Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Sri Chand Etc. Judgment Dt. 29.8.2012 on 29 August, 2012

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                          Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

               IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
           SPECIAL JUDGE­II (PC ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

ID No. 02404R0649862007
RC  22(E)/2005/EOW­II/DLI
CC No. 45/2010
CBI Vs     1.  Sri Chand
               S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
               R/o 274­A, Pocket­C, Mayur Vihar, Phase­II,
               Delhi.
           2.  Ramesh Chandra
               S/o Late Sh. Agya Ram
               R/o CD/52­F, DDA Flat Hari Nagar, New Delhi­64.
           3.  Faiz Mohammed,
               S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohammed,
               R/o 4794, Haata Kedara, Pahari Dharaj, New Delhi.
           4.  Rakesh Kumar Hasija
               S/o Sh. Udhoo Dass,
               R/o Flat No. 113, Type­II, Delhi Admn. Flats
                      Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
                      O/o Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Food
                      Control Deptt., Civil Division­II Govt. of NCT
                      of Delhi.
           5.  Prahlad Kumar Thirwani
               S/o Late Sh. Moti Ram Thirwani
               R/o 348­E, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I,
                      Delhi­91.
           6.  Jitender Singh Sharma
               S/o Sh. Narayan Singh
               R/o 1073/A­3, Ward No.1, Mehrauli,
               New Delhi­30.
           7.  Jasbir Singh Sindhu
               S/o Dr. Bharat Singh
               R/o A­315, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.


CC No. 45/2010                                          Page 1 / 214
 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                      Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

              8.     Narayan Diwakar
                     S/o Late Sh. Chatti Lal
                     R/o G­30, Masjid Moth, New Delhi­48.
              9.     Sushil Kumar Sharma
                     S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
                     R/o Vill. Lalsa, P.O. Dansa, Tehsil Rampur Bushar,
                     Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
              10.    Anna Wankhede
                     D/o Late Sh. Parunji
                     R/o 148­E, Pocket­II, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III,
                     Delhi­91.
              11.    Mohan Lal
                     S/o Late Sh. Ajmeri Lal
                     R/o F­228/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi­49.

Date on which the final arguments were concluded : 22.8.2012
Date of judgment : 29.8.2012

JUDGEMENT

In CWP No. 2885/90 i.e. Kaveri CGHS Vs Union of India, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order dated 10.5.1991 to the effect that original date of registration of society with RCR Office was to be considered for establishing the seniority of the society for allotment of land by DDA. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 10066/2004 had passed an order Ex.PW90/A­7 (D­147), wherein it was observed that there appeared to be a nexus between the builders taking over the cooperative movement in Delhi in connivance with the officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It was observed that land in Delhi is alloted at a predetermined rate and not on the CC No. 45/2010 Page 2 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 basis of the market value of the land. These cooperative societies were formed in order to have flats at a affordable price by middle income group and lower income group. It was observed that its element of profit making in view of difference of market value of land and value on which the land is allotted to the society, which has resulted in nexus between the builders and officials. In view of the enormous amount of money invested and involvement of the accused persons, nature of crime and voluminous records Hon'ble High Court directed CBI to formulate a special investigating team to investigate the whole matter. Preliminary enquiry in respect of the each society in all 135 societies was conducted and in appropriate cases the regular cases were registered including the present one i.e. Rangmahal CGHS.

Prosecution case in brief is that during 1970­80 or thereafter, a large number of Group Housing Societies were registered.

It is alleged that Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. was registered on 31.3.1973 vide Regn. No. 152 (GH) with 15 promoter members, having its registered office at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of an application dated 15.1.1973 submitted by Sh. Sumat Prasad Jain, the then Secretary of the society and that subsequently the membership of the society was enhanced to 50 in the next General Body Meeting.

Investigation has further established that Sh. M. A. Hashmi, the CC No. 45/2010 Page 3 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 then Asstt. Registrar in 1991­92, had verified and forwarded a list of 51 members of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. vide his letter dated 8.11.1991. It is further alleged that in 1977, Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. had been allotted 1 acre of land at Plot No. 13, Pitampura, Delhi, its possession was taken by the society and 50 flats constructed, which were subsequently allotted to the genuine members of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. through draw of lots held in the presence of DDA & RCS officials on 23.1.1993. M. A. Hashmi, the then Assistant Registrar, also addressed a letter dated 24.11.1992 to DDA for draw of lots of the society. He further clarified that one member was allotted a flat much later under the orders of the Supreme Court and, therefore, strength of the society went upto 51. Sh. SMS Chaudhary, the then Executive Officer, DDA had proved the allotment of a plot of 1 acre to Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. vide his letter dated 31.3.1977 addressed to the Secretary of the society.

The members occupied these flats and are residing there since then. The audit of the society had also been conducted regularly till 1992­93.

It is alleged that in the year 2003 the builder mafia in collusion with RCS officials hatched a conspiracy to create a duplicate Rangmahal society with the same registration number, as it was one of the earliest societies to be registered and therefore had the real chances of quick allotment of land by DDA in view of the seniority CC No. 45/2010 Page 4 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 criteria as laid down in Kaveri's judgement. Hence a fake secretary of the fake society, namely Sh. Deepak Kumar, made an application for the audit of the society in the year 2003 on the basis of which, the matter was taken up by the RCS and the defucnt society was activated and further at the request of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary, the name of the society was also changed to 'Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd'.

It was further alleged that Faiz Mohd., Gr.II (A3), who had been appointed to conduct the inspection of the society on 27.1.2004, submitted a false inspection report on 3.2.2004 in which he had stated to have visited the office of the society on 31.1.2004, where he was informed that the office of the society had been shifted from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96. He has further stated to have visited the new address of the society on 1.2.2004 and met Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the society, whereas, infact, he had neither visited the old address nor new address and had submitted a false inspection report.

Investigation has further revealed that during the period 2003­04, Sri Chand in connivance with Anna Wankhede (A10), Mohan Lal (A11), Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9) and RCS officials enrolled 70 fictitious members in the society in the year 2004 by antedating their enrollments way­back to 1976 - 1978 and an CC No. 45/2010 Page 5 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 application dated 29.12.2003 was submitted by Sh. Deepak Kumar, a so­called Secretary of the society and a non­existent entity, requesting the Assistant Registrar (East) for the approval of final list of 120 members for allotment of land. It was further mentioned in the said application that the registered address of the society had been shifted to 147­G, Pkt. A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96, vide Management Committee Resolution dated 20.8.1995. It was further mentioned in the letter that the society had 50 promoter members belonging to the lower middle class, who were mostly salaried persons, having no roof over their heads in Delhi and that the society had enrolled another 70 members from time to time, thereby bringing the total strength of the society to 120. It was also mentioned that the matter regarding the approval of final list of members, had been put up in the General Body Meeting of the society held on 28.12.2003 and it was decided to submit a request to the RCS for approval of final list of 120 members. The Management Committee of the said society also sought condonation of the various irregularities occurred due to lack of knowledge on the part of the members to run the society. It alleged that this letter dated 29.12.2003 was nothing but a misrepresentation of the facts and submitted with a view to create a parallel/fictitious society to regularize the enrollment of fictitious members in the name of existing society at a different address and also to change the name of CC No. 45/2010 Page 6 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the society to avoid detection of the same. This letter was received by Narayan Diwakar (A8), the then RCS on 29.12.2003 and marked to Joint Registrar (East) i.e. A7.

Investigation has further revealed that J. S. Sharma (A6), the then Assistant registrar (Audit) sent a letter dated 30.12.2003 to Assistant registrar (East) (i.e. A2) mentioning therein that a letter had been received from Deepak Kumar, Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd., Registration No. 152 (H) dated 31.3.1973, requesting for the audit of the society since its inception, as the same was pending. He requested the Assistant registrar (East) to confirm the status of the members of the society so that further action could be taken. This letter was received by Ramesh Chandra (A2), the then Assistant registrar (East) on 10.1.2004, who marked it to the Dealing Assistant. However, the note­sheet from 1973 onwards is not available in the file. The noting starts from 13.1.2004 only after receipt of the letter from J. S. Sharma, the then Assistant registrar (Audit). On 13.1.2004, in the first note of Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), the then Dealing Assistant, it has been dishonestly and fraudulently mentioned that as per the records available, the audit of the society was pending since registration and no list had been sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and no liquidation order was available in the file. It was further mentioned that as per the available records, status of the society was non­functional. In this CC No. 45/2010 Page 7 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 note, a suggestion was incorporated to inform the position to Assistant registrar (Audit) and to appoint Faiz Mohd. As Inspector to conduct inspection of the society u/s 54 of the DCS Act 1972. This note was approved by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar (East) and further by Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar (East) on 16.1.2004 after discussion with Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar (East). Ramesh Chadra, put up a note dated 20.1.2004 with the suggestion to appoint Faiz Mohd. as Inspecting Officer. This proposal was approved by Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS on 21.1.2004.

Investigating has further revealed that Faiz Mohd. submitted an inspection report dated 3.2.2004 which was put up by Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), the then Dealing Assistant on 10.2.2004. In his note, Rakesh Kumar Hasija mentioned that the inspecting officer visited the office of the society in Mayur Vihar and met Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Secretary of the society, who produced all the relevant records and informed that there were 120 members in the society but the list of members had not yet been approved by the RCS for allotment of land. It was further recorded that membership register was complete in all respects and that the audit of the society was pending since 1.7.1970 onwards. Further, as per the report of Faiz Mohd., the election of the society was held last on 28.12.2003 and that all the records of the society were in the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, CC No. 45/2010 Page 8 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Secretary for production of complete original record on 20.2.2004 at 12.00 which was approved by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant registrar (East). It may be mentioned there that the name of Pradeep Kumar, Secretary has figured twice in the note dated 10.2.2004 recorded by Rakesh Kumar Hasija, the then Dealing Assistant whereas in the same note, he has mentioned that all the records were in the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary, as per the inspection report submitted by Faiz Mohd.

Investigation has further revealed that premises no. 147­G, Pkt. A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96 is owned by one Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh where Mohan Lal was a tenant. Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh has categorically stated that the said premises were never used by any society and that the no meeting ever took place at the said address. It may be mentioned here that Mohan Lal fabricated the records containing bogus proceedings of the Management Committee meetings at the said address. GEQD has given a positive opinion on his writing.

Investigating has further revealed that a false and bogus report was prepared by Rakesh Kumar Hasija, the then Dealing Assistant on computer on 19.3.2004 stating therein that Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the society attended the office of the RCS and produced the original records for verification which were examined/verified. It has also been mentioned that the relevant documents pertaining to CC No. 45/2010 Page 9 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the verification of final list of 120 members were examined and verified and requested the competent authority to approve the list for onwards transmission to DDA for allotment of land. The note was approved by Ramesh Chandra, then the Assistant registrar (East), Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar (East) and Naryana Diwakar, the then RCS on 19.3.2004 itself.

Investigation has further revealed that Rakesh Kumar Hasija the then Dealing Assistant was not the concerned Dealing Assistant in the office of Assistant registrar (East) and such matters used to be dealt with by one Smt. Sunita Nagpal. After the approval of list of 120 members, the file was given to Smt. Sunita Nagpal for further processing. She put up a letter dated 22.3.2004 addressed to Assistant registrar (Policy) to Ramesh Chandra, the then AR (East), who forwarded the freeze list of 120 members to DDA for allotment of land on 22.3.2004 itself. Surprisingly, none of these RCS officials pointed out about the missing note­sheet pages in the file and the concerned RCS officials colluded with the private persons in the approval of second list of members and also for allotment of land to the society for the second time by the DDA.

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Deepak Kumar, a self­styled Secretary of the society made another request vide his letter dated 29.3.2004 to Assistant Registrar (East) for change in name of the society and also for the approval of new model bye­laws.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 10 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Three names i.e. Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd., Hill View Apartments CGHS Ltd. & Sky Blue Apartments CGHS Ltd., were also suggested by him. This request was processed by Smt. Sunita Nagpal on the same day. The file travelled with a lightening speed and the same was cleared by Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar (East), Jasbir Singh Sindhu, the then Joint Registrar and approved by Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS on the same day and the name of the society was ordered to be changed to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. on 29.3.2004, which clearly reflects the collusion between RCS officials and the other private persons.

It is alleged that the aforesaid parallel/duplicate society was formed by Sri Chand (A1). The very fact that the RCS officials entertained an application after a gap of 33 years, points towards their connivance with the private persons. No one raised any query or made any efforts to search for the missing note­sheets/papers. It was also not considered necessary to make any verification from the DDA. It would be interesting to note that Ramesh Chandra, the then Assistant Registrar (East) certified each page of new model of bye­ laws of the society by affixing his official stamp but these model bye­ laws did not contain even the name of the society. Investigation has further revealed that most of the documents of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. was forged by Anna Wankhede, Sushil Kumar Sharma and Mohan Lal. GEQD has given positive opinion on their writings.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 11 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Investigation has further revealed that during December, 2004, Sri Chand got an advertisement published through M/s V. A. Agency, C­28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi in leading newspapers on a payment of Rs.26,880/­ requesting all the members of the society to furnish the RCS vide public notice dated 18.12.2004.

Investigation has further revealed that P. K. Thirwani (A5), Sr. Auditor in the office of RCS, had conducted the audit of the society for a period of 33 years i.e. 1970 - 2003 at a stretch. It has been established that the balance sheets of the society for audit had been prepared by Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Chartered Accountant, Aravali Shopping Centre, Alaknanda, New Delhi at the instance of Sri Chand. She. Neeraj Kumar, CA has admitted to have received Rs.6,500/­ in cash from Sri Chand in lieu of the services rendered by him. During the course of investigation, the original documents relating to the audit of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. have been collected from the promoter members and it has come to light that the audit of the said society had already been completed since inception till 1992­93. P. K. Thirwani, has conducted the audit of the society for a period of 33 years at a stretch in violation of Sec. 84 (1) of DCS Rules, 1973. It would not be out of place to mention that P. K. Thirwani had been appointed as an Auditor to conduct audit of Rangmahal CGHS Ltd. for a period of 33 years by J. S. Sharma, the then Assistant Registrar (Audit) who was fully aware of the rules that the audit at a stretch CC No. 45/2010 Page 12 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 could only be conducted for a period of 3 years.

GEQD has opined that the proceedings dated 4.3.2004, 23.11.2003 and forged model bye­laws were in the hand of Mohan Lal. GEQD has further opined that Anna Wankhede has forged the proceedings and filled up the bogus receipts showing the receipts of share money in the name of fictitious members and Sushil Kumar Sharma had forged some of the proceedings, check list of audit report which also bears the signatures of J. S. Sharma, the then Assistant Registrar (Audit) and proves his knowledge.

Investigation has established that Arun Kumar, President, Deepak Kumar, Secretary & P. K. Singh, Treasurer, shown as the office bearers of the Management Committee of the society, are non­ existent and fictitious persons. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation, FIR named accused person namely, Deepak Kumar was found to be a fictitious and non existent entity. Hence his name has been shown in Column No.2 of this charge sheet.

After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against all the accused persons under Section 120 read with Section 420/511 IPC, 468/471 IPC and Section 15 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

A charge against accused J. S Sharma (A6), Ramesh Chandra (A2), Faiz Mohd. (A3), Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), P. K. Thirwani CC No. 45/2010 Page 13 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 (A5), Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) and Narayan Diwkar (A8) was framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

A separate charge was framed against accused Sri Chand (A1) under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC.

Separate charge was framed against accused Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11) under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and under the substantial offence under Section 468 IPC.

In order to prove its case prosecution examined 94 witnesses, which are as under :­ CC No. 45/2010 Page 14 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 PW­1 Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh deposed that Flat No. 147G, Pocket­8, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi belonged to him and he had occupied the said house in the year 1990. He further deposed that accused Mohan Lal had resided in the said house from 1997 to 2002. After that Mr. Madhusudan Sahu and Sh. Dharam Singh had resided in the said flat. No society in the name and style of Silver View Apartments or Rangmahal CGHS had worked in the said flat at any point of time.

Here, I may point out that there appears to be a clerical mistake. "Pocket­8" has been typed inadvertently due to phonetic similarity with "Pocket A­2". Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention during final arguments that this address should be read as Pocket A­2 and and not as Pocket­8. Therefore, a correction to this effect in statement u/s 313 CrPC was made subsequently.

PW­2 Satya Prakash deposed that during the year 2006 he was working in the office of Registrar of Co­operative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi as LDC in the Audit Department. He had proved a Seizure memo (D­7) dated 23.5.2006 Ex.PW2/A; proved the Audit Report for the audit period 1.7.1970 to 31.3.2003 Ex.PW2/A­1.

PW 3 Manohar Lal deposed that he was working as Postman and was posted in the Lajpat Nagar area since 1999. He had proved that envelopes (D­27) Ex.PW3/A containing address of Sh. Brij Bihari CC No. 45/2010 Page 15 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Singhvi son of Sh. G. N. Singhvi resident of 248­D, Defence Colony, New Delhi; (D­87) Ex.PW3/B containing address of Sh. Sumant son of Sh. Magan Bhai Desai resident of D­13, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid addresses for delivery of the envelopes but no such person were available.

PW 4 Rajender Prasad had deposed that he had been working as a Postman since 1995 in the area of Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi. He had proved an envelope (D­124) Ext.PW4/A­1 in the name of Sh.Manish Gupta S/o Late Sh.Nand Prakash 75, Paharganj, New Delhi. On the reverse of said envelope, an endorsement had been made might be in the hand writing of Banwari Lal. He had further proved that address mentioned on the envelope as "75, Paharganj, New Delhi" was not complete address.

PW 5 Kamal Singh had deposed that during the year 2003, he was working as LDC in the Office of Registrar, Co­operative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He was attached to the Audit Section. His duties were to Diarise & Dispatch the documents which were received in the said section. He remained posted in the Audit Section till September, 2005. He was appointed as an Auditor in about 4­5 societies. He knew accused Prahlad Kumar Thirwani. He had proved an appointment letter Ex.PW5/A in respect of auditor(CS Copy D­11) of RangMahal Co­operative Group Housing Society; proved photocopy of receipt no. 038 dated 30.01.2004 Ex.PW5/A­1 bearing CC No. 45/2010 Page 16 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 his signature at point A. He did not receive any payment from accused P. K. Thirwani.

PW 6 Hardutt Sharma deposed that he was working as a Postman and was posted in B­1 Block, Janak Puri Post Office since 1989. He had proved an envelope (D­114) Ex.PW6/A which was given to him for delivery at A­402, Janak Puri, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Pankaj Mittal S/o Sh. R. K. Mittal. He visited the aforesaid address and found that no such number was in existence at the given address.

PW 7 Gopi Chand deposed that he was posted as a Postman at Rajender Nagar Post Office, New Delhi since 1989. In the year 2006, he was posted there in the same capacity. He had proved an envelope (D­130) Ex.PW7/A which was given to him for delivery at 212 E, New Rajender Nagar in the name of Sh.Rajender Kumar Singh S/o Sh.Pramod Kumar Singh; PW 8 Vijay Kumar had deposed that he was posted as Postman at SriNiwas Puri Post Office, New Delhi in the year 2006. He remained posted as Postman w.e.f. 1990 to 2006. He had proved an envelope (D­45) which was given to him for delivery at D­20, N. D. S. E­II, in the name of Sh. Tulsi Dass Mundra S/o Sh. Gangar Dass Mundra. The aforesaid letters could not be delivered at the given addresses as no such persons were residing at the given address.

PW 8 Vijay Kumar further proved another envelope CC No. 45/2010 Page 17 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 (D­48) Ex.PW8/B which was given to him for delivery at C­117, South Extension, Part­II, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Raj Kumar Daga S/o Sh. Badri Dass Daga. He visited the aforesaid address and found that the addressee had changed the address to 7/18, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi and he made an endorsement to this effect in his handwriting which was redirected to be delivered at the given address as 7/18, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.

PW 9 Bhagwat Prasad deposed that he was posted as Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office, New Delhi in the year 2006. He had proved envelopes (D­71) Ext.PW9/A in the name of Sh.RajniKant Upadhyay S/o Sh.V.G.Upadhyay at D­42, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the name of & (D­117) Ex.PW9/B in the name of Sh. Sunil S. Singhal S/o I.M. Prakash at D­280, Defence Colony, New Delhi which was given to Sh. Giriraj, Postman for delivery. The aforesaid envelopes could not be delivered at the given addresses as no such persons were residing there.

PW 10 Rajbir Singh had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office, New Delhi in the year 2006. He had proved an envelope (D­110) Ex.PW10/A which was given to him for delivery at J­38, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the name of Sh.Krishnachandra Oza S/o Sh. Girija Shankar Oza but the said envelope could not be delivered as no such block existed in that area.

PW­11 Dharam Pal had deposed that he was posted as CC No. 45/2010 Page 18 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Postman at Zor Bagh Post Office in the year 2006 and he was also looking after the area of Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. He had proved envelopes (D­33) Ex.PW11/A which was given to him for delivery at 137, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Satish Chander Maheshwari S/o Sh. Nanak Chand Maheshwari; (D­46) Ex.PW11/B which was given to him for delivery at 86, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Smt. Vimlesh Kumar Maheshwari W/o Sh. Hari Prasad Maheshwari; (D­52) Ex.PW11/D which was given to him for delivery at 53, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar Maheshwari S/o Sh.H.K. Maheshwari; D­53 Ex.PW11/E which was given to him for delivery at 27, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Mithan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop but the same could not be delivered as no such persons were available on the given addresses.

PW­11 Dharam Pal proved another envelope (D­50) Ex.PW11/C which was given to him for delivery at 179, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Mohan Kumar but the same could not be delivered as no such number existed.

PW 12 Chander Bhan Arya had deposed that he had been practising as an advocate since 1970 and had been appointed as Notary by the Central Government. He proved the list of 120 members marked as AX and BX Ext.PW12/DA.

PW­13 Vikram Singh had deposed that he was posted as Postman at GPO, Delhi in the year 2006 and he was also looking after CC No. 45/2010 Page 19 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the area of Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi. He had proved envelopes (D­20) Ex.PW13/A which was given to him for delivery at 8166, Lal Darwaza Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi­06 in the name of Sh. Surender Kumar Maheshwari S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Maheshwari; (D­31) Ex.PW13/B which was given to him for delivery at 8203, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi­06 in the name of Sh. Bhola Nath S/o Sh. Rattan Lal. He visited the aforesaid addresses and found that no such house numbers existed and the envelopes were returned undelivered to the sender.

PW­14 Mahender Singh had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Indraprastha Head Post Office, Delhi in the year 2006 and proved an envelope (D­57) Ex.PW14/A which was given to him for delivery at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi in the name of Sh. P.C. Maheshwari S/o Sh. C.D. Maheshwari. The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as the address was incomplete.

PW­15 Ram Kumar had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Indraprastha Head Post Office in the year 2006 and he was also looking after the area of Minto Road, New Delhi. He had proved an envelope (D­121) Ex.PW15/A which was given to him for delivery at B­80, Minto Road, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Vinay Goel S/o Sh. J.B.Goel. The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as no such person on this address was residing.

PW­16 Mukesh Kumar had deposed that he was posted as CC No. 45/2010 Page 20 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office in the year 2006 and he was also looking after the area of Part­III, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He had proved an envelope (D­66) Ex.PW16/A which was given to him for delivery at B­22, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Sh. Bipin Bhai Patel S/o Sh. Amba Lal Patel. He visited the aforesaid address on 02.03.2006 and found that no such person on this address was residing. He had further deposed that the aforesaid envelope was given to another Postman for delivery who also made an endorsement at point C on 01.03.2006 that no such person was in Part I & Part II of Lajpat Nagar. The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender. He had further proved another envelope (D­84) Ex.PW16/B which was given to him for delivery at D­9, Lajpat Nagar in the name of Sh. Prafful Win S/o Sh. Chhataniya Lal win. The envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as no such person on this address was residing.

PW 17 Rakesh Kumar had proved that he was posted as Postman at Lajpat Nagar Post Office for the last 15 years and even in the year 2006 he was posted in the said post office in the same capacity. He had proved an envelope (D­83) Ex.PW 17/A which was given to him for delivery at L­8, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Ratti Lal Patel S/o Sh.Jhavar Bhai Patel. The said envelope D­83 could not be delivered as no such person at L­8, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi was residing and the same was returned CC No. 45/2010 Page 21 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 undelivered to the sender. He had proved another envelope D­96 Ex.PW17/B which was given to Sh.Sudhama(since retired) for delivery at L­11, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Smt.Kokila Chanden W/o Sh. Dharmaji Chanden. The said envelope could not be delivered at the given address as the address was incomplete and was returned back to the sender as the same remained undelivered. He proved the signatures of Sudhama at point A on the said envelope. Pw­17 identified his hand writing and signatures as he had worked with him.

PW 18 Brahmanand had deposed that he remained posted as Postman at Sarojini Nagar Post Office during the period 1983 to 2009. He had proved an envelope D­119 Ex.PW18/A which could not be delivered as no such person by the name Sh. Mukesh Jindal, S/o Sh. S.P. Jindal lived at L­130, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered and the same was returned undelivered to the sender.

PW 19 Namechand had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Inderprastha Post Office since 18.02.1987. He had proved an envelope (D­58) which was given to him for delivery at 1638, Khucha Chela, Gali Gadhaiya, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of Sh.Ishwar Dass Aggarwal S/o Sh.Gopi Nath. The envelope D­58 Ex.PW19/A could not be delivered as no such person in 1638, Beat no. 12, Khucha Chelan, Gali Gadhaiya, Daryaganj, Delhi was residing CC No. 45/2010 Page 22 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 at the given address and the same was returned undelivered to the sender.

PW 20 Jai Prakash had deposed that he was posted as Postman at Indraprastha Post Office since 1989. In the year 2006 also, I was posted at Indraprastha Post Office. He had proved an envelope (D­22) Ex.PW 20/A which was given to him for delivery at 5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of Sh.Gunveer Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain. The said envelope D­22 could not be delivered as no such person at 5A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi was residing at the given address. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered and the same was returned undelivered to the sender. He had proved another envelope D­25 Ex.PW20/B which was given to him for delivery at 185A/8, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in the name of Smt.Sukhbeer Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered at the given address as no such house number existed there and returned back to the sender.

PW 21 Dayanand Singh had deposed that he had been working as a postman in the area of 16, Ansari Road, New Delhi­2 for the last 29 years. In the year 2006, he was posted in the same area. He has proved envelope D­94 Ex.PW21/A in the name of Sh.Shanti Lal Seth S/o Sh.Vanmali Lal Seth R/o F­21/10, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi which was given to him for delivery. The said CC No. 45/2010 Page 23 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 envelope could not be delivered as the address mentioned in the said envelope was not correct. However, the person Sh.Shanti Lal Seth who was living in F­1/16, Ansari Road, New Delhi did not receive the said envelope due to incorrect address mentioned in the envelope.

PW 22 Ishwar Chand had deposed that he had been working as a postman in the area of Sector­5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi since 1996. In the year 2006, he was posted in the area of Sector­5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. He had proved the envelope D­125 Ex.PW22/A in the name of Sh.Vinet Goyal S/o Sh.D.D.Goyal R/o 2/231, R.K.Puram, New Delhi which was given to him for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered as the person by the name of Sh.Vinet Goyal was not residing there.

PW 23 Sh.Ramesh Chand had deposed that he was working as a postman in the area of InderParastha, Head Post office, New Delhi­2 since 1983. In the year 2006, he was posted in the same area. Darya Ganj area was under his jurisdiction. He had proved the envelope D­107 Ex.PW23/A in the name of Sh.Harmukh Parekh S/o Sh.Chandu Lal R/o 12­F, Darya Ganj, Delhi­6 which was given to him for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered as the address given was incomplete.

PW 24 Sh.Trilok Chand had deposed that he was working as a postman in the area of Jungpura, Post office. In the year 2006, he was posted in the same area. He has proved the envelope D­103 CC No. 45/2010 Page 24 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ex.PW24/A in the name of Sh.Kishan Mehta S/o Sh.K.T.Mehta R/o 108, Link Road, Jungpura, Delhi 24 which was given to him for delivery. The said envelope could not be delivered as there was no such number in the Link Road.

PW 25 Sh. Azad Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in the GPO, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The Railway Quarter, Naya Bazaar Area, Delhi, was under his jurisdiction. He has proved the envelope Ext. PW25/A addressed to Sh. Kailash Nath Joshi s/o. Banna Lal r/o. B­53, Railway Quarters, Naya Bazaar, Delhi­110006. This letter was assigned to him and accordingly, he went to deliver the same. However, no such person and such number existed in Naya Bazaar. Hence, he returned the said envelope to the sender.

PW 26 Sh. Raghubir Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as Postman in the Malkaganj Post Office. He was called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made regarding the delivery of envelope containing letter. He has proved the envelope (D­93) Ex. PW26/A addressed to Sh. Bhamurai Babaria S/o Sh. Hemraj Babaria, R/o 779,Prem Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi­06. However, no such number existed there. Hence, he returned the said envelope to the sender.

PW­27 Sh. Jai Prakash had deposed that he had retired from Postal Department. In the year 2006, he was posted at Rajender CC No. 45/2010 Page 25 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Nagar, Post Office, Delhi­7 as a Postman. He had proved envelope (D­76) Ext.PW27/A addressed to Sh. Madhusudhan Shah S/o Sh.Mangal Dass Shah R/o 18­D, Bazar Marg, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. The said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the address given on the envelope was under his beat. He found that no such number 18­D in Bazar Marg, Rajender Nagar was in existence. The said envelope was sent back undelivered.

PW­28 Sh. Nawab had deposed that he retired from Postal Department. In the year 2006, he was posted at Nizamuddin, Post Office, Delhi as a Postman. He was called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made regarding the delivery of envelope containing letter. He had proved the envelope (D­86) Ext.PW 28/A addressed to Sh. Arvind Bhai Desai S/o Sh.Mani Bhai Desai R/o D­89, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi. The said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the address given on the envelope was under

his beat. It was found that no such number D­89 in Nizamuddin (East) in existence. Accordingly, the said envelope was sent back undelivered. PW­28 proved another envelope (D­85) Ext.PW 28/B addressed to Sh. Randhir Jhavani S/o Sh.Kartar Chand Jhavani R/o C­52, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi. He went to the given address and made inquiries and found that no such person in C­52, H.N.Delhi­13 Nizamuddin (East) was residing. Accordingly, the said envelope was sent back undelivered.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 26 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 PW­29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at GPO, Chawri Bazar Post Office, Delhi as a Postman. He was called by the CBI and certain inquiries were made regarding the delivery of envelope containing letter. He has proved the envelope (D­23) Ext.PW 29/A addressed to Vijender Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain R/o 1344, Chawri Bazar, Delhi­6. The said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the address given on the envelope was under his beat. He went to the given address and made inquiries and found that no such number in Chawri Bazar in existence. The said envelope was sent back undelivered. PW­29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma had proved another envelope (D­24) Ext.PW 29/B addressed to Sh.Devenender Kumar Jain S/o Sh.Madan Lal Jain R/o 1344, Chawri Bazar, Delhi­6. The said envelope containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the address given on the envelope was under his beat. He went to the given address and made inquiries. It was found that no such number in Chawri Bazar in existence. The said envelope was sent back undelivered.

