance and summoned the accused persons for facing trial. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 4 of 21 charge sheet and relied upon documents were supplied to the accused persons. During the course of the trial, accused persons namely Hemant Kumar, Hemant Bhatt and Sudhir Kumar expired and proceedings against them were abated vide orders dated 13.10.2015, 28.08.2021 and 02.11.2022 respectively and hence, cross examination conducted on their behalf is not being discussed in this judgment and only cross examination conducted on behalf accused J.B. Verma has been discussed, as now he remains the only accused in the present case.
4. Charge for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 380/467/420 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Jai Biswas Verma, Hemant Kumar and Hemant Bhatt, charge for commission of the offences punishable under section 380/414 IPC was framed against accused Jai Biswas Verma, charge for commission of the offences punishable under section 414/467 IPC was framed against accused Hemant Kumar, charge for commission of offences punishable under section 467 IPC was framed against accused Hemant Bhatt and charge for the commission of the offence punishable under section 411 IPC was framed against Sudhir Kumar Gupta, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case against accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses.
5. PW-1 Francis Thantluanga proved the current account opening form of Zopari as Ex.PW1/A; her specimen signature card as Ex.PW1/B; and deposed that draft as Ex.PW1/C is the same draft which was found as CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 5 of 21 a stolen leaf against which he had lodged a complaint with the police; deposit slip showing the deposit of draft as Ex.PW1/D; information sheet of account of Zopari as Ex.PW1/E; ledger sheet as Ex.PW1/F; copy of complaint made to the PS Bangkawn, Aizwal regarding the stolen forged demand draft is Mark 'A'. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
6. PW-2 V.P. Taneja exhibited the photocopy of bank draft bearing No. TL-739332 dated 01.02.1999 as Ex.PW2/A and his specimen signatures obtained by CBI as Ex.PW2/B (colly). This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
7. PW- 3 R.S. Mishra deposed that on 09.01.1999 at about 12:30 PM he finished his work and handed over the unused drafts and bank cheques to Sh. S.K. Mittal, Branch Section Incharge at that time and left to bank dispensary; when he came back he heard about the theft of the bank drafts and cheques from the branch; receipt memo dated 13.06.2000 is Ex.PW3/A; certified copy of draft form issue register containing TT Form issue w.e.f 28.12.1998 to 09.01.1999 is Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that vide Ex.PW3/B the blank drafts/ banker cheques were issued to him on 09.01.1999 without getting his signatures; these bank drafts were not used by him and he returned the same to Sh. S.K. Mittal, draft issuing section after finishing his work, for which Sh. S.K. Mittal had made entries in the said register.
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 6 of 21
8. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused J.B. Verma he deposed that while handing over the leaf of the drafts he had not taken any receipt from Sh. S.K. Mittal who was his superior and was looking after the draft issuing section; there is a cutting on the entry of 09.01.1999 which was done by Sh. S.K. Mittal in his presence but he had not put his initials on the same.
9. PW-4 S.K. Mittal deposed that on 09.01.1999 the clerk of concerned branch had handed over to him some bank drafts/ banker cheques which were kept by him in his drawer duly locked and he kept the keys in his possession; thereafter he went to Sh. G.D. Kakkar, Chief Passing Officer for obtaining the initials on sundry vouchers after 10-15 minutes; when he returned he found that his drawer was opened and bank drafts were missing.
10. In his cross examination, conducted on behalf of accused J.B. Verma he deposed that the lock was inside the drawer of the table and keys were in his pocket after locking the said drawer; the lock of the drawer cannot be opened without a key and the key was with him; CBI had not seized any key or lock either from him or in his presence; the day on which the drafts were lost was a Saturday and the public dealing was not conducted after 12'o Noon; there were many other persons including the Bank staff present near his seat at the time of incident; his manager had not taken nor he himself had handed over to him the keys of his drawer immediately after the incident; though he had checked his drawer CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 7 of 21 which was functioning properly.
11. PW-5 Shyam Lal Goyal deposed that complaint made to SHO PS Parliament Street, New Delhi is Ex.PW5/A (colly). This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
12. PW-6 P.P. Guite deposed that a complaint lodged by him with the local police against H. Lal Mangaiha is Ex.PW6/A. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
13. PW-7 G.D. Kakkar deposed that as Deputy Manager of the branch, Draft Issuing Section was also under him; he do not remember as to who was the incharge of Draft Issuing Section in the said branch; during this period some drafts/ banker cheques were found missing from the branch and at that time all the branch employees were present in the bank.
