6 vs S. Malik & Anr. Page 1 Of 86 on 5 December, 2015

[Cites 27, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

6 vs S. Malik & Anr. Page 1 Of 86 on 5 December, 2015

                                           -1-

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
      SPECIAL    JUDGE    (PC    ACT), CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS 
                                    NEW    DELHI 

CC. No.  42/12


RC No. DAI2010A0009
U/s : 120B, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and 
S. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988


Unique Case ID No.: 02403R0009502012 

State (CBI)


Versus


1.      Virender Singh Malik @ V.S. Malik
        S/o Late Sh. Puran Singh Malik
        R/o 'Malik Villa' Bhagwan Nagar, Rohtak Road
        Jind, Haryana - 126102                                        ...Accused1


2.      R.C. Das
        S/o Sh. K.C. Das
        R/o Village Bonalimari, PO Abhayapuri, 
        District Bongaigaon, 
        Assam 
        at present R/o : House no. T129/7, Jalahilli, 
        West Banglore                                                 ...Accused2


        Date of Institution                      :       30.01.2012
        Arguments concluded on                   :       05.12.2015
        Date of Decision                         :       05.12.2015

CC. No.:42/12                   CBI  v  V. S. Malik & Anr.                   Page 1 of 86
                                                   -2-

Appearances : 
Sh. K. P. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI. 
Sh. H. S. Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons. 

JUDGMENT

05.12.2015

1. Accused Virender Singh Malik, Retired Wing Commander, Indian Air Force, No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC Office, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi, a public servant and accused R. C. Das, Junior Warrant Officer (JWO), Indian Air Force, No.1 Delhi Air Squadron NCC Office, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi, also a public servant were sent up by CBI, ACB, New Delhi to stand trial for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 471 r/w 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The allegations in brief are that the instant case was registered on the basis of source information regarding misappropriation of lakhs of rupees meant for purchase of various materials for NCC Cadets training, aeromodelling, microlight flying and for camps and courses by using forged bills for different purchases and repair works. The fund meant for the abovesaid purposes was sanctioned by NCC directorate, Old Sectt., Delhi, Government of Delhi. Further, a fund proposal for aeromodeling activities for CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 2 of 86 -3- cadets at Unit Level bearing no. 1DAS/206/F/2007081/1403 dated 15.01.2008 for Rs. 2 lacs was forwarded by the then Commanding Officer Wg. Cdr. V.S. Malik (A1) to Sr. Accounts Officer, GNCT of Delhi, NCC through NCC Gp. HQ 'C'. Subsequently, sanctioning of funds to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs was received as per sanctioning letter no. F.8 (2)/NCC/NP/Acctts/200708/8059 dated 08.02.2008 signed by Mr. Ajit Singh, Accounts Officer. In cashbook register page no.91 (March,08), as per entry relating to Aero Modeling Lab/ Activity, an amount of Rs.2 lacs have been entered by Sh. V. K. Saini, who was looking after the account matters at that time in No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC, New Delhi and this amount was handed over to accused Wing Commander V. S. Malik, the then CO, which was encashed from the bank and he has signed in token of receipt of Rs.2 lakhs and later accused V. S. Malik informed him that he has given cash of Rs.2 lacs to accused JWO R. C. Das, and told Sh. V. K. Saini to make an entry to this effect in the cash register as 'OUT' entry, Sh. V. K. Saini accordingly did so. The accused V. S. Malik was acting as DDO of the unit and he has signed the contingency bills and voucher/ cash memos in the capacity of DDO.

CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 3 of 86 -4-

3. It is also alleged that the proprietors/owners of the firms had not issued the cashmemos in question. As per the procedure, items mentioned in the bills are entered in the stock register. Sgt. Sanjay Kumar, working as Quarter Master made the entries in the stock register without physically receiving any item and similarly SOC (Strike off charge) which are in his handwriting has been done on the basis of records and on the instructions of accused Commanding officer, Wing Commandar V.S. Malik. Sgt. Sanjay Kumar has stated that all the procurements of Aero Modeling items are being done by Aero Modeling Section and at that time JWO R. C. Das (accused) used to deal with the same and they used to receive the bills only which were entered into various registers as "Brought on Charge" (BOC) and "Strike of Charge" (SOC) for the purpose of recording entry only.

4. Further, Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma who was working as Aeromodeling Instructor in no. 1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC gave statement that the requirements of the items like Balsa Wood Sheet, Castor Oil, ether etc. had not been placed by him. Similarly, for repairing of the models or engines, the requirement used to be given by him. However, in this case, no requirement for repairing was given by him.

CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 4 of 86 -5-

5. The entries made in Aircraft Servicing forms did not tally with the records/entries of ATC Hindon Airbase, thereby establishing that the Aircraft Servicing forms have been manipulated showing consumption of fuel while in actual no microlight aircraft movement / flying had taken place on such dates. Some of the entries in Aircraft servicing form have been made and signed by Sgt. Rambilash Yadav, on the directions of JWO R.C. Das (A2), I/C Flying and Wing Commander V.S. Malik (A1) who was the CO of the Unit. Some of the entries and signatures have been done by Wing Commander V.S. Malik (A1) and Junior Warrants Officer (JWO) R.C. Das (A2) in Sec. 8 as well as in Sec. 9 of Aircraft Servicing Forms.

6. Accused V.S. Malik (A1) and Junior Warrants officer R.C. Das (A2) used to take fuel on cash basis from Engineers Service Station. However, no such account was maintained in service station for No. 1, Air Squadron NCC, Safdarjung Airport, Delhi on credit basis. It is the case of CBI that the investigation has established that 54 cash memos pertaining to Engineers Service Station relating to petrol which have been enclosed with adjustment bills had not been issued from the service station viz. Engineers Service Station. The Manager of Engineers Service CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 5 of 86 -6- Station had stated that no payment had been received in respect of above said cash memos and the same have not been issued by the Service Station. Therefore, 54 service bills (amounting to total Rs.1,94,828.47p) of M/s Engineers Service Station were not issued by the said service station nor the payment had been received against the bills. The fuel bills were, therefore, found to be forged. In this case utilization of funds of Rs.1,94,828.47 against the aforesaid 54 forged bills were not found adjusted under other heads meant for officials purpose, hence, the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy had cheated the department on the basis of forged bills.

7. The Specimen handwriting/signatures of accused persons viz.

V.S. Malik (A1) and R.C. Das (A2) were taken and sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) alongwith questioned documents viz. bills / cash memos of various firms dealing with supply of material pertaining to microlight Aircraft and same matched with the accused V. S. Malik.

8. The accused Wing Commander V. S. Malik has taken premature retirement from services and sanction of prosecution in respect of accused JWO R. C. Das has been received from competent CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 6 of 86 -7- authority.

9. On the above allegation, after completion of investigation, both accused persons were chargesheeted by the CBI for the offences punishable under S. 120B r/w 420, 471 r/w 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under S. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.

10. My Learned Predecessor, after taking cognizance, summoned the accused persons vide order dated 01.02.2012 and copies were supplied in compliance of S. 207 Cr. PC.

11. After finding prima facie case, vide Order On Charge dated 28.04.2012, my Learned Predecessor charged both accused persons for offences punishable under S. 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC and under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. Accordingly, charges were framed, to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

12. However, it was observed that amount in respect of 54 cash memos of fuel pertaining to Engineer Service Station was not found mentioned in the charge framed and therefore vide order dated 03.08.2015 amended charge was framed against both the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 7 of 86 -8- accused. Ld. PP for CBI does not choose to reexamine the witnesses already examined and similarly Ld. Counsel for accused chose not to recrossexamine the witnesses already crossexamined.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

13. In order to simplify and understand the case of prosecution, the prosecution case has to be divided in two parts, one part pertains to aeromodeling activities, fund proposal and sanction of Rs.2 lacs and other part is with respect to microlight flying, different fund proposal commencing from April, 2007 to March, 2008 in which fuel bills have been allegedly forged and submitted for adjustment of these bills.

14. Prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 22 witnesses, which can be categorized as follows: (A) Witnesses in respect of fund proposal and sanction for Aeromodeling Activities & 13 forged bills (B) Witnesses in respect of different fund proposals commencing from April, 2007 to March, 2008 for microlight flying and 54 cash memos of fuel pertaining to Engineer Service Station, allegedly forged.

CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 8 of 86 -9-

                (C)       Common to A and B

14.(A)          The prosecution examined following witnesses in respect of fund

proposal and sanction for Aeromodeling Activities & 13 forged bills: Witnesses from firms whose bills were allegedly forged

(i) PW2 Sh. Harinder Singh, M/s Kalsi Models, is witness who deposed with respect to bills having not been issued by him. Later on exhibited by other PWs as Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E & Ex.PW3/G. PW6 Sh. Naresh Kumar Vasisth, owner of M/s Vasisth Chemist, proved cash memos dated 15.2.2008 and 04.3.2008 as Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E and deposed that the same were neither issued by himself nor by his employee. PW8 Sh. Ali Asgar, owner of M/s Ali Asgar Electrical Works, proved cash memo/bill for Rs.2369/ as Ex.PW3/F and deposed that the same was not issued by him. PW12 Sh. Govind Singh Bisht, proprietor of M/s Neelam Computers, who printed the logos on the Cash Memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/F (Wrongly written as Ex.PW4/F, it should be Ex.PW4/E), however, declared hostile on limited point to the effect that the same got printed by person from Air CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 9 of 86 -10- Force. PW13 Sh. Ramesh Tandon, Director of M/s Trikut Metmin Pvt. Ltd. who deposed with respect to invoices having not been issued by them and proved the invoices as Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/E. PW18 Sh. Vivek Sharma, M/s Sharma Models Aero Engines and Propellers who deposed with respect to bills having not been issued by them and proved the bills as Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E (There are other two invoices of M/s Trikut Metmin which are also exhibited as Ex.PW10/E but to identify this document, its description is mentioned as of this invoice is as "Bill No.3104, dated 27.02.2008 of Sharma Model Aero Engines & Propellers") and Ex.PW3/B. Witnesses w.r.t.

payment made for hoarding and banners

(ii) PW5 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, is the private vendor who prepared banners, hoardings and pamphlets and received Rs.2 lakhs from Wing Commander V. S. Malik, CO, AIR Force, NCC for the same. PW7 Sh. S. Shamshad, who was Group Commander, is witness who verbally placed order with vendor to prepare hoardings and banners and witness of fund proposal of Rs.2 lacs for aero modeling CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 10 of 86 -11- activities and proved the proposal as Ex.PW7/A and Minutes as Ex.PW7/B. Official witnesses :

(iii) PW1 Sh. Rahul Sekhri, Retired Wing Commander, is witness who deposed with respect to procedure regarding calling of tender, proposal of fund, sanction and adjustment of bills etc.

