Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Motilal Chandra on 11 December, 2025
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
MOTI LAL CHANDRA AND ANOTHER
The accused person has been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally signed
by NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:31:05
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 1 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
MOTI LAL CHANDRA AND ANOTHER.
AGE OF THE CASE :27 years 11 Months and
15 days
CNR No. : DLCT12-000807-2019
CASE No. : 256/2019
FIR No. : RC-3(E)/96EOW-I/DLI
Under Section : 120-B read with 420, 468
IPC & Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
Name of Branch : CBI/EOW-1/New Delhi
Date of Commission of Offence : During the year 1993-94
Name of the Complainant : Source Information.
Name, Parentage & Address of : (i) Moti Lal Chandra S/o
accused Sh. K.B. Lal,
Proprietor of M/s. Divya
Impex, R/o 130,
Gagan Vihar Extn.
PS Preet Vihar, New Delhi.
Proceedings against him
Digitally signed
NEETU by NEETU
NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11
(Neetu Nagar) 16:31:17 +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 2 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
stands abated vide order
dated 27.11.2018
(ii) Ratinder Pal Singh @
Rompy, S/o Sh. Bhupinder
Singh Bhatia, R/o D-44,
Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi-27
Offence complained of : 120-B read with
419/420/471 IPC and
substantive offences thereof
*****
Plea of Accused Person : Not Guilty
Date of institution of case : 27.12.1997
Date of Judgment : 11.12.2025
Final Decision : ACQUITTAL
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Sh. Navneet Jawa, Ld. PP for
CBI.
For the Accused : Sh. Jujhar Singh, Ld. Counsel for
accused Ratinder Pal Singh.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused persons namely Moti Lal Chandra (proceedings qua Moti Lal Chandra got abated vide order dated 27.11.2018) and accused Ratinder Pal Singh have been sent by Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:31:35 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 3 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA the CBI to face trial for commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 419/420/471 IPC and substantive offences thereunder.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the present case was initially registered at Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI and was transferred later on to the Economic Offences Wing-I/Delhi and registered on 12.08.1996.
2.1 It is alleged that accused Moti Lal Chandra entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ratinder Pal Singh @Rompy with the object to cheat the Office of Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT) New Delhi by obtaining a Quantity Based Advance Licence for the Import of clove buds on the basis of forged and false documents during the year 1993-94. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Motilal Chandra floated a proprietorship concern M/s. Divya Impex, 103/2501/8, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, showing himself as proprietor in the assumed name of A.K.Chandra and submitted an application dated 01.10.1993 before Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi along with required documents for obtaining advance license mentioned as below:-
(i) Provisional certificate no. 88/DEI/93 dated 16.09.1993 issued by Deputy Director, Spices Board Ministry and Commerce, Government of India, New Delhi.Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:31:44
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 4 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
(ii) Photocopy of purchase order no. 05/1993 dated 09.08.1993 issued by M/s. Bazger Trading, Dubai for export of clove oil at the rate of U.S. $ 12.50 per kg during the period from 10.09.1995 to 31.12.1995.
(iii) Photocopy of RBI code No. D/002498 dated 15.09.1993 issued in favour of M/s. Divya Impex by R.B.I. Foreign Control Department, New Delhi.
(iv) Letter dated 20.09.1993 of M/s. United Aeromatics, Kerala for extracting clove buds oil, using 100 MTs. of clove bud to be supplied by M/s. Divya Impex, New Delhi.
(v) A Treasury Challan no. 7618 dated 01.10.1993 for Rs. 6,000/-
favouring M/s. Divya Impex issued by Central Bank of India. 2.2 It is further alleged that the office of DGFT, New Delhi believing the said documents as genuine issued an advance Import License No. P/K/1524009 dated 26.10.1993 in favour of M/s. Divya Impex for import of 100 M.Ts of clove buds of C.I.F. value of Rs. 30 Lacs. subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The firm shall export 15 MTs. of clove buds oil for FOB value of US $ 1,87,500 and realise the proceeds in free foreign exchange by fulfillment of export obligation.
(ii) The advance license holder shall obtain the certificate from the Spices Board that the wastage approved on account of imported goods used in the exported products, have been properly accounted for and destroyed. The said certificate shall be issued by Spices Board in relation to the particular import Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.11 16:31:53 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 5 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA license.
2.3 On receipt of the said advance license, accused Moti Lal Chandra submitted a letter dated 27.12.1993, to DGFT, New Delhi requesting for change of port from Delhi to Calcutta in the license as the goods had already arrived at Calcutta. The change was made and informed to M/s. Divya Impex vide letter dated 28.12.1993 issued by the Assistant DGFT, New Delhi. However, the license becomes operational only when a legal undertaking/bank guarantee is executed by the license holder, in this case, M/s. Divya Impex, New Delhi. Accordingly, accused Moti Lal Chandra submitted a letter dated 27.12.1993 addressed to Jt. DGFT requesting to accept legal undertaking (LUT) for the said advance licence No. P/K/1524009 dated 26.10.93. Accused Moti Lali Chandra enclosed the said advance license, DFEC Book in duplicate, legal undertaking agreement dated 27.12.1993 duly stamped and signed and declaration dated 27.12.1993, Chartered Accountant Certificate and a copy of Import and Export Code number. All the documents enclosed with the letter dated 27.12.1993 requesting for execution of legal undertaking were in original except the IE Code number. 2.4 Investigation disclosed that Chartered Accountant Certificate purportedly issued by M/s. Sanjeev & Company, infact was not issued by the C.A. (Chartered Accountant). The two witnesses Sh. Pushpender and Sh. Pratap Mathur who signed the legal undertaking were fictitious and non-existing on their Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:32:03 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 6 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA given addresses.