14. In his cross examination he deposed that at the relevant point of time the regular banking hour for general public were from 10:00 am to 03:00 pm from Monday to Friday and on Saturday the same was from 10:00 am to 01:00 pm; he does not remember exactly the number of draft leaves stolen or misplaced on that day; in his presence the CBI officials never checked the draft issuing register issuing the drafts or how many drafts were missing; the incident in question happened after 01:00 pm; he CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 8 of 21 was informed by one of the bank employees regarding the theft/ loss of bank drafts/ banker cheques.
15. PW-8 Shubhangi Alurkar deposed that Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW1/C do not bears her signatures. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
16. PW-9 H.P.S Kataria deposed that vide receipt memo already Ex.PW3/A he had handed over the photocopies of draft form issue register duly certified under Bankers Book of Evidence Act to CBI for the purpose of investigation. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
17. PW10 Rajesh Kumar deposed that Vijay was his partner in his illegal liquor business in Haryana and he had introduced him to Naresh; Naresh was working as peon in SBI; Naresh brought him to New Delhi and introduced him to Hemant Kumar; Naresh had taken six DD of SBI and offered to Hemant Kumar for encashing the same but he refused to take the same and said that they could not be encashed; afterwards he also met alone with Hemant Kumar several times at Sawan Park, Delhi, who took him to the office of Avinash Magan at Preet Vihar, Delhi; in his office there were 3-4 persons alongwith Jai Biswas Verma; Raj Kumar and Murti were also present; Hemant Kumar asked Jai Biswas Verma whether he had brought the DDs of SBI, Parliament Street Branch; on this Jai Biswas gave a bunch of DDs to Hemant Kumar; Hemant Kumar CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 9 of 21 signed on some DDs and returned rest of them to Jai Biswas Verma; Hemant Kumar handed over the signed DDs to Raj Kumar and Murti. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
18. PW-11 Vikas Sharma deposed that the cashbook of M/s Vikas Textiles for the period from 05.11.1997 to 15.02.1999 is Ex.PW11/A; demand draft dated 14.01.1999 for Rs. 14960/- in favour of Rajesh Gupta bearing no. 430488 drawn on SBI Surat is Ex.PW11/B; entry at portion Q-13 in a diary allegedly in the name of Sudhir Kumar Gupta regarding the payments by M/s Vikas Textiles is Ex.PW11/C. This PW was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
19. PW-12 K.K. Patel was declared hostile and was cross examined on behalf of CBI. His statement recorded under section 161 CrPC is Ex.PW12/A. This PW has not supported the case of the prosecution and was not cross examined on behalf of the accused J.B. Verma despite opportunity being afforded to him.
20. PW-13 P.K. Khanna deposed that he occasionally assisted the IO of this case as per the directions of the SP; he recorded the statement under section 161 CrPC; he took over the copy of FIR and other related documents of the case from PS Parliament Street; original road certificate dated 31.05.2000 is Ex.PW13/A; receipt memo dated 13.06.2000 already CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 10 of 21 Ex.PW3/A bears his signatures at point B.
21. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Sudhir Gupta which was adopted on behalf of accused J.B. Verma nothing material came on record.
22. PW-14 B.S. Bisht deposed that in the year 2002 this case was entrusted to him for investigation; Inspector P.K. Khanna handed over the investigation of this case to him as he was the previous IO; he recorded statement of witnesses and received documents from the previous IO; seizure memo dated 19.08.2001 qua seizure of original register of Geetanjali Hotel already Ex.PW2/A bears his signature at point A; seizure memo dated 20.08.2001 qua seizure of original register of Ahimsa Hotel is Ex.PW14/A; specimen signatures and handwriting of Hemant Bhatt and Sudhir Gupta is Ex.PW14/B (colly).
23. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused J.B. Verma he deposed that the specimen signatures and handwritings were taken without any permission of the court or senior officials as the same was not required.
24. PW-15 R.K. Punj, deposed that Ex.PW5/A is the same complaint which was lodged by him and bears his signatures at point A; as far as unsigned columns on Ex.PW3/B (colly) is concerned, this was a lapse on part of the concerned official that the signatures/ initials of the receiving CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 11 of 21 official initials are not there.