(iv) PW3 Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma is the witness who was working as Air Modelling Instructor in the office of No.1 Delhi Air Sqn. NCC, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi during the relevant period and used to give requirements for procurement for training camps etc. and proved bills Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/G. He has never placed any order of these items nor received any items mentioned in the bills. He also deposed that if there was any requirement he used to place order for repairing of models or engines and in this case no such order was placed by him.

(v) PW4 Sgt Murli Manohar Baraik, Assistant Quarter Master, at the relevant time, is the witness who made entries in the stock register without physically receiving the same on the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 11 of 86 -12- asking of accused R. C. Das and he proved the stock register as Ex.P1 and proved writing at page no.15 as Ex.PW4/A, entries at page no.30 as Ex.PW4/B, page no. 275 as Ex.PW4/C, bills purported to be issued by different firms as Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E.

(vi) PW20 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, who was Sargent at No.1, Delhi Air Squadron (Flying), NCC, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi at the relevant time and he proved the entries made by him as well as by Corporal Murli Manohar Bareik and in addition to other, proved the entries on page no.16 and 17 as Ex.PW20/A, entry on page no.296 dated 18.03.2008 as Ex.PW20/B and three vouchers collectively as Ex.PW20/C.

14. (B) The prosecution examined following witnesses in respect of Microlight Flying, different fund proposal commencing from April, 2007 to March, 2008: Witness from Engineer Service Station whose bills are allegedly : forged

(i) PW9 Sh. Rajender Singh, Manager, Engineer Service Station is witness who deposed with respect to 54 cash CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 12 of 86 -13- memos having not been issued by them and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/54 Official witnesses:

(ii) PW11 Sh. Prem Giri, Technician (Instrument) who deposed that no instrument by the name of flying hour recorder was ever installed in microlite Air Craft, however, an hour meter is there and the recording of flying hour is nowhere mentioned in Aircraft Servicing Form and it has no relation with flying hour and it functions even when the Aircraft is not flying.

(iii) PW15 Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, Incharge Microlite Maintenance and Flight and he proved the take off and landing details of Microlite Aircraft of NCC for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 which pertains to ATC Records of Hindon Air Base as Ex.PW15/A (Collectively) and Aircraft Servicing Forms as Ex.PW15/B (Collectively).

(iv) PW16 Sh. Ajay Kumar Ojha is witness of procedure of sanctioning of funds etc. with respect to microlight flying. He proved fund proposal and sanction (April to June 2007) as Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B respectively and CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 13 of 86 -14- adjustment bill as Ex.PW16/C; fund proposal and sanction (July to September, 2007) and adjustment bill as Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F respectively; fund proposal and sanction (October to December, 2007) and adjustment bill as Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H and Ex.PW16/J respectively; fund proposal, sanction and adjustment bill in respect of PM's Rally (2008) for Rs. 2,14,559/ as Ex.PW16/K, Ex.PW16/L and Ex.PW16/M respectively; fund proposal and sanction (January to March, 2008) as Ex.PW16/N, and Ex.PW16/O respectively.

(v) PW17 Squadron Leader Gagan Kant Sharma identified the signatures of Sh. S. Santosh on details of Microlight Movement Ex.PW15/A.

(vi) PW19 Sh. Ram Bilas Singh Yadav, who was Technician at the relevant time. In addition to other, he proved entries on Aircraft Servicing Form u/s 8 made by him on different dates as Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW19/C and also identified signatures of V. S. Malik on the entries u/s 9 in the form.

14. (C) The prosecution also examined following witnesses who are CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 14 of 86 -15- common to A and B above :

(i) PW10 Sh. V. K. Saini, the then UDC, Delhi Air Squadron NCC, Safdarjung Airport is witness who dealt with Cash Book Register. In addition to other, he proved the sanction dated 08.02.2008 for Aero Modeling Activities for an amount of Rs.2 lacs as Ex.PW10/A, Cash Book Register as Ex.PW10/B and entry relating to Rs.2 lakhs on page no.91 as Ex.PW10/B1, contingent bill alongwith details of expenditure as Ex.PW10/C, cash memo as Ex.PW10/D, cash memos dated 25.02.2008, 27.02.2008, 29.02.2008 as Ex.PW10/E collectively, contingency certificate dated 26.03.2008 alongwith the photocopy of the sanction dated 08.02.2008 collectively as Ex.PW10/F. He also proved bill No.(ACB)10 mentioned in Cash Book in respect of sanction amount of Rs.81,223/ for microlight flying and its withdrawal on pages 60, 62, 65 and 68 collectively as Ex.PW10/G; Bill No.(ACB)46 in respect of sanction amount of Rs.92,044/ for microlight flying and its withdrawal on pages 68, 70 and 80 collectively as Ex.PW10/H; Bill No.(ACB)89 in respect of sanction amount of Rs.92,176/ for microlight flying and its CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 15 of 86 -16- withdrawal on pages 68, 86, 77, 81 and 83 collectively as Ex.PW10/J; Bill No.(ACB)119 in respect of sanction amount of Rs.2,14,559/ for PM Rally and its withdrawal on pages 83, 86 and 94 collectively as Ex.PW10/K. He was declared hostile by CBI for not identifying the signatures of accused R. C. Das on petrol bills.

(ii) PW14 Sh. Ajit Singh, Sr. Account Officer in NCC Department, Government of NCT of Delhi is witness of proposal, sanction and adjustment bills and forwarding of the same to Commanding Officer, No.1 Delhi Air Squadron Flying, NCC, Delhi and in addition to others proved the noting as Ex.PW14/A, forwarding letters in respect of various sanctions and adjustment bills as Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C, Ex.PW14/D, Ex.PW14/E, Ex.PW14/F, Ex.PW14/G, Ex.PW14/H, Ex.PW14/J, Ex.PW14/K and Ex.PW14/L.

(iii) PW21 Sh. T. Joshi, handwriting expert, who examined the handwritings and signatures, proved specimen signatures Mark S1 to S31 of accused Virender Singh Malik as Ex.PW21/A (Colly), specimen writing and signatures Mark S32 to S166 of accused R. C. Das as Ex.PW21/B (Colly) CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 16 of 86 -17- and Mark S167 to S243 of Sh. Murli Manohar Bareik as Ex.PW21/C (Colly), Report dated 18.10.2011 as Ex.PW21/D, reasons for opinion as Ex.PW21/E and forwarding letter as Ex.PW21/F. He opined that the signatures of accused V. S. Malik matched with the bills/invoices in question.

(iv) PW22 Inspector Pankaj Bansal is the Investigating Officer and proved the FIR as Ex.PW22/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

15. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of both accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein both accused persons denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent and chose to lead evidence in their defence.

16. Accused Rajen Chandra Das (R. C. Das) admitted that he was posted as Junior Warrant Officer in the unit and in respect of procedure he stated that he had no role to play in this and stated that his coaccused was DDO of the unit but he is not aware of minutes sheet fund proposal as he had no role to play in it. He also admitted that Rs.2 lacs were handed over by coaccused V. S. Malik but he is not aware whether any direction was given to CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 17 of 86 -18- make the entry and PW Hemant Kumar Verma made a false statement being a biased and disgruntled employee against whom action was taken by the Commanding Officer for his in disciplinary activities and at the relevant time Sgt B. D. Sharma and Sgt. Brijesh were incharge of aeromodeling section and they used to give demand and that too orally. He also admitted his initials on demand vouchers. He also stated that PW Murli Manohar Barik made false statement under pressure of CBI in order to save himself from allegation of any wrong doing and he (accused) never gave any such direction to him nor he was pressurized to do anything wrong. He had nothing to do with procurement and had only signed on the demand vouchers when the items were required and such demand vouchers were signed by others also in the unit when such items were required. He further stated that no fuel entry was fake and whenever he was available he used to go most of the time to service station alongwith vehicle. He stated that the record maintained by the 1 NCC Air Sqn. of flying was correctly recorded which included time of taxing of aircraft, ground training to the cadets, waiting time at the runway before takeoff, whereas ATC only recorded time of take off and landing and that too was not correctly and fully maintained as their main job was to keep record of air force CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 18 of 86 -19- flying and they did not give importance to NCC flying. Also there were two NCC's flying Sqns and the ATC Hindon mixed up the records of both the Sqns and there are many discrepancies in the record maintained by it. Even the record of the flying out of Hindon Base to Parade Ground Delhi Cantt, on occasion of PM's rally in January, 2008 and flying back after 1012 days is not shown in their records. Also some entries are wrongly shown of flying by 1 NCC Sqn whereas as per 1 NCC Sqn records no flying was done. He admitted that PW Ved Prakash Gupta prepared banners, hoarding and pamphlets and received payment of Rs.2 lacs from Wing Commander. He further stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case and chose to lead evidence in his defence.

17. Accused V. S. Malik also admitted that he was posted as Commanding Officer in No.1, Delhi Air Squadron, NCC, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi and procedure regarding fund proposal etc. and sanction dated 15.01.2008 and his signatures on the cash memos in respect to that sanction and stated that since he was working as DDO, it was part of his duties to sign all the papers put up before him relating to accounts. He also stated that Hemant Kumar Verma made false statement being a biased CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 19 of 86 -20- and disgruntled employee against whom action was taken by the Commanding Officer for his in disciplinary activities and he also admitted entries in respect of invoices/bills made in the register. He denied that items were not physically received and entries were made on his asking and that the bills were not issued by the concerned firms. He also admitted proposal and sanction regarding fuel bills and stated that no fuel entry was fake. He stated that it is a false statement that such cash memos were not issued by their service station and it has been admitted by the witness in his crossexamination that all the cash memos were of their service station but says not issued by service station on the basis that they do not bear signatures of their employees and their duplicate copies were not available in the original books. However, admitted that no account was maintained as payment was made on cash basis. In respect of record of take off and landing, he made similar statement as that of accused R. C. Das. He stated that all entries were correctly made and as per actual flying operations and all entries made in the registers are correct. In respect of signatures on the cash memos/bills, he stated that he had signed as part of his duties as DDO. Further, he stated that false statement have been given under pressure of CBI and to save themselves of any allegations of wrong doing and he is CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 20 of 86 -21- innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and lead evidence in his defence.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

18. DW1 Sh. Manish Saini, cadet of 1Delhi Air Squadron, NCC who deposed in respect of flying training and participation of No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC in Vayu Sainik and PM's rally.

19. DW2 Sh. Puneet Kapoor also cadets of No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC.

20. I have heard Sh. K. P. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. H. S. Dahiya, Advocate for both accused. I have also gone through the record.

21. For the prosecution to succeed in proving their case against accused persons, they must prove followings :

(a) Sanction for the prosecution against public servant

(b) The bills of aeromodeling are forged.

(d) There is discrepancy in flying record and without flying fuel bills have been claimed.

SANCTION CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 21 of 86 -22-

22. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue of sanction for prosecution of government servant accused R. C. Das. PW Sh. N. A. K. Brwone, Ex. Chief of Air Staff, who granted sanction in respect of accused R. C. Das to prosecute him in this case, was not examined by the CBI as the accused R. C. Das had made statement that he has no objection if he is not called to the court for the purpose of recording of his statement and if the sanction order dated 13.1.2012 is read in evidence and that he also does not want to crossexamine him. I have gone through the sanction order. The sanction is, therefore, not disputed.