PW­29 Sh.Murli Ram Sharma further proved envelopes (D­36) Ext.PW29/C addressed to Smt. Santosh Aggarwal W/o Sh.S.K.Aggarwal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi; (D­38) Ext.PW 29/D addressed to Sh.Ram Kishan Dass S/o Sh.Munshi Lal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi; (D­40) Ext.PW 29/E addressed to Smt. Tara CC No. 45/2010 Page 27 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Devi W/o Sh.Munshi Lal R/o 208, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The said envelopes containing letter was assigned to him for delivery as the address given on the envelopes was under his beat. He went to the given address and made inquiries. It was found that no such person was residing. Accordingly, the said envelopes were sent back undelivered.

PW­30 Sh. Surender Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at Andrews Ganj Post Office as Postman and was looking after the South Extension Part­I area. He had proved an envelope D­90 Ext.PW30/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. J.C. Shah, S/o Sh. Chaggan Lal, R/o A­21, South Extension Part­I, New Delhi. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­31 Sh. Prem Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Lajpat Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking after the Block B & E and some part of Block C of Defence Colony area. He had proved an envelope D­97 Ext.PW31/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. B.J. Trivedi, S/o Sh. Jay Shankar, R/o P­23, Defence Colony, New Delhi­24. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such Block­P was in that area,. He further deposed that he also tried to deliver the said envelope in Block­E. There also he could not deliver the same as no such person was found there. He had proved another envelope D­98 Ext.PW31/B which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Shikhar CC No. 45/2010 Page 28 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Bansi Dhar Jain, R/o S­106, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such Block­S was in that area, hence, the same was returned back to the CBI. He had also proved another envelope D­118 Ext.PW31/C which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ashok Singhal, S/o Sh. O.P. Singhal, R/o E­83, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He went to the given address but the aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was existing in E­Block. He had also proved an envelope D­131 Ext.PW31/D which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. M.K. Singh, S/o Sh. D.K. Singh, R/o E­27, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such person was living at the given address. He had also proved an envelope D­74 Ext. PW31/E which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Vijay Kumar, S/o Sh. Vasant Lal, R/oB­29, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as the house was found locked. He further deposed that he visited the given address for three days consecutively but the same could not be delivered. He had proved an envelope D­68 Ext.PW31/F which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ramneek Lal Basaria, S/o Sh. Jagjeevan Das Basaria, R/o E­211, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was existing in the area of E­Block. He had also proved another envelope D­78 Ext.PW31/G which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Luv CC No. 45/2010 Page 29 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Kumar Vadhera, S/o Sh. K.N. Vadhera, R/o E­250, Defence Colony New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was existing in the area of E­Block. PW­31 proved another envelope D­88 Ext.PW31/H which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Jai Singh, S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, R/o E­104, Defence Colony New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was existing in the area of E­Block. He had proved another envelope D­34 Ext.PW31/J which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Manik Chand Sawani, S/o Sh. Gagan Lal Sawani R/o E­224, Defence Colony New Delhi. The aforesaid envelope could not be delivered as no such number was existing in the area of E­Block. All the aforesaid envelopes were returned back to the CBI undelivered.

PW32 Sh. Sita Ram had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Hauj Khas Post Office as Postman and at the time of deposition in the court he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Assistant. He had further proved an envelope D­81 Ext.PW32/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. M.G. Vaidhya, S/o Sh. G.V. Vaidhya, R/o D­34, Green Park, New Delhi­16. The aforesaid letter could not be delivered as no such number had existed in the said locality and the same was returned to the consignee.

PW­33 Sh. Karambir Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Ramesh Nagar Post Office as Postman and he was looking after the area of Kirti Nagar. He had proved an envelope CC No. 45/2010 Page 30 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 D­89 Ext.PW33/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Satyapal Thukral, S/o Sh. Bihari Lal, R/o F­303, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi­16. The aforesaid letter could not be delivered as no such number in F­Block had existed in the said locality and was returned to the consignee.

PW­34 Sh. Hem Raj Sharma had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at Delhi GPO as Postman. He remained posted in the said post office wef 1991. He was looking after the area of Dariba Kalan Beat No. 13, Chandni Chowk, Delhi­06. He had proved the envelopes D­61 Ext.PW34/A which was marked to himfor delivery to Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Bishambhar Sahai R/o 1877, Dariba Kalan, Delhi­06; D­56 Ext.PW34/B which was marked to him for delivery to Ms. Kundlata, D/o Sh. Mehtab Singh R/o 1305, Dariba Kalan, Delhi­06; D­59 Ext.PW34/C which was marked to him for delivery to Smt. Kusum Lata , S/o Dr. Vijay Lal R/o 155, Dariba Kalan, Delhi­06; D­55 Ext.PW34/D which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Yashodhara Kumar, S/o Sh. Mehtab Singh R/o 1305, Dariba Kalan, Delhi­06. He went to the aforesaid addresses for delivery of the aforesaid letters but the same could not be delivered as no such numbers in Dariba Kalan had existed in the said locality. The envelopes were returned to the consignee.

PW­35 Sh. Vimal Kant Malik had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Kalkaji Post Office as Head Postman. He CC No. 45/2010 Page 31 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 remained posted in the said post office wef 1972 till his retirement i.e. December, 2007. The area of C­9, Kalkaji was being looked after by Sh. R.S. Rana, Postman. He had further proved an envelope D­72 Ext.PW35/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Moti Bai Joshi, S/o Sh. Goverdhan Das Joshi R/o C­9, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Sh. R.S. Rana as he had worked under R.S. Rana and he was well conversant with his handwriting and signatures. The letter could not be delivered despite his visit to the given address and the house was found locked every time. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­36 Sh. Mohan Lal had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Sriniwas Puri Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Garhi. He had proved an envelope D­112 Ext.PW36/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, S/o Sh. R.B. Goel R/o 56, Garhi, PO­Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 30.03.2006, 31.03.2006 & 01.04.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­37 Sh. Satyapal Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at Lodhi Road Post Office as Postman. He was looking after the area of Kaka Nagar­New Delhi­03. He had proved an envelope D­82 Ext.PW37/A which was marked to him for delivery to CC No. 45/2010 Page 32 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Smt. Gorbhi Bhai, W/o Sh. Dassa Bhai R/o 161, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­38 Sh. Vijay Kumar proved an envelope D­123 Ext.PW38/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Pankaj Goel, S/o Sh. J.B. Goel R/o D­38, Pandara Road, New Delhi; PW­39 Sh. Dharam Dutt proved an envelope D­99 Ext.PW39/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ramneek Lal Kadhi, S/o Sh. Nand Lal Kadhi R/o 87­B, Kamla Nagar, Delhi­07; PW­40 Sh. Durga Das proved an envelope D­35 Ext.PW40/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Surjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta R/o B­13/73 Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Accordingly, they all went to the respective addresses for delivery of the aforesaid letters but the same could not be delivered as no such numbers were existing in the said locality. The envelopes were returned to the consignees.

PW­41 Sh. Barister Shah had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Indraprastha Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. He had proved an envelope D­41 Ext.PW41/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Pratap Narain Sharma, S/o Sh. Raj Narain Sharma R/o Kala Kunj, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj No. 1, Delhi­06. The letter could not CC No. 45/2010 Page 33 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­42 Sh. Yogender Singh had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at GK­II Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of GK­II, Delhi. He had proved an envelope D­67 Ext.PW42/A which was marked to him for delivery to Dr. sushila Mehta, W/o Dr. V.V. Mehta, R/o D­211, Greater Kailash­II, Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 & 02.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such number was in existence. He also went on B­211 but no such person by the name of Dr. Sushila Mehta was residing there. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­43 Sh. Avinash Kumar Jain had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Malka Ganj Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Sohan Ganj, Shora Kothi, Kolhapur House and Lehna Singh Marg. He had proved an envelope D­73 Ext.PW43/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Devi Dayal, S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal, R/o 1123, Sohan Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi­07. He went to the aforesaid address for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such number was in existence and the envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­44 Sh. Jeet Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at GPO Post Office, New Delhi as Postman and was CC No. 45/2010 Page 34 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 looking after the area of E­Block & M­Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He had proved an envelope D­43 Ext.PW44/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, S/o Sh. Hardev Prasad Sharma, M/s Fort Frostal Industries Ltd., M­77, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 24.02.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. He made an inquiry from the neighbourhood as well as from Sh. B.R. Maheshwari & Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma, Adv. He had proved another envelope D­44 Ext.PW44/B which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Ganesh Das Batler, S/o Sh. Mewal Das Batler, R/o M­74, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 24.02.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such person was residing on the said address. In fact, Federal Bank exists on the said address. Both the envelopes were returned to the consignee.

PW­45 Sh. Radhey Sham had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Lajpat Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of New Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and had proved an envelope D­64 Ext.PW45/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Chander Kant Joshi, S/o Sh. Rahi Lal Joshi, R/o 3/21, New Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi­24; D­79 which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Rajni Ben Mehta, S/o CC No. 45/2010 Page 35 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Sh. P.V. Mehta R/o 32/118­B, New Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi­24. He went to the aforesaid address for delivery of the aforesaid letters but the same could not be delivered as no such numbers was in existence. He had further proved another envelope D­65 Ext.PW45/C which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. H.P. Patel, S/o Sh. Hira Lal Patel, R/o 22/103, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi­24. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as the address was incomplete. Accordingly, the envelopes were returned to the consignee.

PW­46 Sh. Duli Chand had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Kidwai Nagar. He had proved an envelope D­106 Ext.PW46/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Shanti Lal Shah, S/o Sh. Mangal Das Shah, R/o B­27, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 28.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such number was in existence. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­47 Smt. Kamla Tariyal had deposed that in the year 2006 she was posted at Malwiya Nagar Post Office as Woman Postman and was looking after the area of Nill Block, 80 Block, Bhagat Singh Market, H­Block, Toot Sarai, L­Block. She had proved an envelope CC No. 45/2010 Page 36 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 D­111 Ext.PW47/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. P.K. Singhal, S/o Sh. Kola Singh, R/o 13 Malwiya Nagar, New Delhi. She went to the aforesaid address on 30.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as the address mentioned in the letter was incomplete due to the reason that no block number was mentioned. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­48 Sh. Manoj Kumar Gond had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Safdarjung Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Krishna Nagar and Safdarjung Enclave. He had proved an envelope D­91 Ext.PW48/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Shanti Lal Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Roy, R/o B­101/5, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 01.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as no such person by the aforesaid name was residing on the said address. He inquired from the house owner Mr. Sharma who had stated that no person by the aforesaid name had ever resided in the said house. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­49 Sh. Rakesh Sharma had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Jungpura Post Office as Postman. Sh. Ramesh Kumar was also posted in the same post office who was looking after the area of Hari Nagar, Ashram. PW­49 had proved an envelope CC No. 45/2010 Page 37 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 D­115 Ext.PW49/A which was marked to Sh. Ramesh Kumar for delivery to Smt. Seema Mittal, W/o Sh. R.K. Mittal, R/o 523, Ashram, New Delhi. Pw­49 Sh. Rakesh Sharma had identified his handwriting and signatures on the back side of the envelope being conversant with the same. He made an endorsement that no such number in HN Ashram. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­50 Sh. Ajab Singh had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Hauz Khaas Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Safdarjung Development Area. He had proved an envelope D­92 Ext.PW50/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Hansmukh Bhai Ray, S/o Sh. Jetha Bhai Ray, R/o C­2/51, Safdarjung Enclave,New Delhi. He went to the aforesaid address on 02.03.2006 for delivery of the aforesaid letter but the same could not be delivered as the aforesaid person had already left the said address. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

PW­51 Sh. Anil Kumar Tete had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Sarojini Nagar Post Office as Postman and was looking after the area of Pilanji. He had proved an envelope D­126 Ext.PW51/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Arun Kumar, S/o Sh. Vishwas Rao, R/o 120, Village Pilanji, New Delhi. He went on the said address on various date but could not deliver the letter as no person was residing on the said address. The envelope was returned to the consignee.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 38 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 PW­52 Sh. Jitender Kapoor deposed that he was the promoter member of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H. The society was having 50 members. He had further deposed that besides him, Sh. Ravi Kapoor his brother was also one of the member of Rangmahal CGHS. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F­4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the society were alloted flats accordingly. He was alloted flat no. C­16.

He further deposed that he participated in the meetings of the society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but he never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. He had proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2006 Ext.PW52/A; proceeding register D­15 Ext.PW52/B of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 16.04.1971 to 24.10.1979; register Ext.PW52/C for the period 28.01.1982 to 27.10.1985; file no. F­4 (139 73/GH/DDA) D­13 Ext.PW52/D. In the said file, he identified the signatures of Sh. S.P. Jain, Secretary of the society on the various papers at points X placed at page 179 Ext.PW52/D­1, at page 175 Ext.PW52/D­2, at page 156 to 162 perpetual lease at points X Ext.PW52/D­3, at page 145 Ext.PW52/D­4, page 143, 142,141 Ext.PW52/D­5 collectively, page 128 Ext.PW52/D­6 and page 126 Ext.PW52/D­7.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 39 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 PW­52 Sh. Jitender Kapoor had further proved an application for membership Ext.PW52/F; photocopy of receipt no. 19 placed at page no. 155/C (D­9) Ext.PW52/G; the application dt. 26.5.1975 Ext.PW52/G­1 which was written to Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies by Sh. S.P. Jain; photocopy of minutes of general body meeting dt. 11.5.1975 Ext.PW52/G­2; registration certificate Ext.PW52/G­3 issued to Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152(H), 81 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi; copy of application dt. 15.3.1973 Ext.PW52/G­4 for registration Rangmahal CGHS which was written under the signatures of Sh. S.P. Jain; photocopy of minutes of general body meeting dt. 14.1.1973 Ext.PW52/G­5; copies of letters dt. 10.10.1972 & 25.7.1972, 23.11.1971 which were written under the signatures of Sh. S.P. Jain marked as Ext.PW52/G­6, Ext.PW52/G­7 & Ext.PW52/G­8; copy of bye laws of Rangmahal CGHS Ext.PW52/G­9 collectively.

PW­53 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta; PW­54 Sh. Virender Kumar Gandotra; PW­55 Sh. Prem Verma; PW­56 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta; PW­57 Sh. Jaswant Jain had deposed that they were the promoter members of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H. This society was having 50 members. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F­4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members CC No. 45/2010 Page 40 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 of the society were alloted flats accordingly. PW­53 was alloted flat no. B­2; PW­54 was alloted flat no. B­8; PW­55 was alloted flat no. 11A but he could not get the possession of the said flat due to personal reasons; PW­56 was alloted flat no. 9A; PW­57 was alloted flat no. B­10 and flat No. A­2 was alloted to his brother Sh. Ram Mehar Jain. They all had participated in the meetings of the society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. After the allotment of flats, no activities of the Rangmahal CGHS took place. They further stated that he did not know about the management of subsequent office bearers of so called Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the list of members for Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ext.PW54/A as on 15.07.1990 which was approved by the RCS Office; proceeding register D­15 of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 16.04.1971 to 24.10.1979 (already marked as Ext.PW52/B); register Ext.PW52/C for the period 28.01.1982 to 27.10.1985 ; the original proceeding register Ext.PW57/A which was being maintained by the office bearers of the society at the relevant time; file no. F­4 (139 73/GH/DDA) D­13 already marked as Ext.PW52/D. PW­58 Sh. Ram Mehar Jain; PW­59 Sh. Vinod Kumar Tripathi had deposed that he became member of Rangmahal CGHS CC No. 45/2010 Page 41 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 having registration no. 152H in the year 1986. This society was having 50 members. Besides PW­58, his brother Sh. Jaswant Jain was also one of the member of Rangmahal CGHS. PW­59 deposed that earlier, his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi was the founder member of Rangmahal CGHS and later on he transferred his membership to him in the year 1985. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F­4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the society were alloted flats accordingly. PW­58 was alloted flat no. A­2 and flat No. B­10 was alloted to his brother Sh.Jaswant Jain; Pw­59 was alloted flat no. C­3 jointly with Sh. Pawan Kumar Tripathi, his brother. They further deposed that he participated in the meetings of the society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but they never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, they did not know about the subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the proceeding register D­18 of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 07.12.1985 to 30.06.1987. The original proceeding register was the same which was being maintained by the office bearers of the society at the relevant time; the list of members already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A for Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 which was CC No. 45/2010 Page 42 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 approved by the RCS Office. The audit of the society was being conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the office of RCS once the objective of society was achieved. PW­59 had proved the list of members wherein the number of flats alloted to the original members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had been mentioned exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as Ext.PW57/A­17. He had identified the signatures of Sh. Jaswant Jain on Ext.PW59/A as he had seen him signing and writing during the official course of business. The audit of the society was being conducted time to time. No correspondence was made with the office of RCS once the objective of society was achieved. PW­59 Sh. Vinod Kumar Tripathi that he had proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 as Ext.PW59/B purportedly shown to have been executed in the name of Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi, his father; proved the list of promoter members Ext.PW59/C to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society placed at page 334 & 335 in file D­8; proved the application for membership placed at page 234/C in file no. D­9 Ext.PW59/D purportedly having the signatures of his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi at point A; proved the receipt bearing no. 050 placed at page no. 145/C in file no. D­9 Ext.PW59/E purportedly issued for receipt of Rs. 110/­ on 04.01.1973 having the signatures of his father Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi at point A; proved the register D­17 already exhibited as CC No. 45/2010 Page 43 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ext.PW52/C. PW 60 Sh. Ajay Kumar Maheshwari had deposed that he became joint member with Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H in the year 1987. He was alloted flat no. C­2 jointly with Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari, his sister in law (Bhabhi). Neither he nor Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, they did not know about the subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. He had proved the proceeding register D­16 Ext.PW60/A of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 02.12.1979 to 16.11.1982; the list of members for Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A which was approved by the RCS Office; proved the list of members (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as Ext.PW57/A­17) wherein the number of flats alloted to the original members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had been mentioned; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 Ext.PW60/B purportedly shown to had been executed in the name of Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari, his sister in law (Bhabhi); proved the list of promoter members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C); proved the application for membership Ext.PW60/C. CC No. 45/2010 Page 44 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 PW 61 Sh. Giriraj Ratan Soni; PW 62 Sh. Sudhir Maheshwari; PW 63 Sh. Anil Kumar Maheshwari; PW 64 Sh. Kailash Chand Jain; PW 65 Sh. Sunil Jain had all deposed that they became members of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H in the year 1988. This society was having 51 members. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F­4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. The draw of lot of flats was conducted by the DDA in the year 1993 and the members of the society were alloted flats accordingly. PW61 was alloted flat no. C­6; PW62 was alloted flat no. A­4; PW63 was alloted flat no. A­6; PW64 was alloted flat no. C­10 and PW65 was alloted flat no. B­91. They all stated that they had participated in the meetings of the society which was alloted flats in the year 1993 but he never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, they did not know about the subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. They had proved the list of members for Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society as on 15.07.1990 (already exhibited as Ext.PW54/A); the list of members(already exhibited as Ext.PW59/A & already exhibited as Ext.PW57/A­17) wherein the number of flats alloted to the original members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society had been mentioned; proved the proceeding register D­17(already exhibited as CC No. 45/2010 Page 45 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ext.PW52/C) of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 28.12.1982 to 27.10.1985; proved the register Ext.PW57/A; proved the list of promoter members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society (Ext.PW59/C); proved the application for membership Ext.PW62/B; proved the receipt bearing no. 046 Ext.PW62/C; proved the proceeding register Ext.PW60/A; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 Ext.PW63/A; proved the application for membership placed at page D­9 as Ext.PW63/B. PW 66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal that he had been working as an advocate and had also been working as Oath Commissioner. In the year 2004 he was sitting in Parliament Street, New Delhi. He had further deposed that the affidavits placed in file no. D­9 at pages 1/C to 120/C shown to have been attested by Mr. S. Kumar, Oath Commissioner on 1.1.2004 did not bear seal;affidavits Ex.PW66/1 to PW66/75; Ex.PW62/A; Ex.PW66/76 to PW66/82;Ex.PW63/A; Ex.PW66/83 to PW66/88; Ex.PW60/B; Ex.PW66/89 to PW66/98; Ex.PW52/A; Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116 were neither attested by him nor bears his signatures.

PW­67 Sh. Chander Bhan Gupta had deposed that in the year 1977, he became a member of Rangmahal CGHS. The society was in existence since 1973 and land was alloted in the year 1977 at Plot No. 13, Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. In the year 1993, CC No. 45/2010 Page 46 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 flats were alloted to 50 members of society by a draw which was held in the presence of DDA & RCS officials and the members of the society. He was also alloted flat no. B­3 in the said society.

PW­68 Sh.Jatender Pal Singh Johar had deposed that that he had been practising as Chartered Accountant by profession since 1985 in Lajpat Nagar under the name and style of M/s J.S. Johar & Associates. He had proved a letter dt. 30.08.1991 (D­145) Ext.PW68/A whereby his firm i.e. J.S. Johar & Associates, 5/30 Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar­IV, N.D.­24 was appointed as Auditor for conducting the audit of Rangmahal CGHS and proved the auditor's report dt. 31.10.1991 (D­134) for the period 31.03.1991 Ext.PW68/B. PW­69 Sh. S.M.S. Chaudhary was posted in Delhi Development Authority as Executive Officer wef 1971 to 1979 and proved a letter Ext.PW69/A; proved another letter No. F­4(139)/73­ CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977 as Ext.PW69/B. PW­70 Sh. Radhey Shyam Maheshwari had deposed about the membership of his wife Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Maheshwari in Rangmahal CGHS in the year 1973 and was alloted flat no. C­19. He had proved the proceeding register D­15 Ext.PW52/B; proved the list of members wherein the number of flats alloted to the original members of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ex.PW59/A; proved an affidavit dt. 01.01.2004 (already exhibited as CC No. 45/2010 Page 47 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ext.PW66/90); proved the list of promoter members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society Ext.PW59/C; proved the application for membership Ext.PW70/A; proved the receipt Ext.PW70/B. PW 71 Sh. P. R. Bhatia had deposed that he was working as stamp agent and obtained license from the Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In May 2001 Sh. Avinash Kumar was appointed as Sub Agent. PW 71 Sh. P. R. Bhatia had proved the affidavits (stamp papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file D9. All the stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.10/­ each was sold by sub agent Sh. Avinash Kumar and bearing his stamp at the back of each stamp paper by the name of "P. R. Bhatia" Stamp Agent, License No. 262, Parliament Street. He identified the stamp on the back of the stamp papers at points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116.

PW 72 Sh. Awanish Kumar had deposed that earlier he was working as sub agent with Sh. P. R. Bhatia for selling the stamp papers and deposed that during the year 2003 affidavits were used to be purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede, a representative of Rang Mahal CGHS, through one Mr. Ravi Robinson, a typist, who CC No. 45/2010 Page 48 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 used to sit in Parliament Street for typing. He had proved the affidavits (stamp papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file D9. He identified the stamp on the back of the stamp papers at points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116.

PW 73 Sh. Ravi Robinson had proved the affidavits (stamp papers) placed at pages no. 1/C to 120/C in file D9. All the stamp papers of the denomination of Rs.10/­ each were sold by Sh. Awnish Kumar, sub agent bearing stamp at the back of each stamp paper by the name of "P. R. Bhatia" Stamp Agent, License No. 262, Parliament Street to Sh. Anna Wankhede. He identified the stamp on the back of the stamp papers at points PX on each affidavit already exhibited as Ex.PW66/1 to Ex.PW66/75, Ex.PW62/A, Ex.PW66/76 to Ex.PW66/82, Ex.PW63/A, Ex.PW66/83 to Ex.PW66/88, Ex.PW60/B, Ex.PW66/89 to Ex.PW66/98, Ex.PW52/A and Ex.PW66/99 to Ex.PW66/116. He further deposed that all the aforesaid affidavits were brought by accused Anna Wankhede.

PW 74 Sh. Gunveer Jain had deposed that Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152H was formed by him in the year 1971. Earlier the society was having 15 members but subsequently the CC No. 45/2010 Page 49 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 membership of the society was enhanced to 51. The society was alloted one acre land by the DDA vide letter no. F­4(139/73.CS/DDA dt. 31.03.1977) at Plot No. 13, Opposite Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. He resigned from the society after 3 / 4 years and he participated in the meetings of this society till he remained its member for about 3 / 4 years but he never attended any meeting with regard to subsequent created society by the name of Rangmahal CGHS. Even, he did not know about the subsequent created society by the name Rangmahal CGHS. He had proved the proceeding register D­15 (already exhibited as Ext.PW52/B) of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society for the period dt. 16.04.1973 to 24.10.1979; proved the affidavits dt. 01.04.2004 purportedly shown to have been executed by him, Vijender Kumar Jain, Devender Kumar Jain, and Sukhbir Kumar Jain already exhibited as Ex.PW66/114, Ex.PW66/113, Ex.PW66/112 and Ex.PW66/111; proved the list of promoter members to be appended with the Modal Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society (already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C); proved the applications for membership Ex.PW74/A, Ex.PW74/C, Ex.PW74/C and Ex.PW74/D; proved the receipts bearing no. 003, 004, 005 and 006 Ex.PW74/E, Ex.PW74/F, Ex.PW74/G and Ex.PW74/H; proved the envelopes D­22, D­23, D­24 and D­25 Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW29/A, Ex.PW29/B and Ex.PW20/B. PW­75 Sh. S.K. Punhani had deposed that he remained posted CC No. 45/2010 Page 50 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 in CBI from October, 2005 to November, 2008 as Steno. He was posted to CBI on attachment basis from Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Delhi pertaining to Cooperative Group Housing Society Scam Cases. He had proved that on 10.01.2007, Insp. Bodh Raj had taken the specimen signatures/writing of accused Anna Wankhade; accused Sushil Kumar Sharma; accused Sri Chand; Shri Satender Kumar, S/o Sri Chand on various papers which were given by them voluntarily. He witnessed the said specimen signatures/writings from S­722 to S­751 Ext.PW75/A; S­752 to S­785 Ext.PW75/B; S­786 to S­820 Ext.PW75/C; S­821 to S­849 Ext.PW75/D. PW­76 Sh. R.P. Shukla had deposed that during the year 2006, he was posted as LDC in the Group Housing Section of DDA. He had proved a seizure memo dt. 19.07.2006 (D­150) Ext.PW76/A. PW­77 Sh. V.K. Bansal had stated that he remained posted in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi wef 31.01.2004 to 31.05.2008 as Assistant Registrar at Parliament Street, New Delhi. Initially, he was looking after Banking Zone and later on, he was asked to look after North West Zone. He further deposed that he was conversant with Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and deposed about the procedure regarding working of cooperative societies. He had also proved the copy of notification no. F.9/38/68/Estt./Coop/Vol­I/1675 dt.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 51 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 28.08.2003 Ext. PW77/DB, copy of order no.

F­5/5/81/Estt./Coop/Vol.III/1459­64 dt. 07.08.2003 Ext.PW77/DC, list of Rangmahal Society with its registration no. 152 D­146(Ext.PW77/DD), letter of G.S. Meena, Jt. Registrar as Ext PW77/DE & identified the signatures of G.S. Meena at point A and another letter Ext.PW77/DF.

PW 78 Sh. Surinder Kumar Abrol had deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted at Darya Ganj in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Delhi as Accounts Officer. Smt. Shikha Verma was the Branch Manager at that time. An account was being maintained in the name of Rang Mahal Cooperative Group Housing Society having registration no. 152(H). He had proved a letter dated 11.9.2006 Ext.PW78/A; ledger sheets Ex.PW78/B and copy of statement of account as Ext.PW78/C. PW 79 Sh. Sher Singh had deposed that during the year 2006 he was posted at Indraprastha Post Office and was looking after the area of Kuncha Chalan, Darya Ganj and proved an envelope D­63 Ex.PW79/A which was marked to him for delivery to Sh. Raj Kishore Tripathi S/o Sh. Raghav Ramji R/o 1762, Kuncha Chalan, Darya Ganj, Delhi but the envelope was returned undelivered to the sender as no such person by the name of Raj Kishore Tripathi was living there PW­80 Sh. Ram Naresh Thakur had deposed that he had CC No. 45/2010 Page 52 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 worked in Delhi Development Authority and retired in April, 2008 as Assistant Director. He was posted in Group Housing Department in the year 2005 and described the procedure of allotment of land to a society and had proved letters dt. 31.03.1977 Ext.PW69/B; Ext.PW80/A placed at page 63 in file D­13 (Ext.PW52/D); perpetual lease Ext.PW52/D­3; the form Appendix 'D' Ext.PW80/B; proved another letter dt. 03.04.1982 Ext.PW80/C; proved a list of members Ext.PW59/A. PW­81 Insp. S.L. Garg had proved production cum seizure memo dt. 12.08.2005 Ext.PW81/A; handing over/taking over memo D­5 Ext.PW81/B; another handing over/taking over memo (D­3) dt. 16.12.2005 Ext.PW81/C vide which Insp. Rajenderan had handed over the aforesaid three files mentioned in handing over taking over memo Ext.PW81/B to Insp. L.Hangshin of EOW­II.

PW­82 Sh. Naresh Saxena had deposed that he is the proprietor of V.A. Agency. He had proved production cum seizure memo dt. 13.09.2005 Ext.PW82/A; proved the certified true copy of the notice pertaining to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. (Registration no. 152) which was published in the "Times of India"

newspaperExt.PW82/B; proved the certified true copy of bill/cash memo having invoice no. 52 dt. 04.01.2005 Ext.PW82/C; proved the certified true copy of bill cum receipt dt. 27.12.2004 Ext.PW82/D; proved the certified true copy of Release Order dt. 27.12.2004 CC No. 45/2010 Page 53 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ext.PW82/E. He testified that the advertisement for the newspaper was given by accused Sri Chand.

PW­83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been practising from the office M/s ANK & Associates (Earlier it was C.L. Golchha & Co.) at Unit No. 6, Second Floor, Arawali Shopping Center, Alakhnanda, New Delhi. He had proved D­11 Audit Report Volume­I pertaining to Rangmahal Group Housing Society having registration no. 152H (already exhibited as Ext.PW2/A­1) and proved the pages 12 to 240 Ext.PW83/A (colly.); proved D­12 Audit Report Volume­II pertaining to Rangmahal Group Housing Society having registration no. 152H and proved the pages 12 to 240 Ext.PW83/B (Colly.); proved the carbon copy of his statement which was recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ext.PW83/C before the Ld. MM at Patiala House Courts and proved the original statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC as Ext.PW83/D. He testified that the work of preparing balance sheets for the society was done by him on the instructions of accused Sri Chand, who had sent the documents and fee through his employee Sushil Kumar Sharma.

PW­84 Sh. C.S. Prakashnarayanan deposed that he remained associated as Investigating Officer in CGHS Scam Cases which were ordered to be investigated by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi. He had proved the certified copy of production cum seizure memo (D­19) Ext.PW82/A; proved the certified copy of notice, bill/cash CC No. 45/2010 Page 54 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 memo of V.A. Agencies dt. 04.01.2005 and bill cum receipt dt. 27.12.2004 and the release order dt. 27.12.2004 (already exhibited as Ext.PW82/B to Ext.PW82/E).