25. In his cross examination he deposed that the incident of theft did not took place in his presence.
26. Thereafter, PE was closed on 11.10.2022. Statement of accused J.B. Verma was recorded under section 313 CrPC on 27.01.2023. Accused J.B. Verma did not opted to lead any evidence in his defence and DE was closed on the same day itself i.e. on 27.01.2023. Final arguments in the matter were heard on 09.02.2023 and 17.02.2023 respectively and matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment. Further arguments on behalf of CBI in terms of liberty granted vide order dated 17.02.2023 were heard on 23.02.2023 and thereafter matter was again listed for pronouncement of judgment.
27. Ld. APP for the CBI has argued that the offences for which accused J.B. Verma has been charged with have been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused J.B. Verma has argued that none of the ingredients of the offences for which charge have been framed against him have not been proved in any of the deposition of the PWs produced by the prosecution in support of their case and hence, accused J.B. Verma deserves to be acquitted.
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 12 of 21
28. I have heard Ld. APP for the CBI/ Prosecution, Ld. counsel for the accused and have also carefully gone through the case file.
29. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The standard of proof is not the preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. Initial burden of proof as regards prosecution in criminal trial is upon the prosecution and it never shifts upon the accused. It is well settled legal proposition that any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
30. In the present case, charge for the commission of offences punishable under section 380/414 IPC and 120B r/w 380/420/467/IPC was framed against the accused herein namely J.B. Verma. Accused J.B. Verma has been charged for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B, commission of offence of theft in a dwelling house punishable under section 380 IPC and commission of offence of assisting in concealment of stolen property punishable under section 414 IPC.
31. As per the case of CBI accused criminally conspired with co- accused persons namely Hemant Kumar, Hemant Bhatt and Sudhir Kumar Gupta so as to commit the offences punishable under section 380/420/467 IPC and that he had dishonestly removed/ stolen 241 blank demand draft from SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 13 of 21 New Delhi and furthermore, he sold the stolen DDs to Hemant Kumar, T.A. Krishnamurthy and Raj Kumar @ Ramesh @ Subhash for illegal consideration.
32. I have carefully gone through the testimonies of witnesses produced by CBI in support of its case. None of the prosecution witnesses including the bank witnesses have testified that they saw accused J.B. Verma committing the offence of theft of 241 blank demand drafts from SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi or that he was present in the branch on that day as their respective depositions are silent on this aspect. In the criminal trial the identity of an accused is of paramount importance. However, in the present case none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused J.B. Verma as the one who committed the offences for which he has been charged with as their respective depositions are silent on the aspect of identification. There is no evidence on record to connect accused J.B. Verma with the commission of offence under section 380 IPC.
33. During the investigation no efforts were made by the IO for lifting the chance prints from the drawer from which the alleged theft took place. Neither the drawer nor keys thereof was seized and their photographs were also not placed on record for the reasons best known to IO. Investigation is also silent on the aspect as to whether any CCTV camera was installed at/near the spot of incident or not and if yes, then what efforts were made by the IO for preserving/obtaining the relevant CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 14 of 21 CCTV camera footage as the same could have thrown the light upon the identity of the person who allegedly stole the demand drafts in question.
34. Now as far as offence punishable under section 414 IPC is concerned it was held in the case titled as Mahavir vs State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 642 that the essential requirement of the offence of receiving stolen property is that the property seized from the possession of the accused must be proved by the prosecution to be stolen. In the present case the alleged stolen demand drafts were not recovered from the possession of accused J.B. Verma. Though, PW-10 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that in his presence accused Jai Biswas Verma gave bunch of DDs to accused Hemant Kumar and Hemant Kumar signed on some of them and returned rest of the DDs to Jai Biswas Verma. However, from his testimony it is not clear as to whether those bunch of DDs were actually the part of 241 DDs allegedly stolen from the SBI, Personal Banking Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi or whether the DDs retained by co-accused Hemant Kumar are the same as that of DDs in question in the present case. Furthermore, the DDs in question were not shown to the PW-10 Rajesh Kumar for their identification so as to ascertain that they were the same DDs which were given by accused Jai Biswas Verma to Hemant Kumar. Interestingly, the prosecution in the present case, did not felt it necessary for ascertaining the identity of accused J.B. Verma in the court by PW-10 Rajesh Kumar as the same person against whom he had deposed. Hence, a question mark/doubt remains as to whether accused J.B. Verma was actually present or not in CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 15 of 21 the meeting as has been deposed by PW-10 Rajesh Kumar.