2.5 It further transpired during investigation that accused Moti Lal Chandra signed as "Pratap Mathur" as a witness and also signed as "A.K. Chandra", proprietor of M/s. Divya Impex and executor of the said legal undertaking dated 27.12.93. Thus, accused Moti Lal Chandra submitted false legal undertaking dated 27.12.1993.
2.6 Further, in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, accused Ratinder Pal Singh @ Rompy (A-1 R.P. Singh) placed telephonic orders for supply of 100 M.Ts. of clove buds on M/s. K. Raman Lal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Singapore in favour of M/s. Divya Impex, New Delhi which sent 100 M.Ts. of clove buds against two invoices no. 16427 and 16428, both dated 27.12.93 at Calcutta Port. Accused R.P.Singh @ Rompy made all arrangements through one of his friends Sh. K.K.Daga to get the clearance of imported goods from Customs at Calcutta.
Accordingly, on the request of Sh. K.K.Daga, M/s. Barua & Choudhary CHA got cleared the imported goods from customs against due charges paid to Custom and CHA by Sh. K.K.Daga in cash, which was given to Sh. K.K.Daga by accused R.P. Singh.
2.7 However, accused Moti Lal Chandra (A-1) instead of sending the imported goods directly to M/s. United Aeromatics Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvilla (Kerala) for extracting oil, transported the goods to Delhi through M/s. Karni Transport Calcutta and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:32:13 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 7 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA illegally sold it in the open market at New Delhi through accused R.P. Singh who utilized the services of Kewal Kumar Grover of M/s. Grover Trading Co., Delhi as broker to sell the goods. The sale proceeds so collected by Sh. K.K.Grover in cash were handed over to R.P.Singh after deducting his commission. Hence, the accused persons committed offence punishable under section 120-B read with 419, 420 and 471 as well as substantive offences thereunder.
2.8 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 19.01.1998, cognizance of the offence was taken against both the accused persons as disclosed in the chargesheet. Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under 419, 420 and 471 IPC was framed against accused Motilal Chandra, joint charge against both the accused were framed under Section 120-B, 420 and 471 and separate charge was framed against accused Ratinder Pal Singh under section 120-B, 420 read with 120B and 471 read with 120B IPC vide order dated 27.04.2005 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:32:21 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 8 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in total. Their testimonies in brief are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Ram Karan Prajapati:- He testified that in the year 1997, he was working as Driver at Lawrence Road, New Delhi with Babli for about 4 years of Tempo bearing no. DEG-8054. In the year 1994, one Munim (whose name he did not remember), of M/s. Grover Trading asked him to engage his Tempo for transportation of 100 bags of Clove from Delhi Deep Freeze Godown, Lawrence Road to Kirana Bazar, Khari Bawli. He went to Delhi Freeze Godown and loaded 100 bags of Cloves and unloaded the same at Khari Bawli. Thereafter, the said clove bags were taken in handcarts. Rs. 400/- was given to him as freight which was given by him to Sh. Babli, owner of the Tempo. He proved Mark-A i.e. photocopy of one gate pass bearing no. B8222 dated 15.03.1994 of M/s Delhi Deep Freeze Pvt. Ltd. indicating that vehicle no. DEG-8054 was used for transportation of 100 bags of Clove.
(ii) PW-2 Radhey Shyam Gupta:- He has testified that he had worked in M/s. Massoorie Cold Storage, New Delhi at C-14, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi-35 during the period 1983 to 1998 and also worked there in the capacity as Assistant Manager. He deposed that Sh. Sudesh Chand was one of the partners of M/s. Massoorie Cold Storage, New Delhi and he also worked there in the capacity of Manager. He deposed further that Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:32:29 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 9 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA when the goods come inside the storage, then an entry is made in the incoming register and party-wise stock ledger. When the goods go outside the storage, the proper gate pass is delivered to the party and one copy of the same is retained in the office record. He proved the photocopy of goods received bearing the initials of Sudesh Gupta and deposed that the said receipts pertain to M/s. Divya Impex and as per the receipt, there was a transaction of two hundred bags of clove with Divya Impex vide Mark PW2/A. He further proved Mark PW2/B i.e. photocopy of incoming register in which there is entry pertaining to Divya Impex in the handwriting of Sudesh Chand Gupta from X to X-1. He further proved Mark PW2/C i.e. photocopy of page of stock register having entry pertaining to Divya Impex from point X to X-1 bearing the initials of Sudesh Chand Gupta as per which two hundred bags of cloves were received in the cold storage and thereafter, the same were delivered to the party on two dates vide gate pass no. 6809 and 6835. He proved the receipt F 6809 dated 12.05.94 vide Mark PW2/D bearing his signatures which was issued to the party M/s. Divya Impex vide which the goods were received in M/s Massoorie Cold Storage, New Delhi through tempo/truck no. DEL 6135 as mentioned in Mark PW2/D. He further proved receipt bearing dated 14.05.1994 vide Mark PW2/E as per which the goods were received in M/s. Massoorie Cold Storage, New Delhi through truck/tempo no. DEL 6135 and same had been issued to the party concerned. He further proved Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:32:38 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 10 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA undertaking given by Sh. Sudesh Chand Gupta vide Mark PW2/F that to the effect M/s. Massoorie Cold Storage, New Delhi would keep the original of store register, location register, receipt book and gate pass for 11.05.94 to 14.05.94 in their safe custody and same will not be destroyed without seeking the clearance from CBI or the Court. He further deposed that during the period February 1996, Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta was the owner of Mussorrie Cold Storage and his brother Sudesh Chand Gupta was looking after the work in the cold storage in capacity of Manager. All the records pertaining to the period 1983 to 1998 were in the safe custody of Sh. Sudesh Chand Gupta. From the record, it is evident that bags containing clove buds belonging to Divya Impex were kept in the cold storage during the relevant period. He deposed clearly that 200 bags were received on 11.05.1994 but delivered on 12.05.1994 and 14.05.1994.