23. The hon'ble Supreme Court of India has culled out the principles on the subject, in case titled as State of Maharashtra Through CBI v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119, as follows:

(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.

(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 22 of 86 -23- was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.

(d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.

(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.

(g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity.

24. The sanction order finds mentioned RC number, offences and name of accused persons and allegations against them which show that the sanctioning authority was having all the material before him and he applied his mind while granting sanction. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the same is properly accorded sanction for prosecution of public servant CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 23 of 86 -24- accused R. C. Das.

FUND PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF AEROMODELING ACTIVITIES

25. PW10 Sh. V. K. Saini testifies that fund proposal for Rs.2 lacs for aeromodeling activities dated 15.01.2008 Ex.PW7/A and Minutes Ex.PW7/B bear signatures of accused Virender Singh Malik, who was acting as DDO of the unit. He also proved that sanction of Rs.2 lacs Ex.PW10/A was received and adjustment bills dated 26.3.2008 alongwith the cash memos were sent to Pay and Account Office for adjustment of advances. He also proved that contingent bill Ex.PW10/C, cash memos Ex.PW10/D, another cash memo Ex.PW10/E collectively bear the signature of accused V. S. Malik and similarly another cash memo Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G also bear the signature of accused V. S. Malik and contingent certificate dated 26.3.2008 alongwith the photocopy of the sanction dated 08.02.2008 bear the signature of accused V. S. Malik. He further testified that as per Cash Book Register Ex.PW10/B, the entry at page no.91, relating to aeromodeling activity, has been made by him and the same is for an amount of Rs.2 lacs. The amount of Rs.2 lacs was handed over to Junior Warrant Officer Mr. Das by the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 24 of 86 -25- Commanding Officer and on the direction of Commanding Officer, the said entry was done by him and further stated that accused V. S. Malik, CO had informed him that an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs has been paid by him to Junior Warrant Officer accused R. C. Das and thereafter, he had directed him to make an entry in this regard in cash register as an "Out Entry". He further stated that PAO releases the amount by way of cheques in favour of CO No.1, Delhi Air Squadron NCC (FLG) and the cheques are encashed on the strength of authority issued by CO and amount is then entered in cash book. The amount was generally given by CO accused V. S. Malik with his own hand, however, in case of smaller amounts such as conveyance allowance or overtime allowance, he used to hand over the money to the concerned person and the same were also entered in the cash book and the unspent amount is deposited vide a challan in SBI, RK Puram. He was declared hostile by CBI for not identifying the signatures of accused R. C. Das on petrol bills.

26. PW10 in his crossexamination admitted that he was orally told by Wing Commander accused V. S. Malik that Rs.2 lacs relating to Aeromodeling Lab/ activities was given to JWO accused R. C. Dass, but he had not seen the money being given to accused R. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 25 of 86 -26- C. Dass nor he can verify as to whether the amount was actually given to accused R.C. Dass.

27. PW14 Sh. Ajit Singh, Senior Account Officer in NCC Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi corroborated regarding proposal, sanction order for Rs.2 lacs having been conveyed to CO1, Delhi Air Sqn. NCC, contingent bill and forwarding letter and he identified the signature of accused V. S. Malik.

28. PW3 Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma testified that he used to give requirement for procurement for training camps etc. Having seen the bills Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/G, he stated that he has never placed any order of these items mentioned in the bills nor he has received any items mentioned in these bills. He also stated that if there was any requirement, he also used to place order for repairing of models or engines and in this case no such order was placed by him. At that time, accused Virender Singh Malik was Wing Commander and accused R. C. Dass, JWO was made Incharge of every thing by accused V. S. Malik. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that disciplinary action had been taken against him and he was transferred from NCC Air Wing to Account Office, Delhi Government, Chabi Ganj. He stated that he was sent to Administrative Officer's office as CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 26 of 86 -27- accused V. S. Malik had used his influence. He was sent there from February, 2007 to July, 2007. He admitted that he had received a memo from accused Virender Singh Malik for misconduct on the ground that he had consumed liquor but not for slapping cadets while being on duty and voluntarily stated that on the said date he had severe tooth ache and had shown the doctor's prescription also to the accused and since after submitting his reply to the memo no further communication was made to him, it is presumed that his reply was found satisfactory. He stated that he had not received any transfer order issued by the Ground Commandant but from the Administrative Officer. He did not know as to whether during the period from February, 2007 to July, 2007 Sgt. B. D. Sharma and Sgt. Brijesh were looking after the aero modelling section. He denied the suggestion that upon his return in the year 2007, in the end of July and beginning of August he was not in the aero modelling wing or that he was only looking after the training of the cadets. He stated that he had placed order of requirement after his rejoining to Sgt. B. D. Sharma and Sgt. Brijesh whenever, he was asked about the requirement verbally. He voluntarily stated that he had, however, not placed any requirement mentioned in the bills as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that it CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 27 of 86 -28- was not part of his duty to inform about the requirement of cadets during aero modelling training. Before being transferred, he used to give the requirement in writing with full proposal, however, upon his return and rejoining he used to give verbal requirement to accused V. S. Malik. He is not complainant in the present case. He is permanent employee of Delhi Government. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely because of his questionable activities which were pointed out by the accused in the capacity of commanding officer and for which he (witness) was warned from time to time and because he (witness) was attached to the Administrative Office of Delhi Government.

29. This witness initially stated that all the requirements in respect of aero modelling activities were being placed by him, however, in his crossexamination he admitted that after his transfer on the complaint of the CO and returning to the same place, he was not placing order and order was placing (sic) to Sgt. B. D. Sharma and Sgt. Brijesh, whenever he was asked about the requirement verbally. The period of the present proposal regarding aero modelling is with respect to 2008 when admittedly this witness was not placing order. The witness initially denied having consumed liquor but admitted that he was having toothache CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 28 of 86 -29- whereby he tried to explain the consuming of liquor. This witness was also found having consumed liquor during duty hours on duty and for the same memo was issued by the accused wing commander and apparently nursed grudge against him and therefore in my opinion this witness is not trustworthy and reliable.

30. PW04 Sgt. Murli Manohar Barik testified that during the year 2008, he was working as Assistant Quarter Master and at that time, the purchase for NCC and other training activities were done by Commanding officer accused Virender Singh Malik and Junior Warrant officer accused R.C. Dass. He stated that his duty was to provide kits to NCC Cadets and he also used to do BOC and SOC which means 'bring on record' and 'strike off record' of the items respectively. He stated that stock register Ex.P1 was maintained in their office and entries at Mark A at page no. 15, Ex. PW4/A were not done by him, however, he stated that he made entries Mark A1, A2 and A3. Similarly, he admitted that the entries at page no.30 Ex. PW4/B at Point B having been made by him. He, however, denied the entries at encircled portion B1. He also admitted entries at page no. 275, Ex. PW4/C. He stated that he never received the items mentioned in bills purported to be CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 29 of 86 -30- issued by different firms, Ex. PW4/D and 4/E (D6). He stated that entries at page no. 30 and 275 were made by him on the directions of accused R.C. Dass and stated that If they did not obey the directions of accused R.C. Dass, he (accused) used to complaint to the Commanding Officer and they used to be pressurized by the Commanding officer accused Virender Singh Malik to do whatever accused R.C. Dass used to ask them i.e. preparing bills of aero modelling which were not genuine.

31. In his crossexamination, he stated that he has worked in the NCC Air Wing from the year 2004 to April, 2008. He was not working in this unit when the CBI had investigated the present case. He stated that when his statement was recorded by the CBI in the year 2010, he was shown all the records which he has identified in the court. The CBI apart from these bills did not ask him, whether he had made any other wrong entries with regard to any other bills which were not genuine. Apart from the wrong entries in question; there must have been some other wrong entries made at the instance of accused Virender Singh Malik and accused R.C. Dass, but he had not informed (sic) about the same to the CBI. He stated that apart from him entries used to be made in the stock register by some other persons also CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 30 of 86 -31- including his seniors. In his absence, if he used to be on leave, entries were made in the register by some other officials also. He stated that upon seeing the list, he can tell from his memory with an accuracy of atleast 90% regarding the items received by him. He is able to remember these items since these entries used to be made on the asking of accused R.C. Dass.

32. PW20 Sh. Sanjay Kumar testified that entries 14.02.2008, 27.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 vide bills no. 2975, 3104 and 3197 regarding quantity of Balsa Sheets in the stock register Ex.PW4/C relating to Balsa Sheet at page no. 16 and 17 have been made by him and quantity of the said sheets were entered as BOC (Brought on Charge) respectively of M/s Sharma Model Aero Engines and Propellers. The entries are Ex.PW20/A collectively, which bear his initials. The entries at page no. 30 of the aforesaid stock register relating to Caster Oil dated 10.01.2008, 15.02.2008, 04.3.2008 and 07.3.2008 on Ex. PW4/B were in the handwriting of Corporal Murli Manohar Barik. The entries dated 07.3.2008 and 18.3.2008 on Ex. PW4/C of the said register are in his handwriting. He further deposed that the entries dated 15.02.2008 and 14.3.2008 at page no. 275 of the stock register vide bill no. 247 and 298 respectively of M/s CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 31 of 86 -32- Vashisht Chemist on Ex. PW4/C were made by Corporal Murli Manohar Barik and initialed by him. The entries dated 18.3.2008 vide bill no. 156/08 of M/s Trikut Medmin Pvt. Ltd. on page no. 296 of the stock register, Ex. PW20/B, is in his handwriting and the entry from portion B to B on Ex. PW20/B is in the handwriting of Corporal Murli Manohar Barik. He stated that internal demand and issue vouchers IN/IV/AM/36, 35 and 34A, Ex. PW20/C (colly), relating to Model Software and Accessories of items R/C Model Software and Accessories, Either, Balsa Sheets Caster Oil the said vouchers have been filled in by Corporal Murli Manohar Barik, and demanded by accused R.C. Dass as mentioned in the columns and they bear his (accused) signatures. With respect to bill no. 2975 Ex. PW10/D, PW20 states that it has been stamped at point B that the articles received and entered in page no. 15, 16 and 17 of the stock register and it bears his initials as Quarter Master. Similarly regarding another bill No.247 Ex.PW4/D of M/s Vashisht Chemist has been entered in page no. 275 of stock register (Ex. PW4/C) from portion A to A and the said bill Ex.PW4/D bears the initial of Corporal Murli Manohar Barik below the stamp at point X1. He has also seen bill no. 3104 Ex. PW10/E dated 27.02.2008 and bill no. 3197 dated 07.3.2008 Ex. PW3/B of M/s Sharma Model Aero Engines and CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 32 of 86 -33- Propellers and stated it has been stamped therein that the articles received and entered at page no. 15 to 17 of the stock register and it bears his initials at point A1 and B1 respectively. Regarding the bill dated 04.3.2008 Ex.PW4/F of M/s Vashisht Chemist relating to Ether (sic) and Caster Oil, he stated that BOC has been made by Corporal Murli Manohar Barik and the aforesaid bill bears the initials below the stamp at point Z1 of Corporal Murli Manohar Barik. He has (sic) seen the invoice dated 18.3.2008 Ex. PW3/E of M/s Trikut Metmin Pvt. Ltd. related to model software and accessories and stated that the entry from portion Z to Z has been made by him and it bears his initials. The corresponding entry has been made at page no. 296 of stock register (Ex. PW20/B) from portion A to A. He stated that he has not physically received any item mentioned above and similarly, Strike of Charge which are in his handwriting have been done on the basis of records and on the instructions of Commanding Officer, Wing Commander accused Virender Singh Malik. All the procurement of aero modeling items are done by Aero Modeling Section. At the relevant time accused R.C. Dass used to deal with the same. We used to receive the bills only which were entered into various registers as BOC and SOC for the purpose of office record.

CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 33 of 86 -34-

33. In his crossexamination, PW20 admitted that at the time the entries for the bills mentioned in his statement was made in the registers mentioned in his statement Sargent B. D. Sharma and Sargent Brijesh Kumar were Incharge of the Aero Modeling Section. He does not remember whether CBI had questioned him with regard to any other bill except the bills referred in his statement. He admitted that there were general instructions that entries in the registers referred in his statement was to be made as per the bills and this procedure was followed in regard to the items of the Aero Modeling Section. He does not remember whether any other instruction was given in regard to the bills mentioned in his statement. His statement was recorded in office of CBI and the documents were available in CBI office.

34. Ld. Defence Counsel stated that PW Murli Manohar Bareik has worked in the unit for sufficiently long period and deposed that he had made these entries on the asking of accused R. C. Dass. As per the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW21/D, his handwriting was also found on the some bills and therefore this witness was himself guilty of making forged bills and in order to hide the same he had deposed as dictated by CBI. Therefore he is not reliable. Further, this witness was examined in the year 2010 by CBI CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 34 of 86 -35- whereas the entries were made in the year 2008 despite that he had not brought it to the notice of any other senior officers and it is also unbelievable that he would remember few entries which he made at the instance of accused R. C. Dass whereas in the course of duty he was making several entries. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that at the relevant time Sgt. B. D. Sharma and Sgt. Brijesh Kumar were the Incharge of Aero Modeling Section and after receipt of items which was used at site and entries were made in stock register and items being consumable were shown as used.

35. As regards PW20 he has also stated that he has not physically received any item and strike for charge are in his handwriting which has been done on the basis of record and on the instruction of accused CO (commanding officer) and all the procurement of aero modeling items are done by Aeromodeling Section and at the relevant time accused R. C. Das used to deal with the same and they used to receive the bills only which were entered into various registers as BOC and SOC for the purpose of office record. He admitted that there were general instructions that entries required was to be made as per the bills and this procedure was followed in regard to the items of the Aero CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 35 of 86 -36- Modeling Section. He also admitted that at the relevant time Sargent B. D. Sharma and Sargent Brijesh Kumar were In charge of the Aero Modeling Section. Therefore admittedly there was no role of R. C. Das as stated by him to deal with the same. He has also admitted that there was general instruction that entries are to be made as per bills and this procedure was followed with regard to items of Aero Modeling Section.

36. I find force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel. PW20 has stated that there was general instruction to make entries as per bills. Therefore it may be irregularities committed by them but same was on the basis of prevalent practice items being used at the site and entries made in the stock register as per bills. But he does not say any specific direction with respect to certain entries to be made in this manner without receiving goods/articles which are relevant for the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that these items were not in fact received and entries are made.

37. Coming to the testimony of PW4. The entries with respect to bill no. 247 and 298 of M/s Vashisht Chemist were made by Corporal Murli Manohar Barik and initialed by PW20 Sanjay. The entries regarding bills no. 2975, 3104 and 3197 of M/s Sharma Model Aero Engines & Propellers, and the entry Ex.PW20/B regarding CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 36 of 86 -37- bill no. 296 of Trikut Medmin Pvt. Ltd. are in the handwriting of PW20 Sh. Sanjay and the entry from portion B to B on Ex. PW20/B is in the handwriting of Corporal Murli Manohar Barik. The internal demand and issue vouchers Ex.PW20/C (colly), relating to Model Software and Accessories of items R/C Model Software and Accessories, Ether, Balsa Sheets Caster Oil the said vouchers have been filled in by Corporal Murli Manohar Barik, but he does not say so in his statement. PW4 testified that he had made entries including entries with respect to bills Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E of castor oil of Vashisht Chemist but had not received those items. He had made entries on the direction of accused R. C. Das and stated that if they did not obey the directions of accused R.C. Dass, he (accused) used to complaint to the Commanding Officer and they used to be pressurized by the Commanding officer accused Virender Singh Malik to do whatever accused R.C. Dass used to ask them i.e. preparing bills of aero modelling which were not genuine. As per the report of handwriting expert, the handwriting of this witness has come on these two bills Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E but this witness has nowhere stated that he had prepared forged these two bills. He had merely stated with respect to the same entries made by him. He also stated that he must have made some other CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 37 of 86 -38- entries at their instance but had not informed about the same to CBI. This witness was examined after about two years of making of these entry when both accused were not in the unit. Therefore there was no pressure or threat on him not to tell truth and despite that he had concealed that many other entries were made by him. He has also not explained as to why he has prepared the bills of Vashisht Chemist on which his handwriting has found. Either he has done so at the asking of Vashisht Chemist or someone else but this is for this witness to explain as to how his handwriting appeared on these two documents.

38. Now the question arises whether this witness is reliable and can be trusted ? In the disciplined forces, as the present case, it may happen sometime that subordinate may work under pressure and make entries but as soon as pressure is removed or said person is transferred out of the unit he would ordinarily bring it to the notice of new person or the authorities. More so when were living under threat. Therefore, it does not lie now in his mouth to say that he had done so at the instance of accused Wing Commander V. S. Malik, Commanding Officer and accused R. C. Das, Junior Warrant Officer. Further he has not even come clean even when the matter is being investigated by CBI, he had not CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 38 of 86 -39- disclosed about other entries made by him nor he has told as to how he has made bills of Vashisht Chemist. Therefore not much reliance can be placed on his testimony to the effect that he had made entries without receiving the items/goods and shown same as brought on record and strike off record.

39. Now we come to the testimonies of witnesses whose bills were allegedly forged. Before examining the testimony of the witnesses pertaining to the bills which are allegedly forged documents, it is worthwhile to mention that PW22 Investigating Officer admitted in his crossexamination that the firms of which the bills are allegedly forged were in the business of supplying materials/goods to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC and also admitted that he had not collected copy of genuine bills of the abovesaid firms for the purpose of comparison nor he had seized bill books of the above said suppliers for the purpose of ensuring whether the bills have actually been supplied by them or not.

40. PW2 Sh. Harinder Singh Kalsi testified that he was running the firm M/s Kalsi Models for the last about 10 years and doing Aero Modelling business/training to various schools and colleges. He provided services to No.1 Delhi, Air Sqd. NCC, Safdarjung Air Port New Delhi off and on and also used to issue bills for the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 39 of 86 -40- services/items provided by the concerned to the said department. He has seen Bills Sl. No. 209, 218 and 227, Ex.PW3/D, PW3/E and Ex.PW3/G purported (sic) to be issued by his firm and stated that same were never issued by him or his firm. The bills of his shop bears the sale tax number. In the year 2008, he did not supply materials more than Rs.300/ to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC and all his business was conducted solely by him through his bills only and used to receive his payment in cash. He denied the suggestion that many a times during training period, the material was supplied and the bills were submitted and payment was received after sometime and further denied the suggestion that he has falsely stated that all the bills of his shop bear the tax (tin) number. However, it is necessary to observe here that all the three bills bear the sale tax number in the middle.

41. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted neither original bill books of M/s Kalsi Models have been produced nor day book or cash book of Kalsi Models have been seized to show that no such sales were done.

42. PW2 admittedly was providing service to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC. He also stated that bills of his shop bears sale CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 40 of 86 -41- tax number. However, on the perusal of the document, it is seen that these bills also bears sale tax number in the middle. He stated that he had not issued bills Ex.PW3/D, E and G. The cash book or original bill book or diary has not been seized nor investigating officer has collected previous bills submitted by PW2 in respect of services provided to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron for making comparison. Merely denying the documents, without the seizure of the bill book for comparison with previous bills for the services provided, it cannot be safely concluded that these bills are not genuine. Moreover, these bills also find mentioned the sale tax number, as stated by him. He tried to say that it is not genuine as they do not bear sale tax number. However, on the perusal of the documents/bill, it turned out that they bear sale tax number. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that those bills were not issued by PW2 and they are forged bill.

43. PW6 Sh. Naresh kumar Vasisth testified that he is owner of M/s Vasisth. He denied Bills Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E were issued by him or his employee nor bear his signature or signature of his employee. The phone number appearing on the said cash memos at point B was never installed in his shop and never sold Castor Oil to the unit on 15.2.2008 and 04.3.2008. In his cross CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 41 of 86 -42- examination he stated that CBI officials had come to his shop and had inquired about the cash memos as mentioned above and his statement was recorded in CBI Office, but they had not taken samples of cash book. There is no other record maintained by him in the shop regarding sale of any material except the cash memos and they do not maintain any stock register regarding sale of any material in their shop. On some occasion before the year 2008, they had sold castor oil to No.1 Delhi Air Sqd. NCC. It is also interesting to note here that handwriting on the Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E was found that of PW Murli Manohar Barik.

44. The prosecution examined PW12 Sh. Govind Singh Bisht to corroborate the bills/cash memos of Vashisht Chemist i.e. Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/F were forged and printed by them on the asking of accused. He, however, testified that on the request of the customers, he used to print cash memos etc. He stated that the logos appearing on these bills were printed by him in his shop on his desktop. However, stated that he does not remember whether these cash memos numbers were put by him with the help of numbering machine. He did not support the prosecution and therefore was crossexamined by the prosecutor and then he CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 42 of 86 -43- admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI. He stated that CBI Inspector had told him that the printing work was got done by the person from Air Force. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused he stated that he remembered he has printed these cash memo as he had made logo, however, there is nothing unique in these cash memos by which he can say it was printed by him.

45. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that there is no investigation with respect to phone number installed and mentioned in cash memo nor it is investigated as to how chemist can run without maintaining stock register as it is necessary as per rule to maintain the stock register with respect to drugs getting expired and therefore this witness is apparently unreliable and deposing falsely.

46. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that Chemist shop is not required to maintain stock register and only required to maintain cash memo and purchase bills and there is no such rule under Drug and Cosmetic Act which requires him to maintain stock register. I am in agreement with Ld. PP for CBI that no stock register is required to maintain by the chemist shop as per rule under Drugs & Cosmetic Act. As regards of other part of CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 43 of 86 -44- contention of Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 Sh. Naresh Kumar Vashisht admittedly has sold castor oil prior to 2008 to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC but investigating officer has neither taken such cash memo from the record of NCC nor he has seized original cash memo. It was also alleged that phone number appearing on the cash memo was never installed in his shop, no investigation has been done in this regard to corroborate the same. PW12 Sh. Govind Singh Bisht, who was examined to corroborate that the cash memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/F are forged, but failed to depose that these bills were printed at the instance of accused persons. Despite crossexamination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he had not stated so. Therefore evidence of witness Sh. Govind Singh Bisht is of no help to CBI. The testimony of PW Naresh Kumar with respect to the cash memos cannot be accepted as trustworthy in the absence of the genuine cash memos available at his shop and the cash memos submitted by him to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC regarding the genuine sale of the same. Therefore, it is not proved that the bills are not issued by PW6 and are therefore forged.

47. PW8 Sh. Ali Asgar testified that he is owner of M/s Ali Asgar Electrical works. He denied that he had issued bill Ex.PW3F with CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 44 of 86 -45- respect to compressor motor rewinding, gouge, oiling and servicing and stated that he had never been engaged in the work of compressor motor rewinding, gouge, oiling and servicing. In his crossexamination, he admitted that cash memo of his shop but writing is not. He had worked for 34 years for Delhi Air Squadron, NCC Sardarjung Airport, Delhi. He is carrying out the electrical work/ repair for the last more than 13 years but he only carry out small work of tube light, fan and switch repair. He could not tell his exact income and is not income tax assessee. He further stated that he always used to issue cash memo towards the bill payment for carrying out the work to the customers and used to maintained cash memo book and issue original to the customer and keep the carbon copy with him. He stated that CBI did not take into its possessions the cash memo books maintained by him.

48. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that it is highly unbelievable that person is carrying out only work of tube light, fan and switch repair. Whereas in the bill it is mentioned that he is specialist in all type of electrical working & repairing jobs, rewiring, rewinding, cooler, A/c repairing & servicing & all home appliances repairing etc. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 45 of 86 -46-

49. I find force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that bills itself mentioned that he is specialist in all type of electrical working & repairing jobs, rewiring, rewinding, cooler, A/c repairing & servicing & all home appliances repairing etc. Therefore, bald statement that he does not carry out these works and had not issued these bills cannot be believed. Moreover, he admitted that cash memos belongs to his shop. As to how these cash memos have gone to No. 1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC is not explained nor original bill book or cash memos, which he claims to have been maintained by him, has been seized to provide corroboration to his testimony. Therefore this witness cannot be trusted and relied upon and it cannot be said that these are not genuine and forged one.

50. PW13 Sh. Ramesh Tandon testified that he is one of the Directors of M/s Trikut Metmin Pvt. Ltd. and the company used to supply the Model Aircrafts and their parts to Defence Units. On receipt of purchase order, models were prepared according to the specifications and the items were sent through courier or cargo alongwith two copies of vat invoices/bills. He denied that bills Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/E are issued by his company or bear his handwriting and signatures and the format CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 46 of 86 -47- of the said invoices is also different. In his crossexamination, he stated that he was the only person who used to issue invoices and sign the same. He admitted that he used to regularly supply Model Aircrafts and spare parts and accessories to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron NCC Unit and used to issue invoices and bills towards supplies of the same. Invoices and bills were not seized by CBI from him and CBI had only showed him four invoices.

51. Ld. Defence Counsel stated that neither invoices and bills were seized nor the books from which invoices used to issue and whose format is stated to be different have been seized to prove the same. Further admittedly he was supplying the Model Aircraft, and spare parts and accessories to the Unit and used to give bills/invoices, despite that CBI has also failed to collect those invoices from No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC Unit for the purpose of comparison.

52. PW13 admittedly had been supplying model aircraft, spare parts and accessories to No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC and used to give invoices etc. but CBI had not seized those bills which were admittedly submitted to lend support to the testimony that format, handwriting, signature etc. are different. The original bill has also not been seized by CBI to prove that it is not the same one and is CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 47 of 86 -48- different. Therefore, the testimony of this witness cannot be believed to the effect that bills Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/E are not issued by them and are forged.

53. PW18 Sh. Vivek Sharma testified that M/s Sharma Models Aero Engines and Propellers is a proprietorship firm in the name of his father since 1974 and this firm deals in supply of Aero Modeling Items to NCC and Defence Organizations. Whenever they receive the work order from NCC, they use to supply the same through courier or postal services alongwith three copies of the bills. The bills are prepared by him in his own handwriting under his signatures. The fourth copy of the bill is retained by them as an office copy. After receipt of Cheques / Demand Draft, the receipts of the same are sent either through Courier of through Post to the concerned organizations. Having seen bills Ex. PW10/D, Ex. PW10/E and Ex. PW3/B and after going through the same, he stated that the said bills were never issued by his firm and denied his signatures. He stated that the bill numbers printed on their bills are always in written in Red Colour whereas in these bills the same are in black colour. He further stated that the aforesaid bills do not carry remarks as to whether it is original, duplicate or triplicate which are always printed on the top of their CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 48 of 86 -49- bills. Further on the bottom of the aforesaid bills, "Sharama" is written which is incorrect and always written as "Sharma" and the revenue stamps as affixed on the aforesaid bills are never affixed on their bills. He further stated that the dimensions of Balsa Wood Sheets have been mentioned in the aforesaid bills in "inches" whereas they used to mention the dimensions in their bills in "Millimeters". In his crossexamination, he stated that he does not remember whether CBI had taken their original bills from the bill book while recording his statement and voluntarily stated that CBI Inspector had checked all their records including bill book, ledgers etc. He denied suggestion that sometimes the orders to supply material and model were given and executed and bills were submitted later.

54. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the witness has stated that format and the manner in which spelling is written, not same as theirs. Further original bill book have not been seized nor any bill already submitted to No. 1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC or to any government agency has been produced by CBI to prove that bills in question are not the bills issued by them.

55. PW18 has admitted that CBI Inspector had checked all the record regarding bill book and ledger but no original bill book has CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 49 of 86 -50- been seized nor any bill previously submitted was seized. In the absence of original bill book and the bill already submitted to No. 1, NCC have not been brought on record, it is unsafe to rely on such testimony. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it cannot be proved in the circumstance of case that these bills are not genuine and are forged.

56. PW21 Sh T. Joshi, expert witness of handwriting, deposed that questioned documents, containing specimen signatures of accused V. S. Malik, specimen writing and signature of accused R. C. Das and Sh. Murli Manohar Bariek, were received at CFSL for examination and opinion. He gave conclusion/Report Ex.PW21/D, on the basis of reasons Ex.PW21/E. In his crossexamination, he stated that he has not given any opinion in respect of specimen/admitted handwriting of accused R. C. Das because of lack of data. He stated that there is purported stamp of DDO beneath the questioned signatures of accused V. S. Malik, which have been found matching with his specimen signature. He had not examined the stamp. He stated that barring this no other questioned signatures or writing could be matched with the specimens handwriting and signature of accused V. S. Malik.

CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 50 of 86 -51-

57. As per the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW21/D, the signature of accused Virender Singh Malik matched with the questioned documents wherever he had signed as DDO. It is worthwhile to mention that as per report Ex.PW21/D, handwriting on cash memos of Vashisht Chemist was found of witness Murli Manohar Bareik.

58. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the CBI has no authority to take specimen handwriting of the accused as per the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Sapan Haldar & Anr. v. State 2012 SCC Online Del 3078. Further, even otherwise, the handwriting of accused V. S. Malik has been found only on those documents where he had signed the same in his official capacity of DDO.

59. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India (2011) 2 SCC 490 held that specimen handwriting is admissible in evidence. Following eleven Judges Constitutional Bench judgment in State of Bombay v. Kattikalu Oghad Crl. L. j. 856, Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Span Haldar (Supra) had not noticed this recent judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ravinder Kumar Pal (supra). Further, it is CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 51 of 86 -52- submitted that in recent judgment of famous case of teacher recruitment scam against Om Prakash Chautala in case titled as Rekha Sharma v. CBI, 218 (2015) DLT 1, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court distinguished the judgment of Sapan Haldar (supra) and followed the judgment of Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh (supra) and the said judgment has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, specimen handwriting can be taken and are admissible in evidence. Further the report of handwriting expert has not been questioned or disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel. I am in fully agreement with Ld. PP for CBI.

60. However, the question arises whether the siganture of accused V. S. Malik amounts to forgery. Admittedly, the accused Virender Singh Malik was working as Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and in the capacity of DDO he signed the bills/invoices put up before him. There is no evidence that he has written these documents. Therefore, CBI has failed to prove that said documents have been forged by him or have been used by him in any manner. Therefore it does not help CBI in any manner.

61. PW1 Sh. Rahul Sekhri, Retired Wing Commander, Indian Air Force, No.1 Delhi Air Squadron NCC has deposed regarding procedure followed for proposal, sanction and receipt. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 52 of 86 -53-

62. PW7 Sh. S. Shamshad testified that in the year November, 2007 during NCC Celebrations as a Group Commander, he was asked by the Directorate to put up hoardings and banners. He had called one of the vendors, namely, Sh. Ved Prakash (PW5) and had placed the order with him verbally. Accordingly, he (vendor) had completed the work and told him that the bill was of approximately Rs.2 Lakhs. Thereafter, he (witness) informed his Commanding Officer of the Air Unit i.e. accused Wing Commander V.S. Malik to complete the payment formalities. Thereafter, after completing the formalities the payment was made to the vendor. As part of the formalities, the proposals were put up before him by accused Wing Commander V.S. Malik and were sent to the Directorate. The payment was made by V.S. Malik. He had seen fund proposal for Aero Modeling activities dated 15.01.2008 for incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2 Lakhs.

63. He further stated that in September, 2008 Sh. Sangwan, Dy. Director General, called him and had informed him that there was a complaint against the Air NCC Units. He told him to carry out the investigation and had submitted his report to him (Sh. Shangwan) which Sh. Shangwan further with his remarks CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 53 of 86 -54- forwarded to the DG, NCC Office. He also stated that since the complaint was received from the Air Force, the DGs Office forwarded it to the Air Headquarters. In December, 2008, the Air Force ordered a Court of inquiry and when the inquiry was under

progress he was informed by Wing Commander accused Virender Singh Malik that the bills produced were for adjusting the payment of sum of approximately Rs.2 lakhs. Since there was not enough money under a particular head that is why the money was being paid from the Aero Modeling Head. He also stated that he had informed Brigadier Sh. Sangwan who after carrying out his inquiry informed the DGs NCC Office. He stated that on this inquiry report, the DGs office informed the Air Headquarters that the Air Force should restrict its inquiry only to micro lite flying.