PW­85 Ms. Sunita Nagpal was an LDC in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies and had proved a note sheet dt. 22.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A placed in file D­8; proved another notes dt. 29.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A­1 & dt. 29.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A­2. She had also proved another note which was put up before the then RCS Sh. Narayan Diwakar regarding approval of the note put up by Jt. Registrar marked as Ext.PW85/A­3. She further proved a note dt. 31.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A­4; proved a letter dt. 31.03.2004 Ext.PW85/A­5; proved the copy of Bye Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Ext.PW85/A­6; proved the list of promoter members placed at pages 334/C to 336/C already exhibited as Ext.PW59/C; proved another copy of bye laws of the society as well as list of promoter members placed at pages 324/C to 333/C Ext.PW85/A­7; proved a letter dt. 29.12.2003 placed at page 322/C Ext.PW85/A­8; proved another letter dt. 10.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A­9; proved letter dt. 03.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A­10; proved the inspection report dt. 03.02.2004 Ext.PW85/A­11; proved a letter dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A­12; proved letters dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A­13 & Ext.PW85/A­14. She had also proved a letter dt. 22.03.2004, note sheets placed at pages 9 to 22 in file D­8. She did CC No. 45/2010 Page 55 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 not fully support the prosecution case and therefore was cross examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor. During such cross examination, she testified that the file of Rangmahal CGHS was given to her by accused Ramesh Chandra.

PW­86 Sh. M.A. Hashmi was the Dy. Registrar in the office of RCS. He had proved a list already exhibited as Ext.PW52/D; proved a letter dt. 08.11.1991 Ext.PW86/A; proved a letter dt. 24.02.1992 Ext.PW86/B. PW­87 Sh. P.Vijaya Shankar was posted at GEQD(Documents Division), Hyderabad as Dy. GEQD. He had proved the letter dt. 09.10.2006 Ext.PW87/A; acknowledgment dt. 16.10.2006 Ext.PW87/A1, had proved his opinion/report dated 29th of November 2006 running into three pages Ex.PW87/A­5; proved the copy of his reasons for opinion Ex.PW87/A­6 (colly.); proved a letter dated 2.3.2007 (D­154) Ex.PW87/A­7 vide which his supplementary opinion no. CH­338/2006 was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, CBI; proved his supplementary opinion/report dated 27th of February 2007 running into two pages Ex.PW87/A­8; proved the copy of his reasons for his supplementary opinion Ex.PW87/A­9 (colly.). He had also proved the questioned signatures compared with the standard signatures S­455 to S­459 of Jasvir Singh Sandhu, which collectively stands proved as Ex.PW87/A­16; S­460 to S­466 of Narayan Diwakar, collectively proved as Ex.PW87/A­20; S­467 to CC No. 45/2010 Page 56 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 S­486 of Mohan Lal, which collectively proved as Ex.PW87/A­23; S­528 to S­542 of Faiz Mohd., collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A­24; S­607 to S­626 of Sh. Ramesh Chandra., collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A­38 (total sheets 20); S­487 to S­527 of Sh. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A­40; S­467 to S­471 (already exhibited as Ex.PW87/A­23) and S­472 to S­486 (Ex.PW87/A­43), S­701 to S­721 Ex.PW87/A­44 of Sh. Mohan Lal; S­739 to S­743, S­748 to S­751 (already exhibited as Ex.PW75/A) of Sh. Anna Wankhede; S­680 to S­683 (Ex.PW87/A­66) and S­781 to S­783 (already exhibited as Ex.PW75/B) of Sushil Kumar Sharma.

PW­88 A.Subramaniam is a Grade­IV (LDC) in the office of RCS and had proved the list of members of Rangmahal CGHS Ext.PW59/A. PW­89 Sh. R.Narayanaswami was the Chief Secretary, Government/NCT of Delhi during the year 2006­2007 and granted sanction in respect of Sh. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani. He had proved the sanction order dt. 30.04.2007 Ext.PW89/A. PW­90 Insp. Bodhraj Hans is the Investigating officer and has proved the investigation of this case. He testified that the notices to join investigation were sent through speed post to all 120 members. (Perusal of these letters would show that all these letters received back by CBI undelivered with the report that No such person or no CC No. 45/2010 Page 57 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 such address were available.) He seized various files from the office of Registrar as well as from the office of Rangmahal CGHS. He also seized the files from DDA vide which the land had already been alloted to Rangmahal CGHS. He testified that the specimen signatures of the accused persons were also taken and the questioned documents and specimen signatures were sent to GEQD for comparison.

PW­91 Sh. Rajneesh Tingal proved the sanction order dt. 11.10.2007 Ext.PW91/A in respect of Sh. Jasbir Singh Sindhu; PW­92 Sh. Rakesh Behari proved the sanction Ext.PW92/A for prosecuting Sh. Rakesh Kumar Hasija; PW­93 Sh. B.A. Coutinho proved the sanction order dt. 08.05.2007 Ext.PW93/A in respect of accused Jitender Singh Sharma.

PW­94 Sh. Yogi Raj was Assistant Registrar in the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi wef 2000 to 2005. He proved the photocopy of letters dt. 25.03.2004 (D­155) Ext. PW94/A; dt. 22.03.2004 Ext.PW94/B; proved the notification dt. 28.08.2003 as Ext.PW77/DB and copy of FIR Ext.PW94/DA. He had proved the attested photocopy of list of 120 members Ext.PW94/C which was forwarded vide letter dt. 25.03.2004 Ext.PW94/A by him; proved the Rule 11 (1) of 1973.

In statement under Section 313 CrPC accused persons denied the allegations. Accused Sri Chand examined DW­1 Vinay Kumar in CC No. 45/2010 Page 58 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 defence. This witness is a Head Clerk in Audit Branch in the office of RCS. He testified that the auditor would only charge the audit fee. However, he also testified that as per new DCS Act­2003 & DCS Rules 2007, the Chartered Accountant cannot audit the accounts of the society without permission of RCS. He explained that since he was not a commerce student, therefore, he was unable to make any comment about the balance sheets shown to him for different years pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS.

Accused Ramesh Chandra (A­2) examined Sh. R.K. Mudgil (DW­2) in his defence. This witness testified that he is posted as Sub Inspector in the office of RCS. He testified that he had received the summons issued by the court to produce the following records:

(1) Registers maintained in the policy division of the RCS office regarding sending of list of members of CGHS to the DDA for allotment of land, alongwith separate register for CGHS for land allotment between 1976 to 2004.

(2) Relevant instructions/order of the Government of NCT Delhi/Registrar Cooperative Society regarding functioning of Policy Division of the RCS office.

He testified that these registers are not maintained in the office of RCS but the relevant files are maintained and he brought the same to the court. He also testified that no document or registers CC No. 45/2010 Page 59 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 maintained in Policy Division regarding sending of list of members of CGHS to DDA for allotment of land is available. Even after 1997­98, no such registers were maintained in Policy Branch. However, he added that the relevant files are available from 1997 onwards. In cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he testified that before the year 1997­98, there were two units of group housing. One was called "Old Group Housing" and the other unit was called as "New Group Housing." The witness added that before the year 1997­98, the lists approved by office of RCS used to be sent by aforesaid group housing units to DDA. After 1997­98, the office of RCS was divided in nine zones for the purpose of group housing societies and the files which were being dealt in the above stated units were distributed zone wise after division of the office of RCS in nine zones. He further testified that the file of a society prior to 1997­98 would be found in respective zone. I would like to reproduce the relevant portions of cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor dated 17.05.2012 and 21.05.2012 as under:

"Q I draw your attention to the letters dt. 24.02.1992 bearing no. F.47/152/GH/Coop 389 (Ext.PW86/B) & dt. 08.11.1991 bearing no. F.47/152/GH/Coop 2931 Ext. PW86/A which were sent to DDA alongwith a list of 50 members of Rangmahal CGHS. Is it correct that these letters had the same file number in the dispatch number, which is appearing on the files of Rangmahal CGHS (D­8 & D­9)? (Objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds already stated above. Objection overruled.) A The file D­8 bears the number F­47/152/75/Coop/GH and CC No. 45/2010 Page 60 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 D­9 bears the number F­47/152/Coop/GH. The letters bear the number of the file as F.47/152/GH/Coop in the dispatch number.

Q Is it correct that as per letter dt. 27.01.2004 Ext.PW85/A­13, it contains the same file number i.e. F. 47/152/GH/Coop?

(Objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds already stated above. Objection overruled.) A It is a matter of record."

.............................................

"Q Is it correct that there is no mention regarding letters dt.

08.11.1991 Ext.PW86/A and letter dt. 24.02.1992 Ext.PW86/B in the noting portion of file D­8 sent to DDA by the Asstt. Registrar (GH)? (objected to by the accused.) A I cannot answer to this question. It is a matter of record.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately evading the answer to the aforesaid question.

Q Is it correct that as and when draw of lots for allotment of flats is conducted by the DDA to any society, an officer from the office of RCS remains present at that time? (objected to by the accused.) A It is correct. However, I cannot say about the earlier system. Q Is it correct that a copy of letter deputing an officer by the office of RCS for attending the draw of lots is also sent to the President/Secretary of the society? (objected to by accused) A I do not know about the previous system, but, presently this practice is being followed.

I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that this practice was always prevalent.

Q Is it correct that an order dt. 22.01.1993 (D­142) Ext.PW90/A­60 was issued by the Asstt. Registrar (GH) vide which Sh. A.Subramaniam­Sub Inspector was deputed as an observer for attending the draw of lots to be held on 23.01.1993 at 11 a.m. pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS? (Objected to by accused.) A It is a matter of record. (Voltd. I was not posted at the relevant time.)"

The other accused persons did not lead any evidence in CC No. 45/2010 Page 61 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 defence.

Submissions of the Public Prosecutor Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the evidence led by the prosecution proves that Sri Chand (A1) was one of those builders, who were the king pin of the society scam. He got prepared various documents of the alternative society with active involvement of accused Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11). It is submitted that pursuant to this conspiracy one application was filed by one Deepak Kumar, a fictitious secretary of the society, on 29.12.2003 requesting for approval of the final list of 120 members of the said society for allotment of land. All these 120 members were found fake in the sense that the out of the 50 original members, names of only a few were shown as the promoters members, whereas rest of the same did not even exit. Even those members, who were also the members of the actual society had denied having participated in the proceedings pertaining to change of address etc. of the parallel society. Moreover the registered office of the society was also shown to have been shifted from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147­G, Pocket A2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, New Delhi vide a forged managing committee resolution dated 20.8.1995 so that the society comes in the jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar (East), who was Ramesh Chandra (A2) at that time. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter dated CC No. 45/2010 Page 62 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A­8 (D­8) page 322C. In this application, it is mentioned that 50 members of the society had no roof over their families in Delhi and thereafter 70 members were enrolled from time to time and that now the freeze strength of the society is 120 members. It is submitted that this letter was made with a view to create a parallel/fictitious society functioning at a different address than the original society merely to avoid detection. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that although this letter was addressed to Assistant Registrar (East), however it was directly presented to Narayan Diwkar (A8), the registrar, which stands proved from the fact that on that very day i.e. on 29.12.2003 Narayan Diwakar (A8) had put his initial at point B. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is a system of central receipt of correspondences from where all the letters (even if addressed to the other officials of RCS) are put before Registrar, who marks it to the relevant branches. This letter was marked to J. R. (East) Jasbir Singh Sandhu (A7), who further marked to Ramesh Chandra (A2) to A. R. (East). A. R. (East) marked this letter to Dealing Assistant.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a letter dated 31.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A­14 (D­8) page 69­C, wherein J. S. Sharma (A6) A. R. Audit has written A. R. East that a letter has been received from Deepak Kumar Honorary Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS in which he has requested for audit of the society since registration upto CC No. 45/2010 Page 63 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 31.3.2003. J. S. Sharma (A6) has to explain as to on which letter he acted because the letter dated 29.3.2003 had not reached him till that date.

On receiving this letter the Dealing Assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) initiated his note sheet dated 13.1.2004. He writes in the note sheet (page 9 of D­8) that as per the records available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file. It was also recommended that Faiz Mohd. (A3) may be appointed as inspector for conducting the inspection under Section 54 of the present running condition of the society. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to page 66/C of the file (D­8) in which there is a reference of deposition of earnest money to be deposited by the original society with DDA.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter dated 26.5.1975 Ex.PW52/G­1 (page 68/C of D­8), which is a letter written on behalf of the original Rangmahal CGHS to the Assistant Registrar. The last note sheet available on the file was dated 27.8.1973. Since there were communications in this file upto the year 1975 also, this shows that note sheet in respect of the said communications must be available, therefore instead of noting this fact the dealing clerk clearly wrote contrary to the record that the status of the society is non functional.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 64 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Vide this note he proposed appointment of Faiz Mohd. (A3) as inspector for conducting the inspection under Section 54 for the present running condition of the society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has again drawn my attention to the letter dated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A­8 wherein it was written that the society was registered at its address 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi­110003 and was shifted to 157­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­110096 vide MC resolution passed on 20.8.1995. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that there was nothing on record to show that the RCS was informed about this change of address previously, therefore the dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) and Ramesh Chandra (A2) should have raised the query as to why such change of address has not been informed as per rules, which is mandatory rule as per the rule of DCS Act.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the fact that Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) wrote "PL. Spk." i.e please speak at Ex.PW87/10. However he does not explain as to what query was sought by him from his subordinates i.e. dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) and Ramesh Chandra (A2).

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that this should be seen at the back drop of the fact that the original registered office of the society fall in Central New Delhi Zone but it was shown to have changed its address fraudulently in the letter dated 29.12.2003 as well as the CC No. 45/2010 Page 65 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 fake MC resolution dated 20.8.1995 with an intention to bring it within the jurisdiction of A. R. (East), who was Ramesh Chandra (A2) at that time.

In response of note of Jasbir Singh Sandhu (A7) the dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) put up a note dated 20.1.2004 Ex.PW87/A­30 reiterating his initial note dated 13.1.2004 stating the status of the society being non functional and having not been audited since inception may be informed to A. R. Audit. This note sheet went up to RCS and was approved on 21.1.2004. Pursuant to approval of this note, Ramesh Chandra (A2) informed A. R. (Audit) J. S. Sharma (A6) vide letter Ex.PW85/A­12 (page no.71/C of D­8) informing the fact that audit of the society was pending since registration, no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and the society was not under liquidation. Ld. Public Prosecutor has further drawn my attention to the order of Ramesh Chandra (A2) Ex. PW85/A­13 vide which Ramesh Chandra (A2) appointed Faiz Mohd. (A3) as inspecting officer to find out the factual position of the society and to verify documents and records of the society and submit the report within 10 days.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter of Faiz Mohd. (A3) dated 3.2.2004 Ex.PW85/A­10 (page 318/C of D­8) addressed to A. R. East in which he has clearly stated that "he had visited at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on 31.1.2004 and he was CC No. 45/2010 Page 66 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 informed that the office of the society has been shifted to 147/G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi". He further states that he visited the office of society at Mayur Vihar address on 9.2.2004 where he met Deepak Kumar, secretary of the society. He also stated that Deepak Kumar, secretary of the society, produced all the relevant records of the society and that there were 120 members of the society and the list of the members has not been approved by the RCS office for allotment of land. In audit report Ex.PW85/A­11 Faiz Mohd. (A3) writes that the audit of the society is pending since 1.7.1770 till date. This letter and the inspection report were duly received by Ramesh Chandra (A2) on 4.2.2004.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the note dated 10.2.2004 signed by dealing assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) and A. R. East Ramesh Chandra (A2). In this note sheet (Ex.PW87/A­32 page 11/N of D­8) it is written that as per the report of inspector, the society has shifted address from Sunder Nagar to Mayur Vihar and that he checked the records. It was proposed that a letter may be written to the society to produce the complete record in original for 20.2.2004. Pursuant to this note Ramesh Chandra (A2) A. R. East sent a letter Ex.PW85/A­9 dated 10.2.2004 asking the President/Secretary of the society to appear with the records of the society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to this letter CC No. 45/2010 Page 67 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4) prepared a note signed by Ramesh Chandra (A2) A. R. East in which it is stated that Deepak Kumar, secretary of the society, had attended the office and produced the records for verification. After writing in detail about the general body resolution for final list of the members for allotment letter etc., he reproduced inspection report of Faiz Mohd. (A3). Thereafter he wrote that the accounts of the society have been audited by the department auditor upto 31.3.2003. In the end of this detailed note sheet, dealing clerk and A. R. (East) have proposed the approval of final list of 120 members for onwards transmission to DDA for allotment of land. This note was considered by Jasbir Singh Sandhu (A7) and was finally approved by Narayan Diwkar (A8) on 19.3.2004. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that Smt. Sunita Nagpal wrote a note sheet Ex.PW85/A putting a letter to be sent to DDA for allotment of land. This letter was sent by Ramesh Chandra (A2) on 22.3.2004 to Assistant Registrar (Policy), who in turn sent the letter to DDA. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a letter dated 19.1.2005 Ex.PW77/DF written by Assistant Registrar to all the branches of RCS stating that DDA has returned a list of 135 cooperative housing societies for re­verification of membership and other details. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the list Ex.PW77/DD, which mentions Rangmahal CGHS i.e. Silver View CGHS, which is the changed name.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 68 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the letter Ex.PW85/A­1 dt. 29.03.2004 written by Deepak Kumar, the fictitious secretary of the society, to A. R. (East) in which it was prayed that the old name of the society may be changed and new name i.e. Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. may be given to it. On this letter Smt. Sunita Nagpal the dealing assistant wrote a noting proposing that the file may be sent to RCS for approval. It is submitted that Ramesh Chandra (A2) and the A. R. (East) and Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) have written their notes proposing the change of the name of the society and it was finally approved by Narayan Diwakar vide his signatures dated 29.3.2004. It is submitted that this was done so as to avoid the detection of the fraud of creation of a parallel society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that in the entire note sheets upto 20.1.2004, there is no reference to the letter dated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A­8 written by Deepak Kumar, the fictitious secretary. It is submitted that the PUC which is being referred in the note dated 13.1.2004 in which the secretary of the society is stated to have applied for audit does not exist. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to the fact that in fact there is no order of audit for more than 3 years passed by RCS but still the audit of the society is being done since the time its inception. It is argued that the only course for RCS office was to write a letter to DDA to verify as to whether the land has been allotted to this society or not but the CC No. 45/2010 Page 69 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 entire hierarchy right from the dealing clerk upto registrar deliberately omitted to do so.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Ex.PW52/D (D­13), which is a file of DDA in respect of the allotment of land to the real Rangmahal society, which shows that the land was allotted to the society way back in the year 1977. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to the list of 50 members, which was approved by the Assistant Registrar M. A. Hashmi and this list sent by M. A. Hashmi, the then A. R., vide letter dated 8.11.1991, which is Ex.PW86/A. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to the order Ex.PW90/A­16 written by AR dated 22.1.1993 to the President/Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS as well as A. Subramanyam, the Sub. Inspector, who was deputed to act as observer for the draw of allotment to the societies. It is submitted that the copy of this letter is also not available on the file D­8 and D­9 of the RCS in respect of this society, though it should be available on it. Further the DDA file D­13 shows that A. Subramanyam, the Sub. Inspector, posted in RCS office was also present in the draw of lots held on 23.1.1993 vide which the particular land came to this society. It is submitted that all these communications must have been present on the file of RCS office, which shows that the same were removed deliberately with a view to create a fake/parallel society.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that all these facts are enough to CC No. 45/2010 Page 70 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 prove that all the accused persons had conspired to create a parallel society of Rangmahal CGHS, it being one of the earliest societies having high seniority value for land allotment and the list of fake members was sent to DDA by RCA officials by abusing their official positions to benefit the builder mafia.

Kaveri CGHS Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in Kaveri Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs Union of India (AIR 1991 Delhi 217) had ordered the criteria of seniority of the society as per the date of their registration, so as to stop the bunglings in the office of RCS but the RCS officials were smart enough to defeat the purpose of that judgement and had invented a new trick by fraudulently reviving the defunct societies at the instance of builder mafia. The another modus operandi was fraudulently creating a parallel society with the same name and same registration number, even though the actual society was still functional. The parallel society was created because the registration number of the actual society was high in seniority list on account of its date of registration.

The circumstances of the present case fully justify the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor. For sake of understanding the logic of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kaveri CGHS judgement, I would like to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from this judgement as under :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 71 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 "Where in respect of allotment of land by the Delhi Development authority (DDA) to the Group Housing Societies, under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules (1981) framed under S. 22 read with S. 56 of the Delhi Development Act (1957), an office memorandum was issued determining seniority on the basis of finalisation of list of members of such societies by the Registrar, Co­operative Societies, instead of earlier criteria of date of registration of such Societies, the said office memorandum was unreasonable and hence arbitrary. The main principle which has been set out in the said office memorandum is that the seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the papers of the Society have been found in order and approved by the office of the Registrar, Co­operative Societies. The effect of this is that irrespective of the date when the Societies were registered, the seniority will not be determined with effect from the date of registration nor with effect from the date when the list of members were submitted, but is to be determined with effect from the date when the Registrar accords its approval to the list so filed. This criteria is unreasonable, to say the least. The effect of this principle is that the societies have been left at the mercy of the Registrar of Co­operative Societies. There may be cases, and they probably are, where full particulars may not have been supplied by the societies. But as CC No. 45/2010 Page 72 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 and when verification has taken place, it must necessarily relate back to the date when the list of members was filed. There are numerous instances which show that with no fault of the societies they have been relegated to a lower position in the seniority list, as there are societies where the lists were verified number of years after they had been submitted even though no defects were indicated in the list originally filed."

In this judgement it was specifically held that land was to be allotted to the society according to the seniority i.e. date of registration. The purpose of this judgement was to restrict the powers of RCS so that these powers are not abused. However the facts of the present case show that the RCS officials in conspiracy with the private persons invented new fraudulent methods.

Official Proceedings The proceedings in the present matter started when AR(East) received a letter from AR(Audit) asking for status of the society. The said letter Ext.PW85/A­14 (placed at page 69/C of D­8) is reproduced as under:

To The ASSTT. REGISTRAR (EAST) OFFICE OF THE R.C.S SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI­01 SUB:­ REGARDING AUDIT OF THE RANGMAHAL COOP.G/H SOCIETY LTD.

                    (Regn. No. 152(H) dated 31.3.1973.)

SIR,


CC No. 45/2010                                                          Page 73 / 214
 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                                          Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

A letter has been received from Sh. Deepak Kumar Hony. Secretary of the Ranmahal coop. G/H Society Ltd. in which he has requested for the audit of the society since registration to 31.3.3.2003. As the audit of the society is pending since registration, it Is, therefore, requested to confirm the present status of the society from your records at the earliest, so that further action in this regard will be taken accordingly.

(J.S. SHARMA) ASSTT. REGISTRAR (AUDIT) On receiving of this letter, accused Rakesh Hasija (the Dealing Clerk) typed a note sheet which was signed by Ramesh Chandra on 13.01.2004, but, Sh. J.S. Sindhu, AR(East) wrote 'Pl. Spk." and file returned to AR(East). I reproduce the note sheet as under:

"May kindly see the PUC received from Asstt. Registrar (Audit) reg. Rangmahal Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society has applied for audit in audit branch since registration of the society. As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file. As per record available the status of the society is non functional. Asstt. Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we may inform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society. Both letters are added for Signature please.

Sd/­ Dealing Clerk.

13/1

We may inform AR(Audit) accordingly and order on inspection u/s 54 for the present status of the society. May kindly approve.

JR(E)                                                         Sd/­
                                                              Ramesh Chandra
                                                              13.1.04

        Pl Spk.
                                                              Sd/­
                                                              J.R. Sindhu
                                                              16.1.04

        AR(E)
                                                              Sd/­



CC No. 45/2010                                                                          Page 74 / 214
 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                                                  Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                                                               Ramesh Chandra
                                                               16.1.04
          DA

On the noting "Pl. Spk." of Sh.J.R. Sindhu­ JR (E), the dealing assistant Sh. Rakesh Hasija typed the following note sheet which was signed by AR(E) on 20.01.1984. Sh. J.R. Sindhu­JR(E) wrote "For approval of 'A' above please" and then it was approved by Sh. Narayan Diwakar on 21.1.2004. The note sheet is reproduced as under:

"As discussed with worthy JRCS reg. Status of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society has applied for audit branch since registration of the society. (see at Flag­B) As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file.As per record available the status of the society is non functioned. Asstt. Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we may inform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for 'A' conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society. Both letters are added for Signature please.

Sd/­
Dealing Clerk.                            AR(East)
20.1                                                           Sd/­
                                                               Ramesh Chandra
                                                               20.1.04
                                 JR(E)
                                          For approval of 'A' above please
                                                               Sd/­
                                                               J.S. Sindhu
                                                               21.1.04
                               RCS
                                                     Sd/­
                                                     Narayan Diwakar
                                                     21.1.04
                               JR(E)
                                                               Sd/­
                                                               J.S. Sindhu
                                                               23.1.4
                               AR(E)
                                          Sd/­
                                          Ramesh Chandra
          23.1.4

After receiving the report of Faiz Mohd. and receiving another PUC dt. 29.12.2003 , a note sheet typed by Rakesh Hasija and recommended by AR(E) is written at page no. 11/N of D­8. The CC No. 45/2010 Page 75 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 same is reproduced (with emphasis supplied) as under: "May kindly see the PUC is a report of Sh. Faiz Mohammad, Inspector of RCS office reg.status of Rang Mahal Cooperative group Housing Society. As per report of Inspector this society has been shifted from 81,Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147­G, Pocket­A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96. After visited at Mayur Vihar he met Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Secretary of the society. Sh. Pardeep Kumar Secy. Of the society has produced all the relevant records of the society and informed that there are 120 members are existing in the society and list of the members of the society has not yet approved by the RCS office for allotment of land. The Membership Register is complete in all respect. The Audit of the society is pending since 01/07/70 on wards all the accounts are ready for audit since 01/7/70 to 31/3/03. (copy of unaudited accounts since 1/7/70 to 31/3/03 enclosed with the report). Sh. Faiz Moh. Has also stated that the election of the society was held on 28/12/03 as per DCS rules. All the society records are found under the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar Secy. of the society. Kindly see the PUC received from the society reg. List of members. In this regard if agree we may sent a letter to society for produce the complete record in original, in this office dated 20.2.04 at 12.00 Noon.

Fair letter is added for Signature please.

Sd/­                                   Sd/­
Rakesh Hasija                    Ramesh Chandra 
10.2.04                                10.2.04
                                                         AR(East)

                                          (Ex PW87/A­32)
                                          5.11.2011

                                :13:
Verification of the records of the Society.

May kindly see that Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Rangmahal Co­operative Group Housing Society Ltd. has attended this office and produced the original records for verification and the same was examined/verified, accordingly submissions are as under:­ The Rangmahal Co­operative Group Housing Society Ltd. is registered with this department at S.No. 152(H) on 31.03.73 at its regd. Address 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and presently functioning at 147­G, Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi­110096 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (Bombay Act No. VII of 1925) as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi and later governed under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 & Rules framed thereunder with the object to acquire land for construction of flats for its members (Copy of the Registration Certificate and Regd. Bye­Laws are placed at P 24 /C to P30/C respectively (Main File.) CC No. 45/2010 Page 76 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 The Secretary of the society has submitted resolution of Managing Committee Meeting dated 20­08­95 (see P 383/C Vol.­I) that the society had shifted its office from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147­G, Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­ III, Delhi­110096 during the year 1995.

Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society has further submitted that the matter of approval of final list of members for allotment of land was put up before the General Body on 28/12/2003 (resolution No. 5) (see P 322/C to P 323/C (Vol­ I)) and it was unanimously approved by the General Body to pray before the Registrar Cooperative Societies to approve the final list of 120120 members in order o achieve its objective to provide shelter to its members. He ha further submitted that the elections of the society were held from time to time and the last election was held on 28/12/2003 (resolution no. 1) in the General Body Meeting (photocopy of the minutes of GBM placed at P 322/C to P 323/C (Vol­I).

In this connection, an Inspection under section 54 of the DCS Act, 1972 was conducted to know the existence and functioning of the society before taking action for approval of final list of 120 members and to getting its accounts Audited by the Departmental Auditor. Sh. Faiz Mohammad Gr.II Inspector of North West Zone was appointed as Inspecting Officer vide this office order no. F.47/ 152/ GH/ Coop./ 2064 dated 27.01.2004 (see P 71/C (Main File.) The Inspection Report of Inspecting Officer is placed at P 72/C to 319/C (Vol­III). The contents of his report are given as under:­

(i) That he had visited at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi on 31.01.2004. He was informed from there that the Office of the Society h as been shifted from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147­G, Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­ 110096. Thereafter, he had visited at the Office Address of the Society i.e. 147­G, Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­ 110096 on 01.02.2004 and there he met Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society.

(ii) That Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society produced all the relevant records of the Society and informed that there are 120 members are existing in the Society and list of members has not yet approved by the RCS office for allotment of land.

(iii) That the Regd. Address of the Society was 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and at present the Society is functioning at 147­G, Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96

(iv) That the Membership Register was completed in all respect.

(v) That the Audit of the Society was pending since 01.07.70 onwards. All the accounts were ready for audit since 01.07.70 CC No. 45/2010 Page 77 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 to 31.03.2003 (A copy of unaudited accounts since 01.07.70 to 31.03.2003 was enclosed)

(vi) That the Proceeding Register was also completed and the last Managing Committee meeting was held on 29.12.2003.

(vii) That as per records of the Society the last Election was held on 28.12.2003 as per DCS Rules (Copies of Election record was enclosed)

(viii) That all the Society records were found under the safe custody of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the Society, Keeping in view of the facts stated above it appears that the society is functioning, but failed to fulfill the statutory obligations under the provisions of DCS Act & Rules and bye­ laws of the society (see note at P­9/N) and the members of the society are still hoping to have a shelter of their own.

The Secretary of the society has produced/submitted the original records and documents pertaining to membership, audit & election, etc. for verification and the same was counter­ checked/verified and found in order. A detailed report in this regard is given as under:­

1. The society has submitted a list of 120 members (see P 325/C to P 364/C Vol­I) for approval and onward submissions to DDA for allotment of land.

2. The Society was registered with this department at S.No. 152 (H) on 31.03.1973 with 56 promoter members (refer copy of the bye­laws at P­22/C to P­24/C (Main File)).

3. The following 6 members were deleted out of 56 members by the RCS at the time of registration, the details list is given as under:­ Sl. No. M.No. Member's Name

1. 24 Prem Narain Mahesh Mani

2. 25 Nand Lal Rathi

3. 29 Vikram Kumar Surbani

4. 33 Madan Lal Joshi

5. 38 Ram Swaroop Bakshi

6. 56 Nand Kishore Khanna Enrolments prior to 30.6.86: The society has enrolled 71 members prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86. A consolidated list of these members is placed at P­365/C to P­366/C (Vol­I) and the details are given as under:­ Sl. M. Member's NameDate of Date of Date of No. No. Application MC Receipt CC No. 45/2010 Page 78 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Approval of Share Money

1. 57 Chandra Kant Joshi 10.09.76 16.09.76 20.09.76

2. 58 K.H. Patel 10.09.76 16.09.76 20.09.76 .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .. .............. .............. .............. ..............