(iii) PW-3 Rajkumar:- He testified that he did not know any person with the name Motilal Chandra. He deposed that he had office space in gali no.8, Karol Bagh but he did not remember the complete address due to lapse of time. He had sold one room in the office space through property dealer Sikandar Lal but he did not remember the name of person to whom the room of office space was sold out. He had sold it for an amount of Rs.50,000/-
and one builder agreement was executed. He had handed over the original builder agreement to Sikandar Lal.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11
16:32:49
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 11 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
(iv) PW-4 Sh. Krishan Kumar Daga:- He testified that in the year 1993-1994, he was into the import business of furnitures and he was having a firm in the name and style of M/s Rightex Commers Pvt. Ltd/J.K. Importers. He deposed that the furniture used to be imported from China, Taiwan etc. He deposed further that 20-25 years back, his CHA, whose name he did not remember, had called him at his office at Calcutta. He went to the office of his CHA where he found that some persons were present from Delhi. CHA had told him that those persons were from custom department and they had asked him only 2-4 questions.
(v) PW-5 Sh. Kewal Krishan Grover:- He testified that in the year 1994, he was into the business of dry fruits in the name and style of Grover Trading company, 541, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi. He was called by the CBI and he told the CBI that he had sold the clove buds in the market. He did not remember as to who had given him the clove buds for selling in the market. He had sent the tempo to cold storage from where the clove buds were transported into his godown at K-1, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He charged commission of 1% for selling the clove buds in the market. It was around 90-100 bags of clove buds. He did not remember the rate at which the bag of a clove bud was sold by me in the market. He deposed specifically when leading question was put to him by learned PP on behalf of CBI that he did know accused R.P. Singh @Rompy Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:32:59 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 12 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA and could not say whether he had asked him to sell the clove buds in the market. This witness was declared hostile.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Rambir Yadav :- He testified that he was working as a driver of truck bearing no. 7404, make Nikkan of M/s.
Grover Trading Company of Sh. Kewal Grover. He deposed that the said truck was used for transportation of goods and no log book was maintained. In the year 1994, he was instructed by Sh. Kewal Grover to bring 100 bags from godown (cold storage) at Lawrence Road. He was not sure whether the bags contained cloves or not. Accordingly, he collected 100 bags from the godown and unloaded the same at the shop of Sh. Grover at Kharibaoli and one gate pass was issued to him while taking delivery of the goods. He proved receipt no. 8362 dated 20.03.1994 (D-10) vide Mark-A which was handed over to him at the time of taking delivery of the goods from the godown.
(vi) PW-7 Mohd. Maqbool :- He deposed that M/s. Golden Freight Carrier owned by him was closed in the year 2001. He testified that freight memo dated 15.04.1994 was prepared by Karni Transport Corporation and his firm's name was mentioned in the freight memo. He had supplied the lorry to Karni Transport Corporation vide Mark PW7/A. He further deposed that his firm's name was mentioned in the road challan dated 15.04.1994 and he had supplied the Lorry bearing no. WB15-1409 to Karni Transport Corporation vide Mark PW7/B. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:33:07 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 13 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
(viii) PW-8 Sanjeev Sharma:- He testified that in May, 1985, he had completed his C.A. Course and was running his firm namely Sanjeev Sharma and Company Chartered Accountants and he was the retainer for various companies in income tax purposes.
He was called by CBI regarding the investigation of the case but he did not recollect the date and year due to lapse of time. He deposed that Chartered Accountant certificate dated 22.12.1993, was not pertaining to his firm and the address mentioned on the letter-head did not belong to his office. He denied his signatures on the certificate. He deposed that Sanjeev Sharma and Co., was always a sole proprietorship firm but in the last para of the certificate 'it is mentioned that neither he nor any of his partner is a partner, Director or an employee of the above named entity or its associate concerned'. He deposed further that he never worked in partnership in Sanjeev Sharma and Co. and the said firm only belonged to him and he never had a partner in the said firm. The membership no. 84593 bears his correct which ICAI number is available in public domain as it was published in the list of members of ICAI. He proved the certificate vide Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that rubber stamp on the certificate did not belong to his firm Sanjeev Sharma and Co. Chartered Accountant and he never had any stamp like that when he was doing his C.A. practice. He further deposed that certificate was not issued by him and it was forged.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:33:17
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 14 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
(ix) PW-9 Sh. S. Nallakannu:- He testified that in the year 1991, he was working in the Spices Board as a Deputy Director in Regional Office Delhi and explained the procedure for issuing the Provisional certificate. He deposed that the exporter has to submit RBI Code, Import and Export Code (IE code) from DGFT, GST, CST number and bank confidential certificate in the prescribed format, Memorandum of Association of the company or partnership deed and the prescribed registration fee. He deposed that in the year 1991, the registration fee was Rs. 100/- and afterwards it was revised to Rs. 2,000/-. The Provisional certificate was valid for six months from the date of issuance. The regular certificate of registration is issued by the Headquarter at Cochin in Kerala by the Secretary of Spices Board. The Provisional certificates are issued by the Regional Offices located all over the country by the concerned regional officers i.e. Deputy Director and Assistant Deputy Director, as the case may be. The regular certificate to be issued by the Head Office would be valid for three years for a particular block period. The provisional certificate was issued by the Spices Board, Government of India to promote export of spices from the country and to facilitate the exporters. Headquarter Spices Board, Cochin check only documents and requirement before issuing the regular registration certificate. Any deficiency/discrepancy noticed by the Head Office will be communicated direct to the exporter for ratification. The provisional certificate was issued to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.11 16:33:27 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 15 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA avoid delay in exporting cargos and same would be converted into regular certificate after checking the documents and issuing the regular certificate by the Spices Board, Headquarter, Cochin. Then, provisional certificate will become null void. He proved Ex. PW9/A i.e. D3(K) provisional certificate no. 138/DEL/93 for the registration of exporter of spices to M/s. Divya Impex R/o 2501/8, Beadan Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 valid to 31.12.1993 from the date of issue and same was issued by him on 16.09.1993.
