Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar Cghs) on 17 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SAMEER BAJPAI
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) [CBI]-14, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Case No.- CBI-146/2019
CNR No.- DLCT11-000668-2019
CBI Vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS)
FIR No. - RC BDI/2005/E0012-BS&FC/CBI/New Delhi
U/s - 120-B r/w section 420, 468, 471 and section 471 of
IPC & Sec. 15 r/w 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. 1. Ramesh Lal (Expired)
S/o late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o J-164, Gali No. 11,
Sade Tin Pusta, Kartar Nagar,
Delhi-110053.
2. Padam Dutt Sharma (File separated
u/s 329 Cr.P.C.)
S/o late Sh. Jas Dev Sharma
R/o 3099, Ram Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
3. Veer Singh Rajoura (Expired)
S/o late Sh. Kashi Ram
R/o A-2/430, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093.
4. Mahinder Singh
S/o late Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o H. No. 228, VPO Dichaon Kalan,
Near Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
5. Sultan Singh Malik (Expired)
S/o late Sh. Maya Chand Malik
R/o 6/18, K Block, Mahipalpur Extension,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.
6. Dharamvir (Expired)
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 1 of 95
S/o late Sh. Subhash Chand
R/o 76-C, Ber Sarai, PO Hause Khas,
Delhi-110016.
7. Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Sham Lal
R/o 185-B, MIG, DDA Flats,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.
Date of institution of the case - 27.10.2006
Date on which, case has been - 19.04.2011
received in this court
Arguments concluded on - 26.07.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 17.08.2023
JUDGEMENT:
1.1 While hearing Civil Writ Petition no. 10066/2004, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 02.08.2005, directed the CBI to conduct thorough investigation regarding 135 Group Housing Societies (CGHS) in Delhi. After Preliminary Enquiry, case in hand i.e. RC-BDI/2005/E0012 was also registered on 31.10.2005, in respect of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ltd., which was one of the 135 Group Housing Societies, against Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya, the then Dealing Assistant/UDC, Sh. Ramesh Lal, the then UDC/Inspector, both posted in the Office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi and Sh. Sultan Singh Malik, alongwith other unknown persons for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w section 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in brief PC Act).
1.2 Sugam Vihar CGHS Ltd. was registered with the Office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi on 23.01.1984, CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 2 of 95 with 68 promoter members, having registered office at 7, Toot Sarai, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. 06 members resigned in the year 1985 and 28 new members were inducted, making a total of 90 members in that year i.e. 1985.
1.3 The society was not audited since 1985-86 and even no elections were held since its inception. First Management Committee continued since very beginning and no list of members was approved by the Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, till 1998. The society could not fulfill statutory requirement, and as such, winding-up order was passed by the then Deputy Registrar, RCS, Delhi on 04.01.1990. A liquidator was appointed, although liquidation proceedings remained incomplete. The society made an appeal to the Minister of Development, NCT of Delhi in 1998 and society was revived on 28.04.1999.
1.4 After investigation, the CBI came to the conclusion that to get the said society revived, a criminal conspiracy was hatched among Sh. Joginder Singh Dabas (already expired), a builder of Dwarka; Sh. Prem Chand Goel (already expired), the then Secretary of the society; Sh. Ramesh Lal (A-1) (already expired), Sh. Padam Dutt Sharma (A-2) (File separated u/s 329 Cr.P.C.); Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3) (already expired); Sh. Mahender Singh (A-4); Sh. Sultan Singh Malik (A-5) (already expired); Sh. Dharamvir (A-6) (already expired) and Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7), with a common object to cheat DDA by getting a land allotted in the name of the said society, on the basis of false and forged documents including the list of members. The papers for revival of the said society were furnished by Sh.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 3 of 95Sultan Singh Malik by showing himself as President of the society and same were processed by one Sh. Kataria (already expired), the then Assistant Registrar. Sh. Ramesh Lal (A-1) (already expired) was got appointed as an Inspector to verify the record of the society and he dishonestly gave a false report about the address of the society and its affairs.
1.5 In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, late Sh. Joginder Singh Dabas took over control of the society and its documents from late Sh. Prem Chand Goel, the then Secretary in year 1998. Sh. Dharamvir (A-6) (already expired) dishonestly got approved the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7) as an Auditor in the panel of RCS Office for conducting pending audit from the year 1987-88 to 1996-97. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-
7) prepared false audit reports for the period 1986-87 to 1996-97 and the same were submitted on 04.06.1998 and were got approved from Asstt. Registrar/Audit on 06.06.1998. Sh. Sultan Singh Malik (A-5) (already expired) prepared and forged records of the society as well as the record of Annual General Body Meetings and Management Committee Meetings. He forged the signatures of late Sh. Prem Chand Goel, the then Secretary of the society since its inception. He (S.S. Malik) (A-5) wrongly shown himself and Sh. Dharamvir as members of the society w.e.f. 27.12.1987 by forging resignation letters of some promoter members like Smt. Raj Bala and Smt. Sukh Devi. Sh. S.S. Malik (A-5) fraudulently prepared false enrollment of Sh. Narinder Singh, Sh. Joginder Singh and Sh. Ram Karan by wrongly showing resignation of promoter members like Smt. Bhagwati Devi, Smt. Har Devi and Smt. Birjee Devi.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 4 of 95Resignation letters of 36 members were forged while same number of new members were shown as newly inducted. Record of the society was further forged by showing Sh. P.C. Goel, Smt. Omwati, Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Shyam Lal and Sh. Narender Singh as elected members of the Executive Committee from 14.12.1997 to 27.12.1998. Sh. Ram Karan was shown as Secretary, while Smt. Omwati, Sh. Joginder Singh, Smt. Raj Rani, Sh. Kanwar Sain and Shyam Lal were shown as elected executive members from 27.12.1998 to 20.06.1999. Then, same committee was shown to have further elected on 20.06.1999 and continued till 16.02.2000. Most of the resignation letters appeared to have been accepted from 27.12.1987 to 16.02.2000, were forged by late Sh. S.S. Malik (A-5). Documents i.e. cash receipts of Rs. 100/-, shown to have been paid to the resigned members were also forged. Sh. S.S. Malik (A-5) enrolled himself, his friends and some fictitious members of the society to cover up the vacancies. A false freeze list of members of the society was prepared and submitted to the DDA for allotment of land.
1.6 Late Sh. Dharamvir (A-6) in pursuance of same criminal conspiracy submitted an application dated 08.06.1998 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi for cancellation of Liquidation Order dated 04.01.1990 and revival of the society u/s 63 (3) of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, by annexing copy of audit report of the year 1997-98 and copy of registration letter, which reached the RCS Office on 11.06.1998. The copy of the application was sent to the then Lt. Governor of Delhi through some MLA. Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi recommended CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 5 of 95 for appropriate action, whereupon, the Dealing Assistant Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya put up a note for revival of the society straightway. Thereafter, Sh. T.P. Joseph, the then Deputy Registrar (Recovery) was appointed for redetermination of the facts by the then RCS Sh. Gopal Dixit. Sh. T.P. Joseph called the secretary of the said society to appear before him on 18.01.1999 for redetermination of facts and then Sh. S.S. Malik appeared before him on 18.01.1999 and presented false audit reports as well as proceedings of Annual General Body Meeting. Then, Sh. T.P. Joseph returned the file to the concerned zone with the directions that the redetermination of the records of the society may be done by the Deputy Registrar of the concerned zone. Thereafter, the RCS deputed Sh. Padam Dutt Sharma (A-2), the then Deputy Registrar on 29.01.1999 for redetermination of the record of the society. Then, Sh. Padam Dutt Sharma in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, conducted redetermination and ordered inspection of the society within 03 days. Thereafter, Sh. Ramesh Lal, the then UDC/Inspector submitted a false inspection report on 15.02.1999, confirming the registered address of the society at WZ-648, Palam Village, Palam, New Delhi, while the society never functioned from that address. Sh. Ramesh Lal knowing all this, accepted the forged documents as true. Sh. S.S. Malik forged the list of 90 members. He alongwith Sh. Ram Karan appeared before Sh. P.D. Sharma (A-2) and submitted forged record i.e. -
i) Membership register
ii) Members enrollment application
iii) Members resignation letters
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 6 of 95
iv) Proof of Refund
v) Audit compliance report (1997-98)
1.7 Pursuant to all this, Sh. P.D. Sharma (A-2)
dishonestly accepted false resignation letters and cash receipts of Rs. 100/- each from the members, who had already resigned and directed that the society should submit the resolution, accepting resignations and enrollments within 07 days, whereas, resignations and enrollments were accepted after a gap of more than 10 years. Sh. P.D. Sharma dishonestly and fraudulently submitted a false report regarding the society on 05.03.1999, to the Joint Registrar Sh. N.K. Sharma, who recommended for revival of the society. The report was forwarded to the then Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi Sh. Gopal Dixit, for revival. Sh. Gopal Dixit, the then RCS considered redetermination of the record of the society and put up the file for approval of minister. The revival order was finally passed by the then RCS on 28.04.1999, on the basis of said forged documents, directing for conducting election of the society by Departmental Election Officer.
1.8 Late Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3), the then LDC/Inspector submitted a false election report dated 20.06.1999, showing that 23 members of the society had attended the election proceedings, where Sh. S.S. Malik was shown elected for the post of President and 06 other members were shown elected as Executive Members. The report given by Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura was based on false and forged documents i.e. Agenda Notice and list of members as supplied by Sh. S.S. Malik. On scrutiny, several members shown to have attended CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 7 of 95 that meeting, refused to have attended it. Signatures of most of the members were forged by Sh. S.S. Malik.
1.9 Sh. Mahender Singh, the then UDC/Inspector, South-West Zone submitted a false report, showing registered office of the society at 839 F, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, Delhi. The owner of the said premises Sh. Prithvi Raj Saini was examined by the IO, but he denied to have given the said premises to the society. Sh. Mahender Singh submitted a false physical verification report of 04 resigned members namely Sh. Dharamvir, Sh. Narender Singh, Smt. Sukh Devi and Smt. Birjee Devi. No physical verification was carried out by Sh. Mahender Singh, the then Inspector. The resignation verification letter was prepared and forged by late Sh. S.S. Malik (A-5). Sh Narender Singh denied that Sh Mahinder singh visited him for the purpose of resignation verification at any point of time. Sh Satpal Gupta confirmed that Smt. Sukh Devi, his mother expired on 04.09.1995 and as such verification letter dated 28.03.2000, pertaining to his mother Smt. Sukh Devi is false and forged. Sh. Kumbh Karan Gupta confirmed that Smt Birji Devi, his mother had already passed away and Sh Mahinder Singh (A-4) never visited his mother for resignation verification and as such the purported signature of his mother available on resignation verification is false.
