Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashok Manchanda & Anr. on 15 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR: MM01
(SOUTHEAST):SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ashok Manchanda & Anr.
FIR No. 03/1996
U/s 109/120B/198/200/217/218/
418/420/447/468/471/477 IPC &
332/343/344/347/461 of DMC Act
P. S. Lajpat Nagar
1.Serial No. of the case : 359/1/14
2.Date of commission of offence : Between 11.07.9508.01.97
3.Name of the Complainant : Sh. S.M. Bhaskar, ACP/STF,
Delhi
4.Name of the accused and his
parentage & residence address : (1) Sh. Ashok Manchanda
S/o Sh. S.P. Manchanda
R/o 1/93, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi.
:(2) Smt. Hassi M. Lala (abated)
W/o Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (3) Sh. Gul M. Lala
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (4) Sh. Navand Lal
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (5) Sh. Prem Kumar Lala
FIR No. 03/1996
P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 1 of 11
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (6) Sh. Ramesh Lala
S/o Late Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (7) Mrs. Sushila Ahuja
D/o Late Sh. Mohan Dass
R/o E1, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi & 183, Nofra
Airport Road, Goa.
: (8) Sh. Narender Kaushik
S/o Sh. Mithan Lal Kaushik
R/o C15 Anan EE Division
No.8, Rouse Avenue Road,
New Delhi.
: (9) Sh. R.S. Sehrawat
S/o Sh. H.S. Sehrawat
R/o Vill. & P.O. Nangal Deva,
New Delhi, 37, J.E. MCD
Bodg. Deptt. Cenral Zone,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
: (10) Sh. R.K. Lawania
S/o Sh. S.K. Lawania
R/o SC 155, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad, J.E. Buld. Deptt.,
Central Zone, MCD Lajpat
Nagar New Delhi
: (11) Sh. B.D. Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma
R/o Vill. Chithara, P.O. Dadri,
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P, J.E.,
MCD Division No.26, Quality
Control Officer, MCD Main
Road, Delhi.
FIR No. 03/1996
P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 2 of 11
: (12) Sh. Naresh Yadav
S/o Sh. R.P.S. Yadav
R/o J228, Sawami Dayanand
Colony, Rohilla, Delhi, J.E.,
MCD, City Zone, Minto Road,
New Delhi
5.Date when judgment reserved : 30.08.2014
6.Date when Judgment pronounced: 15.09.2014
7.Offence Complained of or proved : U/s 109/120B/198/200/217/218/ 418/420/447/468/471/477 IPC & 332/343/344/347/461 of DMC Act
8.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9.Final Judgment : All the accused are acquitted
1. In the present case, the accused (1) Ashok Manchanda, (2) Hassi M. Lala, (3) Gul M. Lala, (4) Navand Lal , (5) Prem Kumar Lal, (6) Ramesh Lal, (7) Sushila Ahuja, (8) Narender Kaushik, (9) R.S. Sehrawat, (10) B.D. Sharma, (11) Naresh Yadav and (12) R.K. Lavania have been facing trial. The present case FIR was registered on the report of ACP S.M. Bhaskar. As per the report, the information was received regarding unauthorised construction in property No.II/E1, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (herein after to be as the property) in violation of building by laws. It is alleged that construction at the site had proceeded with 100% basement and full coverage of the plot with extra floor. The owner of the said property had applied for building permit and the plans were submitted 60% coverage on the basement, ground floor, first floor and 40% on barsati floor to achieve the prescribe FAR of 160% for residential use. It is alleged that the owner/ builder completed the construction on major part of the floor and the same was occupied for commercial use. It is the case of the FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 3 of 11 prosecution that the owner/ builder had deceived the Government into issuing a building permit while they had no intention of making of residential structure in accordance with the submitted plans rather intended to construct a commercial complex and also to exceed the permissible coverage and the conversion of residential property into shops etc. It is further alleged that accused No.2 to No.7 are the joint owner of the said property and they entered into collaboration agreement with the accused No.1 to construct the building on the said property. Further the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 engaged the building contractor Mahesh Kumar for the construction of the building and they entered into a written agreement. As per the case of the prosecution, that the accused No.2 to 6 being the joint owner entered into conspiracy with the accused No.7 to construct the building on the plot in violation of a building by laws and cheated the Government. It is further alleged that the above said accused persons forged the signature of the plumber, namely, Kamal Bihari on the application of the building sanction plan dated 11.07.1995 and used the same before MCD. As far as the accused No.8 to 12 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that they were they employees of MCD and they entered into the conspiracy with other accused persons and knowingly and deliberately permitted the construction to come up, in spite of complaint against the said structure. In the course of investigation, the IO collected certain documents i.e. GPA executed by the owners in favour of accused No.1 for construction of the building, a construction agreement between the accused No.1 and Mahesh Kumar, collaboration agreement between the joint owners and accused No.1, structural drawing of building of the said plot. The said building was got inspected FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 4 of 11 and the detailed report was filed.
2. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to all the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, the charge was framed against the accused No.1 to 7 for the commission of offence U/s 420/120B, 468/120B, 471/120B, 332/461/342 DMC Act r/w 120B IPC, 344/461 DMC Act/120B IPC and 347/461/120B IPC. The charge was framed against the accused No.8 to 12 for the offence u/s 420/120B IPC and 332/461/342 r/w Section 120B IPC. In the revision, the order of charge for offences under DMC Act was set aside and the charges u/s 420/468/471 r/w 120B IPC was sustained. Similarly, the charges under DMC Act were removed qua accused No.8 to 12 and charge of offence u/s 420 r/w 120B IPC was upheld.
4. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses in order to prove their case.
5. PW 1 Mahesh Kumar deposed that in the year 1996 he was working as a building contractor having an office at Lajpat Nagar. He had talked with Ashok Manchanda regarding building at E2, Lajpat NagarII. The talks could not resulted into any agreement due to nonsettlement on the terms and conditions of the payment. The police inquired from him and he told to the police that he is not concerned with the building FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 5 of 11 in any manner. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his previous statement. In his cross examination, he denied to have submitted the documents to the police and signed the seizure memo. He deposed that he was asked to sign some blank papers.
6. PW 2 C.A. Malkani express his ignorance regarding this case. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied to have given any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further denied to witness the search of the house on 04.01.1997 and seizure of the documents in his presence.
7. PW 3 Inspector Man Mohan deposed that he joined the investigation with IO/ Inspector Ram Chander and he took the specimen signature of the accused R.S. Sehrawat, Naresh Yadav and B.D. Sharma in his presence.
8. PW 4 Jagdish Balwani deposed that he is a private architect/ engineer and he expressed his ignorance about the present case.
9. PW 5 Ram Kumar brought the original misal band register MCD for the year 19951996.
10. PW 6 ACP Raghunath Singh deposed that on the basis of the search warrants, he conducted the search of house of the accused Prem Kumar Lala on 04.01.1997 and seized various documents as per seizure memo Ex.PW2/A.
11. PW 7 V.K. Dham deposed that he joined the investigation with IO FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 6 of 11 S.M. Bhaskar. He procured the building plan file pertaining to the said property and handed over to the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that on 18.12.1996 some property documents and construction documents were seized from Mahesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He is also the witness of seizure of certain documents produced by Sh. Daya Nand, official from House Tax Department, Central Zone MCD, Lajpat Nagar and the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A.
12. PW 8 S.M. Bhaskar is the IO of this case. He deposed that in the year 1996 the special task force was constituted to check the corruption of the MCD in collusion with building mafia indulging the unauthorised construction in Delhi. In pursuance of that certain buildings which had been built in the gross violation of the building by laws in connivance with the unscrupulous Government officials were earmarked. The present case was registered as there appear to be a criminal conspiracy in the construction of building which had been converted into commercial building in violation of rules and regulations. He prepared the Rukka Ex.PW8/A and got the FIR registered. On 18.12.1996 he had seized the documents produced by Mahesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B. A register maintained u/s 126 DMC Act was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A.