(x) PW-10 Sh. Murlidhar Ojha:- He testified that in the year 1994 he was working as a loading clerk in M/s. Karni Transport Corporation at Daya Basti, Delhi. Mr. Ratan Sharma and Mr. Kishan Lal were the partners of M/s. Karni Transport Corporation having head office at Calcutta, West Bengal. Mr. Jagdish Sharma was the working manager in M/s. Karni Transport Corporation, Delhi and his duty was to get truck/tempo unloaded at the corporation godown and also get the truck/tempo loaded for delivers. He deposed that as per the procedure followed in M/s. Karni Transport Corporation, Mr. Jagdish Sharma, Manager used to prepare a slip showing the address of the person or the party to whom the delivery was to made. The said slip used to be given to the truck drivers and sometimes he used to accompany the truck drivers for the collection of the fare amount from the parties. In the year 1994, 2000 bags of cloves buds were received in their Delhi branch from Calcutta Office for Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:33:36 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 16 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA M/s. Divya Impacts New Delhi. Representative of M/s Divya Impacts namely Mr. A.K. Chandra and Mr. Raj Kumar used to visit in their office at Day, Basti and make the payment in cash for transportation of their goods from Calcutta to Delhi. As per the instruction of the representative of M/s Divya Impacts they sent the clove bags to Khari Bawli, Mohan Garden, Lawrence Road, Najafgarh etc.
(xi) PW-11 Sh. Pran Gopal:- He testified that in the year 1993, he was working as a Appraiser in the Custom Department, DEEC Cell, Strand Road, Calcutta and his duty was to inspect the bill of entry and assess the value of the goods for the purpose of charging custom duty/assessment. The imported goods are examined in the docks before delivery is given to the importer.
He proved Ex. PW11/A (Colly) i.e. copy of bill of entry, Sr. No. 974 dated 17.01.1994 and deposed that he assessed the bill of entry on the basis of the documents submitted by the party i.e. DEEC Entitlement Certificate and invoice. He deposed that Divya Impex imported 49,744 Kgs Clove Buds under Import License from K. Ramanlal & Co. PTE, Ltd. Singapore. He proved Ex. PW11/B (colly) i.e. D-30 i.e, copy of bill of entry, Sr. No. 978 dated 17.01.1994 and deposed that he assessed the bill of entry on the basis of the documents submitted by the party i.e. DEEC Entitlement Certificate and invoice. He testified that Divya Impex imported 49,815 Kgs of Clove Buds under import license from K. Ramanlal & Co. PTH Ltd. Singapore. He further Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:33:44 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 17 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA deposed that at the time of clearing the goods, the documents were checked which was produced by the CHA (Custom House Agency). He also checked the invoice, packing list and bill of lading produced by CHA. The bill of entry is also counter signed by the Assistant Collector and in this case, the then Assistant Collector namely Sh. S. Dass had signed the bill of entry. He proved D-30 vide Ex. PW11/B and D-29 vide Ex. PW11/A).
(xii) PW-12 Ms. Leena Sheila:- She testified that in the year 1997, she was working at Ernakulam as Lower Division Clerk in Varnaikulam in Spices Board from 1973 to 2014. She deposed that file no. AL/MP/11/93-94 and AL/MP/12/93-94 were concerned with her marketing department but she did not remember whether she processed the above mentioned file. It is pertinent to mention that the said witness was dropped vide order dated 08.12.2025 due to her health conditions and as per request of learned PP for CBI. She further deposed that her statement was not recorded by IO.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. H.S. Kukreja: He testified that in the year 1996, he was working as an Accountant in Canara Bank branch Fountain near Moti Cinema Delhi. He did not remember whether his statement was recorded by CBI or not due to passage of time.
He submitted Account Opening form, however he did not remember the name of the firm/person in whose name the account opening form was there due to passage of time. He did not remember whether the statement of account of firm/person Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:33:53 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 18 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA was also provided to CBI. He admitted that he visited the CBI office to deposit the said document.
(xiv) PW-14 Sh. S.C. Garg: He testified that in the year 1997, he was the Assistant Registrar in Firm and Society. Before that, he was working in Education Department as a DDO. He did not remember whether his statement was recorded by CBI or not due to passage of time. He did not remember whether he submitted any document to CBI. He did not remember whether he provided rules and regulations of the Registrar of the Firm and Society to CBI. He did not remember whether he visited to CBI office or not due to passage of time.