64. In his crossexamination he stated that the proposal was put up in January, 2008, however, the work of putting up hoardings and banners was completed in November, 2007 and no written proposal for the work of hoarding and banners was put up before him by accused V. S. Malik. At the time of fund proposal of aero modeling activities vide Ex.PW7/A it was not in his knowlege that the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs was to be adjusted in the work of hoarding and banners and voluntarily stated that the said fact CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 54 of 86 -55- came to his knowledge during the Court of Inquiry through V. S. Malik. He admitted that the vendor Sh. Ved Prakash had approached him for the work done by him and thereafter he had directed V. S. Malik to make payment to vendor Sh. Ved Prakash. He also admitted that no proposal for sanction of Rs.2 lakhs for making the payment was put up before him after he had directed to make the payment. He denied the suggestion that it was in his knowledge at initial stage that the payment of Rs.2 lakhs for the work ordered was to be made by adjustment from funds of other Head.

65. PW5 Sh. Ved Prakash corroborated PW7 and testified that he knows Colonel Gopal, who informed him to meet one Sh. Shamshad, Group Commander in connection with preparation of banners and pamphlets and accordingly he had met him in his office who had directed him to prepare some items of banners, hoardings and pamphlets and accordingly the same was done. He stated that he had informed about expenditure incurred on the said items and after completion of the work, he had visited to Group Commander Shamshad for the payment for which he had informed him to meet Wing Commander Malik who was C.O. In Air Force, NCC Unit and accordingly he met him in CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 55 of 86 -56- his office wherein he had given him an amount of Rs.2 lakhs through one of his subordinate and the payment was made to him after twothree months of the completion of the work.

66. It is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI submitted that these bills are bogus bills as there are no entry with respect to hoarding, banner and pamphlet etc. for which Rs.2 lac was given to PW5 Ved Prakash and these fake bills were prepared to cover up said payment of Rs.2 lacs. It is proved by PW7 that hoarding and banners were to put up and for the said purpose he has asked PW5 Ved Prakash, and after completion of work was directed to meet Wing Commander V. S. Malik for payment and thereafter payment was made. PW5 Ved Prakash also corroborated to this fact and stated that he had taken money from one of the subordinates after twothree months of the completion of the work. In his crossexamination, PW7 admitted that no proposal for hoarding and banner was put up before him by accused V. S. Malik. At the time of fund proposal of aeromodeling activities vide Ex.PW7/A it was not in his knowledge that the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs was to be adjusted in the work of hoarding and banners and voluntarily stated that the said fact came to his knowledge during the Court of Inquiry through V. S. Malik. He CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 56 of 86 -57- admitted that the vendor Sh. Ved Prakash had approached him for the work done by him and thereafter he had directed V. S. Malik to make payment to vendor Sh. Ved Prakash. He also admitted that no proposal for sanction of Rs.2 lakhs for making the payment was put up before him after he had directed to make the payment. PW10 Sh. V. K. Saini also corroborated that Rs.2 lac was handed over by CO to R. C. Das and stated that accused V. S. Malik, CO (Commanding Officer) had informed him that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid by him to Junior Warrant Officer accused R. C. Das and thereafter, he had directed him to make an entry in this regard in cash register as an "Out Entry". In his crossexamination, he has stated that he had not seen the money being given to accused R. C. Das. Therefore, it is proved that Rs.2 lacs was given to Ved Prakash.

67. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the CBI has failed to prove that the bills submitted are forged and no goods were received against them. Further, CBI has failed to prove on record that there was any dishonest and fraudulent intention on the part of the accused as the case of CBI itself is that Rs.2 lakhs were adjusted against the payment of banner, hoarding and pamphlets etc. Therefore, neither any wrongful gain CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 57 of 86 -58- or wrongful loss has been done to anyone. Further, there is also no intention to defraud.

68. Both accused have been separately charged u/s 420 IPC for cheating the department by adjusting the amounts by using forged 13 bills of different firms and 54 cash memos of Engineer Service Station amounting to Rs.3,94,826.75 and u/s 468 IPC for forging those bills for the purpose of cheating and u/s 471 IPC for using those forged bills as genuine and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for abusing their official position and obtaining pecuniary advantage. Both accused have also been charged u/s 120 B r/w 420/468/471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for entering into a criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of the same abused their official position for obtaining pecuniary advantage and dishonestly induced the department and cheated an amount of Rs.3,94,826.75 fraudulently and dishonestly forging and using as genuine those forged bills.

69. Section 415, IPC defines cheating. The essential ingredients are deception, fraudulently or dishonestly, inducement to deliver any property. Section 420, IPC provides punishment for cheating which provides in addition to cheating dishonest inducement to CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 58 of 86 -59- deliver any property. Section 463 IPC defines forgery. Section 464 IPC defines making a false document. Clause, firstly, provides that it should be done dishonestly or fraudulently and for Section 468 IPC provides that forgery is done for the purpose of cheating. Second 471 IPC provides user of the forged documents as genuine which also should be with fraudulent or dishonest intention.

70. Therefore, fraudulent and dishonest intention i.e. mens rea, is one the essential ingredients for these offences i.e. cheating, forgery and user of forged documents as genuine. Section 23, IPC defines 'wrongful gains' and 'wrongful loss'. Section 24, IPC defines 'dishonestly' and Section 25, IPC defines 'fraudulently'.

71. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dr. Vimla v.

Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 had occasion to interpret as to what defraud means. The Hon'ble Apex Court summerized the same in per Para 14, to quote : (14) To summarize : the expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a noneconomic CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 59 of 86 -60- or nonpecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or deteriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.

72. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed the same principle of law and reiterated in G. S. Bansal v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1577. Again in recent judgment titled Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2010) 1 SCC 322 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the First Clause of S. 464 IPC observed as under :

33. The first clause suggest that a person makes a false document if he (1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document, or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document; and (2) does as above with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed,

(a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or executed, or

(b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed;

It is not the case here. To attract the second clause of CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 60 of 86 -61- Section 464 there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. So in order to attract clause "Secondly" if the document is to be altered it is to be for some gain or with such objective on part of the accused. Merely changing a document does not make it a false document. Therefore, presuming that the figure '1' was added as was done in this case, it cannot be said that the document became false for the simple reason that the appellant had nothing to gain from the same. She was not going to save the bat of limitation.

73. At the outset, it must be observed that CBI has failed to prove that bills submitted for adjustment against sanction are forged one. Now coming to contention of Ld. PP for CBI. PW7 S. Shamshad had stated that work was got done by him and thereafter he had asked the vendor Ved Prakash to approach Commanding Officer V. S. Malik, which is not usual practice for work being awarded for particular purpose and for the said purpose money was paid. He has also admitted that he was informed by V. S. Malik that money was not in the said head and thereafter adjustment was made in other head. Although one may view from this angle that the said money was paid and bills were forged but other way to look at would be whether any loss has been caused to department or wrongful gain has been made to the accused. At the very outset, it must be said that it is not proved that the said money was paid by R. C. Dass to anyone CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 61 of 86 -62- therefore there is no evidence against accused R. C. Das for the said purpose.

74. As regards entries were made on the asking of CO, it is also corroborated by witness that money was paid to Ved Prakash for carrying work of hoarding and banners during the PM's rally. Admittedly S. Samshad was his superior. PW22 Investigating Officer also stated in his crossexamination that he did not inquire from Group Commander Shamshad as to when he had asked accused Wing Commander Malik to make payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta without submission of bills and without any prior sanction from the authority to make the payment. He also admitted that the total amount of goods for these bills is Rs.2 lacs and Rs.2 lakhs only was paid to Sh. Ved Prakash for carrying out the work. He also admitted the investigation did not reveal that the said amount, for which the bills were created, was used by the present accused or any monetary benefits was taken by him for his personal gain.

75. Now the question arises whether any wrongful loss or wrongful gain has been caused to anyone. It is admitted case of CBI that no personal gain has been taken by accused. Also admittedly amount of Rs.2 lacs, for which bills were raised, has been paid to CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 62 of 86 -63- vendor Ved Prakash for carrying out the work of hoarding and banners etc. during PM's rally, therefore there is no wrongful loss to anyone and wrongful gain to anyone.

76. Now, further, the question arises whether there was any fraudulent intention as per law laid down. Whether it was shown that for same forgery, there is gain or with objective on his part to make gain. CBI failed to prove that there was gain occasioned to accused by forging the bills and there was fraudulent intention to gain advantage monetory or otherwise.

77. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that although it is established on record that Rs.2 lacs were given to Ved Prakash for carrying out work of putting hoardings and banners etc. and 'OUT' entry was made and yet as per statement of witnesses there is no wrongful loss caused to departments nor any wrongful gain was taken by the accused persons. Similarly there was no fraudulent intention. BILLS REGARDING MICROLIGHT FLYING

78. To prove the same, two types of evidence have been given : (i) with respect to forged fuel bill and (ii) with respect to discrepancies in flying record.

79. In respect of first type of evidence , it is submitted by Ld. Defence CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 63 of 86 -64- Counsel that witness PW9 categorically states that these cash memos are same with the cash memo of their Service Station and book of these serial number is not available with them and only initials of employee are there in the cash memo and initial are on the same place where they used to sign. It is also admitted that other Air Force personnel used to come to take petrol products from their service station. Therefore the statement of this witness to the effect that these cash memos were not issued from their service station cannot be believed. It cannot be explained as to how other cash memos are available and these cash memos are the same to the cash memos of their service station. And therefore, there cannot be any doubt that these cash memos are in fact cash memos issued from their service station.

80. PW9 Sh. Rajender Singh testified that he has been working as Manager since 2001 in Engineer Service Station, Sri Aurobindomarg, Near Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi and whenever any person comes to their service station for getting petrol filled in vehicle the same is given on cash payment and a cash receipt is issued on demand of the customer. He stated that he can (sic) identify the signatures of the employees of the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 64 of 86 -65- service station who were working there during the year 2007 and he was shown 54 cash memos Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A54 and stated that none of the cash memos were issued by the Service Station nor they bear signature of any of the employees. He stated that there was no account maintained in service station for no. 1 Air Squadran and NCC Safdarjung Airport, Delhi either on credit basis or in any manner. They used to take fuel on cash basis and one person in the name of R.C. Dass usually used to come to their service station alongwith vehicle and driver for filling of petrol of official vehicles.