71. 127 M.K. Singh 08.07.78 15.07.78 22.07.78 Since all the above mentioned enrolments were made prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86, therefore, no approval is required for the same. However, the society has submitted the following documents in connection with these above mentioned enrolments:­

i) Photocopy of application forms for membership from 120 enrolled members is placed from P­162/C to P­288/C Vol - I).

ii) Photocopy of receipt of Share Money from enrolled members is placed from P­121/C to P­161/C Vol.

I).

iii) Photocopy of the minutes of the managing committee meetings in which the enrolments were approved are placed at P­369/C to P­375/C Vol ­I).

iv) Fresh affidavits in original in r/o 120 existing members are placed at P­1/C to P­120/C­ Vol­I).

4. Resignations prior to 30.6.86: The following one member has resigned from the Society. A consolidated list of member is placed at P­382/C Vol­I) and the details list is given as under:­ Sl. M. Member's Name Date of Date of Date of No. No. Resignation MC Refund Approval of Share Money 1 47 Mrs. Achamma Abraham 11.05.75 11.05.75 11.05.75 Since the above mentioned resignation was made prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86, therefore, no approval is required for the same.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 79 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 However, the society has submitted the following documents in connection with this above mentioned resignation:­

i) Photocopy of resignation from membership of 1 member is placed at P­381/C Vol­I).

ii) Photocopy of refund of Share Money of resigned member is placed at P­381/C Vol­I).

iii) Photocopy of the minutes of the managing committee meeting (resolution No.9) in which the resignation was approved, is placed at P­380/C (Vol­I).

5. Resignations after 1.7.86 : Nil

6. Enrolments after 1.7.86 : Nil The Society produced original records for verification, which were examined and verified accordingly. All the enrolments are found in order and in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act & Rules. No Residence proof is required as all the enrolments were made prior to 01.05.1985 (refer notification of Special Secretary (cooperation) No. F.47/ Legal/ Policy/ Coop/ 92/2305­2316 dated 5.12.2001.

7. Transfer Cases & Joint Membership: Since registration of the society, there are no cases of Transfer of membership & Joint Membership.

Present Strength of the society:­

Promoter members                                         ­            56
Deleted at the time of registration                       ­           06
Number of members enrolled prior to 30.06.86              ­           71
Number of members resigned prior to 1.7.86                ­           01
Number of members enrolled prior to 1.7.86                ­           Nil
                                                          ­­­­­­
Total 'existing members' prior to 1.7.86                  120
(56+71=127­7)                                             ­­­­­­

Number of members resigned after to 1.7.86                   ­          Nil
Number of members enrolled after to 1.7.86                   ­          Nil
                                                             ­­­­­
Present Strength                                    ­        120
                                                             ­­­­­

The Secretary of the Society has filed an affidavit in respect of above mentioned enrolments along with a final list of 120 present members for approval and onward submission to DDA for allotment of land (see P­291/C to P­303 (Vol­I).

CC No. 45/2010 Page 80 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 In this regard, it is submitted that since the membership strength of the Society prior to freeze date i.e. 30.6.86 was 120(50+70), hence the freeze strength of the society may be treated as 120. The details of these 120 members are given as under:­ Sl. No. M.No. Member's Name 1 1 Sh. Surender Kumar Maheshwary .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... .. .. ..................................................... 120 127 M.K.Singh The Secretary of the Society has also filed an Affidavit stating that:­

a) The society is ready to take responsibility, if any member who had resigned, files any case/claim before any court of law. (see P­319 ­Vol ­I)

b) There is no court case pending in any court of law against the Society. See P­321/C (Vol­I)

c) There is no inspection u/s 54 and inquiry u/s 55 & 59 pending against the society. See P­320/C (Vol­I)

d) The General Body Members of the Society in their meeting held on 28.12.2003 (resolution no. 4) have also sought condonation for the lapses/irregularities occurred due to lack of knowledge to run the Society. (See P­322 /C to P 324/C (Vol­I) Audit: The accounts of the Society have been audited by the Departmental Auditor upto 31.03.2003. (see P­01/C to P­ 240/C­(Vol­II) Election : The election of the Managing Committee of the Society was held in the General Body Meeting dated 28.12.2003 and following Managing Committee has been Elected:­ S.No. M.S. No. Name of the M.C. Designation Member

1. 122 Sh. Arun KumarPresident

2. 123 Smt. Raksha Devi Vice­President

3. 121 Sh. Deepak Kumar Secretary

4. 124 Sh. Rajender Kumar Singh Treasurer CC No. 45/2010 Page 81 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

5. 125 Smt. Vishakha Singh Member The society has submitted the following documents in connection with election of the Society:­

i) Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting held on 23.11.2003 (photocopies are placed at P­318/C (Vol­I)

ii) A copy of the Agenda Notice dated 24.11.2003 was issued to all the members for the GBM of the society held on 28.12.2003 is placed at (see p­317/C (Vol­I).

iii) Service proof of the Agenda Notice issued to all the members of the society dated 24.11.2003 is placed at P­312/C to P­ 316/C (Vol­I).

iv) Photocopy of the Nomination forms of the candidates are placed at P­305/C to P­309/C (Vol­I).

v) Photo Copies of minutes of General Body dated 28.12.2003 placed at P­310/C to c

vi) Copy of minutes of MC dated 29.12.2003 placed at P­ 304/C Vol­I) The Society has produced/submitted all the relevant documents pertaining to the verification of final list of 120 members for onwards transmission to DDA for allotment of land and the same has been examined and got verified accordingly.

In view of above stated facts we may request the competent authority to consider the following:­

1. To approve the final list of 120 members for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land.

Submitted for approval please.

Sd/­                                           Sd/­
Dealing Clerk                                  AR(East)
19.3.04                                        19.3.04
                            JR(East)
                       19.3.04

RCS                                            Sd/­
                                               Narayan Diwakar (RCS)
Sd/                                            19.3.04
Ramesh Chandra
22.3.04                        JR(E)           AR(E)
             DA




CC No. 45/2010                                                            Page 82 / 214
 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                               Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

Thereafter, a note sheet written by another dealing clerk Smt. Sunita Nagpal (PW­85) on 22.03.2004 which was approved by AR(E). The same is reproduced as under:

"As approved by competent authority list may be sent to DDA for allotment of land.

Fair letter is added for signature pl.

Sd/­                                              AR(E)
Dealing Assistant                          Ramesh Chandra
22.03.04                                          22.3.04
                                           DA

Thereafter, the RCS received an application Ext.PW85/A­1(placed at page 353/C D­8 dt. 29.3.2004) which is reproduced as under:

No.­152(H) THE RANGMAHAL CO­OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSEING SOCIETY LTD.

147­G, Pocket­A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi­110096 Dated: 29.03.2004 To, The Asst. Registrar (East) Cooperative Societies Govt. of NCT of Delhi Parliament Street New Delhi­110001 Sub.: Request to change the Name of the Society & approve the New Model Bye­Laws of the Society.

Sir, This is to inform you that the Managing Committee of the Society has approved the following New Name of the Society & also adopted the New Model Bye­Laws of Cooperative Group Housing Society as per DCS Act & Rules. It has also been approved by the Special General Body members meeting held on 27.03.2004.

OLD NAME OF THE SOCIETY THE RANGMAHAL CGHS LTD.

NEW NAME OF THE SOCIETY

1. THE SILVER VIEW APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.

2. THE HILL VIEW APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.

3. THE SKYBLUE APARTMENTS CGHS LTD.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 83 / 214

 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                                     Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                                                                  sd/­
        Kindly approve the same & oblige.                         Ramesh Chandra 
                                                        29.3.04
        Thanking you,                                 DA

          Yours Sincerely,
5493/E
29/03/04           sd/­ 
       (DEEPAK KUMAR)
        SECRETARY

Encl.:­ 1. Copy of Managing Committee Meeting dated 04.03.2004.

2. Copy of Agenda Notice dated 05.03.2004

3. Copy of UPC (Service Proof) dated 05.03.2004

4. Copy of Special General Body Meeting dated 27.03.2004

5. Three copies of amended Model Bye­Laws of Co­operative Group Housing Society (in original) On this application, Sunita Nagpal wrote a note in hand which is reproduced as under:

"May kindly see the PUC recd. From the secy. Of the society regarding change of the name of the society. The society has called the GBM dtd. 27­03­04 and change the name of the society from Rang Mahal CGHS Ltd. to The Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.

The above name was unanimously approved by the Managing Committee in their meeting held on 04­03­04 (see at page 362/C. The agenda notice dtd. 5.03.04, see at page 361(c) was sent to all members through UPC dtd. 5.03.04 to call Special GBM and GBM has approved the above name unanimously in their meeting dtd. 27.03.04 see at page 354/C. The GB Members have also approved and adopted the Model Bye laws of Coop. G Housing Society unanimously in its meeting held on 27.03.04 as per DCS act and rules. Three copies of Model Bye Laws of Coop. Group Housing Society in original for approval see page 324/c to 353/c.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 84 / 214

 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                                      Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                    In view of above, we may 
           sent this file to worthy RCS for 
           approval pl.
                    Submitted pl.
           Sd/­                                                          Sunita Nagpal
                         AR(E)
              29.03.04      May kindly see 
                                    for approval
                                    Sd/­
                                    Ramesh Chandra 
                                    29.03
                            JR(E)
                                    May please approve the 
                                    change of name and adoption of
                                    model bye laws as proposed above.
                                                       Sd/­
                                                       J.S. Sindhu
                                    RCS                29.3.4
                                                       Sd/­ 
                                                       Narayan Diwakar
                                                       29/3/04
           Sd/­                     Sd/­
           Ramesh Chandra           J.S. Sindhu
           31.3.04 DA   JR(E)                    AR(E)

Thereafter, Sunita Nagpal wrote another note dated 31.03.2004 as under:

"As approved by competent authority Fair letter is added for sign pl.

Sd/­                                               Sd/­
Sunita Nagpal                                Ramesh Chandra
31.03.04                                           31/3
                                    DA

Before discussing the aforesaid note sheets, the submissions of the public servants who are the Dealing Clerk, Assistant Registrar (East), Jt. Registrar (East), Registrar Cooperative Societies, Auditor, Assistant Registrar (Audits) & Inspector have to be considered. It would be appropriate to decide some questions of law common to all the accused persons. One of the main and most important CC No. 45/2010 Page 85 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 submission on behalf of all these public servants is that they had done the work in routine manner and have relied upon the documents furnished by the society and they had no knowledge that the said documents were forged. It is, therefore, argued that they had acted in routine manner without having any knowledge of the forgery or without having any intention to abuse the official position.

In view of these common submissions, the court is faced with the question as to whether the mens rea in form of intent or knowledge is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that till recently, no judgment had thrown any light on this aspect. Therefore, when this question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Muralidhar vide his order dated 24.09.2009 referred this issue to a larger Bench. Accordingly, this issue was considered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in CRL.A. 482/2002, CRL.A. 509/2002 and CRL.A.484/2002 i.e. Runu Ghosh, T.Rama Rao and Sukhram Vs CBI vide judgment dated 21.12.2011. I reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgment as under:

"73. Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which Parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the pre­existing law, as well as the decisions of the Court­ the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii). It would be sufficient CC No. 45/2010 Page 86 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest."

.....................

"75. It would be profitable to emphasize the public servants are an entirely different class, and the level of trust reposed in them by the society is reflected in the high standards of behaviour and rectitute expected of them, both in the discharge of their duties, and otherwise. In the case of ministers­who are members of the council of Ministers (the Cabinet) in the Union and State Governments, as well as holders of other constitutional offices there is a requirement that before their appointment, each of them has to subscribe to an oath of office and scerecy according to the form set out in the Schedule, to the Constitution of India by which holders of such offices are required to take oath that he or she would discharge her or his duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will. This requirement is a constant reminder to the holder of that office that she or he is a trustee and custodian of public interest,and all decisions taken in that capacity are to be based on that factor alone. Holders of other public offices, under the State (a compendious term) are equally bound by such a condition. To ensure that they are afforded the amulet protection and immunity, the Constitution has mandated some safeguards (in the case of members of a service or holders of office under a State or the Union, the protection from arbitrary loss of employment, under Article 311, and the protection of status accorded by virtue of rules or enactments made, pursuant to Article 309 of the Constitution of India). There is an added layer of immunity in the form of requirement of sanction under section 197 or other similar provisions, to protect public servants from needless harassment. However, when the public servant Crl.A.Nos. 482/02, 509/02 & 536/02 Page 55 acts in a manner that is devoid of public interest, not only would the action become suspect, then, having regard to the nature of his action, and the heightened degree of blameworthiness, he is said to have transgressed the bounds of protection afforded to his decisions, and is then exposed to prosecution."

"77. The court, as a consequence has to determine the objective criteria by which acts (of public servants) without public interest, are to be CC No. 45/2010 Page 87 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 judged, if mens rea (to obtain pecuniary advantage or valuable thing to another) is not a necessary ingredient. This exercise is essential because in the absence of mens rea (which has been ruled out) the court has to say what "acts"

resulting in someone obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing are "without public interest". Obviously the mere fact that a third party obtains pecuniary advantage, or a valuable thing, is insufficient; a supplier of equipment to public servants or offices, a travel agent who makes bookings for a public agency, a businessman or corporate group granted licenses or clearances, by departments or agencies of the Government, would all stand to benefit. Many of these decisions are infact, and all are, expected to be in public interest. Therefore, the kind of behaviour which amounts to an "act" resulting in someone "obtaining pecuniary advantage" or "valuable thing" without public interest" needs to be spelt out."

Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, adv. for accused J. S. Sindhu (A7) argues that Hon'ble Delhi High Court had proceeded on a wrong presumption that there is no judgement on this aspect till date. He has referred to J. Jayalalitha Vs State (MANU/TN/1423/2001) decided on 4.12.2001. Ld. Counsel for J. S. Sindhu (A7) has read the entire judgement and I reproduced the relevant portions of the same as under :­ "...........The contention of the prosecution that mere exercise of power to confer pecuniary advantage to another person even without any dishonesty, can attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be accepted, since if such a contention is accepted, any order passed by a public servant, which confers pecuniary advantage, can be prosecuted under the said Act. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relates to the offence of criminal misconduct, whether it is under Clause (i) or (ii) or (iii) and CC No. 45/2010 Page 88 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 therefore, the offence recognized under all the three clauses is only an offence of criminal misconduct. In my view, all clauses in Section 13(1)(d) of the Act require mens rea and it is an essential ingredient for the offence. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v.

State of Kerala (AIR 1963 SC 116), which was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Major S. K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra (MANU/SC/0139/1976 : (1977) 2 SCC 394), shows that in order to come within the mischief of the Section, the abuse of position must necessarily be dishonest on the part of the accused. If the words "corrupt, illegal means or abuse" are not read into Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the said Act, innocent persons will be harassed in the course of performance of their official duties."

The judgments referred to above show that what is sought to be punished under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not mere misconduct but criminal misconduct and for criminal misconduct, the element of mens rea is essential and if there is no mens rea, the act does not by itself become punishable, except in certain cases, like Section 304A IPC as it provides punishment for rash and negligent act committed without mens rea.

I have already extracted Section 13(1)

(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Crruption Act, 1988, and in that, the words, "without any public interest" (emphasis supplied) are found. The words, "without any public CC No. 45/2010 Page 89 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 interest" used in the said Section show that for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(iii), the prosecution must establish that the interest shown for obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, was private interest and even if the act serves one public interest and if the said one public interest is against another public interest, a person cannot be prosecuted, since the Section states emphatically that the act shall be done without any public interest. The word 'any' is therefore to be understood that there should be a zero public interest. The word 'any' is defined in Judicial Dictionary of words and Phrases (Fifth Edition by John S. James) as a word which excludes limitation or qualification. Therefore, the word 'any' used Section 13(1)(d)(iii) is absolute. The trial Judge has also conceded in his judgment that tourism involves public interest, but went on to hold that it cannot override another public interest, i.e. Ecological system. Therefore, it is not a case where we can fit in the words "without any public interest", To make out an offence of criminal misconduct, two requirements are necessary and they are, (1) the absence of any public interest whatsoever, and (2) the knowledge of the accused that his act is without any public interest. The first requirement is the objective absence, as a fact, of any public interest and the second requirement flows from the legal maxim regarding mens rea.

If the accused acted bona fide without any public interest, believing that he is acting in CC No. 45/2010 Page 90 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the public interest, he is not guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct."

Regarding Jayalalitha judgement, I would say that when a judgement of our own High Court on the issue of Section 13(1)(d)

(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act is before this court, the same is binding upon this court. Moreover, a careful perusal of this judgement would show that this judgement is not contrary to the dicta of our own High Court in Runu Ghosh case, rather it supplements the same. The purport of this judgement of Hon'ble High Court is that the element of "mens rea" is applicable to Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act only to the extent that the public servant should also have the knowledge that his act is without any public interest. This observation has been admitted by Hon'ble High Court in Runu Ghosh case but in different words. In Runu Ghosh case in para 79 Hon'ble High Court has observed that "however it is only those facts done with complete and manifest disregard to the norms, and manifestly injurious to public interest which were avoidable, but for the public servant overlooking or disregarding precautions and not heeding the safeguards he or she was accepted and which resulted in pecuniary advantage to another..........". To put it in different words, the judgement means that the if the public servant knew that his act of over looking or disregarding the precautions would be injurious to public interest, he CC No. 45/2010 Page 91 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 would be covered under the mischief of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The knowledge of the injury to public interest, however, has to be deduced from the note sheets because normally no other evidence would be available against such public servants. The conjoint reading of both the judgements would lead to the conclusion that when an issue affecting public service comes before a public servant, it is natural that such public person would know that any disregard of the norms would harm the public interest. This knowledge of public interest has to be gathered from the facts of the case. For example in the present case allotment of land/plot to the society would be an act in public interest but if land is granted to a fake society, it would be adverse to the public interest. In the present case the RCS officials were under the obligations to verify and certify the members so that land is allotted to a proper society. Needless to say that land is extremely expensive in NCT of Delhi, therefore the matter before RCS officials was of utmost importance. The importance of this issue has been specified by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kaveri judgement and I reproduce the relevant portion of the same as under:­ "It is open to the Registrar to fix a time limit within which the defects, if any, must be removed by the society so as to enable the Registrar to grant approval. If the defects are not removed within the stipulated time, then the society can have no grievance if the CC No. 45/2010 Page 92 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 approval is not accorded. But once the approval is accorded the same must relate back to the date of the filing of the list. What is the effect of approval? The effect of approval is that the Registrar recognises the correctness of the list as filed by the society."

I may point it out that in the charges framed by this court, it has been specifically mentioned that these public servants had acted against the public interest with a view to obtain pecuniary advantage to the other accused persons. In the 'Runu Ghosh case', it has also been decided that since the offences of corruption are done under the cloak of official duties and in a very clever and shrouded manner, the only evidence available is note sheets against them and the court would be fully justified to draw appropriate inferences from such note sheets. This court has to carefully peruse the note sheets to consider as to whether there has been any abuse of powers, as per Section 13(1)(d)(ii) or whether the public servant has acted without any public interest to obtain pecuniary advantage to any party, bringing the case under Clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d).

Case law cited by accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to Union of India Vs. Major J. s. Khanna 1971 SPPL (LF) 6096 SC wherein it was held by Hn'ble Supreme Court that if a public servant had not been careful or was grossly negligent, his action would not be said to have CC No. 45/2010 Page 93 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 been actuated with criminal intent.

I have perused this case law. The public servant, in the said case, was facing trial under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, whereas the present accused i.e. Narayan Diwkar is facing trial under section1 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, clauses of which have been interpreted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Runu Ghosh' case discussed above. Further I would say that the facts mentioned in this authority would not be applicable because the action of the public servant was actuated by an emergency caused by China War in the year 1962 and Hon'ble supreme Court clearly held that "it was, however, possible that the goods might have been required immediately specially in an emergency like the one which was then prevailing and officer might find it difficult, if not impossible, to go through the........., possible and desirable in peace time." Therefore Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the public servant in the said case. However in the present case, there was no emergency to act speedily ignoring of safeguards. 1976 SPPL (LE) 8169 SC Major S. K. Kaley Vs. State of Maharashtra has also been referred to. In this case also the public servant had acted during the Chinese attack in 1962, when an emergency was declared and the Army required certain engineering tools to be supplied immediately. For the aforesaid reasons these authorities are also not applicable to the facts in hand.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 94 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to K. R. Purshothaman Vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 Supreme Court cases 631. In para 21 of the said judgement, it has been held that for convicting a person under the provision of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, there must be evidence on record that accused had obtained for himself or for any other person, in valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) that no pecuniary advantage had been obtained by accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) or by any public servant in this case. It is argued by Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, adv. that the Runu Ghosh judgement in Hon'ble High court of Delhi is in contravention of aforesaid of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further argued that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement had not referred to this judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is therefore argued that this court would be justified in ignoring the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in "Runu Ghosh" case.

I have perused the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and I am of the opinion that Ld. Defence Counsel hs not read the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in proper perspective. There cannot be any scope of any disagreement on the point as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement that "obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself or any other persons" is the main ingredient of Section 13(1) (d) on Prevention of Corruption CC No. 45/2010 Page 95 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Act 1988. It is also true that prosecution hs been unable to prove any evidence to show that if any public servant had obtained any pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. But it must be kept in mind that the charge against the public servants in this case is under Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act i.e. an attempt to obtain the pecuniary advantage for himself or for some other person. Since it is an offence of "attempt" only therefore there is no question of these public servants having actually obtained any pecuniary advantage to themselves or to the persons operating the fake society. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interpreted Section 13(1)(d)(iii), as has been done in "Runu Ghosh" case by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore it cannot be said that the ratio decided in Runu Ghosh is in contradiction to the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2009 Crl. L. J. 3450 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valubale thing or pecuniary advantage, offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established." It is argued by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence that any of the public servants demanded or requested for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Perusal of the judgement would show that the public servant had demanded a sum of Rs.25/­ for delivery of the driving license. On the complaint of the complainant the public CC No. 45/2010 Page 96 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 servant was caught red handed in trap laid by the police. However the prosecution did not examine the complainant during trial. In the said judgement Section 13(1)(d) was read in reference to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and since prosecution could not prove any demand by the public servant of a pecuniary advantage, in absence of such proof the appellant was acquitted.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred 1971 SPPL STPL (LE) 9633 SC, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word "abuse of position" includes the element of dishonesty in the act of the public servant. I fully agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel but would hesiting to add that in Runu Ghosh case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also taken the same view on the point of "abuse" of official position. However "Runu Ghosh" case further interprets 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act and holds that mens rea is required for 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act but is not an essential ingredient of 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 1979 STPL (LE) 9597 SC. I may point out that this is a case under Section 5(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. In this case the allegation was that a contractor had executed the work and his bills contained the number of labourers engaged and amount pertaining to their wages at the sanctioned rate. The witness was brought by CC No. 45/2010 Page 97 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 prosecution to prove that the number of labourers, shown to have been engaged on each date, was not correct. Further the work was done in contravention of the General Financial Rules and it was alleged that inflated bills were presented and said amount was received.

I have considered this authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that there was no proof of falsity of any entries made in the document. Hence the convictions were set aside and accused persons were acquitted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has not settled any law, rather the judgement is based upon appreciation of facts. This case law is not applicable to the facts of this case because in this case there is clearcut proof of forgery of documents.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2002 STPL (LE) 31062 SC. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "mere acceptance of money without their being any other evidence would not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 13(1)(d)". This case law is not applicable because the case in hand is not a case of acceptance of any money. I may point out that in this case also Section 13(1)(d) has been discussed with reference to Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 2003 STPL (LE) 32047 SC. Perusal of this judgement would show that the concerned Minister of Power and Energy, Karnataka approached the CC No. 45/2010 Page 98 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 appellants seeking to help out during the crises of scarcity and electricity in their State. Such emergent circumstances are not appearing in the case in hand. However I would point out the para 18 of the judgement, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring the shorter Oxford Dictionary opined that the word "obtained" means to secure or gain "money" as the result of request or effort. It was also held that prosecution must prove that accused had the necessary mental state or degree of fault at the relevant time. It was also held that one must turn to definition of particular crimes to ascertain the precise mens rea required for specific offences. I am of the opinion that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Runu Ghosh has dealt with the aspect of mens rea in detailed in reference to Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of P. C. Act.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to 1987 Crl. L. J. 1061 on the point as to what is "reasonable belief". It was held that "whether or not the official concerned had seized the articles in the "reasonable belief" that the goods were smuggled goods, is not a question on which the court can sit in appeal.......... This court had administered caution to the courts not to sit in appeal in regard to this question and has observed that if prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief, the court have to accept the officer to believe regardless of the fact whether the court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief...... Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over indulgent eye which seeks no evil anywhere within the range of its eye site. The circumstances have to be viewed from the CC No. 45/2010 Page 99 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 experienced eye of the officer, who is well equipped to entertain the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in the light of said circumstances."

It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) that being RCS having the assistance of large number of subordinates acted on a reasonable belief that the note/proposal presented to him contained the true and correct facts and that in such reasonable belief accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has approved the recommendations of the subordinates. Here I would like to advert to the facts of the case law cited by the accused. The above quoted observation were passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar and Mr. Justice S. Natrajan while dealing with the facts wherein a passenger was having a waist chain made of pure gold quoted with mercury so as to give it an appearance of being made of silver. It was seized by the Custom Department "on a reasonable belief" that it was a smuggled. It was held in this judgement that when custom officer had testified that he had seized the same in the reasonable belief that the same was an article made of smuggled gold, in such circumstances the burden of proof shifts on the person from whom such article was seized to show that it was not smuggled gold in view of Section 123 of Custom Act. Therefore Hon'ble High held that the circumstances have to be seen from the experienced eye of the office, who is well equipped interpret the circumstances and to form CC No. 45/2010 Page 100 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 reasonable belief. The purport of this case law is that when a party claims good faith, the burden shifts on the opposite party to prove the bad faith. Therefore, it will have to be considered by this court as to whether accused Narayan Diwakar had a reasonable belief about the correctness of the records submitted to the RCS. However if the circumstances are proved by the prosecution, which show his involvement in the conspiracy with persons operating the fake society, the plea of "reasons to believe", and "good faith" would not be available to him.

Accused Narayan Diwkar (A8) has referred to A. S. Krishan and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala (MANU/SC/0233/2004) which define the word "knowledge and reason to believe".

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to Union of India Vs. Chhaju Ram (A2003) 11 SCC 584, Regional Manager Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey 1976 (3) SCC 334 and Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. UPPSC (2003) SCC 584 and submits that the observations of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Courts should be read in the relevant context and even one additional fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. It is therefore submitted that Runu ghosh is not applicable to the facts of this case. I agree with defence submission that the facts of Runu Ghosh case and this case are altogether different, but principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble High Court in CC No. 45/2010 Page 101 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Runu Ghosh case would be applicable and binding on all the courts subordinate to it.

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has referred to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Sheetla Sahay & Ors. 2009 VIII Ad (SC) 630, C. P. Thakur Vs CBI (2009)(110) DRJ 1 High Court of Delhi and R. Balakrishan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1996 Supreme court 901 in which it was consistently held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was a sine qua non for prosecuting the accused persons under IPC offences. This aspect would be considered by me at a later stage.

Accused Narayan Diwakar (A8) has filed a copy of the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by Ld. Special Judge in RC 16(E)/2005/EOW­1/CBI/N. Delhi. It is submitted that this case pertained to New Hind CGHS society and Ld. Special Judge whil discussing the role of Narayan Diwkar, the RCS, observed that "his conduct in not calling the original file from North Zone could at best be taken as negligent act or dereliction of duty on his part". I am of the opinion that the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case and therefore discharge of Narayan Diwakar in the said case will have no bearing upon this case.

Case law cited by accused J. S. Sindhu (A7) On the point of conspiracy accused has referred to following authorities :­ CC No. 45/2010 Page 102 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

1. K. R. Purshothaman Vs. State of Kerala 2005 (12) SCC 631.

2. Navjot Sandhu Vs State of NCT 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1715.

3. Sudhdeo Jha Uptal Vs The State of Bihar AIR 1957 SC 466.

4. Rita Handa Vs CBI 2008 (3) JCC 248.

5. Shreekatiah Ramayya Munipalli Vs State of Bombay 1955 AIR (SC) 287.

6. Amrik Singh Vs State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309.

7. Kantongen Kemi OCHFORVALTNING Vs State through CBI 2004 [1] JCC 218.

8. Anil Kr. Bose Vs. State of Biar 1974 [4] SCC 616.

9. Shreya Jha Vs CBI 2007 JCC {3} 2318.

10.State (through) CBI Vs Someshwar & Ors. 120 (2005) DLT

324.

11.A. Subair Vs State of Kerala 2009 Crl. L. J. 3450.

I would only hold that the law of conspiracy is now well defined and for the sake of brevity I am not inclined to discuss the same. Suffice it to say that the case law cited by Ld. Defence Counsel state the well established principle of law on conspiracy. However each case has to be considered in light of its peculiar circumstances. Case law cited by accused Sri Chand (A1) and Mohan Lal (A11) Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. for accused Sri Chand has referred to 2011 (3) JCC 1687 of Delhi High Court and (2005) 11 Supreme Court cases 600 on the point of conspiracy and circumstantial evidence. The question of conspiracy would be considered while discussing the role of each accused. However I would say that the aforesaid case law lase down the principle governing law of evidence pertaining to conspiracy and circumstantial evidence.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 103 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has referred to a judgement dated 6.7.2012 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in writ petition (Crl.) no. 135 of 2008. In this order Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in absence of any specific direction from this court, the CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR.....". It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that even in the present case there is no specific order of Hon'ble High Court for registration of an FIR. Therefore the entire investigation and trial are vitiated and therefore the accused persons should be acquitted.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in order Ex.PW90/A­7 Hon'ble High Court has passed a specific direction to investigate all the matters of 135 societies, which includes Rangmahal CGHS. It is submitted that an investigation is started by CBI only after registration of FIR and when Hon'ble High Court had ordered initiations of investigation, it would mean the registration of an FIR.

I have perused the aforesaid case law cited by Ld. Defence Counsel. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered to conduct an inquiry with respect to execution of Taj Heritage Project at Agra. CBI had registered the said case but apart from the said case CBI also registered a DA case. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that CBI had gone beyond the directions of the Supreme Court and as such there was no direction to register a DA case, the FIR registered by CC No. 45/2010 Page 104 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 CBI for DA case was quashed. However the order of Hon'ble High Court in this case is very specific i.e. Investigation of 135 societies by CBI. It is not in dispute that Rangmahal is one of these societies. Therefore registration of an FIR and investigation of the same is perfectly as per the order of Hon'ble High Court and I find no infirmity in the same.

Accused Sri Chand has filed a certified copy of an order datd 30.4.2012 passed by Ld. Special Judge in the matter of Taj CGHS in which the only evidence against Sri Chand was that he had approached M/s Vibha on 30.12.2004 and paid a sum of s.21,777/­ for issuance of public notice in the name of Golden Valley CGHS Ltd. Ld. Special Judge held that this sole fact was not enough to connect him to the criminal conspiracy. I am of the opinion that in the present case apart from the similar evidence, there is further evidence against Sri Chand. Therefore accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground that he was discharged in another case. The entire evidence concerning him would be appreciated further.