(xv) PW-15 Sh. Rajesh Chauhan: He testified that he was earlier residing at 105, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi with his father and uncle Sh. Harish Kumar Chauhan. They also had a shop no. 2501/8, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, purchased for about Rs. 51,000/- through broker namely R.P. Sharma from Moti Lal Chandra. At the time of purchasing of the above said shop, he was present and seen his father giving the above said payment to Moti Lal Chandra in cash. In the above said shop, they run a business namely A.C. Jewels. He and his brother namely Amit Chauhan were the partners in the above said business. CBI recorded his statement in the present case. He deposed further that the photograph of Moti Lal Chandra was affixed on the power of attorney.Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:34:02
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 19 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
(xvi) PW-16 Sh. Gulshan Lal Monga: He testified that he did not remember whether his statement was recorded by IO or not due to passage of time. In the year 1993, he was working in DGFT and during 1995, he was in Ministry of Commerce for a period of 3-4 months. He was on the post of Controller of Imports and Exports (Section Officer) in DGFT. He deposed that the Process in DGFT (earlier known as Chief Controller of Imports and Exports) for application of advance license was submitted by the applicant for import of raw material inputs for export product for certain quantities. Such applications were considered by a committee called Advance Licensing Committee (ALC) chaired by Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the basis of comments of the technical department present in the meeting. On the basis of approval of certain quantities of Imports for export of certain quantities of product, a duty free license called advance license was issued for import of item from a specific custom port (port of registration). The licensee was required to fulfill export obligation within specified time of 12/18 months. For the duty free import, the licensee was also required to execute a bank guarantee/legal undertaking as per parameters laid down so that in case they are not able to fulfill the export obligation, they shall pay custom duty amount along with interest. He proved copy of D-3 (a) file no. 01/82/40/63-94 vide Ex. PW16/A through which application from M/s. Divya Impex, New Delhi was considered by ALC meeting No. 25/94 held on Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:34:12 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 20 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA 05.10.1993. The committee had recommended import of 100 M.T. Clove buds for CIF value of Rs. 30,00,000/- against export of 15 M.T. of Clove Bud oil for Rs. 60,00,000/- with export obligation period for 12 months. He deposed further that the said approval was subject to the condition of ALC (Advance Licensing Circular) No. 9/92 and ALC No. 13/92. The said application was considered in the DES-III section. During the leave of the Controller, the matter was given to him in DES-VI section as an additional charge as per decision of the ALC meeting and submission of requisite documents from spices board required under ALC No. 9/92 and ALC No. 13/92. He had approved and signed the license. Thereafter, the file was transferred to the concerned section DES-III.
(xvii) PW-17 Sh. P.C. Sharma: He testified that he was posted as Dy. SP in CBI, ACB, New Delhi from November, 1994 to April 2002 and investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, he had obtained specimen signatures of accused Motilal Chandra. During the initial stages of investigation, it was found that the present case was of economic offence nature, therefore, further investigation of present case was transferred to EO Branch. He proved Specimen writing and signatures of accused Motilal Chandra from S-20 to S-43 (part of D-28) vide Ex. PW17/A having signature of witnesses namely, Dilip Bhagtani and Umesh Chandra Rawat. He also proved D-28 i.e. Specimen writing and signatures of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:34:23 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 21 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA Sanjeev Sharma from S-44 to S-45 vide Ex. PW17/B. He also proved part of D-44(A) i.e. a letter to GEQD, Shimla by the then SP, V.S.K. Kaumudi alongwith list of document vide Ex.PW17/C (Colly) and seizure memo dated 17.07.1995 vide Ex. PW17/D attached with the 161 Statement of I.M. Abrol vide which he seized two documents from Aftab Hadi, Secretary, Sports Goods Export Promotion Council. During the investigation, he recorded the 161 Cr. P.C. statements of I.M. Abrol, Sanjeev Sharma, S.P. Dhawan, Gulshan Lal Monga and Sudhesh Chandra Gupta. Witness also identified the writing and signature of Part IO Sh. P. Balachandran on the 161 Cr. P.C. statement which he recorded during investigation. He deposed further that 161 Cr. P.C. Statement of K.P.G. Menon, Leena Sheila, K.S. Saiman and G.A. Balakrishanan were taken by IO P. Balachandran in his handwriting.
(xviii) PW-18 Sh. Rajendra Prasad : He conducted the remaining investigation in the present case. He collected relevant documents and recorded statements of witnesses. Remaining investigation was conducted by Sh. R.K. Tiwari who filed the chargesheet in the court. He proved FIR (D-1) vide Ex. PW18/A, D2 i.e. copy of FIR/RC bearing no. 30A/95 Delhi. He identified the signatures of Sh. P.C. Sharma, the then DSP, ACB/CBI and that of Sh. P Balachandran and Sh. R.K. Tiwari on the statement of witnesses recorded by them under section 161 Cr. P.C. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:34:31 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 22 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA 4.2 Learned counsel of accused admitted the version of LW41 R.K. Jain and LW24 S.L. Kumar on behalf of the accused persons vide separate statement dated 08.12.2025 under section 294 Cr.P.C.