81. In his crossexamination, he stated that he was employed as Manager to Engineers Service Station in the year 2001 and his duty hours were from 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. The salesman / employees used to sign the cash receipts and at that time five salesmen were working in their Service Station. He stated that during investigation, CBI had asked for the cash memo book from which the cash memos were issued but the same was not available in their records and was not provided. Although the other serial number cash memo books were available but cash memo book of serial number as mentioned in EX.PW9/A1 to Ex. PW9/A54 was not available. During the investigation, the CBI did CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 65 of 86 -66- not take the original cash memo books, specimen signatures of the salesman and the original cash memo from the service station. He stated that he had stated that the cash memos running into 54 numbers mentioned above had not been issued by their service station on the basis of the fact that they do not bear signatures of any of their employees and since the duplicate copy of these cash memos is not available in their record. He admitted that the cash memos bear only initials of the employee / salesman and their salesman signs only at one place in the cash memo which is Mark X on the right hand side of the cash memo in EX.PW9/A1 to Ex. PW9/A54. There is no other difference in the cash memos EX.PW9/A1 to Ex. PW9/A54 from the cash memo issued by their service station. Their service station never lodged complaint that the cash memo has been lost. He admitted that many a times the vehicles of the NCC Airforce Squadron used to come early in the morning to take petrol products from their service station and voluntarily stated that the vehicles also used to come during day time. He admitted that many times other air force personnel used to come to take petrol products from their service station.

82. PW10 Sh. V. K. Saini with respect to petrol bills Ex.PW9/A1 to CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 66 of 86 -67- Ex.PW9/A54 stated that he can only identify the signatures of accused Virender Singh Malik which are appearing thereon at point A, however, he cannot identify the signatures or handwriting appearing on the bills. He was crossexamined on this aspect. In his crossexamination by the public prosecutor, he admitted that his statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC by the IO and he stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that some petrol bills on being shown to him, he had identified the signatures of accused R. C. Dass. However, he denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the signatures of accused R. C. Dass on some of the petrol bills in order to save him. Even otherwise, the specimen handwriting of accused R. C. Das is not proved as handwriting on the 54 cash memos.

83. PW16 Sh. Ajay Kumar Ojha deposed regarding procedure followed in unit in respect of proposal of fund, sanction and its utilization. He testified that he was working since March 2009 in the Unit. As regards the procedure of sanctioning of funds, in NCC, a fund proposal is prepared by Commanding Officer which is addressed to Accounts Officer, NCC Department, GNCT of Delhi, Chabiganj, Delhi and the same is sent through NCC Group Headquarters, Delhi "C" which is located in Safdarjung Enclave. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 67 of 86 -68- The same is further processed by the NCC Group Headquarters, Delhi "C". Thereafter, a sanction is received by the Unit from NCC Department, GNCT of Delhi, Chabiganj. The sanction is addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Unit and is conveyed by the Accounts Officer of the NCC Department of Delhi Government. After receiving of sanction, a bill is prepared for drawing advance and submitted to PAOI, RK Puram, Delhi. The advance is drawn by Commanding Officer and expenditure is incurred as per the details given in the fund proposal. The items which are received are entered in the required registers which are maintained with the Quarter Master. Thereafter, an expenditure statement is prepared after the completion of event and a detailed contingent bill is also made mentioning therein the advance drawn, expenditure incurred and deposition of balance amount in Government treasury, if any. The same is sent to Group Headquarters "C" for counter signature of competent Authority and after counter signature, the bills are returned to the unit which is (sic) submitted to PAOI, RK Puram for final adjustment. He has proved the fund proposals for Microlight Flying of the period i.e. April to June, 2007; July to September, 2007; October to December, 2007 and PM's Rally (2008) and January to March, 2008 as Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/D, CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 68 of 86 -69- Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/K and Ex.PW16/N respectively and their sanction Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW16/L and Ex.PW16/O respectively. He also proved adjustment bills.

84. In respect of second type of evidence , it is submitted by Learned Defence Counsel that ATC report cannot be relied upon and discrepancies as pointed out have occurred on account of ATC not recording same properly. Further, it is submitted that flying by NCC was given less importance as they were not doing meticulously as pointed out by the witness himself. The call signs ZenI and ZenII were used interchangeably when it was being flown by two wing commanders simultaneously. Further the witness from ATC has not been produced regarding discrepancies. Original documents not produced. It is only stated that he had compared the same from original record and had not prepared. Since the original record was not shown for the inspection to this court cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise there are serious discrepancies which shows that evidence of the prosecution to the effect no flying was conducted during this period is not substantiated. Further it is submitted that admittedly the PM's Rally was done during that period and there is no entry at ATC Hindon for that. Further, surprisingly not even a single bill CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 69 of 86 -70- of fuel has been stated to be genuine despite admitted flying. No one can believe that the flying can take place without fuel.

85. PW11 Sh. Prem Giri testified that he worked as Technician (Instrument) in No.1, Delhi Air Squadron, NCC, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi from 22.02.2010 to 24.02.2013. He stated that no instrument by the name of flying hour recorder was ever installed in Microlite Air Craft. However, he stated that an hour meter is there which starts functioning the moment battery is switched 'ON' and the instrument switch is on and the recording of flying hour is nowhere mentioned in Aircraft Servicing Form and it has no relation with flying hour and it functions even when the Aircraft is not flying. In his crossexamination, he admitted that even if the Aircraft is not flying but when the engine is 'On' condition, the fuel will be consumed and the hour meter is switched 'On' along with other instruments before starting of the engine.

86. PW15 Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma testified that in May 2008, he was posted at No.1 Delhi Squadron, NCC Safdarjung Airport and he was incharge of Microlight (sic) Maintenance and Flight and his duty was to prepare the Aircraft and to make it fit for flying at Hindon (sic) Air Base. His statement was recorded by CBI in this CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 70 of 86 -71- case. He was shown documents containing details (take off and landing off) of microlight movement of Zen Air microlight for the period 01.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 which was forwarded vide letter dated 22.09.2010 and on seeing the same he states that accused was CO of the unit and the letter was issued by Wing Commander R. S. Singh, whom he does not know personally. He denied that the letter dated 22.09.2010 was shown to him, however, record mentioned in his statement was shown to him. Further, after seeing Aircraft Servicing Form (ASF), Section 8, Page 54, and Section 9, he states that these details were shown to CBI and according to this record, on 07.05.2007, the time of first take off was given as 12 hours and the last landing has been shown as 1630 hours, the total duration of three sorties was four hours whereas in the ATC record, the ATD has been shown as 1149 hrs and the last landing as 1407 hours. The record pertains to Hindon Air Base. While comparing two records he stated that there are discrepancies between the two records and regarding discrepancies, he means to say that time of take off and landing differs. He stated that thus Section 8 & 9 of ASF for the above said entry have been accepted by accused Wing Commander V. S. Malik and he identified his signatures. The ASF are collectively Ex.PW15/B. In his crossexamination, he stated that he was not CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 71 of 86 -72- posted in 1, Delhi Air Squadron NCC Delhi from 03.5.2007 to 31.03.2008 and was posted there in May 2008 and remained posted upto May 2011. He stated that he had never seen the original record maintained by ATC of a flight record of Microlight Air Craft of 1, Delhi Air Squadron NCC and had seen yesterday only in the Court. The ATC only maintains the records when the pilot takes permission to take off and the moment the Aircraft is airborn till the time the pilot takes permission to land the Aircraft. After the engine of the Aircraft is started and the training activities begin, taxying takes places the Aircraft is not able to take off because of bad weather, other Aircraft movement and communication problem with ATC and certain snags being developed in the Aircraft. When his statement was recorded by CBI, he was not shown the record maintained by ATC. Further the call sign of ZenI & ZenII was used interchangeably by the pilots of 1, Delhi Air Squadron NCC and 2, Delhi Air Squadron NCC during his tenure and stated that he had no concern with the call signs being technical person.

87. I am of the opinion that this witness was not shown original record and record was shown to him for the first time in the court itself and on seeing the record, he pointed out some CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 72 of 86 -73- discrepancies. The testimony of this witness cannot be used for any purpose as neither he prepared ATC record nor were conversant with the same.

88. PW17 Squadron Leader Gagan Kant Sharma testified that he had worked as an ATC Officer at 28 Wing from June, 2009 to January, 2012. He stated that he knows Wing Commander Sh. S. Santosh and worked with him and had seen writing and signing during the course of his official duties and he identified signature of S. Santosh on details of Microlight Movement Ex.PW15/A, which were authenticated by Sh. Santosh. The details of Ex.PW15/A are as per the Log Books of Flying Records. In his crossexamination, he stated that he was not posted during the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 in 28Wing, Air Force and these entries were authenticated by Sh. Santosh from the original log books of flying record of ATC Air Force Station (28Wing). He perused the same records and found them matching and thereafter he produced the original records for verification to Investigating Officer and he had also found the records matching. Senior ATC Officer had forwarded the details to the Air Headquarters and Wing Commander Sh. R. S. Singh had sent the details alongwith the covering letter to CBI. He stated that CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 73 of 86 -74- only Wing Commander R. S. Singh can answer as to whether the details were matched with the original by him or not. As per record Ex.PW15/A, ZenII call sign was assigned to Pilot in Command Wing Commander Malik. He stated that as per details Ex.PW15/A, call sign ZenII has been used by Squadron Leader P. Vats and stated that usually a particular call sign of Air Craft may be used by any pilot and he had not said that this call sign was used by Wing Commander Malik only and in this case, the document reveals that call sign ZenII is mainly assigned to Wing Commander Malik. He stated that he is not aware whether when both Wing Commander Barara and Wing Commander Malik used to fly Air Craft at the same time they used the call sign ZenI and ZenII respectively and when Wing Commander Malik flew alone the Air Craft separately, he used call signs ZenI. After going through the documents Ex.PW15/A, he stated that he cannot comment on the authenticity of the entries as to how they were made and stated that he had only matched the record with the original and had handed over to CBI and taken the originals back.

89. He was put question whether Wing Commander Barara and Wing Commander Malik had flown on the same day in separate CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 74 of 86 -75- Air Craft at the same time as per the timing mentioned in the entries on 19.7.2007, 10.8.2007, 13.8.2007, 14.8.2007, 16.8.2007, 25.9.2007 and 29.9.2007 and 06.12.2007 and 20.12.2007 and no other times, he stated that since he had not made or recorded these entries and as he was not personally available at the time of these sorties, he was unable to make inference as asked, however, he had seen these entries and matched it with original log books. In reply to question he stated that he is not aware that flying competition for different NCC Units is held between September to October every year, and 1 NCC Delhi Air headed by Wing Commander Malik and 2 NCC Delhi Air headed by Commander Barara used to practice for flying on the same day from May/June onwards to participate in the competition. In reply to another question, he stated that he is aware that PM's Rally is held at Garrison Parade Ground at Delhi Cantonment in January every year. He admitted that there is no entry of Wing Commander Malik flying in the month of January and the entries are only of flying of Wing Commander Barara as per Ex.PW15/A. He again stated that he had not personally authenticated the entries as he is not authorized to do so and had merely produced the record. He was put question that on 28.5.2007, 20.7.2007 and 17.12.2007 as per the record of ATC, 1 CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 75 of 86 -76- Delhi NCC Air headed by Wing Commander Malik had done flying whereas as per form 8 & 9 of 1 Delhi NCC Air Ex.PW15/B no flying has been done on these dates, he stated that he had no connection with records Ex.PW15/B and he cannot comment on the entries made in Ex.PW15/B.