Case law cited by accused Rakesh Kr. Hasija (A4) He has furnished a list of cases in which he was discharged by Ld. Special Judges. It is further submitted that in a case pertaining to Kanak Durga CGHS, CBI had filed closure report. I am of the opinion that each case has its own peculiar facts and on the basis of one case, acquittal cannot be sought in another case. The role of accused CC No. 45/2010 Page 105 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Rakesh Kr. Hasija would be seen in context of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Case law cited by accused Anna Wankhede (A10) Ld. Counsel for accused Anna Wankhede has referred to following case law :­

1. Punjab & Sind Bank Vs M/s Kunshiv Profiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. & ors. RFA App. No. 460/2007 (Delhi High Court).

2. Surinder Kaur Vs Sardar Mangal Singh & ors. C.R.P. 589/1998. D.O.D. 6.3.2009 (Delhi High Court).

3. H. Siddiqui Vs A. Ramalingam (2011)4 SCC 240 (Supreme Court)

4. M. Durga Prasad Vs State of A.P. 2003(2) ALD Cri 5645, 2004 CriLJ 242 (Andhra High Court).

5. State (Delhi Administration) Vs Paliram 1979 AIR 14, 1979 SCR(1) 931 (Supreme Court).

6. Ashok Dulichand Vs Madhavlal Dube & another (Supreme Court).

7. Sayyed Ahmad Vs. State 2010[2] JCC 1416 (Delhi High Court).

8. Surjit Rai Vs Prem Kumar Khera (1995) 110 PLR 140 (Punjab­ Haryana High Court)

9. Rakesh Kumar Vs State 2004[1] JCC 110 (Delhi High Court)

10.Bheri Nageswara Rao s. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors. AIR 2006 A.P. 314 (Andhra Pradesh H.C.)

11.Alamgir Vs State (NCT of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 282 (Supreme Court)

12.State of Gujrat Vs. Shah Sanjay Kumar K. Judgment dat 25.2.2000 (Gujrat H.C.) For sake of brevity, I am not inclined to discus above stated authorities separately. But in nut shell, following principle have been enunciated in these case law :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 106 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

1. The original document is the best and primary evidence and secondary evidence should not be allowed unless the circumstances offer sufficient justification for reception of secondary evidence as per Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

2. Photostat copy of a document cannot be received in evidence unless it is shown that it is in possession of a person against whom document is sought to be proved.

3. The hand writing of a person would not be compared from a photo copy because in these days of advance technology, signatures from one place can be lifted and placed on another document by super imposition.

4. The specimen hand writing must be taken in presence of a Magistrate, otherwise it cannot be received in evidence.

5. That the opinion of hand writing expert is a weak evidence.

I agree with point no. 1 and 2 as the same lay down the law on the condition when secondary evidence becomes admissible. However as regards point no.3, I would say that this finding in Shree Surjit Rai Vs Shri Prem Kumar Khera has been given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and does not lay down any principle of law. Therefore I am of the opinion that where there is no possibility of any such super­imposition, the opinion of hand writing expert would be of great importance.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 107 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 As regards the weight of the opinion of hand writing expert, I would say that there were divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State, the full Bench of Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011) upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly held that the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the Magistrate.

Regarding the importance of opinion of hand writing expert, reliance may be placed on Jaipal Vs State and Rajender Vs State. I am of the opinion that an expert's opinion is an evidence in itself. Section 45 of CC No. 45/2010 Page 108 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two handwritings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act s the same establishes the identity of a person as writer of the questioned hand writing. To say it differently, the matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 9 read with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the handwriting expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction cannot be based solely upon the report of handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of handwriting and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a handwriting expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the handwriting. If the handwritings match there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'b le Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under:

"It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The court observed that handwriting expert is not an CC No. 45/2010 Page 109 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."

It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated.

In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.

The question as to whether the photocopies of the proceedings qualify the conditions of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act would be discussed at appropriate place.

Whether the officials of the office of RCS are not public servants?

It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. for A2, A3, A4 & A5 that none of the officials of the office of RCS (who arrayed as accused herein) are public servants.

It was also contended by all the other officials of the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, including accused Narayan Diwakar CC No. 45/2010 Page 110 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 that the officials of the Registrar Cooperative Societies are not the public servants under the Indian Penal Code and hence cannot be charged of the offence under the Indian Penal Code, per State of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 937.

It is also argued that Section 89 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 makes a liquidator, a deemed public servant under the Act, meaning thereby, that the other officials of the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies are neither the public servants nor the deemed public servants, hence cannot be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code.

The argument of the accused persons is wholly misconceived. Section 89 only makes a Liquidator, a deemed public servant. It does not say that other officials; on the payroll of the Government, are excluded from the definition of public servant or that the said officials are not public servants. The Act of 1972 only speaks of a deemed public servant, who was earlier not a public servant under the Act but was created for the purposes of the Act only.

Even otherwise, in State of M. P. Vs. Rameshwar & Ors., 2009 Crl. J. 2415 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had put to rest this controversy and in para no. 37 has pointed out that Laljit Rajshi Shah's case has since been overruled, after the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein the Chairman, directors etc. of a Cooperative Society were made public servants.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 111 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 It is important to note that Laljit Shah's case the main question for consideration was if the Managing Director/Director/Officials of the Society were a public servant or not and in such context the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Section 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines public servant as a person who is on the pay roll of the Centre or State Government. It is not denied by any of the officials of the Registrar Cooperative Societies that they were not on the pay roll of the Government.

Accordingly I find no substance in the arguments of Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that the officials of RCS office are not the public servants. Rather they are public servants as defined in Section 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

Requirement of sanction u/s 197 CrPC It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija, Prahlad Kumar Thirwani, Jitender Singh Sharma, Jasbir Singh Sindhu, though sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act has been accorded. I may point out that since accused Narayan Diwakar, Ramesh Chandra and Faiz Mohd. had retired, there was no requirement for obtaining sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act. Ld. Defence Counsels argue that for a prosecution under IPC, a sanction CC No. 45/2010 Page 112 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 under Section 197 CrPC is required, irrespective of the fact as to whether the public servant is still serving or has retired. I have considered the submissions of the accused persons. All the accused persons have argued that since there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC, therefore they cannot be convicted under any IPC offence including under Section 120B IPC. Almost everyone of them has referred to R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala and another AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 901 in their support. Therefore I would like to reproduce relevant paragraphs of this judgement as under :

"6. The next question is whether the offence alleged against the appellant can be said to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It was contended by the learned counsel for the State that the charge of conspiracy would not attract Section 197 of the Code for the simple reason that it is no part of the duty of a Minister while discharging his official duties to enter into a Criminal conspiracy. In support of his contention he placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Harihar Prasad v State of Bihar, 1972 CriLJ 707:(1972)8 SCC 89. He drew our attention to the observations in paragraph 74 of the judgment where the Court, while considering the question whether the acts complained of were directly concerned with the official duties of the concerned public servants, observed that it was no duty of a public servant to enter into a criminal conspiracy and hence want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code was no bar to the prosecution. The question whether the acts complained of had a direct nexus or relation with the discharge of official duties by the concerned public servant would depend on the CC No. 45/2010 Page 113 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 facts of each case. There can be no general proposition that whenever there is a charge of criminal conspiracy levelled against a public servant in or out office the bar of Section 197(1) of the Code would have no application. Such a view would render Section 197(1) of the Code specious.

Therefore, the question would have to be examined in the facts of each case. The observations were made by the Court in the special facts of that case which clearly indicated that the criminal conspiracy entered into by the three delinquent public servants had no relation whatsoever with their official duties and, therefore, the bar of Section 197(1) was not attracted. It must also be remembered that the said decision was rendered keeping in view Section 197 (1), as it then stood, but we do not base our decision on that distinction. Our attention was next invited to a three­Judge decision in S. B. Saha v. M. S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 : (AIR 1979 SC 1841). The relevant observations relied upon are to be found in paragraph 17 of the judgment. It is pointed out that the words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty employed Section 197 (1) of the Code, are capable of both a narrow and a wide interpretation but their Lordships pointed out that if they were construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, it is no part of an official duty to commit and offence, and never can be. At the same time, if they were too widely construed, they will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed or is purported to be performed.

The night approach, it was pointed out, was to see that the meaning of this expression lies between these two extremes. While on the hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection. Only an act constituting an offence directly or reasonably connected with his CC No. 45/2010 Page 114 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 official duty will require sanction for prosecution. To put it briefly, it is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within the scope of the afore­ quoted words, the protection of Section 197 will have to be extended to the concerned public servant. This decision, therefore, points out what approach the Court should adopt while construing Section 197(1) of the Code and its application to the facts of the case on hand.

7. In the present case, the appellant is charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co­accused while functioning as a Minister. The Criminal conspiracy alleged is that he sold electricity to an industry in the State of Karnataka 'without the consent of the Government of Kerala which is an illegal act' under the provision of the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Kerala Electricity Board Rules framed thereunder. The allegations is that he in pursuance of the said alleged conspiracy abused his official position and illegally sold certain units to the private industry in Bangalore (Karnataka) which profited the private industry to the tune of Rs. 19,58,630.40 or more and it is, therefore, obvious that the criminal conspiracy alleged against the appellant is that while functioning as the Minister for Electricity he without the consent of the Government of Kerala supplied certain units of electricity to a private industry in Karnataka. Obviously, he did this in the discharge of his duties as a Minister. The allegations is that it was an illegal act in as much as the consent of the Government of Kerala was not obtained before this arrangement was entered into and the supply was effected. For that reason, it is said that he had committed an illegality and hence he was liable to be punished for criminal conspiracy under Section 120­B I.P.C. It is, therefore, clear from the charge that the act alleged is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty as a Minister and would, therefore, attract the protection of Section 197(1) of the Act.

8. For the above reasons, we are unable to accept CC No. 45/2010 Page 115 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the view taken by the High Court of Kerala insofar as the requirement of sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code is concerned, in relation to the charge of criminal conspiracy. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court insofar as that charge is concerned and hold that sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code was a sine qua non. As pointed out earlier so far as the second charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the view of the High Court remains undisturbed. The appeal is allowed accordingly and will stand so disposed of."

Accused persons have also referred to following authorities in their support :­

(i) Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Dass & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1599;

(ii)Paul Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Anr., JT 2007(5) SC 525 &

(iii)Anjani Kumar Vs State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 1992.

I am not inclined to discuss these three authorities because the same contain the same principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Balakrishna Pillai case. A perusal of this case would show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the criteria, which had already been held repeatedly by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This criteria is that while deciding the question of applicability of Section 197(1) CrPC, neither this provision can be interpreted too widely nor too narrowly and a balance has to be maintained by the court because if this provision is construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for it is no part of an CC No. 45/2010 Page 116 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 official duty to commit an offence and never can be. At the same time, if they were too widely construed, they will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence committed in course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right approach is to see that the meaning of the expression lies between two extremes. Therefore the court will have to assess the facts and to take a decision as to whether the conspiracy charge is so intertwined with the discharge of the official duty that a sanction under Section 197 would be required, or, the official duty is discharged in such a fashion that the public servant becomes active stimulator of the conspiracy in question. In later case, the sanction under Section 197 CrPC would not be required. Therefore the aforesaid authorities can not be applied without automatically for or against the public servant.

In 'Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI decided on 5.5.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 340 of 2008, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was observed that:

"There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is actually not required when the often committed are under the PCA. It is submitted that a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the PCA cannot be cloaked with any immunity to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar. The matter can be looked at from CC No. 45/2010 Page 117 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 another angle as well. The petitioners have been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Under Section 3 of PCA, the Special Judge is empowered to try not only "any offence punishable under this Code" but under Section 3(1)(d) "any conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or any abetment of the offences specified in clause (I).

Under Section 40 IPC, it has been mentioned that in Chapter V­A and in Sections 109, 110 IPC the word "offence" denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined." Under Section 41 IPC, a special law has been defined as "a law applicable to a particular subject." Therefore, in terms of Section 40 and 41 IPC, the PCA would be a Special Law. The offence under Section 120B in Chapter V­A IPC would therefore also become punishable under the PCA which is a special enactment for that purpose. Once the sanction under Section 19 PCA has been obtained, there is no need to obtain a separate sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 120B IPC."

Thus, the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 5.5.2009 has categorically observed the offence under Section 120B in chapter V­A IPC would also become punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence once sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act has been obtained, no sanction under Section 197 CrPC would be required.

Similar is the law settled in 'Kaushal Kumar Vs. CBI, 2009 (1) LRC 56, Delhi.

The aforesaid legal proposition has been reiterated by Hon'ble CC No. 45/2010 Page 118 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Mr. Justice M. L. Mehta in C. K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI) 2012 IV AD (DELHI) 214, wherein it was held that if there is a sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act, the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC would not come to the rescue of an accused even if the public servant has been charged for IPC offences.

Therefore A2, A4, A5 and A6 cannot claim any benefit on the ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC as the sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act stands proved against them. Regarding A2, A3 and A8, I would say that the aforesaid case law cited by me clearly shows that an offence of a conspiracy is clearly beyond the purview of discharge of official duties.

Therefore it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to prove its charge against these accused persons under Section 120B IPC. I may point out that being in conspiracy with the persons who have committed the forgeries of various records of Rangmahal CGHS would be altogether a different act, which is not connected with performance of official duties. In this case the records of the society have been forged by the private person and presented in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies. If the RCS officials were hobnobbing with these offenders, by no stretch of imagination, they can claim protection under Section 197 CrPC because in that case their role would go beyond the official act.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 119 / 214

 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                     Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                                Sri Chand (A1)

Sh. R. P. Shukla, Adv. submits that there are only two prosecution witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution against him. It is submitted that both the witnesses are highly unreliable. There is no evidence to corroborate their testimonies.

Here it is necessary to discuss the evidence of these two witnesses i.e. PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena, and PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar. PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena had testified that he had been doing the business of advertisement in the name and style of M/s V. A. Agency since 2001 at C­28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi­91. He testified that he is the proprietor of M/s V. A. Agency and the he is running another firm by the name of Vibha Adds, which is being run by him but the proprietor of the same is his wife Smt. Rashmi Saxena. This firm is also being operated from C­28, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi­91. He testified that M/s V. A. Agency is doing advertisement for Newspapers other then Hindustan Times, whereas, the Vibha Adds is quick booking Center of Hindustan times Newspaper. He testified that he had produced the documents mentioned in the seizure memo dated 13.9.2005 to Inspector Sh. C. S. Prakash Narayan pertaining to advertisement given in Times of India Newspaper in respect to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. He testified that this advertisement was published in the Times of India on asking of accused Sri Chand. He also proved certified true copy of CC No. 45/2010 Page 120 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 notice Ex.PW82/A pertaining to Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. no.152. He also proved the certified true copy of the bill/cash memo having invoice no.52 dated 4.12005 issued in the name of Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. He also proved the certified copy of the bill cum receipt dated 27.12.2004 issued by Times of India Group of Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd and receipt of payment of Rs, 22,848/­, which was given after deduction of the commission of Rs. 4032/­. He proved the certified true copy of release order dated 27.12.2004, which was sent to Times of India regarding publishing of public notice in respect of Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd. He testified that payment for publishing of public notice in the Newspaper was given by accused Sri Chand. He proved his statement under Section 164 CrPC, which is Ex.PW82/F. He testified that the accused, present in the court, seemed to be Sri Chand, who had contact him for publishing the advertisement in the Newspaper.

Ld. Defence Counsel submits that first of all this accused is shacky as to the identity of accused Sri Chand. Secondly the receipt was not issued in the name of Sri Chand rather in the name of society. Therefore even the receipt does not connect Sri Chand with the conspiracy. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that in cross examination, this witness testifies that Sri Chand did not give him any request in writing nor he gave the contents in writing rather he CC No. 45/2010 Page 121 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 gave him a already written paper containing contents of the advertisement. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the testimony of PW82 is vague and weak. It is submitted that on the basis of such weak testimony, it would be highly unjustified to read this testimony of PW82 against accused Sri chand.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the witnesses had identified the accused Sri Chand categorically out of many accused persons present in the court.

I would refer to the testimony of PW82 here. He testified that "the person present in the court seems to be like Sri Chand, who had contacted him for publishing in the said newspaper". This answer has not come in reply to any leading question by the prosecution. Rather he has identified him as the person, who had contacted him for publishing the advertisement. The court is not always to go literal meaning rather the court should understand as to what the witness wants to say. The witnesses normally testify in Hindi and its translation into English should not be read in a way to defeat the spirit of ocular testimony. I may add here that it is nowhere suggested that accused Sri Chand had never met him or the persons, who had given the advertisement was some other person than accused Sri Chand. Therefore I am of the opinion that the identity of accused Sri Chand as the person who contacted PW82 and gave advertisement stands proved. In cross examination he has testified CC No. 45/2010 Page 122 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 that accused Sri Chand had given the advertisement in Times of India in respect of silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd. This testimony is corroborated by the fact that even the bill/cash memo Ex.PW82/C is issued in the name of Silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd.

It is pertinent to note that list of fake members of Rangmahal CGHS was approved by RCS on 19.03.2004 and thereafter name of the society was changed to Silver View Apartment CGHS Ltd. by RCS at the request of society and thereafter the list was sent to DDA with a recommendation for allotment of land. However, DDA returned these lists of all 135 societies asking for verification of the members. Pursuant to this situation, accused Sri Chand issued advertisement to all the members in Times of India, copy of which is Ex.PW82/B which is reproduced as under:

NOTICE SILVER VIEW APARTMENT CGHS LIMITED 147­G, Pocket­A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­96 (REGN. No. 152) This is in Compliance of the Press Advertisement by the Registrar Co­operative Societies, Delhi on 18/12/ 2004 in the Leading Newspaper we request all the member of the society to contact the society office within 7 days from the date of publish of this advertisement to furnish the information desired by the RCS Office for forwarding CC No. 45/2010 Page 123 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the list of members to DDA for allotment of Land President/Secretary It is necessary to mention here that accused Sri Chand summoned a record of this evidence in his defence, but, when one Manish Shukla, Dy. Manager (Advertising Department), Times of India appeared with the record, on 30.04.2012 in the court, accused Sri Chand dropped this witness. These proceedings are written in the order sheet dt. 30.04.2012. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that an adverse inference may be drawn for deliberate withholding of this witness by accused Sri Chand that this advertisement was given in the newspaper by none other person than Sri Chand. There is also another reason as to why advertisement was given by Sri Chand in Newspaper. I may point out that the affidavits of all 120 members were prepared in one day i.e. on 29.12.2003. All these affidavits were in fact fake affidavits. If all these members were real and so active to have purchased the stamp papers on 29.12.2003 and had also filed their affidavits on that very day, it meant that they were closely connected each other and were highly active in the affairs of the society, the office bearer of this society would not have faced any difficulty in informing all these members to furnish their identity proofs to RCS through the office bearers of the society. But since all these members were fake therefore the only option available to these fake operators was to publish an advertisement in the Newspaper.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 124 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to an order of Ld. Special Judge of Rohini wherein he was pleased to discharge accused Sri Chand on this evidence.

I have perused this order and I am of the opinion that in the said case Ld. Special Judge did not consider this evidence sufficient enough to connect with the conspiracy of forging and creating new society. However in the present case further evidence is forthcoming.

PW83 Sh. Neeraj Kumar is a Chartered Accountant. He testified that as per the instructions of accused Sri Chand, he had prepared the balance sheet, income expenditure, receipt payments and other statements pertaining to Rangmahal CGHS. He testified that the requisite details in this respect were provided by him. He proved the balance sheets Ex.PW83/A and Ex.PW83/B. He testified that he had charged Rs.6000­6500/­ from Sushil Kumar Sharma, the employee of Sri Chand.

Ld. Defence Counsel has strongly assailed this evidence. Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to the balance sheets and the audit charges. It is submitted that this is contrary to his testimony in cross examination where he states that he usually charges Rs.200/­ per year. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to the cross examination of this witness wherein he has admitted that accused Sri Chand has not come himself for delivery and collecting CC No. 45/2010 Page 125 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the documents and the payments but he had sent Sushil Kumar Sharma for this purpose. He testified that Sri Chand has asked him telephonically to hand over the documents to Sushil Kumar Sharma. It is argued that prosecution has not collected any telephonic records of Sri Chand and PW83 to show that there was any telephonic communication between the two during that time. Further this evidence only connects accused Sushil Kumar Sharma and not accused Sri Chand.

I have considered the facts. As per the testimony of PW83, Sushil Kumar Sharma, employee of Sri Chand, had brought the cash account documents to him. He specifically testified that Sushil Kumar Sharma was sent by Sri Chand. In cross examination he has testified that accused Sri Chand had asked him telephonically to hand over to Sushil Kumar Sharma the documents etc. It must not be forgotten that in normally, the activities of the businessman and professionals go in similar fashion. Peoples send their servants or employees for delivery of documents and payment of fee. Similarly the professionals act on telephonic communications of their clients. The person, who is actively in contact with another person, does not have to make any special efforts to identify the voice of the person calling him on telephone. Further such a professional would also acquainted with the employees of the businessman due to their frequent visits by such employees. Therefore it would be highly CC No. 45/2010 Page 126 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 impractical to accept the defence submissions that some other person could have made a call in the name of Sri Chand. I may further point out that since exact date of such transaction cannot be remembered by the witness, it is not possible for Investigating Agency to trace out the telephonic calls between Sri Chand and PW83 as it would be a difficult situation like tracing a needle in the haystack. PW83 is a truthful witness. He has been able to testify so because the balance sheets were prepared by him at the instance of Sri Chand. These balance sheets for more than 30 years were prepared by him in the year 2003 at the instance of Sri Chand. Accused Sri Chand had given the advertisement Ex.PW82/B of Silver View Apartments (the new name of Rangmahal CGHS) in the year 2004 as proved by PW82 Sh. Naresh Saxena. This is the period in which all the forgeries of the affidavits of fake members, fake proceedings etc. were done and the list of fake members of the society was approved and the name of the society was changed by the officials of RCS. This proves that not only the records of the society were in possession of Sri Chand but he was continuously operating this fake society and was active at every stage of forgeries, approval of the fake list and change of the name of the society.

This evidence enough to prove that it was Sri Chand, who had created and was managing this fake society. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that if Neeraj Kumar has prepared fake balance CC No. 45/2010 Page 127 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 sheets why he has not been arrayed as an accused. I am of the opinion that in cross examination no suggestion has been given to him by any accused that he had any intention to cheat anyone, further he has testified that he had produced the balance sheets on the basis of records produced before him. Therefore I find no evidence against him that this witness had acted in collusion with the other accused persons malafidely. Hence I find no substance in the defence submissions in this regard.

Sh. R. P. Shukla, adv. has drawn my attention to the balance sheets Ex.PW83/A upto 31.3.2003. It is submitted that this balance sheet shows the accounting charges payable Rs.24,750/­. Ld. Counsel has taken me through the balance sheets of previous year , which shows that this witness was charging Rs.750/­ for each year. Therefore Ex.PW83/A shows the accounting charges payable for 33 years to be Rs.24,750/­. This is contrary to the testimony of PW83 wherein he has stated that he had charged Rs.6500/­ in the present case.

I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. It is pertinent to note that this aspect was not put to the witness in cross examination and the witness was not given an opportunity to explain this fact. Further the balance sheet Ex.PW83/A shows the amount of Rs.24,750/­ as accounting charges payable. It does not state that this amount was actually paid to PW83. PW83 has testified that as to CC No. 45/2010 Page 128 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 what amount was actually paid to him. Therefore in view of these circumstances, I am not inclined to give any importance to this defence argument. However I may point that in this balance sheet the audit fee payable is shown to be Rs.9900/­. This corresponds to the copy of the receipt Ex.PW5/A­1 (in file D­11, Volume­1), which has been issued by Assistant Registrar (Audit) as a token of receipt of Rs.9900/­ having received from Rangmahal Cooperative Society Ltd. Hence, the charge u/s 120­B IPC stands proved against this accused.

Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9) Prosecution has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW83 Neeraj Kumar, who has testified that Sushil Kumar Sharma, the employee of Sri Chand, had gone to PW83 Neeraj Kumar and got the fake balance sheets prepared.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW87 the hand writing expert. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the specimen writing of Sushil Kumar Sharma, which are from S­680 to S­683 and S­752 to S­785. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the examination in chief of this witness dated 5.11.2011 relevant to this accused as under :

"I further examined the Q­1371 (already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A) and Q­3048 (already exhibited as Ex.PW12/DA) of the aforesaid question writings were compared with standard writings S­680 to S­683 ((Ex.PW87/A­66) and S­781 to S­783 CC No. 45/2010 Page 129 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 (already exhibited as Ex.PW75/B) of Sushil Kumar Sharma."

Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the accused stands fully connected with the present forgery and conspiracy etc. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for Sushil Kumar Sharma that the hand writing expert's report should not be relied upon unless corroborated. It is further argued that even if it is presumed that he has done some forgery, there is no evidence that he has not done so for the purpose of cheating. It is further argued that there is no evidence that he presented forged documents in the society nor there is any documents to show that Sushil Kuimar Sharma had in any manner benefited from the forgery etc. I have already discussed in earlier portion of this judgment that there is no law, which required corroboration for convicting a person on the basis of report of hand writing expert. However in such a case the court has to be very cautious and closely and minutely examine the reasons given by such hand writing expert. I reproduce the reasons given by the expert in support of his opinion :

"My opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S680 to S683 and S781 to S783 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1371 and Q3048 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the CC No. 45/2010 Page 130 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as - skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment.

Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation & their terminations and combinations. Some of them are - manner of execution of 'R' along with the nature of eyelet in the middle part ; ticked commencement of letter 'A' along with the inward finish of 'A', nature and location of the horizontal stroke in 'A' ; nature of the retrace in 'P' along with the shape of the oval part ;

nature of the retrace in the initial and terminal part of 'N' ; peculiar manner of writing 'b' as figure '6' ; manner of writing 'G' along with the nature of the eyelet in the terminal curved part ; manner of writing 'V'.

Similarities are also observed in the form and formation of various words like 'RANG MAHAL', 'SOCIETY', 'MAYUR VIHAR', 'PHASE', 'Registration', 'Auditor'. Similarities are again observed in the manner of writing various numerals such as peculiar movement in the combination of zeros along with the angularity at the base and the eyelet in the oval part, manner of writing '3', '9', '7', '/­­' In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of CC No. 45/2010 Page 131 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 common authorship."

I have perused the standard writing and the question hand writings carefully and I fully agree with the reasoning given by the hand writing expert as discussed above. I am therefore left in no doubt that the above stated question hand writings have been written by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. Now let me see what is the question hand writing Q­1371, which is a portion encircled in red pencil on the documents Ex.PW5/A (D­11, Volume­1). The documents is reproduced as under :

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR : COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES : GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI: OLD COURTS BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET: NEW DELHI­110001 Price Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) S. No. 2549 Date of issue 29/12/03 (Valid within 30 days from date of issue) (In triplicate Option­cum­appointment letter for conducting statutory audit for 2002­2003/concurrent audit for 2003­2004 including pending audit, (not prior to 1999­2000) (To be filled in block letters)

1. Name of the society THE RANGMAHAL CO­OP. G/H SOCIETY LTD.

2. Address of the Society with Tel. No. 147­G, POCKET­A­2, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE­III, DELHI­110096 Pin code 110096

3. Registration No. & Date 152 (H) Dt. 31­03­1973

4. Zone EAST

5. Year upto which the audit has been completed and name of Chartered Accountant/AUDITOR This is the first audit since registration

6. Yearwise turnover since last audit up to 31­3­2003 Below 3,00,000/=(Three Lacs)

7. i) In case the audit is pending prior to 31­3­2002.

reasons for not conducting the Audit Not approached by the RCS officer - auditor

ii) whether any Charted Accountant was appointed by Department ? If yes, name & address. No

8. i) Name & Address of the Charted Accountant opted. No

ii) Category of Charted Accountant. NA

iii) Panel No. of the chartered Accountant. NA

9. Status of the Society : Yes / No whether under liquidation ?

If yes, name of the liquidator.

10. Number & Date of last Audit report Submitted 371 NA Q1 Declaration:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 132 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 I/We DEEPAK KUMAR do hereby certify and declare that the above mentioned acts are correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief.

Ecl. : 8 Pages                                                                                                                              Signature of Secy./Pres.
                                                                                                                                                  Society with Seal

                                                 Acceptance Certificate by the CA/Auditor

I/We P. K. THIRWANI do hereby give my/our consent for conducting the audit of your above mentioned society. Our consent is subject to the approval by the office of Registrar Co­operative Society, Delhi. I/We certify that my/our firm does not suffer from any disqualification mentioned in Section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Place
Date                                                                               Authorized Signatory
                                                                              Name & address of the firm with
                                                                                              SEAL

APPROVAL OF REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCEITIES NO. ( Deplt AR/Audit 2003/ 430 Dated 28\1\04 Option exercised by the society has been approved for the year 1973­74 to 2002­03 and properly recorded Date 28|1|04 Asstt. Registrar (Audit) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT S. No.................

Received the option cum appointment form from the Coop. Society Ltd.

On approved Form may be collected on Signature of Receipt clerk Date:

IN PUBLIC INTERST BY : DELHI CO­OPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.

The auction­cum­appointment letter reproduced above bears the particulars of the society and these particulars have been filled in portion Q­1371 by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. It bears the signatures of one D.Kumar (i.e. Deepak Kumar) as the Secretary of the society. Below it is the acceptance of accused P.K. Thirwani for conducting the audit of the society and below it Sh. J.S. Sharma Registrar (Audit) had approved the audit for the year 1973­74 to 2002­2003. The fact that the particulars of Rangmahal Society have been filed by accused Sushil Kumar Sharma and below it there are signatures of Deepak Kumar who is purportedly the Secretary of this society proves that either Sushil Kumar himself is Deepak Kumar or CC No. 45/2010 Page 133 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 he knows very well as to who this Deepak Kumar is? This accused has refrained to disclose the identity of Deepak Kumar during the entire trial. This proves his criminal intentions for filling up the particulars of the society at Q­1371. In such circumstances, even if it is presumed that he himself is not Deepak Kumar, still it stands proved that he was not only acquainted with this person, but, also he was fully involved in operation and creating the fake society. PW­83 has testified that accused Sri Chand had sent him with the documents and the fee of this society for preparing balance sheet for 33 years. Therefore, it stands proved that this accused was fully in league with accused Sri Chand.