4.3. After conclusion of the list of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.12.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 11.12.2025 wherein he denied all the allegations. He stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case and innocent. He stated that he had never done any dealing of clove buds in his life as he was always in the business of furniture. He had never done any transactions or business with Moti Lal Chandra.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Accused has not examined any witness in his defence and closed the same vide order dated 11.12.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Learned PP for CBI has contended that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and submitted that the accused Ratinder Pal is liable to be convicted for the offences in question as the accused Moti Lal Chandra(deceased), in concert Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:34:40 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 23 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA and conspiracy with co-accused Ratinder Pal Singh, defrauded the Directorate General of Foreign Trade during the years 1993- 94 by procuring quantity-based advance licences for the extraction of clove oil through forged and fabricated documents.In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Moti Lal Chandra (deceased) established a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s. Divya Impex under a fictitious identity, A.K. Chandra, and co-accused Ratinder Pal Singh placed an order for 100 metric tonnes of cloves with M/s. Raman Lal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
in the name of the said firm. The consignment, which was required under the licence to be delivered to M/s. United Aeromatics Pvt. Ltd. for extraction of clove oil, was diverted with the assistance of K.K. Daga through M/s. Karni Transport to New Delhi, where it was disposed off in the open market.He urged next that the evidence duly proved on record clearly establishes the active role of the present accused in the said conspiracy, resulting in wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding gain to the accused.
7.1 Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of accused Ratinder Pal contended that there are various lapses in the case of the prosecution. It was argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary and biased manner. It is further urged that, for reasons best known to the investigating agency, accused Hardeep Singh was unilaterally granted a clean chit by the CBI and was relegated to Column No. 2 of the Digitally signed NEETU by NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:34:50 +0530 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 24 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA charge-sheet, thereby vitiating the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. No cogent, reliable, or admissible documentary material has been placed on record by the CBI to substantiate its case or to fasten any criminal liability upon the accused Ratinder Pal Singh.It was prayed for acquittal of the accused Ratinder Pal Singh.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file.
9. The points of determination in the present case are as follows:-
1. Whether during the period i.e late 1993 and 1994 accused Moti Lal Chandra (deceased) and Ratinder Pal, both were party to a criminal conspiracy the object of which was to cheat the office of Director General Foreign Trade, New Delhi (DGFT) and in pursuance thereof obtain a quantity based advance license for the import of 100 Mts. of clove Buds of CIF value of Rs. 30 lacs, on the basis of forged documents and further to sell the same by importing from M/s. K. Raman Lal & Co. P.Ltd. in favour of M/s. Divya Impex in indigenous/local market instead of exporting it in terms of the licence?
2. Whether the accused persons during the said period cheated the office of DGFT, New Delhi by dishonestly inducing the said office to deliver a quantity based advance import license No. P/K 1524009 dated 26.10.93 in favour of M/s. Divya Impex for Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:34:59 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 25 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA import of 100 Mts. of clove buds of CIF value of Rs 30 lacs and further ,the accused persons cheated the purchaser by selling the aforesaid clove buds in local market despite knowing that they were not competent to sell the same in the local market and thereby dishonestly induced the purchaser to make the payment of the clove buds sold to them ?
3. Whether the accused persons fraudulently or dishonestly used the aforesaid Licence as genuine which they both were aware of and had reason to believe that same was obtained on the basis of forged documents and further, used the Chartered Account Certificate bearing Ref.No.4SC/MSC/993/93-94 dated 22.12.1993 purportedly issued by Sanjeev Sharma & Co. and forged legal undertaking 28.12.93 as genuine knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents ?
10. The case of the prosecution is that accused Moti Lal Chan- dra(deceased) floated a fake proprietorship concern in the name of a fictitious person namely A.K Chandra and further forged some documents using letterheads of Chartered Accountant namely Sanjeev Sharma (PW 8) on the basis of it as well as other documents in order to procure Quantity based licence.It thus seems that the mastermind of the present case was accused Moti Lal Chandra but he died during the pendency of the present case.
11. As far as accused Ratinder Pal Singh is considered, it was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that he in deliberate con- nivance with his co-accused, placed an order for 100 metric Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.11 16:35:09 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 26 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA tonnes of clove buds with M/s. Raman Lal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., in the name of the fictitious proprietorship firm M/s. Divya Impex, by telephonic communication. Upon receipt of the consignment, he arranged through his associate, for its clearance from the Cus- toms Department, Calcutta. In contravention of the licence condi- tions, which required delivery to M/s. United Aeromatics Pvt. Ltd. for extraction of clove oil, he diverted the consignment to Delhi through M/s. Karni Transport. Thereafter, the consignment was disposed of in the open market with the assistance of his as- sociate, Kewal Krishan Grover (PW-5), and thus accused Ratin- der Pal Singh obtained the proceeds of the sale in cash, after pay- ing a commission to the said associate.
12. It is now to be seen whether the alleged acts of the accused Ratinder Pal Singh demonstrate his active participation in the al- leged conspiracy, resulting in wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the Government.
13. Let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions attracted in the present case. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishon- estly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a Digitally signed NEETU by NEETU NAGAR NAGAR 2025.12.11 Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 16:35:18 +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 27 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13.1 The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security.
13.2 Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:35:29 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 28 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA 13.3. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
14. Having discussed the legal position, let us now see if the evidence brought on record by CBI inspires confidence or not.