1.10 Investigation further disclosed that Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya, the Dealing Asstt, put up a detailed note on 05.04.2000, wherein, he endorsed revival order dated 28.04.1999, election report dt. 20.06.1999, inspection report and physical verification of resigned members, prepared by Sh.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 8 of 95Mahender Singh, audit report of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta for the period upto 1997-98, list of 90 members, resignation letters of 36 members alongwith their cash receipts, affidavits and applications of 36 newly enrolled members as submitted by Sh. S.S. Malik (A-5). Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya recommended for approval of the list of 90 members (in which names of the resigned members were fraudulently deleted and the names of newly enrolled members were added) for freezing and forwarding the same to the DDA for allotment of land. This matter was processed and finally the list was approved on 05.05.2000 by the then RCS Sh R. K. Srivastava. After approval of the freeze list of 90 members, Sh. J.P.S. Kataria, the then Asstt. Registrar (SW) forwarded the list to the Asstt. Registrar (Policy) vide letter No F.47/1403/GH/AR/SW/Coop/27-28 dated 8.5.2000 for onward transmission to the DDA for allotment of land. 1.11 The allegations against Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya, an FIR named accused, could not be substantiated as no criminality on his part could be established during investigation and as such, it was prayed in the chargesheet discharge him u/s 169 Cr.P.C. 1.12 On the basis of the above facts & circumstances, which surfaced during the course of investigation, the chargesheet was filed u/s 120B r/w section 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 against late Sh. Ramesh Lal (A-1) (public servant), Sh. P.D. Sharma (A-2) (retd. Public servant) (file separated u/s 329 Cr.P.C), late Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3) (public servant), Sh. Mahender Singh (A-4) (retd. Public servant), late Sh. Sultan Singh Malik (A-5), late Sh. Dharamvir (A-6) and Sh. A.K. Gupta (A-7) and also u/s 15 r/w CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 9 of 95 section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and section 471 IPC against late Sh. Ramesh Lal (A-1) (public servant), Sh. P.D. Sharma (A-2) (retd. Public servant) (file separated u/s 329 Cr.P.C, late Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3) (public servant), Sh. Mahender Singh (A-4) (retd. Public servant) and further under substantive offences u/s 420/511, 468, 471 IPC against late Sh. Sultan Singh Malik (A-5) and late Sh. Dharamvir (A-6) and also under substantive offence u/s 471 IPC against accused A.K. Gupta (A-7).
1.13 Further, sanction for prosecution of accused Ramesh Lal (A-1) (already expired) and Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3) (already expired) was filed alongwith the chargesheet. No sanction was obtained qua accused P.D. Sharma (A-2) (file separated u/s 329 Cr.P.C.) and Mahinder Singh (A-4) as they had retired from service before filing of the chargesheet.
2. On 29.05.2012, charges were framed against the accused persons and all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1 Accused Mahinder Singh, A-4 was charged that while working as an Inspector in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi during the year 1997-2000, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy and otherwise, abusing his official position as public servant obtained or attempted to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest by submitting a false inspection report, where he had falsely shown the registered office of the society at 839 F Nangloi Road, Nazafgarh Delhi and also submitted false physical verification report for getting revived the society and approving the freeze list of 90 members CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 10 of 95 of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of forged documents without checking the genuineness of such documents with an object to cheat RCS office and DDA and, thereby, committed an offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.2 He was further charged that while working as an Inspector in the office of RCS, Delhi during the year 1997-2000, he dishonestly, knowing fully well used the fake and fabricated documents for getting revived the society and approving the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents which he prepared or got prepared for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
3.3 The accused (A-4) was further jointly charged that he alongwith other co-accused persons was party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them to revive the society and approve the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at a subsidized rate.
3.4 The accused (A-4) was further jointly charged that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, while working as an Inspector South-West Zone of RCS, Office, New Delhi, he was deputed for conducting inspection of the society and for physical verification of 10% resigned member on 27.03.2000. However, he submitted a false inspection report in which he has shown the registered CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 11 of 95 office of the society at 839-F, Nangloi Road, Nazafgarh, however, the owner of this premises Sh. Prathvi Raj Saini denied as having given his house to the society and also denied the visit of the said Inspector to his house at any time. Further, he submitted the false physical verification of some of the resigned members namely Sh. Dharamvir, Sh. Narender Singh, Smt. Sukh Devi and Smt. Brij Devi and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
4.1 Accused Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7) was charged that during the year 1997-2000 at Delhi, he dishonestly and fraudulently induced or attempted to induce the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the society and approved the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents, for getting land from the DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
4.2 He was further charged that during the year 1997- 2000 at Delhi, he fraudulently and dishonestly in order to cheat the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the society and approved the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents i.e. false audit report for the period 1986-87 to 1996-97 for getting land from DDA on subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC.
4.3 He was further charged that during the year 1997- 2000 at Delhi, he dishonestly and fraudulently used false and forged documents for getting revived the society and approved CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 12 of 95 the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS which he prepared or got prepared for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 4.4 The accused (A-7) was further jointly charged that he alongwith other co-accused persons was party to a criminal conspiracy by having agreed to do an illegal act i.e. to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing it to receive and approve the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at a subsidized rate. 4.5 The accused (A-7) was further jointly charged that as an Auditor in the panel of RCS office in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, he fraudulently and dishonestly got approved and submitted a false audit report dated 08.06.1998 in respect of the society to facilitate revival of Sugam Vihar society on the basis of false and forged documents. Accused Dharamvir (A-6) represent you (A-7) as a Secretary while you were not even a member of the society. He prepared false Audit Report for the period 1986-87 to 1996-97 and falsely and dishonestly got prepared the audit report for the period 1986-87, without the approval of Assistant Registrar Audit and he submitted the false audit reports containing number of discrepancies and the same were submitted by him without audit in the account of Sugam Vihar CGHS and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
5. Accused Ramesh Lal (A-1), Veer Singh Rajoura (A-
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 13 of 953) and Sultan Singh Malik (A-5) expired and proceedings against them were abated.
6. Considering the medical condition of accused Padam Dutt Sharma (A-2), after conducting due inquiry u/s 329 Cr.P.C, the trial against him has been postponed and his file has been separated.
Prosecution Evidence
7. After framing of charge, the prosecution examined 71 witnesses and they can be categorized for the sake of convenience.
8.1 PWs or their relatives who never became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS but their names are mentioned in the freeze list.
PW-1 Ms. Asha Devi
PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar
PW-3 Sh. Jawahar Singh
PW-4 Sh. Ajit Singh
PW-5 Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma
PW-6 Sh. Pritam Kumar
PW-7 Smt. Pushpa Devi
PW-8 Sh. Suresh Kumar Saini
PW-9 Sh. Narender Singh
PW-10 Sh. Sh. Raj Singh
PW-35 Sh. Rajesh Kumar
PW-36 Sh. Raj Kumar Goel
PW-46 Ms. Savitri
PW-47 Ms. Sushila Shokeen
PW-48 Sh. Mahender Kumar
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 14 of 95
PW-52 Sh. Om Prakash
PW-62 Sh. Surender Singh Dabas
8.2 PWs or their relatives who never became member of
Sugam Vihar CGHS and their names are not mentioned in the freeze list.
PW-13 Sh. Ram Prakash PW-17 Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal PW-20 Sh. Naresh Kumar PW-21 Sh. Joginder Singh PW-37 Sh. Kumbhakaran Gupta (Smt. Barji Devi) PW-38 Sh. Tarun Khurana (Sh. Jagdish Khurana) PW-50 Sh. Narender Singh PW-51 Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta PW-61 Sh. Sushil Gupta 8.3 PWs or their relatives who became member of
Sugam Vihar CGHS and their names are mentioned in the freeze list.
PW-15 Sh. Surender Singh PW-22 Sh. Prem Prakash (Kanwar Sain) PW-29 Sh. Ram Karan Solanki PW-31 Smt. Kanta Devi PW-32 Sh. Radhey Shyam (Kanta Devi) PW-41 Smt. Sushma Goel PW-43 Sh. Satya Pal Gupta PW-56 Sh. Rajesh Kumar PW-58 Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta 8.4 PWs or their relatives who became member of
Sugam Vihar CGHS and their names are not mentioned in the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 15 of 95 freeze list.
PW-14 Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta
PW-16 Sh. Amar Chand Goel
PW-18 Ms. Bharti Kaushik
PW-23 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta
PW-24 Sh. Sunil Goel (Prem Chand Goel)
PW-28 Smt. Krishna Devi
PW-30 Smt. Omwati
PW-32 Sh. Radhey Shyam (Gopi Ram Garg) and (Bhagwati
Devi)
PW-40 Smt. Vijay Laxmi
PW-44 Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel
PW-53 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta
PW-67 Sh. Narender Kumar Midha
PW-69 Sh. Virender Kumar
PW-70 Sh. Ramesh Kumar
8.5 The witnesses from RCS Office -
PW-25 Sh. Virender Kumar Bansal
PW-26 Sh. Maheshwara Dutt Sharma
PW-27 Sh. Narender Singh Tanwar
PW-42 Sh. Sat Prakash Sharma
PW-55 Sh. Gopal Dixit
PW-63 Sh. Baldev Raj Rawal
PW-66 Sh. Satish Mathur
8.6 The witnesses from DDA
PW-39 Sh. Virender Singh Verma
PW-45 Smt. Vijay Laxmi
PW-59 Sh. Paras Nath
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 16 of 95
8.7 Expert Witness -
PW-65 Sh. Mohinder Singh
8.8 Postman -
PW-34 Sh. Dalbir Singh
8.9 The witnesses regarding Address Verification -
PW-11 Sh. Prathvi Raj Saini
PW-12 Sh. Raj Pal Solanki
8.10 Other Public Witnesses -
PW-54 Smt. Prakash Devi
PW-57 Sh. Anil Kumar
PW-68 Sh. Ankit Dabas
8.11 Sanctioning Authority -
PW-19 Sh. Vijay Kumar
8.12 The witnesses from CBI -
PW-60 Sh. Vishal
PW-64 Sh. S.L. Garg
PW-71 Sh. Braj Raj Singh
The deposition of prosecution witnesses
9. PW-1 Smt. Asha Devi deposed that neither she became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. She further deposed that she never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. She denied her signatures on Ex. PW1/A (Application for membership) & Ex. PW1/B (Affidavit). She further deposed that she never filed any copy of her election I Card i.e. Ex. PW1/C to the said society at any point of time. She, after seeing the Freeze List of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 17 of 95PW1/D, deposed that her name was mentioned at Serial No. 82 but she was not aware as to how her name was appearing on the said document, though she was not member of said society. She further deposed that she never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office. She has admitted her specimen signatures given to IO, i.e. Ex. PW1/E (Colly).
10. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW2/A (Application for membership) & Ex. PW2/B (Affidavit). He further deposed that he never filed any copy of his ration Card i.e. Ex. PW2/C to the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the Freeze List of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 84 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He further deposed that he never received any letter, either from the said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW2/D (Colly).
11. PW-3 Sh. Jawahar Singh deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW3/A CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 18 of 95 (Application for membership) & Ex. PW3/B (Affidavit). He further deposed that he never filed any copy of his ration Card i.e. Ex. PW3/C to the said society at any point of time and was not aware as to how copy of his ration card reached to the said society. He, after seeing the Freeze List of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 86 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He further deposed that he never received any letter, either from the said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW3/D (Colly).
12. PW-4 Sh. Ajit Singh deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that his name was mentioned at page No. 23 of Ex. PW4/A (Membership Register) but denied his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW4/C (Application for membership) & Ex. PW4/B (Affidavit). He further deposed that he never received any letter, either from the said society or from RCS office. He has admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW4/D (Colly).
13. PW-5 Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 19 of 95 never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that though his name was mentioned at page No. 24 i.e Ex. PW5/A (Membership Register) but denied his signatures at point A. He further deposed he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW5/C (Application for membership) & Ex. PW5/B (Affidavit). He, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 75 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was a not member of said society. He, after seeing list of members of Sugam Vihar CGHS placed in file D-6 alongwith cover letter dated 08.05.2006, deposed that his name was mentioned at Sl. No. 75 and he was never a member in the Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1999 or at point of time. He denied rest of the particulars regarding his admission in the society, payment of money etc. He stated that he never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW5/E (Colly).
14. PW-6 Sh. Pritam Kumar deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that his name was mentioned at page No. 24 i.e Ex. PW5/A (Membership Register) but he denied his signatures at CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 20 of 95 point A. He further deposed that he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of said society. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW6/B (Application for membership) & Ex. PW6/A (Affidavit). He, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 73 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He, after seeing the List of members of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW5/D, stated that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 73 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of said society. He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office.