These circumstances are further proved by the affidavit of Deepak Kumar, the so called Secretary of the society. This affidavit Ext.PW12/DA was filed in the office of RCS by the person purporting to be Deepak Kumar and is available in "D­9" at page no. 304/C. On the back of this affidavit, the particulars of the person who purchased this affidavit have been written, which as per GEQD report, in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar. It is pertinent to note that this Sushil Kumar is not a stamp vendor, but, handwriting on the stamp of the stamp vendor vide which the name of Deepak Kumar, his parentage and address are written at Q­3048, the same have tallied with the specimen handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar Sharma. Accused Sushil Kumar Sharma had failed to give any explanation as CC No. 45/2010 Page 134 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 to how the name, parentage and address of Deepak Kumar, a fake Secretary of the fake society are present in his own handwriting despite the fact that he is not a stamp vendor. Normally, these particulars on the back of the affidavit should have been in the handwriting of the concerned stamp vendor. Therefore, these particulars in the handwriting of accused Sushil Kumar doubly proved the prosecution case that he was in league with the person who was impersonating as Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society. As per investigation, no person with the name of Deepak Kumar was found at the address 1005, Gali No. 3, Vishwas Park, Shahdara, Delhi. I may refer to the report of the Postman on the letter D­127 on which it is written by the Postman "No such number '1005' exists in Vishwas Park. The Investigating Officer has proved this letter alongwith the other letters which are collectively exhibited as Ext.PW90/A­6. The above discussed evidence has therefore firmly proved the role of accused Sushil Kumar as one of the operators of this fake society.

However, since the above stated questioned writings would not fall in the definition of forgeries, therefore, I am not inclined to convict him under the substantial offences u/s 420/511 IPC and u/s 468 IPC, but, I convict him u/s 120­B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC also read with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 135 / 214

 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                   Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                         ANNA WANKHEDE (A­10)

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the membership numbers given on the application for membership (placed in D­9) alongwith the date written on the top corner of the applications. It is argued that as per the GEQD report, this handwriting matches with the handwriting of accused Anna Wankhede. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that these persons have appeared before the court and have denied having made these applications.

I have perused all these applications. For the purpose of convenience, I may take only one application which is Ext.PW87/A­45 (placed at page 288/C of D­9) purportedly pertain to one member namely Surender Kumar Maheshwari. On the top corner, membership number is written "M­1" and below it a date is written "Dt. 16.4.71", which are Q­3049 and Q­3047A. As per GEQD report, these numerals and the alphabets match with the handwriting of accused Anna Wankhede. It is pertinent to note that these numerals and alphabets, which are the photocopy of the original documents, are very less in number. I have also seen the specimen handwriting. Of course, the science of handwriting had developed to such an extent that the handwriting on the photocopy can also be identified. Although, I do not find any infirmity in the opinion of the expert on this point but still as a matter of abundant CC No. 45/2010 Page 136 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 caution, it would be proper for the court to compare the handwritings which are not scanty as appearing on the upside corner of this application. Hence I am not inclined to take in consideration these hand writings on the application for of the members. Therefore, I straightway come to the affidavit Ext.PW66/57 purported to be sworn by Ragini Ben and the affidavit Ext.PW60/B which are placed at page no.'s 56/C and 91/C in the file D­9. These affidavits have been filed by the fake society in the office of Registrar for the purpose of getting the list of members approved.

PW­60 Ajay Kumar Maheshwari was examined by prosecution. He testified that Raj Kumari Maheshwari is the sister­in­law (bhabhi). He has testified that he alongwith Raj Kumari had been alloted Flat No. C­02 in the original Rangmahal Society and that his sister­in­law Smt. Raj Kumari did not file the affidavit Ext.PW60/B and the signatures at points A do not belong to her. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Smt. Raj Kumari was not produced by the prosecution to identify her signatures. I am of the opinion that it was not required because if the flat has already been alloted to her in the year 1993, as testified by PW­60, there was no reason that Raj Kumari would file such an affidavit in the year 2004. I may point out that this affidavit shows that it was attested by Oath Commissioner but, PW­66 Sudhir Mittal, Adv., the Oath Commissioner has testified that he had not attested the affidavit on page 1/C to 120/C in D­9.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 137 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 (which includes the affidavits Ext.PW66/57 and Ext.PW60/B). Therefore these fake affidavits with the fake signatures of Ragini Ben Mehta and Raj Kumari having been forged by Anna Wankhede.

Similarly the signatures of Smt. Raj Kumari on affidavit Ext.PW60/B at points A i.e. Q­1191 & Q­1192 and signatures of Ragini Ben in Ext. PW66/57 Q­1260 & Q­1261 have tallied with the specimen handwriting of Anna Wankhede as per GEQD report. I reproduce the reasoning of the GEQD report Ex.PW87/A­1 which is as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 3:

My opinion that the persons who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S739 to S743 and S748 to S751 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1191, Q1192, Q1260, Q1261 as well as the writings the photostatic reproductions of which are marked Q3049 to Q3060, Q3062 to Q3081, Q3084, Q3086, Q3087, Q3089, Q3091, Q3092, Q3094, Q3096, Q3098, Q3100, Q3102, Q3104, Q3106, Q3107, Q3109, Q3111, Q3113, Q3115, Q3117, Q3118, Q3121, Q3123 to Q3126, Q3128, Q3129, Q3131 to Q3134, Q3136, Q3138, Q3140 Q3141, Q3143, Q3145 to Q3149, Q3151,, Q3152, Q3151A, Q3153A, Q3154, Q3155, Q3155A, Q3156, Q3156A, Q3158, Q3160, Q3161, Q3163 and Q3166 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as ­skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation, their terminations and combinations. Some of them are - manner of execution of 'ja', the curvature int he initial part along with the relative location of the vertical part with reference to the curved part ; manner of execution of letter 'ku' along with the location of the commencement of the curved part, the shape of the curved part, location of termination, the peculiar manner of writing the vowel sign 'vukar' ; habit of writing 'ma' in single operation, the overall appearance of letter 'ma' as English letter 'n' along with the angularity at the upper curved part ; manner of execution of letter 'Ra', the shape of the curved part of letter 'ra' ; nature of the vowel sign 'ekar' in the name reading 'Raj Kumari' ; nature of the eyelet in the CC No. 45/2010 Page 138 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 initial curved part of letter 'na' along with the location of the commencement; peculiar manner of writing letter 'ba' along with the location of the vowel sign 'ekar' ; manner of execution of letter 'gi' 'ra' in the name reading 'Ragini Bane'.

Manner of execution of letter 'M' along with the nature of the compressed eyelet / retrace in the initial part, relative location of the two angular parts, nature of the bifurcation in the middle part along with the respected numerals in the questioned writings are similarly found in the standard writings.

In short, there are no basic differences int he writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship."

I have seen the specimen handwritings and the questioned documents. I fully agree with this reasoning of GEQD report. Perusal of the specimen handwriting would show an unmistakable similarity in the handwriting of Q­1191 & Q­1192 and Q­1260 & Q­1261 with the specimen handwritings S­739 to S­743 and S­748 to S­751 of Anna Wankhede.

I would refer to the testimony of PW­72 Ashwini Kumar. He testified that he was working as Sub Agent with Sh. P.R. Bhatia for selling the stamp papers till 2009. He further testified that when he remained with him, the stamp bearing the name of P.R. Bhatia was used to be affixed on the back of the stamp papers having license number 262. He testified that the stamp papers during the year 2003 were purchased from him by accused Anna Wankhede, a representative of Rangmahal CGHS through one Sh. Ravi Robinson, a typist. On seeing the affidavits placed at page no. 1/C to 120/C in CC No. 45/2010 Page 139 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 file D­9 which includes the affidavits of Raj Kumari Ext.PW60/B and Ragini Ben Mehta Ext.PW66/57, I may point out that the envelope Ext.PW45/C (D­79) sent at the address of Ragini Ben as appearing in this affidavit has returned with the report "No such number." This is enough to show that the address of Ragini Ben on the affidavit is a fake address. PW72 stated that all the affidavits bear the stamp of Sh. P.R. Bhatia­Stamp Agent, License No. 262, Parliament Street and the same were given to Sh. Anna Wankhede on 29.12.2003. The prosecution witnesses have testified that either no such person, in whose name the affidavit is sworn exists, or if such person exists he has testified that he has not sworn such affidavits. Out of these 120 affidavits, the signatures on two affidavits have been forged by accused Anna Wankhede. PW­73 Ravi Robinson is a typist who had typed the particulars in the affidavits in the blank space of para 1,2, and 3 of the affidavits. He has testified that all the aforesaid affidavits were brought by accused Anna Wankhede. In this manner, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had forged the signatures of Ragini Ben Mehta and Raj Kumari on the aforesaid affidavits. It stands proved that these 120 affidavits were purchased by accused Anna Wankhede. Further, the relevant portions were also got typed by accused Anna Wankhede. Finally, these affidavits were presented in the office of the RCS for the purpose of getting the list of members approved. Needless to say CC No. 45/2010 Page 140 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 that not only this was fake/duplicate society as the land had already been alloted to the actual society but also the entire list of members was a fake list as the affidavits of all the 120 members are fake affidavits. Accused Anna Wankhede does not explain as to why he was purchasing and getting typed such a large number of affidavits on one single day i.e. 29.12.2003 which is appearing on the stamp of the back side of these affidavits. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this accused was one of those managing the fake society and was fully involved in creating a fake society with fake members. Accordingly, accused stands convicted in substantial offence u/s 468 IPC and offence of conspiracy i.e. u/s 120­B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

MOHAN LAL (A­11) Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the address of the fake society was shown to be Flat No. 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, New Delhi. It is submitted that on this address accused Mohan Lal used to reside from 1997 to 2002. PW­1 Sh. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, the owner of this flat has testified that no society in the name and style of Silver View Apartments or Rangmahal CGHS had worked in the said flat. He further stated that Mohan Lal never remained in this flat as tenant after the year 2002. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that he has forged the proceedings of the CC No. 45/2010 Page 141 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 proceeding register (Ext.PW87/A­41) at page 344/C & 345/C in file D­8 and the proceedings Ext.PW87/A­42 dt. 20.08.1995 placed at page 117/C in D­8 and page no. 351/C dt. 20.08.1995 in file D­9. I may point out that the Ext.PW87/A­42 and the copy of the proceedings placed in D­80, mentioned above are the copy of the same proceedings dt. 20.08.1995. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the two copies of the Bye Laws of the CGHS which are Ext.PW85/A­6 and Ext.PW85/A­7 placed in D­8. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention that Ext.PW85/A­6 contains the Bye Laws of the duplicate society. In this Bye Laws, Ext.PW59/C is the list of members. At the end of this list of members at Q­221 the certificate to the fact "certified that all the above members have signed in my presence and they are well known to me" and similar certificate at the end of the Bye Laws Ext.PW85/A­7 at Q­310 (Ext.PW87/A­21) are in the handwriting of accused Mohan Lal. Similarly, on the first page of these two sets of Bye Laws, the address of the society i.e. 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi has been written by accused Mohan Lal. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that it is the same address at which accused Mohan Lal had lived as a tenant during the period 1997 to 2002.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the handwriting expert's report on a photocopy would be highly unsafe. I disagree with his submissions. On this point, accused Mohan Lal had cross CC No. 45/2010 Page 142 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 examined PW­87. The expert witness admitted that the the photocopy of a handwriting varies according to the quality of the photostat machine. Depending upon the quality of the photostat copy, opinion can be given on such document or photocopy of the handwriting/signatures in case the quality of photostat copy is good. He stated that the quality of the photostat copy was of his subjective satisfaction. I have also seen the photostat copies of the proceeding register. The photocopies are not only in very good condition but also nearly as good in quality as the original. Further, handwriting is not sparse as in the case of accused Anna Wankhede which I had declined to take in to account while dealing his role. All these proceeding sheets have been written in detail. Therefore, I am of the opinion that these photocopies are good enough for a handwriting expert to give his experts' opinion. As per GEQD report (page 2) Ext.PW87/A­7, the person who had wrote S­467 to S­486 and S­701 to S­721 also wrote the writings, the photostatic reproductions of it are red encircled and are marked as Q­3016 to Q­3018, Q­3019A to Q­3032. Similarly, portion Q­36 on page 352/C in file D­8 (Ext.PW87/A­22) also matches with the specimen handwriting S­467 to S­468 and S­701 to S­721. Before discussing import of these documents, I would like to reproduce the reasoning given by the expert in his opinion as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 2:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 143 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 "My opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S467 to S486 and S701 to S721 also wrote the writings the Photostatic reproductions of which are red enclosed and marked Q3016 to Q3018, Q3019A and Q3032 is based on the cumulative consideration of various similarities occurring between the questioned and the standard writings both in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics. The general writing habits such as­ skill, movement, size and proportion of characters, alignment. Similarities have also been observed in the individual writing characteristics in the form and formation & their terminations and combinations. Some of them are­manner of combining 'e' with 'e', nature of the t­cross in the letter 't', shape of the shoulder parts of 'm' in the word 'meeting'; manner of combining 'a' with 'd' and the distance between 'n' and 'e' in the word 'adjourned'; peculiar manner of writing 'the' without 'e'; manner of writing 'f' without upper loop as appearing in the word 'of'; habit of combining i­dot with the succeeding letters like 'e' in the word 'Society'; i­dot with 'd' in the word 'President', 'vide'; manner of writing 'view', 'Hill'; nature of the loop in the vertical part of 'p', ticked commencement of 'A' along with the manner of writing horizontal stroke in the word 'Apartment'; manner of the writing 'Idd' along with the manner of combining t­cross with the oval part of 'd'; ticked commencement of 'M', nature of the loop in the 'd' as appearing in the word 'managing' similarities are again observed in the manner of execution of various letters in the words 'Rangmahal', 'Co­operative', 'Group', 'Shri Arun Kumar', 'Smt. Rakha Devi' etc., similarities are again observed in the manner of the writing numerals '9', '7', '2', '3' etc. In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship.

Now, I reproduce the reasoning of interse comparison in respect of Q­51, Q­221, Q­226, Q­310 and Q­36 which have been compared with S­467 to S­486. I may point out that the above questioned writings are the handwriting in which the address is written on the Bye Laws Ext.PW85/A­6 and Ext.PW85/A­7 and the certificate at the end of these Bye Laws is written. The handwriting in S­467 to S­486, admittedly are that of Mohan Lal. The relevant CC No. 45/2010 Page 144 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 portion is reproduced as under:

Reasons for opinion as embodied in Para 4:

Interse ................................................................................. characters. Similarities are also been observed in the form and formation of various characters, their terminations and combinations. Some of them are­manner of execution of the buckle part of 'k'; habit of combining 'c' with the vertical part of the 'k', the formation of the loop/retrace in the vertical part; shape of the oval part of the 'p' along with the nature of the retrace in the vertical part; habit of combining 'e' and 't'; the nature of the loop in the vertical part of 't'; location of the t­ cross; nature of the retrace in the initial part of 'A' along with the inward termination of the terminal part, nature of the hook in the horizontal stroke; shape of the shoulder parts along with the nature of the retrace in the initial part of 'M'; shape of the oval part of 'a'; nature of the loop in the letter 'y'; manner of execution of 'V'; the rotundity in the curved part of 'G'; habit of combining i­dot with the succeeding letter 'h'; simplified manner of writing 's'. Similarities are again observed in the formation of letters 'h', 'D', 'r', 'u','W','S', 's', 'R', 'H', 'B', 'f', 'F', 'm', 'n'; combination of various letters int he words like 'Kumar', 'Devi', 'the', 'of', 'Cooperative', 'to', 'chair', 'committee' etc., and figures like '1', '4', '7', '2', '9', '6'.

In short, there are no basic differences in the writing habits of the questioned and the standard writings. During my examination I specifically searched for the differences but did not find any. The aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and their collective consideration leads me to the opinion of common authorship.

I have also perused the specimen handwriting and the questioned handwritings as well as the reasons given by the expert and I have no hesitation in holding that the opinion is correct and these handwritings have been written by accused Mohan Lal. I may point out here that fairness of the handwriting expert is reflected from the fact that although the signatures of Deepak Kumar, a fake Secretary are available on numerous documents but his handwriting CC No. 45/2010 Page 145 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 has not matched with any of the accused persons. Had it matched, this identity of the person acting as Deepak Kumar would have been established.

Now I take up the import of the aforesaid documents. The fact that the proceeding sheets of fake Rangmahal society were written by accused Mohan Lal itself is a proof that he was involved in the conspiracy of creating this fake society. A lot of arguments have been made as to where are the originals of these registers in which proceedings have been written. I would say that it has to be in possession of those who were managing the society and these persons are Sri Chand, Anna Wankhede, Sushil Kumar and Mohan Lal. Special onus is upon accused Mohan Lal because it is he who has written the proceedings, especially, when his previous rented address has been used as the registered office of the society. Since the original proceedings are in their possession and they being accused cannot be compelled to produce the same, and only photocopies of the proceedings attested by the person impersonating as Deepak Kumar, the secretary of the society, are available to the prosecution, the condition of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act stands fulfilled. I may now take to the import of the proceeding sheets so forged by accused Mohan Lal. The proceeding sheet Ext.PW87/A­42 dt. 20.08.1995 show that meeting of the managing committee of Rangmahal CGHS was held on 20.08.1995 at 81, CC No. 45/2010 Page 146 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Arun Kumar. Vide these proceedings, the managing committee has resolved unanimously "to shift the office address from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar Phase­III, Delhi­92." The photocopy of proceeding sheet is attested by Deepak Kumar and bears a stamp of Rangmahal CGHS. It is pertinent to note that in fact the land had already been allotted to the society in the year 1977 in Pitam Pura and flats were allotted to the members on 23.1.93 by draw of lots and therefore there is no question that in the year 1995 when this note sheet was written, the registered office of this society would be present at 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Interestingly, the note sheet which is written in the hand of Mohan Lal gives the new address of Mayur Vihar on which he used to reside from 1997 to 2002, as per the testimony of PW­1. This fact proves the following things:­ First, accused Mohan Lal has written these proceedings ante­ dated. It is clear from the fact that he did not reside at Mayur Vihar prior to the year 1997 whereas the note sheet shows the date as 20.08.1995. Secondly, this note sheet mentions name of Arun Kumar and Deepak Kumar, the fake President and Secretary of the society.

Therefore, it is clear that by writing these proceedings, forged documents of proceedings has been prepared. Thirdly, it proves that he was in active collusion with the person who was representing to be as Deepak Kumar in capacity of the Secretary of the society.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 147 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 The other proceeding sheet Ext.PW87/A­41 shows the proceedings of 27.03.2004. In this proceedings, it has been mentioned that the President had informed the General Body Members that the RCS has approved the list of 120 members for allotment of land from DDA which has been intimated to the society vide letter no. F­47/152/H/East/2371 dt. 22.03.2004. It is further mentioned that in proceedings of meeting dt. 04.03.2004 Ext.PW87/A­22, it was proposed to call a General Body Meeting for discussing the change of name and for this purpose the GBM was called for 27.03.2004 from Rangmahal CGHS to any of the three proposed names namely 1) The Silver View Apartments CGHS Ltd.;

2) The Hill View Apartments CGHS Ltd. & 3) The Sky Blue Apartments CGHS Ltd. Vide proceedings dt. 27.03.2004 (Ext.PW87/A­41), the GBM has also resolved unanimously to type the Model Bye Laws of CGHS and change of name. I may point out that on the Bye Laws also the certificate at the end has been written in the hand of accused Mohan Lal and it has been signed by the President Arun Kumar, Secretary Deepak Kumar and the Treasurer R.K. Singh. Therefore, these proceeding sheets proved that accused Mohan Lal was involved in the operation of this fake society right from initiating the change of address of the society upto the change of the name of the society. Therefore, a cogent evidence has been led by the prosecution that not only Mohan Lal has forged the CC No. 45/2010 Page 148 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 proceeding sheets, but, also, by writing a certificate at the end of the Bye Laws that all the members have signed in his presence who are well known to him, he aided in forgery of the part of the Bye Laws Ext.PW59/C i.e. a list of 120 members alongwith their signatures. PW­74 Sh. Gunveer Kumar Jain has testified that he and his family members i.e. Member no. 4 Vijender Kumar Jain, Member no. 5 Devender Kumar Jain, Member No. 6 Sukhbir Kumar Jain had not signed the said list. Since, 50 members had already been alloted land, who have no reason to attend the meeting of society and remaining 70 members are fake members, therefore, all the signatures in the column of signatures of members ar fake and by writing this certificate accused Mohan Lal has created a part of the false document. Accordingly, I hold accused Mohan Lal guilty of forgery u/s 468 IPC and he is also in conspiracy with the other accused persons for committing the offences of forgery and cheating and therefore guilty u/s 120 IPC read with other provisions of law.

Common submissions made by the public servants i.e. A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 Some submissions have been made by Ld. Defence Counsels, which are common to all the public servants facing trial herein. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels for the aforesaid accused persons that since no land had been allotted to the society, therefore there is no loss to the Government. I agree with this submission of Ld. CC No. 45/2010 Page 149 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Defence Counsels. But this fact is of no help to these accused persons because it is not a case of committing actual offence under Section 13(1)(d). Rather these public servants have been accused for of attempt to commit the aforesaid offence. Had this attempt been successful, only then the fact of "no loss to the Government"

would have been relevant. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that there is no blot on service of any of these accused persons. I agree that no evidence contrary to this submission has been filed by the prosecution. However in a criminal trial such a fact would not be relevant. It is argued that CBI had not even recommended any departmental inquiry against these accused persons despite the fact taht as per their investigation these accused persons were found to be indulging in criminal misconduct. It is argued by them that had these accused persons been guilty, CBI must have proceeded against them departmentally. I disagree with this submission and I am of the opinion that whether or not any departmental inquiry has been recommended against these public servants is not at all relevant to the trial, where the court's job is focused only on the evidence produced.

It is argued that no recovery of any incriminating document has been effected from the possession of the accused. Ld. Public Prosecutor admits this fact but submits that inference of the involvement of these public servants in this conspiracy and the CC No. 45/2010 Page 150 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 criminal misconduct by them has to be seen from the relevant notings and the documents. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that in the charge sheet there is mention of one dealing clerk Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma. To my mind it is a some clerical mistake and does not go to the root of the case. It is argued that Investigating Officer did not search for the Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society, nor searched the address written by him in the applications moved by him. Ld. Counsels for defence have drawn my attention to the affidavit Ex.PW12/DA (at page no. 304/C of D­9) of Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Anand Kumar, which shows his address as 1005, Gali No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi­32. It is argued by Ld. Defence counsels that the Investigating Officer has defaulted in his duty to personally search Deepak Kumar at the Vishwas Nagar address. Therefore it is presumed that Deepak Kumar is some real person. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the registered envelope (D­127) through which a notice was sent by the Investigating Officer to said Deepak Kumar at the Vishwas Nagar address and submits that as per the report dated 15.2.2006 of the postman, no such number i.e. 1005 exists at the given address. It is therefore submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that when no such number exists at the address how can the Investigating Officer search this place when such an address does not exit. Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar, Adv. argues that the report of a postman on the CC No. 45/2010 Page 151 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 envelope is not sufficient to prove that no such person resides at the given address. It is argued that the Investigating Officer should have gone to the spot with a view to verify as to whether the said address exists or not. Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to M. Durga Prasad Vs. State of A.P. 2004 Crl. L. J. 242 in which Hon'ble Single Judge of Andhra High Court did not favour the effort of prosecution to rely on the evidence of postmen to prove the factum of fictitious persons and those persons do not exit. Hon'ble Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution ought to have adduced positive evidence to prove that these persons are not at all in existence by examining of authorities of municipality/Gram Panchayat etc. I disagree with the Ld. Defence Counsel. The case law cited by him in this regard is also not applicable to the present facts of the case. The perusal of the aforesaid authority would show that the prosecution led the evidence of postmen and thereby seeking to draw an inference that letters were delivered to fictitious persons. On the other hand in the present case the letters sent at 1005, Vishwas Nagar returned back with the report of postman that this address does not exist. Therefore whereas Hon'ble High Court was of the opinion that some more evidence was required to prove the delivery of letter to fictitious persons, the case in hand is a case of undelivered letter received back by CBI. This difference appears to CC No. 45/2010 Page 152 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 be minor but takes to altogether different inference. If a letter is delivered, it means some person had received the same and therefore such receiver of the letter actually exists. Therefore prosecution in that case was under an obligation to prove as to who was the said receiver. In absence of this type of evidence, it was not possible to hold that the receiver of the letter was a fictitious person.

However here the letter returned undelivered with the report that no such address exists. This report on the undelivered letter received back by CBI is made in regular discharge of the official duty by the postman and the same has to be presumed to be true in view of illustration "f" to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The accused persons were at liberty to rebut this presumption that such address actually exits and one Deepak Kumar actually resides at this address. None of the accused persons has preferred to bring any material on record to show the existence of such address or the fact that Deepak Kumar ever resided at this address. However all the accused persons failed in this regard and therefore I reach only one conclusion i.e. Deepak Kumar purporting to be the Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS is a fictitious person and his address 1005, Gali No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi­32 is a fake address. I would add that same is the case in respect of all the 70 newly enrolled members at whose addresses the CBI had sent the notices through speed post. All these envelopes have returned undelivered either on the ground that CC No. 45/2010 Page 153 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 no such person exists or on the ground that no such address exists. This is sufficient to prove that all these members are fake members. I may further point out that even CBI had sent the notices to the 50 promoter members at the address given in the affidavits (placed in D­9). All these notices also returned back. Reason was simple. Some of them were fake members introduce by the accused persons operating the fake society and remaining had shifted their residences to the plot which was allotted to the original society. Therefore the only inference of this situation is that if the plot were allotted by DDA to this fake society, the builders would have built the flats and would have sold them to the needy persons as per market rate by showing the fake resignations of the fake members and introducing new unsuspecting public persons.

The above mentioned inference will have to be kept in mind while dealing the role of the public servants while discussing the question of conspiracy and abuse of powers etc. Jitender Singh Sharma (A6) The file D­8 in the office of RCS started when Sh. Jitender Singh Sharma (A6) wrote a letter dated 31.12.2003 to Assistant Registrar (East). Sh. Ramesh Chandra (A2) was AR (East) at that time. This letter is Ex.PW85/A­14 and is placed at page no. 69/C in D­8. I would like to reproduce the said letter as under :

CC No. 45/2010 Page 154 / 214

 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                                       Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

"No.F.1./RCS/AUDIT/MISC/2003/150                       Dated 31.12.03
To

       THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR (EAST)
       OFFICE OF THE R.C.S.
       SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI­01

SUB:­REGRDING­AUDIT OF THE RANGMAHAL COOP. G/H SOCIETY LTD. (Regn. No. 152(H) dated 31.3.1973.

SIR A letter has been received from sh. Deepak Kumar Hon, secretary of the Rangmahal coop. G/H Society Ltd. In which he has requested for the audit of the society since registration to 31.3.2003. As the audit of the society is pending since registration, it Is, therefore, requested to confirm the present status fo the society from your records at the earliest, so that further action in this regard will be taken accordingly.

(J.S. SHARMA) ASSTT. REGISTRAR (AUDIT) The perusal of this letter would show that J. S. Sharma has mentioned that audit of the society is pending since registration. Nothing in this letter shows that he made any effort to trace the audits of the society conducted from the date of registration. It appears from this letter that J. S. Sharma had ignored the fact that the audit had been conducted in this society i.e. Rangmahal CGHS. Although he has stated that a letter was received from Deepak CC No. 45/2010 Page 155 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Kumar, Honour Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS but in fact no such letter is available in the records of audit branch. Accused J. S. Sharma had tried to explain that all the records were seized by CBI and this letter should be in possession of CBI. Prosecution has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW81/A (D­2), which mentions the three files with their page numbers vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A (D­7) the audit report for the period 1.7.1970 to 31.3.2003 from page 1 to 240 was seized from audit branch. Accused J. S. Sharma has not been able to point out any such letter on the said record. Therefore it is clear that if this letter exists, it should be in the audit branch and not with the CBI. Accused J. S. Sharma did not lead any evidence to prove that any such letter had existed. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused J. S. Sharma that lot of records is not traceable in the audit branch and therefore even the said letter is not available there and now after so many years it is not possible to trace out this letter. I am of the opinion that if letter has been received and the same is not traceable due to some reason, its entry must be there in some register. But this accused has been unable to show anything to this effect. I may point out that the first letter written by said Deepak Kumar is Ex.PW85/A­8 (at page no. 322/C of D­8) and this letter is dated 29.12.2003. It was received by Accused Narayan Diwakar on 29.12.2003 itself, whereas the letter Ex.PW85/A­14 written by this accused to AR East is dated 31.12.2003. From this fact two CC No. 45/2010 Page 156 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 inferences can be drawn. First that there were two letters written by Deepak Kumar, one being Ex.PW85/A­8 and another letter written by Deepak Kumar prior in time to AR (East) by AR (Audit). Second, that no such separate letter address to AR (Audit) exists. As already discussed, the first inference cannot be accepted. In the letter dated 29.12.2003 Ex.PW82/A­2 in which it is specially written that upto date accounts of the society are ready for its audit. Since there is no separate letter to AR Audit, therefore it is clear that A6 in his letter Ex.PW85/A­14 is referring to the request of Deepak Kumar, which he made in the letter Ex.PW85/A­8. It requires to be noted specifically that the letter Ex.PW85/A­8 written by Deepak Kumar is addressed to the Assistant Registrar (East) and is dated 29.12.2003, whereas the letter written by A6 to AR(East) is dated 31.12.2003. It is pertinent to note that although this letter is addressed to AR (East) but it was actually received by Narayan Diwakar (A8). The fact that AR Audit i.e. A6 is acting on this letter which is still not received by him, is one circumstance which points out that there was a conspiracy between A6 and the persons, who fraudulently represented himself as Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society. That is the reason that without receiving the aforesaid letter, A­6 proceeded on his own.

I refer to the testimony of PW68 Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, the Chartered Accountant in the firm M/s J. S. Johar & Associates and CC No. 45/2010 Page 157 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 that this firm was appointed as auditor for conducting the audit of Rangmahal CGHS vide letter Ex.PW68/A and that this firm had conducted the audit of Rangmahal CGHS vide auditor's report dated 31.10.1991 for the period upto 31.3.1991. Further prosecution has proved a copy of letter issued by A6 as AR Audit to the President/Secretary of Rangmahal CGHS plot no.13 opposite Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura. This letter Ex.PW90/A­15 is placed at page 101 of file no.13. The copy of this letter is marked to M/s H. L. Madan & Company. This letter is placed in file no. 13 at page no. 101 and the file was seized from the actual Rangmahal Society, which is situated at plot no.13 opposite Saraswati Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW90/A­4 from Ajay Kumar Maheshwari, the Secretary of the society. A perusal of this seizure memo would show that CBI had seized the audit reports in respect of Rangmahal CGHS from 31.3.1987 to 31.3.1992 apart from the other documents namely the DDA letter dated 23.4.1990 for draw of plots and the letter Ex.PW90/A­15 as well as one letter at page 100, which is written by M/s H. L. Madan & Company to the Rangmahal CGHS dated 20.2.2002. Ld. Defence Counsel has objected to these documents on the ground that this letter was never issued by J. s. Sharma and that Ex.PW90/A­15 is not the original letter written to the society rather it is the photo copy of the same.