90. I am of the opinion that this witness (PW17 Squadron Leader Gagan Kant Sharma) has not prepared details of movement Ex.PW15/A and had identified the signature of Wing Commander Sh. S. Santosh who has prepared the same and he has only compared with the same. The best witness could have been Wing Commander Sh. S. Santosh to prove the same. Therefore, firstly this documents Ex.PW15/A is not proved properly. Secondly, even otherwise, there are several discrepancies pointed out and admitted by the witness which is not found in the ATC record and therefore ATC record alone cannot lead us to any conclusion that the flying was not done.

91. PW19 Sh. Ram Bilash Singh Yadav stated that he was posted as Technician in Number I, Air Squadron, NCC, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi from the period July 2006 to July, 2009. He stated that Air Craft Servicing Form Ex. PW15/B has been dealt with by him. The Air Craft No. W3412 Servicing Form Serial No. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 76 of 86 -77- 1DAS/O/09 was opened on 29.12.2006 and closed on 10.8.2007. At that time Sh. R.K. Pandey (Engine Fitter & Warrant Officer) and Vijay Kumar (Instrument Fitter) was Junior Warrant Officer. Sh. R. C. Dass (Air Frame/Fitter) was Junior Warrant Officer. Sh. R.S. Chaurasiya (Engine Fitter) was Sgt. and Sh. Brijesh (Instrument Fitter) was Sgt. Sh. Rajesh Shirshat (Air Frame Fitter) was Sgt. and Sh. V.D. Sharma (Air Frame Fitter) was Sgt. The closing entry was generally done by the senior most Warrant Officer/ Sgt. whosoever was available. The air frame was signed by the respective Air Frame Fitter and the engine entry was signed by him as a token of having checked the engine and found it fit for flying. Regarding entries of fuel, the maximum entries were made by R.C. Dass, Junior Warrant Officer, who was Incharge of Fuel and Engine Oil of Microlight Aircraft. Some entries of fuel were made by him. He stated that the entries dated 19.7.2007 (three entries) at page no. 96 on Air Craft Servicing Form Ex. PW15/B were made by him and identified signatures of accused V.S. Malik on the said entries in the column of Pilot Signatures and his signatures on the said entries. The entries regarding time up and time down, duration and number of landings had been made by him as informed by accused V. S. Malik. After going through the details of Microlight CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 77 of 86 -78- Movement Ex. PW15/A on the entries dated 19.7.2007 at point B, he states that the entries regarding time mentioned in Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B at point A on page no. 96 are not matching. He stated that entries u/s 8 of various dates Ex.PW19/A (Colly) in Aircraft Servicing Form Ex. PW13/B and entries u/s 8 of various dates Ex.PW19/B (Colly) and Ex.PW19/C (Colly) on Aircraft Servicing Form Ex.PW15/B have been made by him in the respective columns i.e. LFS/FFS, TRS. He stated that the said entries have been made by him on the asking of R.C. Dass, JWO and V.S. Malik, Wing Commander. He further stated that for some of the above mentioned entries, he had denied to make since they were irrelevant and also he had not checked the Aircraft. He also identified signatures of accused V. S. Malik on Aircraft Servicing Form, (D31) Ex.PW15/B against the entries u/s. 9, at page no. 90, 92 and 96 and on Aircraft Servicing Form, (D32) against the entries u/s. 9, at page no. 82, 84, 86, 90, 92, 94 and 96 and on Aircraft Servicing Form, (D33) against the entries u/s. 9, at page no. 82, 84, 86, 88 and 90.

92. In his crossexamination, he stated that his statement was recorded by CBI at CBI Headquarters. He stated that he cannot CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 78 of 86 -79- say whether his statement was recorded by CBI u/s 161 Cr.PC. The documents Ex.PW15/B i.e. D31, D32 and D33 were shown to him by CBI. He admitted that he had told CBI that only some of the entries of the dates mentioned in his statement were made by him at the asking of accused R. C. Das, however, he could not identify those entries which were made by him at the asking of accused R. C. Das. He stated that he had not asked permission of V. S. Malik, Wing Commander before making the entries asked by R. C. Das and voluntarily stated that R. C. Das had told him that since it was order of the C. O. (Wing Commander V. S. Malik), therefore, he (witness) has to make those entries. He could not have directly gone to the C.O. as he is the senior officer and Incharge of the Unit and stated that Wing Commander V. S. Malik had also reached when hot words were being exchanged between him and R. C. Das since he was refusing to make the entries suggested by him (R. C. Das). However, he does not remember the exact date of this incident. He did not report this incident to any superior authority. He stated that there were no fixed flying hours, it could be in the morning, afternoon or evening hours. Sometimes the team used to return after last flying of the day, at 7:00 or 8:00 p.m., however, the entries of the flying hours and time were made on the same day. CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 79 of 86 -80-

93. This witness has stated that many entries were made by him on the asking of accused R. C. Das and he had denied (it should be refused to make) being irrelevant and he had not seen and checked aircraft. He has also narrated in crossexamination the version regarding hot words being exchanged between him and accused R. C. Das but same are vague and cannot be relied upon.

94. I am of the opinion that the allegations against accused persons in nut shell are that the flying was not done but is shown by them in the form and they have forged fuel bill purported to be issued by Engineers Service Station and thereby accused caused loss to the department (cheating).

95. The testimony of PW9 Sh. Rajender Singh, Manager, Engineer Service Station, clearly shows that these cash memos were belonging to their service station and have been initials of the employee at the same place where their employee used to put initials on the cash memos and also original of these cash memos are not available in their record nor they had lodged any complaint with police. Specimen signature and initials of the salesman or employee of the Engineers Service Station have not been taken for the purpose of comparison with the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 80 of 86 -81- signatures/initials on these cash memos. The circumstances that the entire bill book is missing and these cash memos bear initials at the same place where their employee used to put, show that these cash memos were belonging to them. The testimony of this witness to the fact that these are forged cannot be believed. Further surprisingly not even a single fuel bill for the whole year was found to be genuine whereas admittedly the flying had taken place.

96. Coming to the testimony of the witness with respect to discrepancies found in the ATC record and the form, that also showed that the flying had in fact taken place. Further PW11 admitted that fuels start getting consumed when the same is put "ON". The discrepancies in the ATC Record with the Aircraft Servicing Form could also not be proved as the person who had prepared the details of the taking off and landing has not been examined. PW17 Squadron Leader Gagan Kant Sharma has merely stated that he has compared the same before deposing and categorically stated that he cannot comment on authenticity of the entries. Therefore the details of ATC regarding taking off and landing could not be proved. Further the entries are also not reliable as witness himself stated when he was shown, Wing CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 81 of 86 -82- Commander Barara and Wing Commander Malik had flown on the same day in separate Air Craft at the same time as per the timing mentioned in the entries made from 19.7.2007 to 20.12.2007 and no other times, that since he had not made or recorded these entries and as he was not personally available at the time of these sorties, he was unable to made inferences as asked. Further, he admitted that PM's rally held at Garrison Parade Ground at Delhi Cantonment in January every year. He admitted that there is no entry of Wing Commander Malik flying in the month of January and the entries are only of flying of Wing Commander Barara as per Ex.PW15/A. Further some entries were shown from ATC record w.e.f. 28.5.2007 to 17.12.2007, as per same, No.1 Delhi Air Squadron NCC headed by Wing Commander Malik had done flying whereas as per form 8 & 9 of 1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC Ex.PW15/B no flying has been done on these dates. Now coming to the testimony of PW19 that he was asked to make some entries which he denied being irrelevant. But he does not say that no flying had taken place. Further, it is highly unbelievable that all the fuel cash memos were stated to be not genuine and except these bills no other fuel bills have been submitted during the entire period of one year. DW1 and DW2, cadets of No.1, Delhi Air Squadron, NCC have CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 82 of 86 -83- been examined. DW1 Sh. Manish Saini testified that he joined the NCC, 1Delhi Air Squadron in 2005 to get trained as Air Wing Cadet and was selected as Main Flyer for his squadron and represented the squadron at National level in All India Vayu Sainik Camp - 2006 as pilot. Wing Commander V. S. Malik (accused) was the Commanding Officer of his squadron when he joined and there were about 300 Senior Division Cadets. He further stated that in the flying, total 5 cadets were selected to participate in Vayusainik Camp 2007 2008 and 01 Delhi Air Sqn. got 4th position in the flying at National Level and the overall position of the Sqn. in all the activities was second. He further stated that apart from this main event of Vayusainik Competition, there used to be another important event called PM's rally at the end of the Republic Day Camp on 27th January every year which happened in the year 2007 2008 also. The training activities were continuous from the month of March April 2007 to the year 2008. The activity continued during this period without any break.

97. DW2 Sh. Puneet Kapoor corroborated DW1 regarding Vayu Sainik Camp Competition, participation of No.2 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC apart from No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC and second position in Vayu Sainik Camp and fourth position in the CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 83 of 86 -84- flying in Prime Minister's Rally.

98. Both defence witnesses were crossexamined by the prosecutor.

Despite their crossexamination at length, nothing came on record which discredits their testimony to the effect that No.1 Air Delhi Squadron NCC participated in Vayusainik Camps 20072008 and PM's Rally and got 4th position in the flying at National Level and overall position of the squadron in all activities was second. Without rigorous flying training activities, no squadron can earn such a position in competition. As per DW1, minimum 14 hours flying is required to get qualified in All India Vayu Sainik Camp and they have done more than 50 hours of flying training. Therefore, it is highly unbelievable that the No.1 Delhi Air Squadron, NCC participated in the events/competition without flying training activities and no flying took place. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there are discrepancies in the flying records and the fuel bills submitted are forged.

99. Both the accused have been charged for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC. The prerequisite to prove the charge of offence u/s 120B IPC is that prosecution must prove that there is prior meeting of mind. As per discussion above and evidence on record, there is not even an iota of evidence that there was any CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 84 of 86 -85- prior meeting of mind between two accused persons. Therefore, the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC could not be proved. There is no evidence on record against accused R. C. Das with respect to offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Therefore, he is entitle to acquittal.

100. As regards, accused V. S. Malik, the offence punishable u/s 420, 468 and 471, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons cheated the department by adjusting the amount by using 13 forged bills and 54 cash memos and forged those bills for the purposes of cheating and used them as genuine.

101. As regards offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against both the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons have abused their official position for obtaining pecuniary advantage.

102. Therefore, as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their case against both accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both accused are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Bail bond u/s 437 (A) Cr.PC is already on CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 85 of 86 -86- record, which will remain enforce for six months. Original document, if any, be returned to the concerned person/department against proper acknowledgment. Case property be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

103. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open court today i.e. on 05.12.2015 (GURDEEP SINGH) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)/CBI05 NEW DELHI/05.12.2015 CC. No.:42/12 CBI v V. S. Malik & Anr. Page 86 of 86

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

6 vs S. Malik & Anr. Page 1 Of 86 on 5 December, 2015