15. PW-7 Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that she neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. She further deposed that she never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. She also denied his signatures on Ex. PW7/A (Application for membership) & Ex. PW7/B (Affidavit). She further deposed that she never filed any copy of her ration Card Mark 7X to the said society at any point of time and was not aware as to how copy of her ration card reached the said society. She identified the photo impression appearing on the said copy to be of her son. She further deposed that she never received any CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 21 of 95 letter, either from the said society or from the RCS office. She admitted her specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW7/C (Colly). She, after seeing the proceedings of GBM Ex. PW7/D, has deposed that her name was mentioned at Serial No. 12 but she was not aware as to how her name was appearing on the said document, though she was not a member of the said society. She further deposed that signatures appearing on it were in English though she always signs in Hindi. She, after seeing document Ex. PW7/E, deposed that her name was mentioned at page No. 25, but she was not aware as to how her name was appearing on the said document, though she was not a member of the said society. She, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that her name was mentioned at page No. D9/6, but she was not aware as to how her name was appearing on the said document, though she was not a member of the said society.
16. PW- 8 Sh. Suresh Kr. Saini deposed that he resided at 839 F, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, and no society including Sugam Vihar CGHS, ever functioned from this address. He further deposed that he neither became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW8/B (Application for membership) & Ex. PW8/C (Affidavit). He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW8/A CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 22 of 95 (Colly). He, after seeing the Proceedings of GBM Ex. PW7/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 26 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society and denied his signatures appearing on it at point A. He, after seeing the document Ex. PW7/E, deposed that his name was mentioned at point X-1 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He denied his signatures appearing on it at point B. He, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 77 but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society.
17. PW-9 Sh. Narender Singh has deposed that he neither nor his family members ever became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and they never deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he or any of his family member never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application or affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW9/A (Application for membership) & Ex. PW9/C (Affidavit). He also denied to have filed copy of his ration card i.e. Ex. PW9/B to the said society and deposed that he was not aware as to how the said copy reached there. He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the Said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW9/E (Colly). He further deposed that his name was appearing at Page CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 23 of 95 No. 23 of Ex. PW4/A, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures appearing on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of GBM Ex. PW9/D, has deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 3 at Page No. 9, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He, after seeing the Freeze List/ final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 68, showing membership No. 120, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was a not member of the said society. He, after seeing another Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW5/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 68, showing membership No. 120, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He further deposed that the names of his brothers namely Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Ajit Singh, Sh. Jawahar Singh and Sh. Surender, are appearing at Page No. 23 i.e. Ex. PW4/A & Page No. 26 i.e. Ex.PW9/F, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how their names were appearing on the said document, though they were not members of the said society at any point of Time.
18. PW-10 Sh. Raj Singh deposed that he neither became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application along with copy of CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 24 of 95 ration card as well as affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW10/A (Application for membership) & Ex. PW10/C (Affidavit). He further deposed that he was not aware as to how copy of his ration card Ex. PW10/B, reached there. He further deposed that he never received any letter, either from the said society or from the RCS office. He admitted his specimen signatures given to the IO, i.e. Ex. PW10/D (Colly). He further deposed that his name was appearing at Page No. 23 of Ex. PW4/A, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society. He further deposed that signatures appearing on it at point B, were not his signatures. He, after seeing the Proceedings of GBM Ex. PW9/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 2 on page No.9, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society. He, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 67, Membership No. 9, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He, after seeing another Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW5/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 67, membership No. 9, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society.
19. PW- 11 Sh. Prithvi Raj Saini deposed that he resided at Flat No. C-204, Bahawal Pur Apartments, Plot No. 30, CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 25 of 95 Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi. He further deposed that prior to this address, he was residing at 839F, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh New Delhi. He further deposed that neither he nor any of his family member ever rented the aforesaid house to any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS, and they had not authorized any office bearers of the said society to use the said address. He further deposed that as there was no office existing at 839F, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, the question of visit of any RCS official to the said address did not arise. He further deposed that no person by the name of Sh. Mahender Singh (A-4) visited the aforesaid office at any point of time. He, after seeing the Mark 11X (Inspection report filed by accused Sh. Mahender Singh), denied the fact that any such inspection was carried out at the aforementioned address by any such official at any point of time.
20. PW-12 Sh. Ram Pal Solanki deposed that he resided at WZ- 914, Dada Dev Mandir Road, Village Palam, New Delhi and earlier i.e. before 10 years, he was residing at WZ-648, Village Palam, New Delhi. He further deposed that neither he nor any of his family members ever rented the aforesaid house to any society, including Sugam Vihar CGHS, and he had not authorized any office bearer of the said society to use said address. He further deposed that as no office existed at WZ- 648, Village Palam, New Delhi, the question of visit of any RCS official to the said address did not arise. He further deposed that no person by the name of Sh. Ramesh Lal visited the aforesaid office at any point of time. He further deposed that no person by the name of Sh. Veer Singh Rajora (A-3), ever visited the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 26 of 95 aforesaid address for the purpose of holding any election of Sugam Vihar CGHS, at any point of time. He further deposed that neither he nor his family members, ever became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that the aforesaid house was never rented to any person by the name of Sh. Sultan Singh Malik.
21. PW-13 Sh. Ram Prakash deposed that he never became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and not deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any affidavit with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW13/A (Affidavit). He has further deposed that his name is appearing at Page No. 6 at Sr.No. 35 of Ex. PW13/A, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how his name appeared on the said document, though he was not member of said society. He has denied signatures appearing on it at point A. He, after seeing the proceedings of GBM Ex. PW13/D, has deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 7, but he was not aware as to how his name appeared on the said document, though he was not member of the said society and denied his signatures as appearing on it at point A. He further deposed that as he never became member of any society, thus, the question of giving his resignation from membership does not arise. He further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW13/C (Resignation letter) were not his signatures
22. PW-14 Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1983 through CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 27 of 95 one Sh. Prem Chand Goel and deposited Rs. 110/- as membership fee. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he had executed affidavit Ex. PW14/B, with the said society at the time of becoming its member and identified his signatures at points A & A1 on it. He further deposed that his name is appearing at Sr.No. 28 of Ex. PW14/A, (Membership Register) and then he identified his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he never attended the Annual GBM dated 27.12.1998. After seeing the Proceedings of Annual GBM Ex. PW13/D, he deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 13, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document and he then denied his signatures appearing on it at point A. He further deposed that he attennded the meeting of said Society from the year 1983 to 1986. He further deposed that in the year 1986 Sh. Prem Chand Goel told him that society had become dormant and therefore, he lost his interest in the society, but he never resigned from the membership of the said society. He has further deposed that his name was appearing at Sr.No.33 on Page No. 99, at Sr. No. 33 on Page No. 116 and Sr. No. 33 on page No. 133, of Ex. PW14/C (List of members annexed with Bye Laws), but denied his signatures at Points A, B & C respectively. He further deposed that his specimen signatures Ex. PW14/D were obtained by IO.
23. PW-15 Sh. Surender Singh deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1983 through one Sh. Mool Chand and deposited Rs.110/- as membership fee. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 28 of 95 Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he had submitted an application i.e. Ex. PW15/A at the time of becoming its member and identified his signatures at point A on it. He further deposed that his name was appearing at Sr.No.78 of Ex. PW15/B, (Intensive Inquiry Proforma). He further deposed that his name was appearing at Sr.No. 61 on page No.11 of Ex. PW15/H (Membership Register). He, after seeing the Proceedings of Annual GBM Ex. PW13/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 22, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document. He denied his signatures appearing on it at point A. He, after seeing the Freeze List/final list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW1/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 78, but he was not aware whether his name was entered into the list of members which was sent to the DDA. He has further deposed that he never received any letter/communication from Sugam Vihar CGHS. He, after seeing the UPC List of members of the said society Ex. PW15/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 57, but he was not having any knowledge of any such list. He, after seeing the letter dated 08.02.2005 Ex. PW15/E, deposed that he never received any such letter from the RCS office. He, after seeing the minutes of MC Meeting dated 25.06.2000 Ex.PW15/F, deposed that since he never resigned from the membership of society, he cannot say as to how his name was appearing at Sr. No. 3 in the list of resigned members. He further deposed that his specimen signatures Ex. PW15/G were obtained by the IO.
24. PW-16 Sh. Amar Chand Goel deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1985 or CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 29 of 95 1986 and deposited Rs.110/- as membership fee. He further deposed that he never resigned from its membership. He further deposed that he never executed affidavit Ex. PW16/A at the time of becoming its member and denied his signatures at point X on it. He further deposed that his name was appearing at Sr.No. 21 on page No.10 of Ex. PW16/B (Membership Register). He further deposed that that he never attended any GBM of said society. He, after seeing the Proceedings of Annual GBM Ex. PW13/D, has deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 25, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document and denied his signatures appearing. He further deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Sh. SS Malik who had been shown as President of the said society.
25. PW-17 Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal deposed that he never became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and not deposited any membership amount. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application with the said society. He also denied his signatures on Ex. PW17/D (Application for membership). He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the Said society or from the RCS office. He further deposed that his name was appearing at Serial No. 14 of Ex. PW17/A, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society. He, after seeing the Proceedings of GBM dated 14.12.1997, i.e. Ex. PW17/B, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 29 on Page CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 30 of 95 No. 2, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society and he then denied his signatures on it at point A. He, after seeing the Proceedings of GBM dated 20.06.1999, i.e. Ex. PW17/C, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 22 on Page No. 2, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not member of the said society. He denied signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the List of members of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW17/E, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 80, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He further deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Sh. S.S. Malik, (President) and Mr. V S Rajora (Election Officer). He has further deposed that he was called by CBI where his statement was recorded and he gave his specimen signatures Ex. PW17/F to the IO voluntarily. He further deposed that as he was never a member of the said society, the question of signing any document pertaining to the said society does not arise.
26. PW-18 Smt. Bharti Kaushik deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1985. She further deposed that she did not receive any communication regarding her membership. She further deposed that she never filed any document and not attended any meeting of the society. She further deposed that she never resigned from its membership. She further deposed that she never executed affidavit i.e. Ex. PW18/A and never filed application Ex. PW18/B to said society CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 31 of 95 and then she denied her signatures at point A & A1 on both these documents. She further deposed that her name was appearing at Sr.No. 100 on page No.14 of Ex. PW17/A (Membership Register) and she denied her signatures at point B on it. She, after seeing the List of members of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW17/E, deposed that her name was mentioned at Serial No. 77 on page No. 5. She further deposed that she was called by the CBI where her statement was recorded and she gave her specimen signatures Ex. PW18/C to the IO voluntarily. She, after seeing the resignation letter Ex. PW18/D, deposed that since she never resigned from the membership of the said society, there was no question of signing the said document by her at point A. She denied her signatures at point A.
27. PW-19 Sh. Vijay Kumar has deposed that in year 2006 he was posted as Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He further deposed that he granted prosecution sanction for accused Ramesh Lal and Veer Singh Rajora, both of them were the officials of RCS Office Delhi, in respect of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that after perusing the report/documents including oral and documentary evidence, statement of witnesses, he accorded the sanction after applying his mind against both the officials namely Ramesh Lal and Veer Singh Rajora. He further deposed that he was also competent to remove both the officials namely Ramesh Lal and Veer Singh Rajora, from their services and was also competent to grant sanction qua both of them. He also proved the sanction order Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B pertaining to accused Veer Singh Rajora and Ramesh Lal respectively and identified his signatures CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 32 of 95 at points A on both of these documents.