35. PW-10 Rajesh Kumar during his deposition has also referred to Vijay, Naresh and Avinash Magan. However, from perusal of record including chargesheet it appears that IO, for the reasons best known to him, did not felt it necessary for conducting investigation qua them. It was imperative that a thorough prove should have been conducted qua them as PW-10 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that Naresh had taken six DDs of State Bank of India and offered to Hemant Kumar for encashing the same. Importantly, as per the deposition of PW10 Rajesh Kumar, Naresh was working as Chaprasi in the State Bank of India, Biholi Branch. It appears that while conducting the investigation IO has adopted the pick and choose policy and conducted the same on his whims and fancies. In view of the aforesaid prosecution is unable to prove the commission of offence punishable under section 414 IPC by accused J.B Verma.
36. It is also clear from the testimonies of respective PWs from the bank, which shows that there were lapses on part of the bank officials present in the branch on the date of incident i.e. 09.01.1999 as PW-3 has deposed that vide Ex.PW3/B the blank draft/ banker cheque issued to him without getting his signatures and that he had returned to those drafts to PW-4 S.K. Mittal. Furthermore, in his cross examination he deposed that he had not taken any receipt while handing over the leaf of the drafts to PW-4 S.K. Mittal and that there is a cutting on the entry of 09.01.2019. It CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 16 of 21 is evident from the abovesaid testimony that the banking procedure was not adhered to by the bank officials as the blank drafts/ banker cheques were issued without getting the signatures nor any receipt was given when the same were returned by the respective bank officials. In view of the same, a doubt remains as to whether draft/ banker cheques were actually kept in the drawer or not from where they had been allegedly stolen. The conduct of the bank officials in not adhering to the banking procedure makes there acts and omissions suspicious.
37. As regards the commission of offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 380/420/467 IPC is concerned, it is necessary to briefly discuss the existing provisions of law relating to the offence of criminal conspiracy. Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of intention, which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 17 of 21
38. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
39. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. It has been seen that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that it is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
40. A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 18 of 21 of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirator in execution or any part of it is deemed to have been said, done and written by each of them.
41. In a case reported as V. R. Nedunchezhian Vs. State: 2000 Cr.L.J.976 Their Lordships observed in para 69 as under:
It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain; where each party performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy.
42. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors: JT 1993 (3) SC 203 it has been observed that it is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy.
43. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that there is no evidence on record to show that there was a prior meeting of mind of accused J.B. Verma with any of the co- accused persons (since deceased). An offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on the mere suspicioun or inference which are not supported by any cogent evidence [1994 (3) CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 19 of 21 crimes 850 (SC)]. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove the substantive offences punishable under section 380/414 IPC against the accused J.B. Verma. The testimony of PW-10 Rajesh Kumar also does not inspire any confidence as he has not identified accused J.B Verma in the court and the investigation is also silent qua the persons named by him in his deposition. Moreover, none of the bank witnesses have affirmed the presence of accused J.B. Verma on the date of the commission of offence of theft in the bank nor they have identified accused J.B. Verma in the court. When there was a prior meeting of mind or an agreement to do an illegal act as alleged does not stand established at all. In view of the above, I hold that the aspect of criminal conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for which benefit of doubt must be given to the accused J.B. Verma.
44. In view of the foregoing, a doubt has crepted in the prosecution story in favour of the accused J.B. Verma and hence, his false implication cannot be completely ruled out. It is settled law that if two views are possible then the view favouring the accused is to be adopted and in case of doubt the benefit is to be given to the accused. Accused cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather, all the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 120B r/w 380/467/420 IPC and section 380/414 IPC are required to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and circumstances, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma CBI No. 495/2019 RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 20 of 21 defence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences for which charges were framed against accused J.B. Verma. Hence, accused Jai Biswas Verma is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 120B r/w 380/467/420 IPC and section 380/414 IPC i.e. the offences for which he was charged with.
Announced in the open Court (DEEPAK KUMAR-II)
On 24.02.2023 ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ
ROUSE AVENUE COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Jai Biswas Verma
CBI No. 495/2019
RC-2(E)/2000/EOW-I/DLI
U/s 120B r/w 380/411/420/467 IPC and substantive offences thereof. Page No. 21 of 21