On the other hand Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my CC No. 45/2010 Page 158 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 attention to the original letter dated 20.2.2002 written by M/s H. L. Madan & Company to the President Rangmahal CGHS in which it has been informed to the President that their firm has been appointed as auditors of the society to conduct audit for the period upto 2000­01. He enclosed the copy of appointment letter and he requested the president of the society as to when the audit can take place. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the copy of the letter was sent to the society by Sh. H. L. Madan & Company and it has come in ordinary post to the society and therefore it is available on the file of the society. It is argued that from this letter one thing is very clear that the audit branch of RCS was having the proper records of Rangmahal Cooperative CGHS upto the year 2002 when this letter was written by A­6 and also had the record that now this society is situated on the plot allotted to it by DDA i.e. of plot no.13 opposite Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura. Ld. Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that this also proves that the office of RCS as well as its audit branch were having complete record of the allotment of land to this society at least upto 19.2.2002 and this proves that later on this record was destroyed by the RCS official to create a fake and duplicate society.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties. I will take the question as to whether D­141 i.e. Letter dated 19.2.2002 written by AR Audit to the President of Rangmahal CGHS with its copy to M/s H. L. Madan & Company stands proved or not. I refer to CC No. 45/2010 Page 159 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 illustration 'f' to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. The entire file was seized by the Investigating Officer from the office of actual Rangmahal society. This file contains this photocopy of letter along with letter of M/s H. L. Madan & Co. The photocopy of the letter dated 19.2.2002 written by AR Audit to President Rangmahal was sent by H. L. Madan & Company along with their letter dated 20.2.2002. This is how the photo copy of the letter had reached to the society. The perusal of this file would show that the records of auditor's report, balance sheets and correspondence have been maintained regularly by the office of the Rangmahal CGHs in the regular course of business. Therefore it cannot been disbelieved that the society had received the copy of the letter through H. L. Madan & Company to it. Ld. Defence Counsel has taken the defence that this letter was not signed by J. S. Sharma. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that the signatures on this photo copy matches with the signatures of this accused available on judicial file as well as other admitted documents proved in the court and one is left in no doubt that it has been issued by accused J. S. Sharma. I have perused this letter and I would only say that photo copy of this letter has come in ordinary course of business to the office of Rangmahal CGHS. There is no reason to believe that anyone would have forged it. The contents of this letter makes it clear that it has been issued by AR Audit. It is not disputed that J. S. Sharma was AR Audit at that CC No. 45/2010 Page 160 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 time. Therefore it is clear that this letter proves that A­6 as well as the audit branch was in the knowledge of the fact that plot no.13, Pitam Pura was alloted to Rangmahal CGHS and that is why the copy of the letter is available on the records of Rangmahal CGHS. The fact of availability of the letter Ex.PW90/A­15 in the records of the society proves beyond reasonable doubt that the fact of allotment of land was in the knowledge of A­6 and audit records of actual Ranmahal CGHS were available in the audit branch.

In such circumstance let me take up the record of audit seized by CBI from the audit branch of RCS. CBI had seized the complete record and I have already discussed that no separate letter of Deepak Kumar asking for audit is available on D­11 (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW2/A­1) and D­12 (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW87/A­39). Further in the letter dated 31.12.2003 Ex.PW85/A­14 written to AR (East), it is not written as to whether any effort to trace out the previous audit was made, nor there is any noting to that effect in the file D­11. For sake of argument, it is presumed that A6 was not having any knowledge that Rangmahal CGHS had already been allotted land and audit was being conducted for previous years, still A6 had to explain a lot. Unfortunately he is unable to explain any of circumstances. I refer to Ex.PW5/A (D­11). On this proforma A6 vide his order dated 28.1.2004 under the heading "approval of Registrar Cooperative Societies", AR (East) had approved audit for CC No. 45/2010 Page 161 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the year 1973­74 to 2002­03 i.e. for 30 years. A6 has been unable to show that as to where in the approval of the registrar for ordering for audit for more than three years. I may add that Rule 84(1) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973 "An auditor can undertake the audit of the society for a maximum period of three years".

The purport of Rule 84(4) is that registrar can order audit for the audit of previous years even for more than three years. A6 has argued that said approval was indeed taken and he has pointed out the signatures of RCS at point 'C' of Ex.PW87/A­17 beneath the note sheet Ex.PW87/A­30 already reproduced by me. I have read this note sheet and it does not contain any order or approval permitting the audit for 33 years for this society. At the cost of repetition, I am reproducing the relevant note sheet as under :

"As discussed with worthy JRCS reg. Status of Rangmahal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. The Secretary of the society has applied for audit branch since registration of the society. (see at Flag­B) As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land till date and there is no liquidation order in the file.As per record available the status of the society is non functioned. Asstt. Registrar (Audit) has requested and asked for status of the society. If agreed we may inform to AR(Audit) accordingly and Sh. Faiz Mohamad may be appointed as inspector for 'A' conducting the inspection U/s 54 for present running condition of the society. Both letters are added for Signature please.

This note sheet was approved by Registrar but nowhere in this note sheet, there is any mention of approval for conducting audit for more than three years.

I will again revert the letter Ex.PW85/A­14 by A6 to AR (East) in which it is specifically written that audit of the society is pending CC No. 45/2010 Page 162 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 since registration. A6 has been unable to explain as to how he reached this conclusion. His submissions that he simply believed the version of Deepak Kumar is not acceptable because the fact that the society is coming suddenly after about 30 years itself is a cause of serious suspicion. Further in the normal official course of business on such application the dealing clerk would have written a note about the status of the society and status of audit of the society. This fact has been testified by DW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar, the Head Clerk of audit branch. In cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor he testified that the role of dealing assistant is that he will move the application for verification of the working of the society by AR (East) and if society is found functional, dealing assistant will propose to permit the audit of the society for all the pending years. In nutshell the dealing clerk of audit branch will make proper notings for verification of status of the society and status of audit. The entire audit records of Rangmahal CGHS in D­11 and D­12 does not show any noting of dealing clerk in this regard nor there is any direction of A6 to that effect. I have already discussed that he wrote the letter to AR (East) even when this letter never reached him. I may point out that the letter of Deepak Kumar reached AR (East) on 10.2.2004 as reflected from his signatures at point A on this letter Ex.PW85/A­8. The arguments of A6 is that he was not in conspiracy with the persons, who were operating the fake society and that he never met CC No. 45/2010 Page 163 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Deepak Kumar. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the option letter Ex.PW5/A, which bears the signatures of Deepak Kumar, P. K. Thirwani as well as A6. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel for A6 that the office bearers of the society present this letter in the office and it comes in routine course to AR audit but he does not meet the office bearers of the society in person. Even if this arguments is accepted, A6 will have to explain as how he proceeded to write as letter to AR (East). During trial he did not summon any record from the office of audit branch asking for the production of any such application of Deepak Kumar. These circumstances have only one explanation that J. S. Sharma was actively conspiring with the persons managing the society. Therefore instead of asking the status of the society and status of audit from the dealing clerk of his own branch, he is raising a query from AR (East). I have already discussed that the audit of the society for the previous years were done by a Chartered Accountant and photo copy of letter issued from RCS office is available in the file of the original Rangmahal CGHS at the address of the plot, which was allotted to it by DDA. Had A6 ordered for verification of the status of audit and status of society from his own dealing assistant, the report of dealing assistant would have definitely come revealing the proper facts. Hence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the records of audit of Rangmahal CGHS were very much available in CC No. 45/2010 Page 164 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 audit branch and A­6 had the knowledge of the same and he was acting in collusion with the operators of fake society in this conspiracy by abusing his official positions deliberately withholding the actual audit of the society to which the land had been allotted.

Prahlad Kumar Thirwani (A5) It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that A5 had visited the registered office of the society i.e. 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar. It is submitted that A5 prepared his report as per the documents shown by Deepak Kumar, the Secretary of the society and A5 had no reason to believe that all the balance sheets are fake and forged. It is submitted that A5 had also no reason to believe that the person, he met, was not Deepak Kumar.

On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that evidence has been brought on record to prove that no Deepak Kumar resides at this address nor it is in evidence that office of society was ever situated at this address.

It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that Investigating Officer never visited this place. Moreover PW1 has stated that he is the owner of Flat No. 147­G, Pocket­8, Mayur Vihar. It is argued that since this address is difference than the address where P. K. Thirwani (A5) had visited, therefore the prosecution case must fail. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that it is typographical mistake instead of "Pocket A­2", the typist had written "Pocket 8" due CC No. 45/2010 Page 165 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 to phonetic similarity. I have considered the submissions. When this fact was brought to the notice of court a further question under Section 313 CrPC was put with the correct address. With a view to see as to what is the correct address of this witness, I have seen the list of witnesses attached to the charge sheet. At serial no.3, the name of PW1 Ram Naresh Prasad is written and his address has been written as 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vicar, New Delhi. Similarly in his statement under Section 161 CrPC also, his address is written as 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III. PW1 has specifically testified that accused Mohan Lal was his tenant during the period 1997 to 2002. this fact is not denied by accused Mohan Lal in cross examination. I have already discussed the role of accused Mohan Lal and the address of the society in his hand writing on the bye laws also show the address of Flat No. 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III Ex.PW85/A­6. Therefore I am convinced that the mistake in the testimony of PW1 is on account of phonetic similarity of "A2"

and "eight". Had PW1 not been the owner of 147­G/A­2, Mayur vihar, the defence would not have spared the prosecution by producing the actual resident of 147­G, A­2, Mayur Vihar in their defence. I refer to 1999 I AD (Delhi 853 Mohkam Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court took note of the fact that typographical errors and accidental errors it appear but the same cannot take away the substance of the evidence. In such CC No. 45/2010 Page 166 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 circumstances, I am of the opinion that PW1 is the owner of 147­G, A­2, Mayur Vihar and he has testified that no society has ever worked on this address. Therefore the stand of the accused P. K. Thirwani that he visited the said place for the purpose of audit is a false defence. As per Rule 84(5) of DCS Rules 1973 the audit of a cooperative society shall be conducted in the registered office of the society, unless the registrar directs otherwise. Since the defence of accused stands falsified and Deepak Kumar whom he states to have met is found to be non existence person, not only it becomes a clearcut case of abuse of his official position by him but also it proves that he was in conspiracy with the person who were impersonating as President, Secretary and Treasurer. This fact is revealed from the "brief summary of the society" placed in D­11 and D­12, which show the signatures of President, Secretary, Treasurer of the fake society and the Auditor (i.e. A­5). A perusal of this brief summary of the society would show that it has column of names of managing committee members present during audit period and in this column name of Arun Kumar as President, Deepak Kumar as Secretary and Rajender Kumar Singh as Treasurer have been written and at the lower portion of the document the signatures of President, Secretary, Treasurer as well as of A5 are present. This proves that a fake audit was created in conspiracy with the persons, who were impersonating as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. I would add CC No. 45/2010 Page 167 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 here that during investigation no such person namely Arun Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Rajender Kumar Singh were found. I have already discussed the question of Deepak Kumar of being a fake person. On the envelope D­130 addressed to Rajender Kumar Singh, it is stated that no such person resides at the given address. Whereas on the envelope D­126 addressed to Arun Kumar, it is written that despite going several times at this address, he could not meet addressee. In his testimony the concerned postman i.e. PW51 has stated that no such person resides at that address. I may further point out that the address on the aforesaid envelopes are the same, which are written in the affidavit Ex.PW66/6 of Arun Kumar and Ex.PW66/02 of Rajender Kumar Singh, which are placed in D­9.

Prosecution has examined PW78 Sh. Surender Kumar Abrol, an Accounts Officer in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj. He testified that an account was being maintain in the name of Rangmahal CGHS having registration no. 152(H) and the said society maintained this account upto 1991. He proved letter Ex.PW78/A written by Manager Darya Ganj Smt. Shikha Verma to the Investigating Officer of this case showing the status of account of this society. Along with this letter a copy of statement of account was also sent. As per the letter and statement of account, an amount of Rs.50/­ stood in the name of Rangmahal CGHS as on 31.12.1991 and thereafter there was no transaction in this account. In the brief CC No. 45/2010 Page 168 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 summary of the society he had written "nil" in the column of details of bank A/c. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that when a society is registered only when an account is opened by such society. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Rule 6(1) of DCS Rules 1973 and "form no.1" relevant to this Rule. A perusal of this form no.1 would show that point no.12 there is a column "amount deposited in these Delhi States Cooperative Bank Ltd." I may point out that form no.1 is a proforma for application for registration of cooperative societies. In other words, the opening of an account in Delhi State Cooperative Bank is a prerequisite for registration of the society. Therefore it is clear that actual Rangmahal CGHS must have opened such an account before its registration in the year 1973. I have already discussed that PW78 has proved that in fact such an account existed. Had auditor asked for the particulars of such an account from the operators of the fake society i.e. fake President, Secretary and Treasurer, such operators/managers of this fake society would have been caught on wrong foot. But A5 despite being an auditor, who has experience of auditing of large number of society does not ask for particulars of such account and rather in the column of details of the bank A/c he writes "nil". This itself shows that the element of mens rea of this accused that he was out to help the accused persons in their illegal designs. I am of the opinion that he is not only guilty of his official position to obtain the pecuniary CC No. 45/2010 Page 169 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 advantage to the persons operating the fake society but was also actively in conspiracy with them.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that had P. K. Thirwani been in conspiracy with the operators of the fake society, he would not have raised any objections in the audit. I have perused the objections/suggestions and I reproduce the same as under :

1. Audit of the Society should be got done every year.

2. AGM/Election of the society should be held every year in accordance with Act, Rules & Bye­laws.

3. M.C. Meeting should be held once in every month.

4. Approval of resigned/new enrolled members should be taken from the RCS office.

5. Share allotment register should be completed and share certificates be issued to all the members of the society.

6. Cash retention limit should be fixed.

7. Financial position should be improved to avoid losses to the society.

8. Compliance report as per proforma 16 must be send to the RCS office."

A perusal of above would show that these are not objections rather these are innocuous suggestions. Had A5 not acted in collusion with the persons dealing with the fake society and had in honest discharge of his official duties actually visited the said premises i.e. 147­G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi, the fake society would not have been successful in getting the audit of more than 30 years accounts of the society. It is argued by Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. that audit is not a precondition for approval of the list of the members for the purpose of allotment of land. I disagree CC No. 45/2010 Page 170 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 to this submission. I may point out that before sending the list of members of society to DDA, it is the requirement that the society is working as per norms. Regular audit is essential for that purpose. Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. argues that A­5 had never suspected that the persons who met him were impersonators and that A­5 had no knowledge of forgeries etc. I disagree with this submission of Ld. Defence Counsel. When it stands proved that the audit report prepared by P. K. Thirwani is a false report because the office of Ranmahal CGHS never existed on the aforesaid address of Mayur Vihar, where A­6 has stated to have visited, it leads to only one conclusion that he did so as he was mixed with the persons operating the fake society and were impersonating as Arun Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Rajinder Kumar Singh the fake President, Secretary and Treasurer of the society. Therefore when A5 had indulged in fraudulent audit, he has aided in sending of list of fraudulent members of the society to DDA for allotment of land and thus he fully abused his official position in an attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage to them pursuant to the conspiracy in question.

FAIZ MOHD. (A­3) Accused Faiz Mohd. was appointed as Inspector vide order dated 21.01.2004 of RCS and vide letter dt. 27.01.2004 of Sh. Ramesh Chandra, AR(East). This letter is marked as Ext.PW85/A­13. One copy of this letter was given to accused Faiz Mohd. and second CC No. 45/2010 Page 171 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 copy was sent to the President/Secretary, Rangmahal CGHS, 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi. As per the report of accused, Faiz Mohd. Ext.PW85/A­10, he had visited at 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi on 31.01.2004, however, he was informed from there that office of the society had been shifted from 81 Sunder Nagar, Delhi to 147­G Pocket­A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi. It is further written by him that he visited at the office address of the society i.e. 147­G Pocket­ A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi on 01.02.2004 where he met Deepak Kumar, Secretary of the society. He wrote that Deepak Kumar provided relevant record of the society and informed that there are 120 members existing in the society and that list has not yet been approved by the RCS for allotment of land.

I have already discussed the testimony of PW­1. The objections of this accused to the testimony of PW­1 are same, as raised by A­5. I have already discussed that what actually PW­1 has testified is that he is a resident of 147­G Pocket­A­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi, but, due to phonetic similarity, it was typed as 147­ G Pocket­8, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi. I have already discussed that no society existed on this address, rather, this address was used by accused Mohan Lal because from 1977 to 2002 he had been a tenant at this place. Since it stands proved that the society never worked at this place, the defence of this accused that he had actually visited this place stands falsified. This false defence leads to an CC No. 45/2010 Page 172 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 inference that accused Faiz Mohd. not only abused his official position, but, also that he did so in conspiracy with the persons dealing with the fake society.

ACCUSED RAMESH CHANDRA (A­2) & ACCUSED RAKESH KUMAR HASIJA (A­4) Accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija is a dealing clerk who wrote the note sheet dt. 13.01.2004 which I have already reproduced. It is written in this note sheet that "As per record available the audit of the society is pending since registration and that no list was sent to DDA for allotment of land and that status of the society is non functional." He also proposed that AR(Audit) be informed about the status of the society and accused Faiz Mohd. be appointed as Inspector for conducting inspection u/s 54 of DCS Act for the present running condition of the society. Accused Ramesh Chandra (A­2), AR(East) recommended that AR(Audit) be informed accordingly and inspection for the status of the society may be proved.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that when a letter of AR(Audit)which was PUC in this case was received, only a few note sheets and correspondence were available in this file D­8 and from these notings and correspondence it was not possible to make out as to whether the society was actually working or its audit was being conducted regularly or the list of members for allotment had already been sent or the land was alloted to the society. It is argued by Ld. CC No. 45/2010 Page 173 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Defence Counsel that in these circumstances, Dealing Assistant i.e. A­4 prepared this note and AR(E) i.e. A­4 also wrote his noting in routine manner and in good faith that the society was non­functional. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that these public servants had removed the relevant note sheets and correspondence from this file with a view to help the operators of the fake society for getting the allotment of land. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a letter dt. 26.05.1975 (Ext.PW52/G­1) written by one Sh. S.P. Jain, Treasurer of Rangmahal CGHS to AR(Cooperative Group Housing Society). Ld. Public Prosecutor has also drawn my attention to another letter dt. 27.05.1975 regarding the inspection of the society. Another letter dt. 06.09.1975 is addressed by Dharamprakash Garg, Secretary to AR vide which the copy of the minutes of meetings held by the society in May, 1975 were sent to the office of RCS. Similarly, other letters have been shown by Ld. Public Prosecutor to prove that the society was actually interacting with RCS even after the year 1973 but the note sheets after the year 1973 are not available. It is argued that as a normal working of a Dealing Clerk, he should have made a note regarding the missing of note sheets after the year 1973 or he should have noted that although the correspondence is being made by the society with the office of RCS, but, the relevant note sheets are not being written. It is argued that infact the note sheets were being written properly but CC No. 45/2010 Page 174 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the RCS officials in conspiracy with the operators of the fake society had removed those note sheets and correspondence showing allotment of land. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that when there is correspondence on file D­8 upto the year 1975, the two fold options were available to the RCS officials namely : (1) they could have issued notice to DDA to inform as to whether the land has been alloted to the society or not; (2) they could have asked information from the Central New Delhi Zone in which the address 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi which is the initial official address of the society is situated.

It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that it is very strange that the file of Central New Delhi Zone is being taken up by the East Zone. There is nothing on record to show how this file (D­8) travelled from Central New Delhi Zone to East Zone. Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that in most of the cases involving the society scam, the builders mafia had adopted the method of changing the society's particulars to East Zone where accused Ramesh Chandra was posted as AR and thereafter in collusion with Ramesh Chandra and higher officials, they were able to get the entire file processed. In this case also, this happened.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the last noting available on this file which is Diary no. 1873 and written on 27.08.1973. It reads as under:

CC No. 45/2010 Page 175 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 "Prastut Patra Samiti ke varsh 1972­73 ke lekha nirikshan ke bare mein hai.

Lekha Nirikshak ne samiti ka lekha nirikshan karne mein kuch ek kamiyun ka vivran diya hai.

Yadi sehmat ho to in kamiyun ko dur karne ke liye samiti ke nirikshak ko patra likh kar bhej diya jave.

Swach Patra hastakhsar hetu prastut hai."

This note can be translated in English as under:

"The PUC is in respect of the audit of the society for the year 1972­73. The auditor while auditing the society has mentioned a few deficiencies. If agree, a letter may be written to the society and the auditor for removing the deficiencies.

The fair letter is ready for the signatures please."

A perusal of this note sheet itself shows that audit for the year 1972­73 had been done by the auditor. Therefore, it is clear that the Dealing Assistant Rakesh Kumar Hasija has written a wrong fact in this note sheet that "As per record available, the audit of the society is pending since registration." Instead, I would like to add here that when this note sheet was written, it was not a bulky file because the note sheets are from page no. 1 to 8 and the documents and correspondence are from page 1 to 68 of correspondence portion. The bulk of the documents placed in this file in year 2003­2004 was not available on this file at that time. Therefore, it CC No. 45/2010 Page 176 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 cannot said that due to bulk of file, the Dealing Assistant might have been lost in the volume of the file. The very last notings available on file speaks clearly that audit for the year 1972­73 had been conducted. This fact must have been noted by the dealing clerk in normal course of official duty.

The same is the case with AR(East). In view of the missing note sheets, either he should have asked for tracing of the note sheets or he could have requested the Central/New Delhi zone as to whether any portion of the file is available with them. Infact, Ramesh Chandra has not been able to convince this court as to how the file of the Central/New Delhi zone has reached the East Zone. It is pertinent to note that there was nothing in the note sheets available to Dealing Assistant and AR(East) to show the change of address. This fact came to their knowledge only when letter of Deepak Kumar Ext.PW85/A­8 reached Ramesh Chandra on 10.02.2004. Therefore, the Dealing Assistant and Assistant Registrar (East) could have known the address of this society as 81, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. I may point out that DW­2 R.K. Mudgil was examined as defence witness by accused Ramesh Chandra and in cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor he admitted that Sunder Nagar is situated in the jurisdiction of Central/New Delhi zone. Therefore, this evidence is enough to prove that in no way the file of Rangmahal CGHS could be available in East Zone over which Ramesh Chandra CC No. 45/2010 Page 177 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 and Rakesh Hasija had jurisdiction. I would refer to the evidence of Ms. Sunita Nagpal (PW­85). She is also a dealing assistant in East Zone during the relevant time. Although, this witness has turned hostile but in cross examination she testified that she had not handed over the documents of the society to Rakesh Kumar Hasija as she was not knowing the whereabouts of the society but when the documents of the said society were handed over to her by Ramesh Chandra the then AR(East), only then, she came to know about the possession of these documents. This evidence proves that accused Ramesh Chandra was in active possession of this file. I may add here that when Ramesh Chandra passed formal order after approval from RCS, appointing Faiz Mohd. u/s 54 of DCS Act as inspecting officer to find out the factual position of the society and to verify the records, he sent one copy of this order to Rangmahal CGHS with the address 81, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. From all this evidence, it is clear that the file belonged to Central/New Delhi Zone whereas it was taken up by Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra without any jurisdiction. No explanation has given from their side as to why the file of this society which should have been lying in Central/New Delhi Zone has reached East Zone. I may further add that this conduct should be seen in view of the subsequent facts that they did not inform AR(Audit) that audit of the year 1972­73 has already been conducted. They did not even wrote in the noting that the CC No. 45/2010 Page 178 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 further note sheets are not available nor asked the AR(Audit) to get searched from his own branch as to whether the audit for further years has been conducted or not. As regarding the question of allotment of land and sending of list, they should have raised query from the Central/New Delhi Zone informing them about the missing note sheets and making a query if they have any record regarding the sending of list and allotment of land. Further, they could have also seen a letter or made a query from the Policy Branch about this fact as well as made the enquiry from the DDA.

I agree that the officials sometimes act very rashly and even blunders are committed during discharge of official duties but when the officials are experienced persons, they acquire an eye for details. In this case, none of the officials is a new entrant in service. However, at the same time overall circumstances of a case would also speak loudly as to whether it is a pure case of negligent working or a case of dishonesty. Wrong noting on the file of another zone means that they had somehow got the said file, in execution of a conspiracy. This is coupled with the fact that the audit of the year 1972­73 and missing of subsequent note sheets has not been highlighted. I would add further that when JR(East) wrote a note "Pl. Spk." (Please Speak), the Dealing Clerk reproduced the same note sheet except the first line in noting dt. 20.01.2004 and the same was recommended by Ramesh Chandra. The first line of this note sheet dt. 20.01.2004 CC No. 45/2010 Page 179 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 reflects that JR(East) had discussed the status of Rangmahal CGHS, but, thereafter, neither the Dealing Clerk nor Ramesh Chandra have written as to why and how they confirmed the status of Rangmahal CGHS as non functional. Instead, the previous note sheet dt. 13.01.2004 was reproduced verbatim. This is a clear cut chain of abuse of official position and conspiracy of Dealing Clerk and AR(East) with the operators of the fake society. True, that no evidence has been brought on record to show that Ramesh Chandra had personally met Deepak Kumar, but, the detailed note sheet dt. 19.03.2004 typed by the Dealing Clerk bears the signatures of Deepak Kumar and at the end of this note sheet, it is written that society has produced/submitted all relevant documents pertaining to the verification of official list of 120 members for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land and the same has been examined and got verified and that in view of this fact, a recommendation was made to approve the list of 120 members for onward transmission to DDA for allotment of land. While preparing this note sheet, no objection was raised as to how the society suddenly woke up after 30 years. No query was raised as to why the society had not informed the change of address to the RCS. I may point out that society submitted the copy of resolution dt. 20.08.1995 Ext.PW87/A­42 resolving the shifting of office address from 81, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to 147G, Pocket A­2, Mayur Vihar, CC No. 45/2010 Page 180 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Phase­III, Delhi­92. It is nowhere asked as to why this intimation was not sent to the society in the year 1995. I may point out that as per Section 84 of DCS Act, 1972, the Cooperative Society must inform to the Registrar about the change of the address of the cooperative society within 30 days. Similarly, at page 340/C, the documents dt. 16.09.1976, 15.07.1977 and 19.07.1978 are the copies of proceedings of society submitted to RCS in respect of introducing new members. I have already discussed that 70 new fake members were introduced by the persons operating the fake society. Neither Dealing Clerk nor Ramesh Chandra AR(E) raised any objection as to why the office of RCS was not informed by society about the inclusion of the new members. I may point out that PW­77 V.K. Bansal has testified that the enrollment of any new member can be done by way of resolution of the society to that effect and it should be conveyed to the office of RCS after its enrollment. The intimation from time to time regarding enrollment of new members is required because the RCS is able to authenticate the list of members to be sent to DDA for allotment of land. Neither accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija nor Ramesh Chandra raised any objection as to why the society did not intimate the RCS about the enrollment of new members. All these circumstances are enough to prove that the Dealing Clerk and the AR(E) has not only hand in glove with each other as well as with the persons who were operating the fake society CC No. 45/2010 Page 181 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 but also a clear proof of abuse of powers.

Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel for A7 that there is no sanction under Section 197 CrPC and the sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not proved. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW91 sh. Rajnish Tingal. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this witness was Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs during the relevant period and he testified that an investigation report along with statements of witnesses and documents was received from CBI for according sanction for prosecution of A7. He testified that the file was processes in MHA and was to be put through proper channel before competent authority for according sanction for prosecution. He testified that sanctioning authority in this matter was President of India. The file received back from the competent authority, who had accorded sanction for prosecution against this accused. He further testified that Ministry of Home Affairs of Union of India was delegated with the powers on behalf of President of India for according sanction in the instant matter. The same was accorded by Minister of Home Affairs and he being competent authority to convey the sanction for prosecution to CBI had conveyed the same accordingly. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the cross examination and submits that this witness has not brought CC No. 45/2010 Page 182 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the file in which the Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Home Minister had put their notings. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention that although the sanctioning authority was the President of India but this witness had testified that the file had not come to President of India. Ld. Defence counsel argues that the witness had admitted that he was not the person to accord sanction to prosecute rather he is only authorize to convey sanction to CBI. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that on the sanction order Ex.PW91/A, the signatures of Home Minister are not present. He also admitted that file was not sent to the President and President of India had not examine any document sent by CBI. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of this witness where he states that he had dictated the order of sanction on the basis of record. In such circumstances, it is argued that although PW91 was only competent to convey sanction, it is surprising that he himself dictated the order of sanction. It is further argued that the prosecution has nowhere proved that the President of India or the Minister of Home Affairs had applied their minds on the grant of sanction. It is further argued that the file in which the various officers had put their notings has also not been brought by the prosecution to prove the application of mind on their behalf. It is argued that the sanction order specifically mentions that "President .......... has carefully examine the material". It is submitted CC No. 45/2010 Page 183 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 that there is no evidence to prove that the President of India had delegated powers to accord sanction to prosecute a public servant to the Home Minsiter. It is therefore argued that prosecution has been unable to prove as to who was the competent authority to accord sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further prosecution has been unable to prove that the competent authority had applied mind on the question of according sanction.

Ld. Public Prosecutor had referred to the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the 3rd November 1958 (as amended dated 24.5.1974) S.O. 2297 in which it is notified that vide order dated 25.10.1958 the President of India in the exercise of powers confer by Clause II of Article 77 of the Constitution is pleased to make the authentication (order and other instructions) Rules 1958 vide which the orders made in the name of President shall be authenticated by the signatures of a Secretary, Sub Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to the Government of India. Ld. Public has referred to J. S. Sathyanarayana Vs State (2005) 5 KANT L. J. 17 wherein an authorized Government officer issued the Government order under the name of Hon'ble Governor Karnataka, but under his signatures as the concerned Under Secretary. It was held to be a valid sanction.

Ld. Public Prosecutor has also referred to Pullanje Urs Vs State CC No. 45/2010 Page 184 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 of Karnataka 2003 Crl. L. J. 1148. Ld. Public Prosecutor has also referred to state, CBI Hyderabad Vs Edwin Devasahayam 2007 Crl. L. J. 3536 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the sanction orders signed by Secretary was proved by a Joint Director, Railway Board and the same was held to be valid.

I have considered the submissions. I am of the opinion that the sanctioning authority is the President of India. The witness has testified that Minister of Home Affairs of Union of India was delegated with the powers on behalf of President of India. He also testifies that after receiving the investigation report, the file was processes in MHA and was put though proper channel before the competent authority for according sanction. In cross examination he disclosed that channel of submissions is through Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Home Minister. It is argued by Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, adv. for this accused that prosecution should have produced and examined Home Minister to prove the application of mind. I disagree with this submission. I am of the opinion that for proving the application of mind, the court has to see the reasons given in the sanction order. I have perused the sanction order, it mentions the facts as well as the reasons as to why the sanction has been accorded. Therefore, the sanction does not suffer from non application of mind. I refer State of Rajasthan Vs Tara Chand AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2131 in which it was held by Hon'ble Supreme CC No. 45/2010 Page 185 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Court that fact of according sanction can be proved by a subordinate officer and if the sanction order is a speaking order, then the matter ends there. Otherwise evidence should be adduced to prove that the sanctioning authority has proved material before according sanction. In the present case also the sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction, which is a speaking order. It mentions the facts and the reasons for according sanction. Hence, it cannot be said that there is non application of mind. Since the sanction order is a speaking order, there is no need for the prosecution to adduce further evidence on this point. Regarding the question of competency of the authority. I take note of notification and judgements referred to Ld. Public Prosecutor and I am of the opinion that PW91 was competent to convey and to prove the order on behalf of President of India.