28. PW-20 Sh. Naresh Kumar deposed that he neither became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS nor deposited any membership amount to the same. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application or Affidavit i.e. Ex. PW20/A & Ex.PW20/D with the said society. He denied his signatures on both these documents. He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office. He further deposed that his name was appearing at Serial No. 105 page No. 14 of Ex. PW17/A, (Membership Register), but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He, after seeing Proceedings of GBM dated 27.12.1998, i.e. Ex. PW13/D, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 23, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing Proceedings of GBM dated 20.06.1999, i.e. Ex. PW17/C, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 1, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He denied signatures at point A on it. He further deposed that he did not know any person by name of Sh. V.S. Rajora, who was shown as Election Officer in the said proceedings. He, after seeing the List of members of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW17/E, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 82, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 33 of 95 document, though he was not a member of the said society. He further deposed that he was called by the CBI where his statement was recorded and he gave his specimen handwriting/signatures Ex. PW20/B to the IO voluntarily. He further deposed that no letter Ex. PW20/C was received by him and no person from the RCS office ever visited him for the purpose of verification.
29. PW-21 Sh. Joginder Singh deposed that he never became a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and not deposited any membership amount to. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that he never filed any application i.e. Ex. PW21/J with the said society and denied his signatures on the same at point A. He further deposed that he never received any letter either from the said society or from the RCS office. He further deposed that his name was appearing on page No. 21 of Ex. PW21/B, (Membership Register Ex.PW21/A), but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC meeting dated 24.01.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/C-1, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 24, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society. He, after seeing the Proceedings of Annual GBM dated 24.12.1997 i.e. Ex. PW17/B, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 2, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point B on it. He, after CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 34 of 95 seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 03.01.1998, i.e. Ex. PW21/D, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 5, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He further deposed that at Page No. 5 his name was appearing in the list of office bearers and he was shown to have been elected as a Treasurer. He further deposed that as he was not a member of the said society, there is no question of his becoming Treasurer. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 22.04.1998, i.e. Ex. PW21/D-1, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 7, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 15.05.1998, i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 2, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 9, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 12.06.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 3, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 11, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and then he denied signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 30.07.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 4, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 13, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 35 of 95 denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting 20.08.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D-5, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 15, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 17.09.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 6, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No.17, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 17.10.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 7, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 19, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 06.11.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 8, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 21, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of Annual GBM dated 27.12.1998 i.e. Ex. PW13/D, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 23, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of said society and denied his signatures at point C on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 17.01.1999 i.e. Ex. PW21/D- 9, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 28, but he CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 36 of 95 was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of Special GBM dated 20.06.1999 i.e. Ex. PW17/C, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 2, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and he then denied his signatures at point B on it. He, after seeing the Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 04.07.1999 i.e. Ex. PW21/E, deposed that his name was mentioned on Page No. 3, but he was not aware as to how his name was appearing on the said document, though he was not a member of the said society and denied his signatures at point A on it. He further deposed that his name was also shown at Sr. No.3 at Page No. 4 of the list of members who resigned from the membership and since he was not member of said society, no question of his resignation from the membership arose. He, after seeing Resignation letter Ex. PW21/F, deposed that since he never became member of the said society, no question of arose from its membership arose and he then denied his signatures at point A on it. He has further deposed that he never received any letter/communication from Sugam Vihar CGHS. He, after seeing the UPC List of members of the said society Ex. PW15/D, deposed that his name was mentioned at Serial No. 89, but he was not having any knowledge of any such list. He, after seeing another List of members of said society Ex. PW21/G, deposed that he was never a member of the said society and not aware as to how his name appeared on it. He, after seeing another List of members of said CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 37 of 95 society Ex. PW21/H, deposed that he was never a member of the said society and not aware as to how his name appeared on it at Serial No. 89. He further deposed that no person by the name of Ramesh Lal ever visited for any inspection. He further deposed that he gave his specimen handwriting/signatures Ex. PW21/K to the IO voluntarily.
30. PW-22 Sh. Prem Prakash deposed that his father was a member in Sugam Vihar CGHS and he also filed death certificate of his father Ex.PW22/A. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 14.12.1997 i.e. Ex. PW17/B) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 1, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 27.12.1998 i.e. Ex. PW13/D) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 31 on Page No. 24, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 07.01.1999 i.e. Ex. PW21/D-9) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 4 on Page No. 28, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 20.06.1999 i.e. Ex. PW17/C) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 6 on Page No. 1, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 04.07.1999 i.e. Ex. PW21/E) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 38 of 95 Page No. 3, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 02.08.1999 i.e. Ex. PW22/B) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 5, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 04.09.1999 i.e. Ex. PW9/D) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 8, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 06.09.1999 i.e. Ex. PW22/C) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 11, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 04.11.1999 i.e. Ex. PW22/D) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 14, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 03.12.1999 i.e. Ex. PW22/E) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 17, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 04.01.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/F) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 19, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 39 of 95 language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 07.02.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/G), that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 21, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 06.03.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/H) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 23, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 16.04.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/J) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 25, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 21.05.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 26, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 08.06.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-1) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 3 on Page No. 27, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 25.06.2000 i.e. Ex. PW15/F) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 29, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 09.07.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-2) that his father's name was CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 40 of 95 mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 31, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 23.07.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-3) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 34, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 06.08.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-4) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 37, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 20.08.2000, i.e. Ex. PW22/K-5) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 40, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 10.09.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-6) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 42, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 24.09.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-7) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 43, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 15.10.2000 i.e. Ex. PW7/D) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 45, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 41 of 95 sign in Hindi language. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 22.10.2000 i.e. Ex. PW22/K-8) that his father's name was mentioned at serial no. 2 on Page No. 49, but the signature appearing at point A was not the signature of his father and his father used to sign in Hindi language. He identified the signature of his father on Ex.PW22/L-1 to Ex.PW22/L-4.
31. PW-23 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1982. He further deposed that meetings of the said society were held in the year 1985, thereafter, no meeting was ever held. He further deposed that he was treasurer in the said society and Mr. Prem Chand and Mr. Satya Pal were the Secretary and President of the said society. He further deposed that no activities took place in the society after 1985 and the society became defunct and thereafter, they neither filed any document nor held meetings in the said society. He further deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the said society and he never received any refund from the society. He identified his signature on Ex.PW15/A (application form for registration), Ex.PW15/B (intensive inquiry proforma), Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/A1 (copy of bye laws) and Ex.PW23/B (affidavit). He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 27.12.1987, i.e. Ex. PW23/C) that his name was mentioned at serial no. 4 as treasurer of the said society, but he never attended such meeting. He, has further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 24.01.1998 i.e. Ex. PW21/C-1) that his name was mentioned at serial no. 4 as treasurer of the said society, but he never attended such meeting. He further deposed (after seeing Proceedings dated 14.12.1997 CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 42 of 95 i.e. Ex. PW17/B) that his name was mentioned at serial no. 3 of this document but he never attended such meeting and denied the signature at point C on this document. He further deposed (after seeing the document placed in file D-8 from page no. 190-193 i.e. Ex. PW23/D, Ex.PW23/D1, Ex.PW23/D2 and Ex.PW23/D3) that his signature is appearing at point A and A-1. He deposed that he never received any letter from RCS and he never sent any document on behalf of Sugam Vihar CGHS for audit and also he did not sign any document. He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/E, Ex.PW23/E1 to Ex.PW23/E5) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/F, Ex.PW23/F1 to Ex.PW23/F8) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/F-9. (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/J-1 to Ex.PW23/J-6) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature and he also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/J-7 (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/K-1 to Ex.PW23/K-6) that the signatures appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/K-7 (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/L-1 to Ex.PW23/L-6) that the signatures appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/L-7 (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/M-1 to Ex.PW23/M-5) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 43 of 95 signature on Ex.PW8/M-6 (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/N-1 to Ex.PW23/N-6) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/N-7 (list of members). He further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/O-1 to Ex.PW23/O-5) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/O-6 (list of members). He has further deposed (after seeing the audit report Ex.PW23/P-1 to Ex.PW23/P-6) that the signature appearing at point A as a treasurer are not his signature. He also denied his signature on Ex.PW8/P-7 (list of members). He further deposed that he never resigned from the membership of the society and also denied the signature on Ex.PW23/Q (resignation letter). He further deposed that he was appointed/elected as a treasurer of Sugam Vihar CGHS when he became a member of the society and he continued as a treasurer till 1985. He further deposed that he do not know any person by the name of Raj Bala, Smt. Sukh Devi, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, Har Devi and Briji Devi who were shown to have resigned from their membership in the proceedings.
32. PW-24 Sh. Sunil Goel deposed that he was a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and his father was one of the office bearers of the said CGHS. He further deposed that his father did not attend meetings due to his illness and eye problems. He (Sunil Goel) has also filed death certificate Ex. PW24/A. He, (after seeing the application form for registration of the Society Ex. PW15/A) identified the signature of his father appearing at point B at S. No. 3. He, (after seeing the intensive inquiry CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 44 of 95 proforma Ex. PW15/B) identified the signature of his father appearing at point B. He, (after seeing the By-Laws in two copies of the said society Ex. PW23/A & PW23/A-1) identified the signature of his father appearing at point D. He, (after seeing the Affidavit in the name of his father Ex. PW24/C) identified the signature of his father appearing at points A & A-1. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 24.12.1997 Ex. PW17/B) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 03.01.1998 Ex. PW21/D) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 22.04.1998 Ex. PW21/D-1) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 15.05.1998 Ex. PW21/D-2) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 12.06.1998 Ex. PW21/D-3) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 30.07.1998 Ex. PW21/D-4) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 20.08.1998 Ex. PW21/D-5) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 07.09.1998 Ex. PW21/D-6) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Proceeding dated 17.10.1998 Ex. PW21/D-7) that the signatures appearing at point B are not the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 45 of 95 signature of his father. He further deposed (after seeing the Audit Report Ex. PW23/E to Ex. PW23/P and Ex. PW24/D, Ex. PW24/D-1 to Ex. PW24/D-10) that the signatures appearing at point B as a Secretary are not the signature of his father. He further deposed that no meetings were ever held at his house i.e. H. No. 7, Toot Sarai, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as reflected on Ex. PW21/C-1, Ex. PW23/C. He further deposed that no person by the name of Ashok Kumar Gupta ever visited at his house for the purpose of conducting audit of the society at any point of time. He identified the signature of his father appearing at point A on Ex. PW24/B (resignation letter dated 17.10.1998).
33. PW-25 Sh. Virender Kumar Bansal deposed that he remained posted as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS from 31.01.2004 to 31.05.2008. He, after seeing the Receipt memo dated 30.08.2005 Ex. PW25/A & PW25/B, identified his signatories at point A. He further deposed that he handed over the files/documents Ex. PW25/C, Ex. PW25/D, PW25/E, PW25/F, PW25/G, PW25/H and Ex. PW25/J to the CBI vide aforesaid seizure memo.
34. PW-26 Sh. Maheshwara Dutt Sharma deposed that he remained posted as Assistant Registrar in the office of RCS from 1997 to June 2000. He identified the signature of Sh. J. P. Karariya the then Assistant Registrar at point A and Dilip Bhattacharya, the then Dealing Assistant at point B on Ex. PW1/D (letter dated 06.06.2000). He identified the signature of Sh. J. P. Karariya the then Assistant Registrar at point A and Dilip Bhattacharya, the then Dealing Assistant at point B on Ex. PW5/D (letter dated 08.05.2000 alongwith list of members of CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 46 of 95 Sugam Vihar CGHS).