13. PW 9 HC Sant Lal deposed that he took the photographs of the building from various angles on 13.12.1996. He produced the negatives of those photographs and the same are Ex.PN. His examination could not be concluded as the same was deferred.
FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 7 of 1114. PW 10 ACP S.S. Gill deposed that he along with ACP R.N. Singh, V.K. Dham and Inspector Khan conducted the raid and searched the house of Prem Kumar, after taking the search warrants. One C.A. Malkhani was joined as witness of the search. The documents i.e. collaboration, lease deed, mutation, conveyance deed and letter for change of ownership were recovered. He witness the seizure vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A.
15. PW 11 (Rtd.) Inspector Ram Chander deposed that on 01.12.1997 the further investigation was marked to him and during investigation, he interrogated some officials of MCD who were allegedly involved in the unauthorized construction of the said building. He obtained the specimen signatures of R.S. Sehrawat, B.D. Sharma and Naresh Yadav. He sent the specimen signatures and documents to the FSL.
16. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of all the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused persons for explanation.
17. No defence witness was examined on behalf of all the accused persons.
18. The case of the prosecution mainly based on the documents seized during the investigation. As per IO/ PW 8, he had seized the documents produced by Sh. Mahesh Kumar/ PW 1 vide seizure memo FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 8 of 11 Ex.PW1/A. PW 1 Mahesh Kumar was the star prosecution witness and stated that he had not entered into the construction agreement with the accused No.1. The witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied to have handed over the documents mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He denied to have given any statement to the police. The other set of documents were seized by the police from the house of accused Prem Kumar in pursuance of the search warrants issued by the court. As per the prosecution, the search of the house was conducted in the presence of independent public witness namely C.A. Malkani/ PW 2. PW 2 also do not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied to have witnessed the search of the house.
19. The allegations against the accused No.1 to 7 are that they forged the signatures of the plumber Kamal Bihari on the application of building sanctioned plan and used the same with the knowledge the same to be forged. There is no evidence to this fact on record. The said person has not been examined as prosecution witness. There is no other evidence to establish that these signatures were forged.
20. The genuineness and authenticity of the documents seized during the investigation are under the shadow of doubt as the documents seized could not be verified or authenticated. Furthermore, the seizure of the said documents is also doubtful in view of the hostile testimony of PW 1 and PW 2.
FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 9 of 1121. The direct evidence in proof of conspiracy is seldom available. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the formation of criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object with conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which object of conspiracy is to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy than of loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. To prove conspiracy there need not be evidence of direct concert nor even any meeting of the conspirators together. The agreement of conspiracy can be inferred from collateral acts, but these acts must show a common plan. It is necessary that there should be express proof of agreement because, from the acts and conducts of the parties, the agreement can be inferred. The court has to consider the total commutative effect of all the facts and if combined effects of all the facts taken together establishes the element of criminal conspiracy, the court must frame the charge.
22. The charges of DMC Act were removed by the Sessions Court in revision. There is no evidence of dishonest inducement by the accused persons in pursuance to the conspiracy with each other. In the present case, there is no evidence or the material placed on record to establish that the accused persons were part of the conspiracy. None of the witnesses deposed to the effect which can led to the inference that the accused persons entered into agreement with other coaccused to cheat the MCD/ Government.
FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 10 of 1123. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
24. So, keeping in view the above discussion and materials available on record, I am of the considered view that charges against all the accused persons are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted for the charges framed against them.
25. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court On 15th, September 2014 ( Pawan Kumar ) Metropolitan Magistrate01(SouthEast):
Saket Courts: New Delhi.FIR No. 03/1996 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 11 of 11