15. It was highlighted by learned PP on behalf of the CBI that the role of accused Ratinder Pal Singh stands corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 Rambir Yadav, the truck driver of Grover Trading Company. It was pointed out that PW-6, both in his statement recorded before the CBI and in his deposition in the Court, deposed that he was instructed by PW-5 to transport 100 bags from the cold storage at Lawrence Road to Khari Baoli, thereby establishing the execution of the diversion and sale of the consignment as part of the conspiracy. He proved the receipt vide Mark A which was handed over to him at the time of taking de-
livery of the goods from godown. Pertinently, the original re- ceipt was not brought on record. Moreover, this witness has not deposed anything against the present accused. In his examina- tion-in-chief, he deposed, "I was not sure whether these bags contained clove or not."The prosecution has failed to place on record any document to prove that the said witness was em- ployed as a driver with M/s. Grover Trading Company, and fur- ther during his cross-examination he stated, "I do not have any Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:35:39 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 29 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA document to show that I worked with M/s Grover Trading Com- pany."Most importantly, during cross-examination he further stated, "I cannot tell the exact address of M/s Grover Trading Company." Hence, his deposition is marred by multiple material contradictions, infirmities, and improbabilities which clearly show that the prosecution has failed to establish any credible link between this witness, the alleged transportation of goods, or the accused.
16. To further fasten liability upon the accused Ratinder Pal Singh, the prosecution has next relied upon the testimony of PW-4 Krishan Kumar Daga, who allegedly stated during investi-
gation that he had assisted the accused in getting the consignment cleared from the Customs Department at Calcutta. It was vehe- mently argued by learned PP on behalf of CBI that PW-4 Krishan Kumar Daga, although has turned hostile at the instance of the accused persons, has, during his cross-examination by the State, admitted that he is acquainted with Ratinder Pal Singh and that they were engaged in the same line of business.Reliance was placed on the case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in K. P. Tamil- mara Vs. The State By Deputy Superintendent Of Police SLP(CRL) 123 of 2023 wherein it was reiterated that :
"36. It is though trite and much overstated but the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"3, is not applicable to our criminal justice system. It is for the Court to distinguish the wheat from the chaff while Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:35:48 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 30 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA dealing with the depositions of a hostile witness. Courts can rely upon that part of the deposition of a hostile witness which is corroborated by other evi- dence on record. This Court in Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 discussed the worth of the evidence of a hostile witness in the fol- lowing words:
"36. It is settled law that the evidence of hostile wit nesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution ver sion of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records, it re mains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testi mony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence..."
17. Clearly, at the time of his deposition, PW4 completely re- siled from the prosecution version, turned hostile, and, while dis- owning his alleged statement, clearly deposed that "I was never called by CBI in the investigation of the present case. My state- ment was not recorded by CBI." Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution has been shaken and PW-4 cannot be relied upon as he disowned his own statement.
18. To bring the charge under section 471 IPC, the prosecution has relied on testimony of PW-8 Sanjeev Sharma. Let us first dis- cuss the relevant legal provisions relating to forgery. The term Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:36:00 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 31 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA "forgery" is defined in section Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows:
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
19. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:36:10 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 32 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
xxxxxx Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
xxxxxx Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery."
20. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
(i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
(ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.11 16:36:19 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 33 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind;
or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document.
21. Harking back, PW8 deposed clearly that the letterhead in question, which was used to procure the licence from the Direc- torate General of Foreign Trade, did not belong to him and that he did not affix his signature thereon. Thus, from the perusal of testimony of PW-8 Sanjeev Sharma, it is manifest that the certifi- cate Ex. PW8/A is a forged document.
22. It was contended on behalf of learned PP for CBI that the testimony of PW8 directly corroborates that the present accused, in connivance with Moti Lal Chandra, forged the said document to facilitate the fraudulent activities. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said certificate Ex. PW8/A was forged by accused Ratinder Pal Singh or was forged at his in- stance or was used by him. During his cross-examination, PW8 infact deposed that he did not know who has forged the said doc- ument Ex. PW8/A. Morever, there is no expert opinion to corrobrate forgery by accused with respect to Ex. PW8/A. Hence, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:36:29 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 34 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA the charge under section 471 against accused Ratinder Pal Singh fails.
23. Further, in order to establish the alleged diversion of the clove buds consignment to Delhi's Khari Baoli and its sale in the open market, the prosecution examined PW5 Kewal Krishan Grover, who was allegedly shown to have stated before the CBI that he had helped the accused in selling the clove buds on a commission basis. However, during his deposition as PW-5, he also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. He deposed that he did not remember as to who had given him the clove buds for selling in the market. He further deposed that he did not know as to who is R.P Singh @ Rompy and therefore, he could not say whether he had asked him to sell the clove buds in the market. Hence, nothing incriminating was deposed by this witness against accused Ratinder Pal. He also had no documents to show that he worked with M/s. Grover Trading Company. He could not even tell the exact address of M/s. Grover Trading Company. Hence, not much reliance can be placed upon the tes- timony of the said witness. The testimony of PW5 infact com- pletely rules out any nexus between PW-5 and the accused, thereby falsifying the prosecution's version regarding alleged sale of clove buds in the open market.
24. Learned PP on behalf of CBI next relied on the testimony of PW-18 Sh. Rajendra Prasad who conducted the remaining in- vestigation in the present case.During his cross-examination, he Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.11 (Neetu Nagar) 16:36:39 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 35 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA deposed that he did not remember as to what evidence was col- lected by him against accused Ratinder Pal Singh during the time investigation remained with him during to passage of time. The testimony of this witness is also riddled with material contradic- tions and admissions, which completely creates a dent in the prosecution story. PW18 deposed, "I cannot tell as to how many accused were there in the present case."He further deposed, "I do not remember as to what allegations or what allegations I have collected against accused Ratinder Pal Singh."Further, he testi- fied, "I also do not remember what seizure memo was prepared by me during the time investigation remained with me due to passage of time." Clearly, such infirmities in the testimony of the Investigating Officer strike at the foundation of the prosecution case and renders the prosecution version inherently unreliable and wholly unworthy of credence.
25. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also did not utter a single word against the present accused. Same is dis- cussed hereunder.
26. PW1 Ram Karan Prajapati deposed clearly during his cross-examination that he had transported the bags as per the in- structions of Babli. He has not named the present accused any- where in his deposition. The witness has named one Munim and had no knowledge about the terms and conditions fixed between Munim of M/s. Grover Trading Company and Babli. Further, the original gate pass was never brought on record.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11
(Neetu Nagar) 16:36:49
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 36 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
27. With regard to testimony of PW-2 Radhey Shyam Gupta who proved stock register, it has transpired that the original records were never produced. Moreover, Sudesh Chand Gupta who maintained the records has not been examined by the CBI for being untraceable.
28. PW-3 Rajkumar testified that he did not know any person with the name Motilal Chandra.He had sold one room in the office space through Sikandar Lal but he did not remember the name of person to whom the room of office space was sold out. He deposed only qua accused Moti Lal Chandra and not against the present accused.
29. PW-7 Mohd. Maqbool proved only photocopies and the original was never placed on record by CBI. He admitted during his cross- examination that he was not aware as to what goods were being supplied through the lorry. He further deposed that his statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. Ex. DX-1 was not recorded in his presence and was not made by him. Meaning thereby that he discarded his own statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
30. PW-10 Sh. Murlidhar Ojha deposed that Representative of M/s Divya Impacts namely Mr. A.K. Chandra and Mr. Raj Kumar used to visit in their office at Day, Basti and make the payment in cash for transportation of their goods from Calcutta to Delhi. As per the instruction of the representative of M/s. Divya Impacts, they sent the clove bags to Khari Bawli, Mohan Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:37:00 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 37 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA Garden, Lawrence Road, Najafgarh etc. During his cross- examination, he admitted that he did not know as to from where the goods used to come and the goods used to be sent and same was managed by the then Manager. He admitted that he never issued any slip/ receipt regarding receiving and delivery of any goods. He did not have any proof to show that he was working as a clerk at M/s. Karni Transport Corporation. He deposed further that bags of clove buds were stored in the godown of M/s. Delhi Deep Freeze Pvt. Ltd., Lawrence Road, New Delhi. Nothing incriminating against the present accused was deposed by this witness also.
31. PW-12 Ms. Leena Sheila deposed that her statement was not recorded by IO. This witness was dropped by learned PP for CBI and hence, her examination-in-chief was also not concluded.
32. PW-16 Sh. Gulshan Lal Monga also did not remember if he had given his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
33. Thus, a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record demonstrates that most of the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On the contrary, they have either turned hostile or have made material departures, improvements and contradictions between the statements allegedly recorded by the CBI during investigation and their depositions in the Court as discussed above, which contradictions are not minor in nature but strike at the very foundation of the prosecution case, rendering the same wholly unreliable and unsafe to act upon.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:37:11
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 38 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
34. Furthermore, documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution pertains solely to the co-accused Motilal Chandra who has already expired and do not, either directly or indirectly, implicate accused Ratinder Pal Singh. Thus, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of minds, common intention, or conspiracy, the prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge against the present accused.
35. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution carries the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This burden is not discharged by conjecture, suspicion, or surmise, but only by clear, cogent, and admissible evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal law, and no accused can be condemned on the basis of probabilities or inferences drawn from weak or doubtful evidence.
36. In the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge this fundamental burden. None of the public witnesses have deposed against Ratinder Pal Singh. There is no direct evidence in the present case. The circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient as there are various missing links therein. Nothing has been recovered from the accused connecting him to the offence in question. No conviction can be held merely on the assumption and surmises and there is long way between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" and that Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11 16:37:20 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 39 of 41 CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA has to be proved by the prosecution by producing sterling quality of evidence, which is totally lacking in the present case. The Apex Court, in its recent ruling in Vandana v. State of Maharashtra (CRL. Appeal 3977 of 2025), while setting aside a conviction under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC, has rightly observed that "the Suspicion however grave cannot substitute standard of legal proof".
37. On the collective reading of all the material available on record, deposition of witnesses summoned by prosecution and material/ documents exhibited/ marked in their testimonies, it nowhere connects the present accused to the same. On the contrary, there are many inconsistencies in evidence and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses in the present case and benefit of the same is liable to be given to the accused.
CONCLUSION
38. Therefore, upon conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the following discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the alleged offence by the accused Ratinder Pal Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused namely Ratinder Pal Singh stands acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under under section 120B IPC, 420 IPC and 471 IPC and also under separate charge under section 120B IPC, 420 with 120-B and 471 read with 471 IPC.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.11
16:37:31
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 40 of 41
CBI 256/2019 CBI VS. MOTI LAL CHANDRA
39. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Accused to furnish bail bonds under Section 481 BNSS 2023 (437-A Cr.P.C). Case property, if any be disposed of as per rules.
40. Copy of this judgment be given to learned PP for CBI as well as to the accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the open Digitally
signed by
NEETU
court today i.e. 11.12.2025 NEETU NAGAR
(This Judgment contains 41 pages NAGAR Date:
2025.12.11
16:37:43
signed by the undersigned) +0530
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
11.12.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:11.12.2025 Page 41 of 41