35. PW-27 Sh. Narender Singh Tanwar has deposed that he remained posted in the office of RCS from 1995 to 2001. He further deposed that Mr. P.N. Tanwar, Sh. J. P. S. Katariya, Sh. Dushyant Kumar and Sh. M. D. Sharma were the Assistant Registrars in the office of RCS at the relevant time. He further deposed that Sh. B.L. Sharma, Sh. P.D. Sharma and Sh. N. K. Sharma and Smt. Alka Diwan were Joint Registrars in the office of RCS. He further deposed that Mr. Dilip Bhattacharya, Mr. Mahender Singh and Mr. Raj Singh were the UDCs in the office of RCS. He further deposed that Mr. Ramesh Lal was Inspector and Mr. Veer Singh Rajoura and Smt. Radha were LDCs in the office of RCS. He further deposed that Mr. D. Dutta and Sh. S. K. Jain were the other office staff of the RCS. He further deposed that all the aforesaid officials/officers were posted in the RCS office at the relevant point of time. He, after seeing the Special GBM dated 20.06.1999 alongwith Agenda Notice Ex. PW27/A, identified the signatures of Sh. V. S. Rajoura, Election Officer at point A. He, after seeing the list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW27/B, identified the signatures of Sh. V. S. Rajoura, Election officer at point A. He, after seeing the special GBM dated 20.06.1999 Ex. PW17/C, identified the signatures of Sh. V.S. Rajoura, Election officer at point A. He further deposed that he never participated in the said election and not visited WZ-648, Village and Post Palam, New Delhi for the purpose of election. He further deposed that Ex. PW17/C was written by him on the asking of Sh. V.S. Rajoura. He, after seeing the Order dated 12.05.1999 Ex. PW27/C, identified the signatures of Sh.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 47 of 95Dushyant Kumar at point A-1. He, after seeing the inspection report dated 28.03.2000 alongwith agenda notice and proceedings of meeting dated 20.06.1999 Ex. PW27/D, identified signatures of accused Mahender Singh at point A (on inspection report) and signature of Sh. V. S. Rajoura at point A & A-1 (on letter alongwith agenda notice). He, after seeing the physical verification regarding the resignation of Narender Singh, Dharamvir Singh, Sukhdevi and Smt. Brija Devi Ex. PW27/E , PW27/E-1 & PW27/E-2 & PW27/E-3, identified signatures of accused Mahender Singh at point A on all the four physical verification reports. He, after seeing the inspection report alongwith the list of Sugam Vihar CGHS Ex. PW27/F, identified the signatures of Sh. Ramesh Lal at point A. He, after seeing the letter Ex. PW27/G, identified the signatures of Sh. J. P. S. Katariya at point A. He, after seeing the letter Ex. PW27/H, deposed that the endorsement appearing at point X is in the handwriting of Ms. Radha as she used to diarize the letter in the discharge of duties. He further deposed that as per the relevant notes available on note sheet (page No. 14/N) Ex. PW27/J, the file of Sugam Vihar CGHS was transferred from South Zone to South West Zone. He, after seeing the Ex. PW27/J-1, Ex. PW27/J-2, Ex. PW27/J-3, Ex. PW27/J-4 and Ex. PW27/J-5, Ex. PW27/J-6, Ex. PW27/J-7, Ex. PW27/J-8, Ex. PW27/J-9, Ex. PW27/J-10, Ex. PW27/J-11, Ex. PW27/J-12, Ex. PW27/J-13, Ex. PW27/J-14, Ex. PW27/J-15, Ex. PW27/J-16, Ex. PW27/J-17 & Ex. PW27/J-18 (Page No. 15/N to 40/N of the note sheet), identified the signatures of Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya at point A, A- 1, A-2, A-3, A-4 & A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 48 of 9514, A-15, A-16, A-17, Sh. J. P. S. Katariya at point B, point G & point H, H-1, H-2 & H-3, point K, K-1 & K-2, Point M & point M-1, Sh. P. D. Sharma at point C, L & L-1, Sh. N. K. Sharma at point D, Mr. Gopal Dixit at point E, Dushyant kumar at point F & F-1. He identified the signatures of Sh. M.D. Sharma the then AR Policy at point A on Ex. PW1/D (Letter dated 28.05.2000).
36. PW-28 Smt. Krishna Devi deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS at about 30-31 years ago. She further deposed that her signatures are appearing at point A on Ex. PW28/A (membership register). She further deposed that she neither attended any meeting of the society nor resigned from the membership of the said society at any point of time. She further deposed that the resignation letter Ex. PW28/D is not in her handwriting but it bears her signatures at point A. She identified her signature at points E on Ex.PW14/C and Ex. PW23/A (Bye- laws of the society). She identified her signature at point C on Ex.PW28/C (intensive inquiry proforma). She identified her signature at point A on Ex.PW28/D (affidavit dated 13.12.1983). She, after seeing the Proceedings dated 13.12.1983 i.e. Ex. PW15/C, deposed that her name was mentioned on S. No. 9 for attending the meeting but she did not attend the said meeting.
37. PW-29 Sh. Ram Karan Solanki deposed that he has been residing at R/o WZ-914, Dada Dev Mandir Marg Palam Village, New Delhi for last 15-16 years (deposed on 24.04.2014) and prior to it, he was residing at WZ-648, Palam Village, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had never given any permission to the executive member of Sugam Vihra CGHS to use his address i.e. WZ-648, Palam Village, New Delhi for any purpose.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 49 of 95He further deposed that no meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS took place at the said address at any point of time. He further deposed that no official/officer of RCS including Ramesh Lal Inspector ever visited the aforesaid address for the purpose of inspecting the Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time. He further deposed that no official/officer of RCS including Sh. Veer Singh Rajoura ever visited the aforesaid address for the purpose of conducting election of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time. He further deposed that no election ever took place at the said address. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point A on Ex. PW29/A (request letter dated 25.06.1988) is not his signature. He further deposed that the handwriting appearing in the said letter is not his handwriting. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 20.06.1999 Ex. PW7/C, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point A. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 04.07.1999 Ex. PW21/E, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point A. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 20.08.1999 Ex. PW22/B, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name was also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point A. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a Secretary of the society, but he never held the post of Secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 50 of 95 after seeing the proceedings dated 04.09.1999 Ex. PW9/D, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name was also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed in this meeting, he was shown as a Secretary of the society and he deposed that but he never held the post of secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 06.10.1999 Ex. PW22/C, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ- 648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a Secretary of the society, but he never held the post of Secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the Proceeding dated 04.11.1999 Ex. PW22/D, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was again shown as a Secretary of the society, but he never held the post of secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 03.12.1999 Ex. PW22/E, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a Secretary of the society, but he never held the post of secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 51 of 95 after seeing the proceeding dated 04.01.2000 Ex. PW22/F, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a Secretary of the society, but he never held the post of secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 07.02.2000 Ex. PW22/G, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He, after seeing the Proceeding dated 16.03.2000 Ex. PW22/H, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ-648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a secretary of the society, but he never held the post of Secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the proceeding dated 16.04.2000 Ex. PW22/J, deposed that no such meeting ever took place at WZ- 648, Village and Post Palam New Delhi and his name is also wrongly mentioned against the membership no. 111. He also denied his signatures at point B. He further deposed that in this meeting, he was shown as a secretary of the society, but he never held the post of secretary of the said society at any point of time. He, after seeing the Ex. PW15/F, PW22/K-2, PW22/K-3, PW22/K-4, PW22/K-5, PW22/K-6, PW22/K-7 & PW22/K-8, deposed that he never attended any such meeting in any capacity CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 52 of 95 and also denied the signature on these documents. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point A on Ex. PW1/D (letter dated 06.06.2000) are not his signature. H further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A & A-1 on Ex. PW29/B (Affidavit dated 28.02.2000) are not his signature. He further deposed that the signatures appearing at point D on Ex. PW29/C are not his signature. He further deposed that he had given his specimen signatures/handwriting Ex. PW29/D to the IO in the presence of independent witness.
38. PW-30 Smt. Omwati deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Sh. Mool Chand and paid Rs. 100/- or Rs. 125/- for becoming its member. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point D on Ex. PW30/A and at point D on Ex. PW28/C (Intensive Inquiry Proforma) are not her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point F on Ex. PW24/C (Bye-Laws), at point F on Ex. PW23/A (Bye-laws) and at point E on Ex. PW23/A-1 (Bye- Laws) are not her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW30/B (Affidavit) are not her signatures. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW15/C (Proceedings of GBM dated 13.12.1983), at point D on Ex. PW17/C (Proceedings of GBM dated 20.06.1999), at point C on Ex. PW21/E (Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 04.07.1999), at point C on Ex. PW22/B (Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 02.08.1999), at point C on Ex. PW9/D (Proceedings of MC Meeting dated 04.09.1999), are not her signatures. She further CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 53 of 95 deposed that she never resigned from the membership of that society and denied her signatures on resignation letter dated 25.08.1999 Ex. PW30/C. She further deposed that she never received back any money from the society and denied her signatures on refund receipt Ex. PW30/D.
39. PW-31 Smt. Kanta Devi deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through her father late Sh. Gopi Ram Garg. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point E on Ex. PW30/A and at point A on Ex. PW28/C (Intensive Inquiry Proforma) are her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point G on Ex. PW14/C (Bye-Laws), at point G on Ex. PW23/A (Bye-laws) and at point F on Ex. PW23/A-1 (Bye-Laws) are her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW31/A (Affidavit) are her signatures. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point D on Ex. PW17/C (Proceedings of GBM dated 20.06.1999) are not her signatures. She further deposed that she never resigned from the membership of that society. She further deposed that she had given specimen signatures/handwriting Ex. PW31/B before the IO voluntarily.
40. PW-32 Sh. Radhey Shyam deposed that his father Sh. Gopi Ram Garg became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Sh. Prem Chand Goyal and paid Rs. 300/- for becoming its member. He further deposed that the signatures appearing at point F on Ex. PW30/A and at point E on Ex. PW28/C (Intensive Inquiry Proforma) are not signatures of his father. He further CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 54 of 95 deposed that the signatures appearing at point H on Ex. PW14/C (Bye-Laws), at point H on Ex. PW23/A (Bye-laws) and at point G on Ex. PW23/A-1 (Bye-Laws) appear to be the signatures of his father. He further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW32/B (Affidavit) are signatures of his father. He further deposed that his father and/or his maternal grandmother never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time. He further deposed that the signatures appearing at Sl. No. 10 on Ex. PW15/C (Proceedings of GBM dated 13.12.1983), at Sl No. 4 at point E on Ex. PW17/B (Proceedings of GBM dated 14.12.1997) and at point C on Ex. PW13/D (Proceedings of GBM dated 27.12.1998), are not signatures of his father. He further deposed that his father never resigned from the membership of the society and denied signatures of his father on resignation letter dated 27.06.1999 Ex. PW32/C.
41. PW-33 Smt. Raj Rani deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through her father. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW33/A and at point F on Ex. PW28/C (Intensive Inquiry Proforma) are not her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point G on Ex. PW30/A are her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point J on Ex. PW14/C (Bye-Laws), at point J on Ex. PW23/A (Bye-laws) and at point H on Ex. PW23/A-1 (Bye-Laws) are not her signatures. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point A on Ex. PW33/B (Affidavit) are not her signatures. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of Sugam Vihar CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 55 of 95 CGHS at any point of time. She further deposed that the signatures appearing at point E on Ex. PW17/C (Proceedings of GBM dated 20.06.1999), at Sl. No. 10 on Ex. PW17/D (Proceedings of GBM Meeting dated 14.12.1997) and at points X on Ex. PW21/E, Ex. PW22/B, Ex. PW9/D, Ex. PW22/C, Ex. PW22/D, Ex. PW22/E, Ex. PW22/F, Ex. PW22/G, Ex. PW22/H (Proceedings of MC Meeting), are not her signatures. She further deposed that she had given the specimen signatures/handwriting Ex. PW33/C before the IO voluntarily.
42. PW-34 Dalbir Singh deposed that he remained posted as Postman in Malviya Nagar Post Office, New Delhi from year 1992-2010 and he used to distribute dak in Chirag Delhi Main Bazar etc. He further deposed that Bhagwati Prasad s/o Gopi Chand, Main Bazar, Chirag Delhi and Anand Prakash s/o Gopi Chand, Main Bazar, Chirag Delhi are not complete addresses as no house no. or other identification no. is given.