It is further argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that at the time of investigation accused J. S. Sindhu was not posted as Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to Abhay Chautala Vs. CBI 2011 III AD (Crl.) (SC) 389 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision of Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab and held that where a public servant had abused an entirely difference office than the one which he was holding on the date on which cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption CC No. 45/2010 Page 186 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Act. Admittedly J. S. Sindhu was not posted in the office of RCS when the cognizance was taken. Accordingly I am of the opinion that no sanction to prosecute this accused is required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Now coming to the facts of this case. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that A7 remained posted in the office of RCS only for seven months and he has been involved as accused only in two cases of society scam. It is further argued that he has been cited by CBI has prosecution witness as many as in sixteen cases of society scam. Therefore, these facts show that he was only a victim of circumstances and that his innocence is proved from the fact that he raised an objection by writing "pls spk". It is argued that the next note sheet dated 20.1.2004 would show that this query on part of A7 was in respect of "status of Rangmahal CGHS". It is argued that due to this reason the file remained stalled for about a week. It is argued that had A7 being the part of conspiracy, it would have been smooth sailing without any objection or query on the part of A7. It is argued that even in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court Dr. Subramanyam Vs. A. Raja (in SLP (Crl.) no. 1688 of 2012 decided on 24.8.2012) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that criminal conspiracy cannot be presumed on the mere fact that there were official discussions between the officers. It was held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take place on legal proof and the CC No. 45/2010 Page 187 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 meeting between P. Chidambaram and A. Raja would not by itself be sufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy.

I have considered this case law and I am of the opinion that each case has to be decided on its own merits. A lot of arguments have been addressed on the point of the query of this accused regarding the status of society. On being specifically asked by this court during the final arguments as to how a question about the status of the society arose in the mind of A7, it was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it was just by way of caution that such a query was raised. I disagree with his submission. While discussing the role of accused Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra, I have reproduced the last note sheet in which it has been stated that audit of the society was conducted in the year 1972­73 and there were some deficiencies and it was proposed to write a letter to the society to remove those deficiencies. Therefore it was clear that there would be further note sheets and communications in this file, which are not available. Further there are many correspondences between the RCS and the society upto the year 1975 regarding which there is no note sheet available. Therefore a reasonable person on seeing this situation on the file would naturally reach to the conclusion that the note sheet after 1973 are missing from the file. Either something is being concealed or something is being removed from the file or there is something which is not on the file. This is the reason that a CC No. 45/2010 Page 188 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 question about status of this society arose and discussed by this accused with his subordinates i.e. Rakesh Kumar Hasija and Ramesh Chandra. But despite his having seen the clear deficiencies in the file, the previous note sheet dated 13.1.2004 was reproduced verbatim.

It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused J. S. Sindhu only had supervisory role. It is submitted that J. S. Sindhu was appointed under Section 3(1) of DCS Act but Lt. Governor did not make any delegation powers upon J. S. Sindhu under Section 3(2) of DCS Act. It is argued that the role of A7 was only supervisory in nature and there were several branches and zones under the supervision of J. S. Sindhu J. R. (East). Not only that J. S. Sindhu was having a heavy work load and there are only two joint registrars at that time. It is further argued that Joint Registrar cannot be expected to visit the field to personally cross check the records.

I agree that no powers under Section DCS Act were delegated to J. S. Sindhu. However presuming that he was the supervisory authority over many branches and that he was having a heavy work load, it must not be forgotten that a file where list of members of a society is to be recommended to DDA for allotment of land was not a routine matter. As per the submissions of accused, he used to deal with 50 to 60 files per day and in such circumstances he will have to have faith in his subordinate staff. Ld. Counsel of this accused has CC No. 45/2010 Page 189 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 argued vehemently that only a few notesheets were available on record from which it could not be made out as to what is the status of the society. I have already stated that there was something manifest on record, which this public servant could not ignore. When this accused wrote "pls spk" on the note on 16.1.2004, there existed definite material on record that something very important was amiss in the file. This is the reason that he felt it necessary to discuss the issue of status of the society. I have also discussed earlier while dealing the role of A2 and A4 that the last note sheet dated 27.8.1973 expressively mentions that the audit for the year 1972­73 had been done by the auditor and the society had been asked to remove the deficiencies. Further there are letters/correspondence on the record showing the communications between society and the assistant registrar upto the year 1975. No public servant could have ignored this fact because it is a clearly pointer that subsequent note sheets are missing. In such circumstances it is natural for J. R. (East) to raise a query. However, he did not object to the noting dated 20.1.2004 in which it is written that "as per the record available the audit of society is pending since registration". It is argued on behalf of this accused that he had only approved portion "A" of this note sheet whereby Faiz Mohd. was proposed to be appointed as Inspector for conducting inspection under Section 54 of the present running condition of the society. True, but he cannot wriggle out of CC No. 45/2010 Page 190 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 mentioning of a false fact about audit and the fact that note sheets of the file were missing. On having seen the few papers available on this file, it becomes manifest that the proceedings were continued even after the year 1973. The note sheet dated 20.1.2004 specifically mentions that the issue of status of Rangmahal CGHS was discussed by A. R. (East). This is an evidence that J. R. (East) knew the fact of missing portion of this file, otherwise this query would not have arisen. However the dealing clerk and A. R. (East) reproduced the previous note sheet verbatim (except the first line in which there is a mention of discussion regarding status of the society). The J. R. (East) now closes his eyes and does not ask as to how A. R. (East) or dealing assistant came to the conclusion that land was not allotted and the society was non functional, even though the file speaks volumes that the note sheets after 1973 are missing. J. R. (East) could have asked for confirmation from DDA regarding the status of the society. He could have proposed the physical identification and verification of a few members randomly.

The things did not stop here. When a detailed note of about twelve pages was typed by dealing assistant, it had a smooth sailing. In fact it was approved with a great speed. The note was typed by dealing assistant on 19.3.2004. It was signed by A. R. (East), J. R. (East) (i.e. the present accused) and Narayan Diwakar, the Registrar, on the same day. None of them raised a query about the change of CC No. 45/2010 Page 191 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 address by the society on 20.8.1995 without informing the office of RCS, no one raised the objections as to why the enrollment of 70 fresh members was not intimated from time to time despite the fact that the they have been shown to have been enrolled from the year 1976 to the year 1978. The arguments that once Faiz Mohd. had given the report verifying the documents and the new address of the society and the auditor had audited the 33 years records does not hold good in view of the fact that no one including J. R. (East) raised a query as to how the society had woken up after such a long period of hibernation. There is no explanation why J.R. (East) had closed his eyes to the mentioning of a wrong fact in respect of the audit. The only explanation is that on seeing that the note sheets of the file were missing, J. R. (East) raised an objection but thereafter marched along with the train of the conspirators. A lot of arguments have been addressed that there is no evidence of conspiracy and Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to Runu Ghosh case and Chidambaram Case to buttress the point that simply on the basis of noings and meetings, a conspiracy cannot be presumed. I am of the opinion that each case has to be seen in the perspective of its own facts. The role of this accused can be understood by the following paragraph (para

69) of 2000 CrLJ 976 of Andhra Pradesh High Court which is reproduced as under :

"It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain, where each party performs even CC No. 45/2010 Page 192 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. For example, in a case of smuggling, what is done int he process of procuring and distributing narcotics or smuggled goods for sale in different parts of the globe? In such a case, these smugglers, middlemen, retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. These smugglers know that the middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers know that the middlemen must buy from importers. Thus the conspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers, and those at the other end know that it had not begun with their settlers. The action of each has to be considered as a spoke in the hub­there being a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy."

Sh. J. S. Sindhu is situated similarly as in the above stated illustration. The same speed is visible in the processing of the application for change of name of the society. It is pertinent to note that the list was approved by the RCS on 19.3.2004 and shortly thereafter an application for change of the name on the basis of a GBM meeting on 27.3.2004 was moved and was approved by A. R. (East), J. R. (East) and the registrar on the same day i.e. on 29.3.2004. The speed is such that none of them even noticed that CC No. 45/2010 Page 193 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 the fresh bye­laws of the society with the new name does not even contain the fresh name of the society in Clause­1 of the bye­laws (D­8). It appears that the operators of fake society were confident that whatever would be presented, the same would be accepted approved and would be forwarded. The duty of a very senior officer is not just to forward a proposal to higher authorities. His duty is to thoroughly read the file and give his independent opinion on a particular note moved by his subordinate. The purpose of hierarchy is to guide and control subordinates and to check their wrong doings and further to assist his superior by performing the work assigned to him. It must not be forgotten that it was not a routine file. This accused may be dealing with larger number of files every day but all these files do not pertain to allotment of the land. He was dealing with a case which involved public interest. The last note sheet dated 27.8.1973 clearly reflects that the further communications for removing the deficiencies pointed out by the auditor must have been made between the office of RCS and the society. Therefore there were all the "reasons to believe" that the society might not be "non functional" as mentioned in the note sheet dated 13.1.2004 and 20.1.2004, prepared by dealing assistant and A. R. (East). I have already discussed that this accused closed his eyes to a wrong mentioned in these note sheets as discussed above. All this has been done with a view to aid and abet the recommendation of list of fake CC No. 45/2010 Page 194 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 members of the fake society. I agree that no evidence has been brought on record to show that this accused had met Deepak Kumar or any other person operating the fake society. But there is evidence that he had discussions with Ramesh Chandra and Rakesh Kumar Hasija (i.e. A2 and A4) as reflected in the noting dated 20.1.2004. I have already held that both of them, who were A. R. (East) and dealing assistant at the relevant time were in league with the operators of the fake society. Therefore his conduct is clearly dishonest and I am convinced that not only he has abused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage to the fake operators of the society and had also acted against the public interest by recommending for the approval of the list of members in question. The fact and circumstances clearly show that he was part of the entire conspiracy. Though he only conspired with his subordinates and superiors, and his role was only that of an inter­mediatory but his role was important. Had he not been in league, he would have definitely pointed out the fact of the possibility of the society still being functional and the fact of audit having been conducted for the year 1972­73.

Narayan Diwakar(A­8) As discussed earlier, I would take up the issue as to what meant as "reason to believe" in the present set of circumstances. In 1987 Cr.L.J. 1061, it was held that the issue of reason to believe on CC No. 45/2010 Page 195 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 part of a public servant has to be viewed from the angle that a public servant with his experience and eye for details would catch up a culprit even though there is no concrete evidence available with him. A public servant is supposed to be endowed with an authority and experience to see through the files and frauds being committed, if any. Although, the court cannot substitute its wisdom when the question of "reason to believe" is to be ascertained. However, when there is manifest disregard to the facts available on record, the public servant will have to show as to why he had to believe certain facts despite material to the contrary Ld. Counsel for accused argues that what a Registrar could have done when a matter has been thrashed at the level of Dealing Clerk, AR and JR and when he had appointed an inspecting officer to inspect the records and the status of the society. It is argued that Narayan Diwakar had acted in good faith in approving the list of members of Rangmahal CGHS and that he never had any reason to believe that the society, its members and office bearers as well as the documents produced by the society are fake.

Ld. Counsel for accused Narayan Diwakar has referred to Subramaniam Swami Vs A.Raja, already referred by me and has compared his role with his role in the present case. It is further argued that interpretation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. P. Chidambaram's case would override the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Runu Ghosh's case. I have perused the Subramaniam CC No. 45/2010 Page 196 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Swamy's case. Hon'ble Supreme Court has not touched the question of mensrea in Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act. So far as the question of conspiracy is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no evidence to that effect and a wrong judgment or an inaccurate approach or poor management by itself cannot be said to be a product of criminal conspiracy.

On perusal of the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that entire set of the facts are altogether different in two cases. Each case is to be seen on its own merits. However, the Principles of Law would not change.

Now I take up the issue as to what is the role of a Registrar in RCS in approving the list of members. I have already stated that land in Delhi is a most precious commodity because of its scarcity and its location being in the capital of India. Therefore, the hierarchy starting from the Dealing Clerk upto the Registrar is required to assess each and every matter at its own level independently. To say that when the entire hierarchy before him had approved a note, what he had to do would be an argument which defeats the entire purpose of bureaucratic hierarchy. In the present case, a society was coming after 30 years of its registration. In the application, it has stated that it had changed its address. In this application, they also stated that they had introduced 70 more members in it. The record shows that the facts mentioned in the CC No. 45/2010 Page 197 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 notings are contrary to the material available on the file. The Registrar is the repository of all powers under DCS Act. The importance of the role of Registrar has been specified in 'Kaveri's judgment' by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which says that effect of approval of the list is that the Registrar signified the correctness of the list, as filed by the society. I may point out that the above stated facts were enough to lead through a conclusion that there is some fraud involved in this application. However, apart from it, it has to be seen as to in what circumstances, the things had happened.

I would refer to the 120 affidavits of the fake members placed in D­9. All these affidavits have been purchased on 29.12.2003, as is clear from the date stamp impression on the back of these affidavits. Deepak Kumar had moved an application received by Narayan Diwakar on 29.12.2003 itself as is clear from the date put by him as signature at point B on the said application Ext.PW85/A­8. These are 120 affidavits in number and all of them are attested by Oath Commissioner on 01.01.2004 and thereafter were presented in the office of RCS. This application Ext.PW85/A­8 dt. 29.12.2003 is in three pages. On page no. 2 of this application, it is specifically mentioned as to what documents have been enclosed with the application for approval of the final list of members. As per the contents of page 2, these documents were filed in 2 volumes. Under heading 'Volume­I', there is heading 'Enrollments' at point 6.

CC No. 45/2010 Page 198 / 214

CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Under this heading, there is a reference of 'original affidavits of 120 members for which approval is required.' It has only one meaning that although the affidavits are shown to have been attested on 01.01.2004 but infact the said date is a fake date. I may point out that PW­66 Sh. Sudhir Mittal, Adv. the Oath Commissioner whose stamp appears on these affidavits categorically denied having attested these affidavits. Therefore, there is forgery of attestation on these affidavits. It appears that date 01.01.2004 is shown because the forgerers were aware that it would not be believable that stamp papers for the affidavits of as many as 120 members which were produced on 29.12.2003, would be sworn by those members and collected by the society on that very day. Therefore, a date of attestation after about the three days was forged on these affidavits. Otherwise, there is no explanation as to when these affidavits annexed with the application received by RCS on 29.12.2003, how they stand attested on subsequent dates by Oath Commissioner. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that this forgery of attestation appears to have taken place in the office of RCS. I agree that this is also one possibility. These circumstances are a definite pointer to the fact that the perpetrators of fake society got a nod from the person who mattered and as soon as they got this nod, they started the process with full speed fully noting that whatever they would file would get through passing all the hierarchical levels of the RCS. It does not CC No. 45/2010 Page 199 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 need to be point out that the only person empowered to approve these lists was Sh. Narayan Diwakar (the then Registrar) and no one else. Therefore, I am not left in any doubt that the "go ahead" is from no other person than accused Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar. I reiterate that the application was filed by the fake Secretary Deepak Kumar on 29.12.2003 and just two days after AR(Audit) writes a letter to AR(East) dt. 31.12.2003 Ext.PW85/A­14, although the letter had not yet reached him. I may point out that the letter of Deepak Kumar Ext.PW85/A­8 reached AR(E) on 10.02.2004. However, in anticipation of the said letter, a note proposing the appointment of Faiz Mohd. was written by Dealing Assistant and AR(East) for appointing of Faiz Mohd. to appoint an inspector for conducting the inspection. Otherwise, there was no reason for appointing such an inspector. I may point out that AR(Audit) had only asked information regarding status of the society from the records. The work of AR(East) would have ended by simply informing as to what was the status of the society. All this conduct of the persons who had presented the application and affidavits to the Registrar, conduct of AR(Audit) and conduct of AR(East) and preparation of fake audit and fake inspection report by RCS officials supports the inference that there was a signal of 'go ahead' by none other than the Registrar.

Though, the file was held up for about one week on an CC No. 45/2010 Page 200 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 inquiry by JR(E), but thereafter, there was unbelievable speed with which the list was approved. Same is true about the change of name of society. I may add here that all these forgeries on the affidavits of 120 members were done on the very date i.e. 29.12.2003 on which application was filed by Deepak Kumar. I may add here that in the detailed note dt. 19.03.2004 at page 17 , it has been mentioned that this society has also mentioned the submission of affidavits in original but it is nowhere mentioned that the same were furnished on 19.03.2004. On the other hand, page 2 of the application Ext.PW85/A­8 dt. 29.12.2003 specifically mentions that these original affidavits were enclosed with the said application.

As discussed above, the circumstances speak volumes as to on whose instructions all the RCS officials were acting superbly in unison. Sh. J.S. Sindhu JR(E) had put a query but he too fell in line very soon as I have already discussed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the act of accused Narayan Diwakar in approving the list of members of the society and forwarding it to DDA is not only abuse of official position in attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage to the persons operating the fake society but also I am in no doubt that he was acting in conspiracy with them. A chain which started from the fake operators of the fake society, completely joins all the accused persons in the present case. I may add here that all acts held to be joined altogether to see as to what actual picture is emerging. The CC No. 45/2010 Page 201 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 approval of change of name of society has been done with a view to avoid detection because the actual Rangmahal CGHS had already been alloted a piece of land. Even Faiz Mohd. in his report had note that the last election of the society was conducted on 28.12.2003 i.e. only one day prior to the filing of the application by the said Deepak Kumar before RCS at the cost of reiteration. I would say that all the officials subordinate to Registrar draw their powers from him. No powers of DCS Act have been delegated to them. Therefore, not a leaf would move in the office of RCS without the approval of the Registrar. Therefore, the circumstances leave show that it was with the prior agreement with Narayan Diwakar that everything started suddenly and with a great speed.

It is a case of bad faith as there is total abuse of powers by the Registrar and the circumstances are sufficient enough to hold all the accused persons guilty in abuse of powers for abuse of official position as well as for conspiring with each other.

OVER ALL SCENARIO I have discussed above the role of each accused separately. Now their role has to be seen in reference to the entire web of circumstances. This is necessary because the role of each accused, if seen in isolation, may not constitute any offence but if seen in totality it becomes clear that he was an active participant in such offence. In CC No. 45/2010 Page 202 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Ajay Aggarwal vs Union of of India, 1993 AIR (SC 1637) Hon'ble Supreme Court cited 1970 (2) SCR 760 of the constitution bench of Supreme Court before whom it was contended that several acts which constitute to make an offence u/s 120­B IPC should be split up in parts and the criminal liability of an accused must only be judged with regard to the part played by him. The arguments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the accused in question had a role only in helping in opening of a particular account and to help another accused by keeping watch over such account. Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected this contention holding that the act of an accused should be seen in view of the entire conspiracy and it cannot be seen in isolation.

In view of above case law the court is to see as to what picture finally emerges. The prosecution has proved that all the 120 members of this alternative society are fake. Even "Deepak Kumar"

the person appearing before the RCS officials and interacting with them is a fake person and in fact does not exist. The affidavits of all the 120 members are forged affidavits. All the copies of the proceedings of the society presented to the office of RCS are forged. The address, where the office of society was shown to have been shifted, in fact is a fake address in the sense that the office of society never existed at this address. The inspector namely Faiz Mohd. gives a false report about meeting of Deepak Kumar at this new address CC No. 45/2010 Page 203 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 and having verified the documents of the society. Auditor P. K. Thirwani prepares false audit for more than 30 years. Sh. Jitender Singh Sharma (AR Audit) falsely mentions in his letter to AR (East) that till date no audit of the society had been conducted. Dealing Assistant namely Rakesh Kumar Hasija and AR (East) namely Ramesh Chandra also write falsely in their note sheets that no audit of the society had been conducted since the time of inception. Neither dealing assistant namely Rakesh Kumar Hasija, nor AR (East) namely Ramesh Chandra, nor JR (East) J. S. Sindhu, nor Narayan Diwakar, the Registrar, noted that the last noting of the year 1973 and the letters of the society upto 1975 reflect that the society was functional at least upto the year 1975. None of them noted in their official notings that the note sheets after the year 1973 were missing from the file. The glaring fact is that the official file of the society should have been in Central­New Delhi Zone. However the file is in hands of Ramesh Chandra AR (East) Zone. This explains the reason as to why in the application dated 29.12.2003 as well as in the ante dated and forged resolution of the society, the new address of the society has been shown in Mayur Vihar which fell in the jurisdiction of Ramesh Chandra. It does not require any fertile imagination to understand as to why the fake secretary of the fake society is appearing in response to a letter Ex.PW85/A­9 addressed to such fake society at a fake address. It needs to be understood that accused CC No. 45/2010 Page 204 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal, who have been proved to be the operators of the fake society, were in possession of all the particulars of original Rangmahal Society i.e. its name, registration number, original official address, names of the 50 promoter members etc. Due to possession of all this information, they were able to get the fake affidavit etc. prepared. But the question is as to from where these operators of the fake society got all these particulars. There is no possibility of their having it got from the original society. Therefore the only place from where they could have got is from the RCS officials. This proves as to how the RCS officials were in league with these conspirators. Sh. J. S. Sindhu, who was the Joint Registrar (East), had actually seen through the file. But thereafter he conveniently ignored the fact of missing note sheets and the fact that the society was still operational after 1973 and did not put a note as to why dealing assistant and AR (East) did not raise the objection as to why the society did not intimate RCS about change of address and as to why the enrollment of about 70 members in the year 1976, 1977 and 1978 were not intimated to the RCS. Right from the dealing assistant upto the Registrar, none of the officials reacted to the fact as to how suddenly after more than 30 years, a society has woken up and had moved an application for sending the list of members. I may point out that the RCS officials were so eager in this case that although the letter dated CC No. 45/2010 Page 205 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 29.12.2003 had not reached AR (East) or AR (Audit), still AR (Audit) initiated the file asking AR (East) to inform about the status of society for the purpose of audit. Further AR (Audit) without approval from the registrar, orders for conducting audit for more than 30 years. This shows that AR (Audit) was confident that his act would not meet any objection from the registrar. I have already discussed that fact of the society having been audited for the year 1972­73 which is clearly reflected in the last order sheet available on D­8. But the dealing clerk and AR (East) made a wrong noting that as per available record, the audit of the society had not been conducted since inception. I have already discussed that this fact was also noted by J. S. Sindhu but still he did not correct his subordinates on this point. I have already discussed that the manner in which the operators of the fake society had suddenly became active in forging 120 affidavits of fake members on 29.12.2003 and on that very day, these affidavits were submitted along with the application dated 29.12.2003 before the Registrar, it leaves nothing to the imagination.

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that as soon as Narayan Diwakar, the then RCS, fired the shot, the relay race began. In view of these over all circumstances, the question of protection of Section 197 CrPC is to be considered. The facts mentioned by me as above clearly show that the official act of the public servants here is only the tip of the conspiratorial iceberg. The actual conspiracy in which CC No. 45/2010 Page 206 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 these public servants have participated is quite big and beyond the official business. Therefore no protection under Section 197 CrPC would be available to any of the accused persons for the purpose of their prosecution as well as conviction. The role of each public servant as well as the other accused persons would show that all of them had acted in conspiracy with each other. If even one of them had acted honestly, the scam would not have happened. For example, had P. K. Thirwani or Faiz Mohd. reported that no society existed at the given address, had dealing clerk Rakesh Kumar Hasija, AR (East) Ramesh Chandra, JR (East) J. S. Sindhu had noted that the pages are missing from the file and that there was evidence on the file to show that it was functional even after 1973 and therefore there was need to take further steps to verify as to whether the land has been allotted to the society or not, the scam would not have happened. I may point out that the land was allotted to the actual society in the year 1977. Had any of these officials made an inquiry from DDA, the true picture would have come. Had JR (East) raised a query as to how a file of Central­New Delhi Zone has come to the East Zone, the conspiracy would not have been successful. The lightning speed with which the affidavits of 120 members were prepared and annexed with the application dated 29.12.2003 and the lightning speed with which the proposal for sending list of members was recommended and approved on 19.3.2004 on which dealing CC No. 45/2010 Page 207 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 assistant, AR (East), JR (East) and Registrar put their signatures on this note and the great speed shown by these public servants in changing the name of the society further shows that it met no hurdle because all of these public servants knew that the change of name of this society would facilitate in allotment of the land. All of them were aware of the extremely high value of the land, which they were going to recommend for. It was not a routine and ordinary file. None of these public servants have stated or brought on record that they used to deal with large number of such type of files everyday. The over all circumstances exhibit it a total and dishonest failure of entire bureaucratic machinery in the office of RCS. Not only these public servants have abused their official position making an attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage for the other accused persons namely Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Mohan Lal and Anna Wankhede within the definition of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) but also their act is fully covered under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) because they attempted to obtain the pecuniary advantage to the aforesaid persons without public interest. By now it is a settled law that a conspirator may not know as to what the other conspirators are doing but if he aids or abets in any manner commission of the said crime, he would be equally liable for the acts committed by the other conspirators. It has been argued that the RCS does not allot the land. However, it must not be forgotten that DDA is bound by the directions of Hon'ble High Court CC No. 45/2010 Page 208 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 to allot the land as per the seniority of the society by the date of registration maintained by the office of RCS. When Registrar authenticates the list of members of the society, the DDA has only to see its seniority while allotting the land. Therefore, authentication of list of members by the Registrar is the most important act which leads to allotment of land by DDA. Therefore, Registrar has to take his independent decision after thoroughly going through the file as to whether everything is alright or not. I have discussed that even though P.K. Thirwani and Faiz Mohd. had given their reports, but, still the file itself spoke volumes about the fraud being perpetrated. His plea that he acted in routine manner cannot be accepted because higher is the authority, the greater is responsibility. In the present case, all the public servants have intentionally aided in carrying out the purpose of the conspiracy hatched by Sri Chand, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal. Therefore Section 120B IPC takes into its sweep all the accused persons. Not only all these public servants abused their official positions in attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage to Sri Chand, Anna Wankhede, Mohan Lal and Sushil Kumar Sharma, but, also had attempted to procure pecuniary advantage without the public interest. The gravity of the offence in the present case can be understood by the situation which would have arisen, if the land to this fake society would have been allotted by DDA. This possibility was real because in every CC No. 45/2010 Page 209 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Government Department the corruption has taken deep roots. Had the land been allotted to the fake society, the entire land would have come in the hands of Sri Chand etc., who would have sold the flats at the market value and had earned immense wealth illegally to the great disadvantage to the public as well as to the State.

Accordingly, I convict all the accused persons for the offences u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC and also r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

I further convict accused Ramesh Chandra, Rakesh Kumar Hasija, J.S. Sharma, Jasbir Singh Sindhu, P.K. Thirwani, Faiz Mohd. and Narayan Diwakar for the offences u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)

(d) r/w Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

I further convict accused Anna Wankhede and Mohan Lal for the offences u/s 468 IPC.

Announced in the open court on 29.8.2012.

                                                               (VINOD KUMAR)
                                                          Special Judge­II, CBI,
                                                            Rohini Court, Delhi




CC No. 45/2010                                                     Page 210 / 214
 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc.                           Judgment dt. 29.8.2012

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR

SPECIAL JUDGE­II (PC ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI ID No. 02404R0649862007 RC 22(E)/2005/EOW­II/DLI CC No. 45/2010 (Rangmahal CGHS) CBI Vs 1. Sri Chand S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh R/o 274­A, Pocket­C, Mayur Vihar, Phase­II, Delhi.

2. Ramesh Chandra S/o Late Sh. Agya Ram R/o CD/52­F, DDA Flat Hari Nagar, New Delhi­64.

3. Faiz Mohammed, S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohammed, R/o 4794, Haata Kedara, Pahari Dharaj, New Delhi.

4. Rakesh Kumar Hasija S/o Sh. Udho Dass, R/o Flat No. 1113, Type­II, Delhi Admn. Flats Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.

5. Prahlad Kumar Thirwani S/o Late Sh. Moti Ram Thirwani R/o 348­E, Pocket­2, Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, Delhi­91.

6. Jitender Singh Sharma S/o Sh. Narayan Singh R/o 1073/A­3, Ward No.1, Mehrauli, New Delhi­30.

7. Jasbir Singh Sindhu S/o Dr. Bharat Singh R/o A­315, Meera Bagh, New Delhi.

8. Narayan Diwakar S/o Late Sh. Chatti Lal R/o G­30, Masjid Moth, New Delhi­48.

9. Sushil Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Madan Lal Sharma R/o Vill. Lalsa, P.O. Dansa, Tehsil Rampur Bushar, CC No. 45/2010 Page 211 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

10. Anna Wankhede D/o Late Sh. Parunji R/o 148­E, Pocket­II, Mayur Vihar, Phase­III, Delhi­91.

11. Mohan Lal S/o Late Sh. Ajmeri Lal R/o F­228/3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi­49.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

3.9.2012
Present:     Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.

SI Chander Bhan and ASI Om Prakash, Pairvi Officer for CBI. All the convicts are present on bail.

Convicts Sri Chand (A1) and Mohan Lal (A11) on bail with Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, adv. (Amicus Curie).

Convicts Ramesh Chandra (A2), Rakesh Kr. Hasija (A4) and P. K. Thirwani (A5) on bail with counsel Sh. S. K. Bhtnagar, adv..

Convict Sushil Kr. Sharma (A9) on bail with counsel Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie.

Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, adv. is also representing convict Faiz Mohd. (A3), whose presence is exempted for today due to his sudden illness.

Convict J. S. Sharma (A6) on bail with counsel Sh. S. P. Mehta, adv.

Convict J. S. Sindhu (A7) on bail with counsel Sh. Birender Bhatt, adv.

Convict Narayan Diwakar (A8) on bail with counsel Dr. Sushil Gupta, adv.

Convict Anna Wankhede (A10) on bail with counsel Sh. Abhishek Prasad, adv.

Arguments on sentence heard. The circumstances of this case show that had the conspiracy been successful, its huge benefits would have been earned by convicts Sri Chand (A1), Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna CC No. 45/2010 Page 212 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11), who have been held as the operators of the fake society.

Keeping in view this fact, I sentence the convicts as under :

Convicts Sri Chand (A1). Sushil Kumar Sharma (A9), Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11) I award all of these convicts a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ each under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and also read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprison for one month each.

I further sentence the convicts Anna Wankhede (A10) and Mohan Lal (A11) for rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ each under Section 468 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period, which they have already undergone during trial, would be set of against the sentence.

Convicts Ramesh Chandra (A2), Faiz Mohd. (A3), Rakesh Kumar Hasija (A4), P. K. Thirwani (A5), J. S. Sharma (A6), Jasbir Singh Sindhu (A7) and Narayan Diwakar (A8) Considering all facts and circumstances, I sentence all of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ each under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and also read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

I further award a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/­ each to all the aforesaid convicts under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of CC No. 45/2010 Page 213 / 214 CBI Vs Sri Chand etc. Judgment dt. 29.8.2012 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period, if any, which they have already undergone during the trial, would be set of against the sentences awarded to them as above.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court on 3.9.2012.

(Vinod Kumar) Spl. Judge­II, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 45/2010 Page 214 / 214