43. PW-35 Rajesh Kumar deposed that he never became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time and never submitted any document to the society for becoming member. He further deposed that he never filed any application for membership to the society i.e. Ex. PW35/A. He also denied his signature on this document. He further deposed he did not submit photocopy of identity card issued by Election Commission of India with the application at any point of time. He further deposed that he never executed/submitted any affidavit to the society Ex. PW35/B. He further deposed that he never received any letter/correspondence from the said society or from RCS and he never visited the office of that society. He CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 56 of 95 further deposed that he gave specimen signature/handwriting to the CBI voluntarily or without any pressure i.e. Ex. PW 35/C to Ex. PW 35/H.
44. PW-36 Raj Kumar Goyal deposed that he never became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS at any point of time and never submitted any document to the society for becoming member. He further deposed that the signature(s) appearing at point A on membership register i.e. Ex. PW 29/A were not pertaining to him. He further deposed that he never executed/submitted any affidavit to the society Ex. PW36/A. He further deposed that he never attended any meeting of this society and denied his signature on proceedings Ex. PW17/B and Ex. PW13/B. He further deposed that he was given specimen signature/handwriting to the CBI voluntarily or without any pressure i.e. Ex. PW 36/B to Ex. PW 36/B-4.
45. PW-37 Kumbhkaran Gupta deposed that he identified the signature of his mother Late Smt. Barji Devi as he had seen her writing and signing at her house. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW 21/A, deposed that the signature appearing at point A on this register was not the signature of his mother. He further deposed that the signatures appearing on the application for registration of society Ex. PW 15/A, affidavit Ex. PW37/A and resignation letter Ex. PW 37/B were not the signature of his mother. He further deposed that the signatures appearing on three copies of bye-laws of the society (Ex. PW23/A, Ex. PW23/A-1 and Ex. PW14/C), certificate cum receipt Ex. PW 27/E-3 intensive inquiry performa Ex. PW 28/C were not the signature of his mother. He further deposed that no CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 57 of 95 official from the office of RCS had ever visited his house for any purpose including verification and his mother never told him about the membership of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS. He further deposed that the signature appearing at point X on payment voucher Ex. PW37/C were not the signature of his mother.
46. PW-38 Tarun Khurana deposed that he identified the signature of his father late Sh. Jagdish Khurana as he had seen his writing and signing at his house and he was well conversant with the same. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW21/A, deposed that the signature appearing at point X on this register was not the signature of his father. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW21/A, deposed that the signature appearing at point X on this register was not the signature of his father. He further deposed that the signatures appearing on affidavit Ex. PW38/A, resignation letter Ex. PW38/B, receipt for refund of payment Ex. PW38/C, application for registration of the society Ex. PW15/A, intensive inquiry performa Ex. PW28/C and bye-laws(Ex. PW14/C, Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW 23/A1) were not the genuine signatures of his father.
47. PW-39 Virender Singh Verma deposed that he remained posted as an Assistant in the office of Deputy Director (GH) from 2001 to May 2004. He further deposed that Sh. Mehar Chand Singhal was Deputy Director in (GH), Sh. S.S. Mathur, was Assistant Director and Uma Shanker Bhardwaj, was also an Assistant Director during his posting and he could identify their handwriting and signature as he had seen them writing and signature during the course of their official duties.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 58 of 95He further deposed that the signatures appearing on letter dated 08.10.2003 Ex. PW39/A , letter dated 13.10.2003 Ex. PW39/B , letter dated 14.10.2003 Ex. PW39/C, letter dated 27.10.2003, Ex. PW39/D, letter dated 10.12.2003 Ex. PW39/E, letter Ex. PW39/F and letter Ex. PW39/G were the signatures of Sh. Mehar Chand, Sh. S. S. Mathur and Uma Shanker Bhardwaj.
48. PW-40 Smt. Vijay Laxmi deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through her brother in law Prem Chand Goyal. She identified her signature on membership register Ex. PW21/A. She further deposed that the signature appearing on resignation from membership letter Ex. PW40/C and receipt of refund of money Ex.PW40/D were not her signatures. She further deposed that she never resigned from her membership at any point of time.
49. PW-41 Smt. Sushma Goel deposed that she became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1983 through Sh. Prem Chand Goel. She further deposed that in the year 1986 Sh. Prem Chand Goel told her that the society was already dead and, therefore, she lost her interest in the said society. She further deposed that the signatures appearing on affidavit Ex. PW41/A and membership register Ex. PW21/A were not her signature. She further deposed that she never attended any meeting of the society and the signature appearing on minutes of meeting Ex. PW13/D are not her signature.
50. PW-42 Sh. Sat Prakash Sharma has deposed that in the year 2006 he was posted in the RCS office Delhi in Audit Branch and he handed over the file (Ex. PW23/Q) through seizure memo dated 27.04.2006 Ex. PW42/A CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 59 of 95
51. PW-43 Sh. Satye Pal Gupta has deposed that he become the member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the year 1983 through his brother in law Sh. Mool Chand Gupta. He has further deposed that he was elected as President of the society in the first meeting and he actively participated in the society upto 1985. He has further deposed that Sh. Prem Chand Goel, Secretary of the society was actively working and keeping the all documents of the society. He has further deposed that the registered office of the society was at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, which was the residence of Prem Chand Goel. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW21/A, affidavit Ex. PW43/A, identified his signature on the aforesaid document. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting purported to be held on different dates Ex. PW23/C, Ex. PW21/C1, Ex. PW17/B , Ex. PW13/D, Ex. PW17/C that the signatures appearing on the proceedings were not his signatures as he never attended any such meetings and no proceeding were held in his presence. He has further deposed that his signatures are appearing on Ex. PW43/B, Ex. PW43/C and Ex. PW43/D. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW 21/A, affidavit Ex. PW43/E, resignation letter Ex. PW43/F, refund receipt Ex. PW27/E2 and payment voucher containing receipt of Rs. 100 Ex. PW 43/G, deposed that the signature appearing on the aforesaid documents were not the signatures of her mother. He, after seeing the Audit reports Ex. PW 23/E , Ex. PW 23/F, Ex. PW 23/G , Ex. PW 23/H , Ex. PW 23/J, Ex. PW 23/K,Ex. PW 23/L, Ex. PW 23/M, Ex. PW 23/N, Ex. PW 23/O & Ex. PW 23/P, deposed that the signatures appearing on those documents were not his signatures. He CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 60 of 95 deposed that he had given specimen signature Ex. PW43/H1 and Ex. PW43/H2 to the IO voluntarily and without any fear or pressure.
52. PW-44 Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel deposed that he become member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Mool Chand Gupta. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW 21/A, affidavit Ex. PW 44/A, identified his signature on the aforesaid document. He, after seeing the proceedings of AGBM (Ex. PW 17/B, Ex. PW 13/D , Ex. PW 17/B, Ex. PW 13/D and Ex. PW 17/C), resignation letter Ex. PW 44/B and receipt of money Ex. PW 44/C, denied the signatures on the aforesaid document. He further deposed that he had given the specimen signature Ex. PW 44/D1 to Ex. PW 4/D-4 to the IO voluntarily without any fear or pressure.
53. PW-45 Sh. Mehar Chand Singal deposed he was posted as Deputy Director, CS & GH in DDA, New Delhi in the year 2003. He, after seeing the letters Ex. PW39/A to Ex. PW39/D, identified his signatures on these letters.
54. PW-46 Smt. Savitri deposed that she never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and she never paid any amount. She, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW 21/A, application for membership Ex. PW46/A and affidavit Ex. PW46/B, denied her signature on these documents. She, after seeing the minutes of meetings Ex. PW22/C to Ex. PW22/H, denied the signature on the aforesaid document as she never attended any meetings of the said society.
55. PW-47 Ms. Sushila Shokeen deposed that she never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 61 of 95She, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, Application for membership Ex. PW47/A, Affidavit Ex. PW47/B, denied her signatures on these documents. She further deposed that she never filed any application or any affidavit for becoming member of the said society. She further deposed that she never received any letter or correspondence from the RCS, office, Delhi and she never visited office of the said society at any point of time. She identified her specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW47/C to Ex. PW47/C-5, which she had given to the IO at the time of her interrogation.
56. PW-48 Sh. Mahender Kumar deposed that he never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and never paid any amount as its membership fee. He, after seeing the documents i.e. membership register Ex. PW21/A, application for membership Ex. PW48/B, affidavit Ex. PW47/A, denied his signatures on these documents. He further deposed that he never filed any application or any affidavit for becoming member of the said society. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW13/D, denied his signatures on this document and deposed that he did not attend any meeting of the said society. He identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW48/C to Ex. PW48/C-4, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
57. PW-49 Sh. Deepak Madan deposed that he became member of the said society on the direction of his father. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, Application for membership Ex. PW49/B, Affidavit Ex. PW49/A, identified his signatures on these documents. He CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 62 of 95 further deposed that he signed the application and affidavit for becoming member of said society, on the directions of his father. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, Affidavit Ex. PW49/D, identified signatures of his father on these documents.
58. PW-50 Sh. Narender Singh deposed that he never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and never paid any amount as its membership fee and further never filed any application or affidavit to the said society. He, after seeing the document i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, denied his signatures on this document. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW17/B, Ex PW21/D, Ex.PW21/D-1 to Ex. PW21/D-9, denied his signatures on these documents and stated that he did not attend any meeting of the said society. He also denied his signatures on Resignation letter Ex PW50/A and Receipt Ex. PW40/D. He denied his signature on Certificate Ex. PW27/E. He identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW50/B to Ex. PW50/B-5, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
59. PW-51 Sh. Shyam Sunder deposed that he never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and never paid any amount as its membership fee and further never filed any application or affidavit to the said society. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A and Affidavit Ex.PW51/A, denied his signatures on these documents. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW17/B and Ex. PW17/C, denied his signatures on these documents and stated that he did not attend any meeting of said CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 63 of 95 society. He also denied his signatures on Resignation letter Ex PW44/C and Receipt Ex. PW51/X. He identified specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW51/B-1 to Ex. PW51/B-4, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
60. PW-52 Sh. Om Prakash deposed that he never became member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and never paid any amount as its membership fee and further never filed any application or affidavit to the said society. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, application for membership Ex. PW52/A and Affidavit Ex.PW52/B, denied his signatures on these documents. He identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW52/C-1 to Ex. PW52/C-4, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
61. PW-53 Sh. Vijay Kr. Gupta deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and paid amount of Rs. 110/- as its membership fee. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A, and Affidavit Ex.PW53/D, admitted his signatures on these documents. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW17/B and Ex. PW17/C, denied his signatures on these documents and stated that he did not attend any meeting of the said society. He denied his signatures on Resignation letter Ex PW53/A and Receipt Ex. PW44/C. He identified his specimen signatures on Ex. PW53/E-1 to Ex. PW53/E-5, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
62. PW-54 Smt. Prakash Devi deposed that her husband remained posted at the office of RCS and he had expired on CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 64 of 95 20.06.2002. She also proved the death certificate dated 20.06.2002 of her husband Ex. PW-54/A.
63. PW-55 Sh. Gopal Dixit deposed that he remained posted as Registrar in office of RCS from May, 1987 to July, 1999. He, after seeing the file (D-6), identified his signature on Ex. PW55/A, Ex. PW55/B, Ex. PW27/J10 and Ex. PW55/C. He further deposed that it was necessary to verify the genuineness of the record of the society before the revival of the society.
64. PW-56 Sh. Rajesh Kumar deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and paid Rs. 1500/- through his uncle Sh. Mool Chand Gupta as membership fee. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A and Affidavit Ex.PW56/A, identified his signatures at points A and A1 on these documents. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW13/D, identified his signatures on it. He identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW56/B (Colly), which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
65. PW-57 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed that after taking the instructions of Sh. Satya Pal Madan, he submitted the records Ex. PW-27/J13 and Ex. PW-27/J14 of Sugam Vihar CGHS in the office of RCS for verification.
66. PW-58 Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta and paid Rs. 110/- as membership fee. He, after seeing the documents i.e. Membership register Ex. PW21/A and Affidavit Ex.PW58/B, identified his signatures on these documents. He, after seeing the minutes of meeting Ex. PW13/D, denied his signatures on it as he never attended such CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 65 of 95 meeting. He, after seeing the letter Ex. PW58/A (available in file D-8), Ex. PW58/C (verification certificate), identified his signatures on these documents. He, after seeing the affidavit Ex. PW58/F, identified the signatures of his grand mother late Smt. Hardevi. He, after seeing the resignation letter Ex. PW58/G, deposed that the signatures appearing on it are not the signatures of his grand mother Late Smt. Hardevi.
67. PW-59 Sh. Paras Nath deposed that from June 2004 to March 2009, he remained posed as an Assistant in Cooperative Group Housing Society Branc, DDA Head Quaters, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. He further deposed that he worked with Sh. K. G. Kashyap, Sh. Mehar Chand Singhal and Sh. Uma Shankar Bhardwaj and could identify their handwriting and signatures as he had seen them writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He further deposed that he identified the signatures of Sh. K.G. Kashyap, the then Superintendent (DDA) on letter Ex. PW-1/D (colly). He also identified the signatures of Sh. Mehar Chand, the then Deputy Director (DDA) on letters Ex. PW39/A and Ex. PW39/C. He also identified the signatures of Sh. Uma Shankar Bhardwaj on letter Ex. PW39/E. He further deposed that letter dated 11.10.2003 (D-11) Ex. PW39/B was received in his office on 14.10.2003 and vide this letter Sugam Vihar CGHS opted for the land in Dwarka. He further deposed that letter dated 09.12.2003 (D-16) Ex. PW39/G was received in his office on 09.12.2003 and through this letter, Sugam Vihar CGHS intimated the change of the address of society from old location to new location at H. No. 114, Pocket G-22, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 66 of 9568. PW-60 Sh. Vishal Singh deposed that he remained posted as Sub-Inspector and Inspector in CBI, BS & FC Branch, New Delhi from 26.12.2000 till 30.09.2009. He further deposed that he was entrusted with the preliminary inquiry and during inquiry, he seized various documents i.e. Ex. PW-25/A, Ex. PW- 25/B, Ex. PW-60/A, Ex. PW-60/B and Ex. PW-60/C, and thereafter he handed them over to Sh. B.R. Singh, IO of this case, through receipt memo Ex. PW-60/D.
69. PW-61 Sh. Sushil Gupta deposed that H. No. JP-60, Pitam Pura was purchased by his father in the year 1985 and at the time of purchase of his house, no person was residing in that house. He further deposed that no person by the name of Surender Kumar S/o A. C. Gupta ever resided at the aforesaid house at any point of time. He further deposed that he never become member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and he never paid any amount for becoming member. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW21/A, affidavit Ex. PW 61/A, resignation letter Ex. PW-61/B and receipt Ex. PW-61/C, denied his signatures on these documents as he never became the member of this society. He, after seeing the minutes of meetings Ex. PW 17/B denied the signature on the aforesaid document. He further deposed that he never attended any meetings of the said society. He has identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW61/D, Ex. PW-61/D1 to Ex. PW-61/D4, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation.
70. PW-62 Sh. Surender Singh Dabas deposed that he never become member of any society including Sugam Vihar CGHS and he never paid any amount for becoming member of CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 67 of 95 the said society. He, after seeing the membership register Ex.PW 21/A, application for membership Ex. PW-62/A and affidavit Ex. PW 62/B, denied his signatures on these documents. He further deposed that he never received any letter from RCS in January, 2005 regarding submissions of some documents mark PW-62/B. He identified his specimen signatures i.e. Ex. PW62/C, Ex. PW- 62/C1 to Ex. PW-62/C6, which he had given to the IO at the time of his interrogation. He, after seeing the membership register Ex. PW 21/A, affidavit Ex. PW 61/A, resignation letter Ex. PW-61/B and receipt Ex. PW-61/C, denied his signatures on these documents as he never became member of this society. He, after seeing the minutes of meetings Ex. PW 17/B, denied the signature of the aforesaid document. He further deposed that he never attended any meetings of the said society.
71. PW-63 Sh. Baldev Raj Rawal deposed that he remained posted as Assistant Registrar (Audit Branch) in the year 1996. He, after seeing the audit report of Sugam Vihar CGHS for the period 1997-98 Ex. PW-63/C, deposed that the audit was conducted from the period 1987-88 to 1996-97 by Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7), who was on the panel of RCS. He also proved the annexures/papers of the audit reports mark as Ex. PW63/A to Ex. PW63/Q. He also identified his signatures on aforesaid audit reports. He further deposed that the panel auditor was bound to conduct the audit of the society at the registered office of the society. He further deposed that President, Secretary and Treasurer should sign the audit report before the auditor.
72. PW-64 Sh. S.L. Garg deposed that he remained posted as Inspector CBI, in EOW-II, Khan Market, New Delhi CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 68 of 95 from 2001 to 2010 and he was the investigating officer in FIR No. RC14E/2005 and RC15E/2005 registered at CBI, EO-II, New Delhi. He, after seeing the letter alongwith list of societies which was forwarded by Sh. K. G. Kashyap, the then Deputy Director (GH), DDA, New Delhi mark PW-64/X, identified his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the list of societies Ex. PW25/E was further handed over by him to Sh. Vishal, the then inspector (CBI) vide seizure memo Ex. PW-60/A.
73. PW-65 Sh. Mohinder Singh deposed that he retired as GEQD of CFSL Hayderabad in July, 2012. He further deposed that the original documents i.e. question documents, specimen documents of this case were received in his office for examination and opinion vide letters Ex. PW65/A and Ex. PW65/B. He further deposed that after careful and thorough examination of all the original documents with the necessary scientific aids, he came to certain conclusion and typed his opinion dated 21.08.2006 and 20.10.2006 Ex. PW65/C and Ex. PW65/D respectively. He has also proved the reasons for these opinions as Ex. PW65/E and Ex. PW65/F respectively. He further deposed that the said opinions alongwith reasons were sent through covering letters Ex. PW65/F and Ex. PW65/G respectively.
74. PW-66 Sh. Satish Mathur further deposed that he remained posted as Deputy Registrar in the office of RCS Parliament Street, New Delhi from 1989 to Oct. 1991. He further deposed that Sh. K.S. Mehra and R. Raghuraman were Registrar and Joint Registrar respectively during the said period. He, after seeing the Note sheet Ex. PW-66/A (available in note CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 69 of 95 sheet file of the Sugam Vihar CGHS) deposed that the society not responded to the Show Cause Notice which was put up by the Assistant Registrar on 29.12.1989 and recommended for liquidation of the said society. He further deposed that thereafter the same was put up to him and he approved with his signatures. He proved the copy of liquidation order exhibited as Ex. PW- 66/B. He also proved the various notings exhibited as Ex. PW- 66/D and Ex. PW-66/E. He also identified his signatures on letter Ex. PW-66/F and Ex. PW-66/G.
75. PW-67 Sh. Narender Kumar Midha deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Sh. Joginder Dabas, on the pretext that the land had been alloted to the said society. He further deposed that he was elected as President of the said society in year 2000, but all its affairs were being controlled by Sh. Joginder Dabas. He further deposed that he submitted his resignation since there was no hope for allotment of land to the said society. He identified his signatures on various pages of the document Ex. PW67/A. He further deposed that he signed these documents under pressure of Sh. Joginder Singh Dabas who obtained his signatures later on.
76. PW-68 Sh. Ankit Dabas deposed that his father late Sh. Joginder Singh Dabas was president of Dabas CGHS which had constructed flats at Dwarka, New Delhi. He further deposed that he did not know anything about Sugam Vihar CGHS or about Mr. S.S. Malik. He has further deposed that he do not know any person in the name of Sh. S.S. Malik. He further deposed that no person in the name of Sh. S.S. Malik ever visited their home when his father was alive. He further deposed that his CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 70 of 95 father was maintaining CC account in Bank of India, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He further deposed that his father expired on 14.12.2004 and death certificate issued from MCD, Rohini was handed over by him to the CBI official during investigation. On his behalf, the death certificate of his father was exhibited as Ex. PW68/A.
77. PW-69 Sh. Virender Kumar deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS through Sh. Joginder Dabas. He further deposed that he was elected as Secretary of the said society in year 2002. He identified his signatures on various pages of document Ex. PW60/A which according to him, he signed on the asking of Sh. Joginder Dabas. He further deposed that he resigned from membership of the said society in the beginning of year 2003 and not attended any society work thereafter but the said resignation was accepted in year 2004.
78. PW-70 Sh. Ramesh Kumar deposed that he became member of Sugam Vihar CGHS in year 2002 through Sh. Narender Kr. Midha the then President of the said society. He further deposed that he was elected as President of said society on 24.11.2003 and he identified his signatures on Ex. PW67/A. He further deposed that the bank account of the said society was in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. He further deposed that no audit of the society was carried out and no AGM was held during his tenure. He further deposed that he handed over the documents Ex. PW60/C to SI Vishal who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW60/B and some documents were handed over to IO vide Seizure memo Ex. PW70/A. He identified his specimen signatures/hand writing as CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 71 of 95 given to the IO i.e. Ex. PW70/B.
79. PW-71 Sh.Brij Raj Singh deposed that he remained posted as Inspector in BS&FC, New Delhi, CBI from 2005 to 2012. He further deposed that FIR in this case i.e. RC 12E/2005 i.e. Ex PW71/A was registered under the signatures of Sh. Rajesh Nirwan, the then SP, CBI, BS&FC Branch. He further deposed that this case was entrusted to him for investigation. He further deposed that during investigation he seized various documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW64/F, Ex. PW50/D, Ex. PW70/A, Ex. PW70/B, Ex. PW42/A, Ex. PW71/A and Ex. PW71/B. He further deposed that he also obtained the specimen hand writing/signatures of accused and other persons namely Sh. Sultan Singh Malik (A-5), Dharambir (A-6), Sh. Veer Singh Rajura (A-3), Sh. Ramesh Lal (A-1), Sh. Ram Karan Solanki, Sh. Narender Singh Tomar, Sh. Jai Bhagwan Malik, Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Smt. Krishna Devi, Smt. Raj Rani, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Smt. Kanta Devi, Sh. Devender Kr. Gupta, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Smt. Vijay Laxmi, Smt. Sushma Goel, Sh. Shyam Lal, Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Sh. Ram Prakash, Sh. Pawan Kr. Goel, Smt. Veena Rani, Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Sh. Satyapal Gupta, Smt. Padmavati Gupta, Sh. Jagmohan Gupta, Sh. Surender Singh, Sh. Raj Kr. Goel, Sh. Amar Chand Goel, Sh. Vijay Kr. Gupta, Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta, Sh. Mahender Kumar, Smt. Bharti Kaushik, Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal, Sh. Naresh Kr. Goel, Sh. Narender Singh, Sh. Joginder Singh, Sh. Rafiq Ahmed, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Smt. Savitri Devi, Sh. Raj Singh, Sh. Narender Singh, Sh. Ajit Singh, Sh. Surender Singh Dabas, Sh. Pritam Singh Aneja, Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Sh. Suresh CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 72 of 95 Kumar, Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Sushila, Sh. Om Prakash Saini, Sh. Jasbir Singh, Smt. Asha Devi, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh. Jawahar Singh, Sh. Sultan Singh Malik, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7) in the presence of independent witnesses vide exhibits PW 71/C, PW21/D, PW71/D, PW 71/E, PW71/F, PW71/G, PW71/H, PW71/J, PW71/K, PW33/C, PW61/D to PW61/D-4, PW31/B, PW58/H, PW 56/B1 to PW 56/B7, PW71/L, PW71/M, PW 71/N, PW14/D, PW13/E, PW44/D to PW44/D-4, PW71/P, PW71/Q, PW43/H to PW43/H-2, PW71/R, PW71/S, PW15/G, PW66/B to PW66/B-4, PW71/T, PW53/E to PW53/E-5, PW51/B to PW51/B-4, PW48/C to PW48/C-4, PW18/C, PW17/F, PW71/U, PW50/B to PW50/B-5, PW21/K, PW 71/V, PW35/C to PW35/J, PW46/X1 to PW46/X-6, PW10/D, PW9/E, PW62/C to PW62/C-6, PW6/E, PW54/E, PW 8/A, PW7/C, PW47/C to PW47/C-5, PW52/C to PW52/C-4, PW71/W, PW 1/E, PW2/D, PW3/D, PW71/X and PW71/Y respectively in the presence of independent witnesses. He further deposed that these specimen signatures/handwriting were given by those persons voluntarily. He further deposed that after obtaining the specimen signatures/hand writing of aforesaid persons, he sent them alongwith the questioned documents to GEQD for expert opinion through letters vide Ex. PW65/A and Ex. PW65/2. He further deposed that he collected the two GEQD opinions dated 22.08.2006 Ex. PW65/C & Ex. PW65/G alongwith their reasoning i.e. Ex. PW65/E & PW65/F. He further deposed that he also obtained sanction for prosecution of accused persons i.e. Ex. PW19/A & Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that during investigation he recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C as per the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 73 of 95 version of the witnesses. He further deposed that after completing investigation he filed the charge sheet before the court as Ex. PW71/Z. Statement u/s 313 Cr PC of the accused
80. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons denied incriminating evidence against them.
81. According to the accused Mahender Singh (A-4), the case against him is false and further there is no complaint against him. Further, he has never violated any provision of the DCS Act & Rules under which he was appointed for doing his duties for the concerned society. Further, no prosecution witness has specifically deposed against him and not stated that he has faulted in his duties in this case. Further, this case is based on surmises and conjectures. Further, there is no evidence of taking of any pecuniary advantage or any financial benefit in this case. Further, there is no evidence on record that any demand was made by him for doing any favour to any person. Further, the prosecution witnesses have not deposed correctly. Further, he has no role in the revival of the society and in sending of list of members to the DDA for allotment of land. Further, no departmental inquiry was held against him in this case for violation of any rules or directives. Further, in fact in another case titled as Annant CGHS (Land alloted/flat built case), having similar facts, he was acquitted in December 2013 by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. Spl. Judge, Rohini, Delhi. Further, he had joined the RCS office in the end of 1999 and retired on 31.10.2001 and he performed his duties under the DCS Act & Rules to the satisfaction of his Senior Authorities while CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 74 of 95 discharging his duties in the RCS, office.
82.1 Accused Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7) claimed that the case against him is false. Further, Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya, Sh. Gopal Dixit, Sh. Baldev Raj Rawal and other officials of the RCS Office, who were required to verify the applications for revival have conducted the required verifications at their end and he cannot be made responsible for any delinquency on their part. Further, the aforesaid officials tasked with verification of revival application, ascertaining the genuineness of members and Management Committee of the society and they have never been made accused in this said case and he has been prosecuted just to protect them, especially when Sh. Dilip Bhattacharya was a named accused in the FIR.
82.2 He examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW-1. 82.3 The accused deposed that he has been practicing as Chartered Accountant after his enrollment in the year 1982. Further, he audited accounts of 10-15 group housing societies after he was enrolled with RCS, Delhi. He proved copy of his appointment letter as Ex. DW1/1. Further, there are general rules/standards to be adopted in case of audit of the accounts by a Chartered Accountant, prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. He placed on record copy of relevant rules as prescribed in the Auditor's Practice Manual, by Sh. VS Vadival and exhibited the same as Ex. DW1/2 (Chapter - 55, page No. 471 to 475 & Chapter 7 Page No. 49, 59 & 117). Further, no specific directions were given by the RCS office, Delhi regarding audit of the societies by him. Further, he conducted audit of the accounts of Sugam Vihar CGHS for the year 1986-87 to 1997-98.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 75 of 95Further, he did not find any irregularity in the financial part of the accounts but he observed irregularities in general working of the said society which he reported in each of his audit reports. Further, the audit observation were not on foot notes but were attached to each audit report. Further, financial statements are to be prepared by the society and same are signed by management committee members of relevant year. Further, the financial statements were put up before him by the Management Committee of the said society. Further, he does not remember the name of those management committee members who put up the accounts of the said society before him. Further, there is no audit of list of members and only the account is audited. Further, payments received by the society or paid by the society at the time of induction of new members or resignation of old members are to be audited. Further, he had interaction with the members of management committee of the said society at the time of audit. Further, no account paper was signed before him by the office bearers of the said society. He volunteered that the audit is done after 31st March of relevant year and documents are prepared in advance and signed by the MC members. Further, at the time of such audit of any CGHS, an auditor is required to see Cash Book, Bank Book, Expenses Vouchers, Bank Statements, Ledger and other records like Bank Confirmation, if any, of the society and nothing else. Further, the record of MC Meetings is also produced before the Auditor. Further, no inquiry was conducted about any audit done by him related to any CGHS Society. Further, he is not involved in any such criminal case about audit of any CGHS Society except the case in hand.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 76 of 95Further, none of his family members has any interest in Sugam Vihar CGHS. Further, prescribed fees is paid to the Auditor for conducting such audit and the amount is mentioned in financial statement of the society. Further, he did not know any member or members of Management committee of Sugam Vihar CGHS. Further, he had no dealings with them and still have no dealing with them. Further, the house i.e. H. No. 185 B, MIG, DDA Flats, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 is owned by his wife and was purchased in the year 1996. Further, he had no other interaction with MC Members of the said society who are signatories of accounts of the said society which was audited by him, except at the time of doing audit.
83. I have heard Ld. Public Prosecutor representing the CBI and Ld. Counsel appearing for the accused persons.
84. As accused Ramesh Lal (A-1), Veer Singh Rajoura (A-3), Sultan Singh Malik (A-5), Dharamvir (A-6) have expired and the trial against accused P.D. Sharma has been postponed, the Court need to discuss the role of only two accused persons i.e. accused Mahender Singh (A-4) and Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7).
Accused Mahender Singh (A-4)
85. The first question with regard to this accused is of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C qua the offences under IPC.
86. Ld. Counsel for the present accused submitted that his client was a public servant at the time of commission of the alleged offences and no sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C was taken by the prosecution from the Competent Authority to prosecute the accused, and, therefore, the accused could not be prosecuted. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the case of the present accused is CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 77 of 95 squarely covered u/s 197 Cr.P.C and the Court has only to see whether this accused did the alleged act in discharge of his official duty.
87. On the other hand, Ld. PP submitted that besides the other offences, the present accused was also booked for the offence u/s 120B IPC i.e. criminal conspiracy and committing the offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be said to be part of duty of any public servant and in such a circumstance, no sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C was required. Ld. PP further submitted that at the relevant time when the matter was under investigation, there were some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, according to which, sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C for prosecution was not required, if the offences alleged to be committed by a public servant included the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC.
88. To analyze if the sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C was required for prosecution of accused (A-4), it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said section -
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction......"
89. With regard to the present accused, the requirements of the relevant provision are -
a) He was a public servant.
b) He was not removable from his office save by or
with the sanction of the government.
c) He has committed an offence.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 78 of 95
d) That offence must have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
90. Thus, for invoking section 197 Cr.P.C, the above- mentioned requirements must be fulfilled.
91. Admittedly, the present accused was a public servant at the time of commission of the alleged offences and he has allegedly committed the mentioned offences also and now the only question to be determined is if he committed the alleged acts or offences acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties.
92. First, the Court has to see as to what actually was done by the present accused.
93. As per the prosecution, the present accused, while working as an Inspector in the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, without checking the genuineness of the relevant documents, submitted a false inspection report and also submitted a false physical verification report, which were later on used for getting revived the society.
94. Nothing came on record which shows that the present accused made or forged any document which was not part of his official work or was a document which was not supposed to be made by the office of RCS. Illustratively, if the accused had prepared some affidavit of some private person or any other document, which was not supposed to be prepared by the office of RCS, it could be said that making or preparation of that document was not part of his official duty, but the accused CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 79 of 95 allegedly prepared inspection and verification report, which were supposed to be prepared by the office of RCS only and as such, the act of the accused can be said to be done in discharge of his official duty.
95. To the mind of the Court, plain reading of section 197 Cr.P.C makes it very clear that the alleged act of the accused was protected by the mentioned provision as the accused did the alleged offences in discharge of his official duty.
96. The following rulings give strength to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
i) Amal Kumar Jha Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2016.
ii) Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2000.
iii) Prof. N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI New Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 2015.
iv) Amod Kumar Kanth Vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017.
97. In the first case as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, the appellant was Incharge of a Govt. Hospital and failed to provide the Govt. Jeep for shifting a patient to another hospital, whereas he himself used and traveled in that Jeep to attend official meetings and used the same for other official purposes. It was contented on behalf of the appellant that the allegations against the appellant were that he failed to provide govt. vehicle for shifting the patient and it was an act in discharge of his official duty and as such sanction to prosecute him is necessary. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that omission on part of the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 80 of 95 appellant was connected with discharge of his official duty and protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C was available with him and he could not be prosecuted without sanction.
98. In the above referred judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the case Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay [1955 (1) SCR 117] wherein the relevant portion of the referred judgment was reproduced as under -
"Now it is obvious that if section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for of course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The section has content and its language must be given meaning. What it says is-
"when any public servant.......... is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty......" We have therefore first to concentrate on the word 'offence'.
Now an offence seldom consists of a single act. It is usually composed of several elements and, as a rule, a whole series of acts must be proved before it can be established. In the present case, the elements alleged against the second accused are, first, that there was an "entrustment" and/or "dominion"; second, that the entrustment and/or dominion was "in his capacity as a public servant"; third, that there was a "disposal"; and fourth, that the disposal was "dishonest". Now it is evident that the entrustment and/or dominion here were in an official capacity, and it is equally evident that there could in this case be no disposal, lawful or otherwise, save by an act done or purporting to be done in an official capacity. Therefore, the act complained of, namely the disposal, could not have been done in any other way. If it was innocent, it was an official act; if dishonest, it was the dishonest doing of an official act, but in either event the act was official because the second accused could not dispose of the goods save by the doing of an official act, namely officially permitting their disposal, and that he did. He actually permitted their release and purported to do it in an official capacity, and apart from the fact that he did not pretend to act privately, there was no other way in which he could have done it. Therefore, whatever the intention or motive behind the act may have been, the physical part of it remained unaltered, so if it was official in the one case it was equally official in the other, and the only difference would lie in the intention with which it was done: in the one event, it would be done in the discharge of an official duty and in the other, in the purported discharge of it.
The act of abetment alleged against him stands on the same footing, for his part in the abetment was to permit the disposal of the goods CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 81 of 95 by the doing of an official act and thus "willfully suffer" another person to use them dishonestly: section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. In both cases, the "offence" in his case would be incomplete without proving the official act.
We therefore hold that section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and that sanction was necessary, and as there was none the trial is vitiated from the start. We therefore quash the proceedings against the second accused as also his conviction and sentence."
99. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first referred judgment also referred the case S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar (1979) 4 SCC 177 wherein the relevant portion of the judgment as referred therein was reproduced as under -
"The words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty' employed in Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation. If these words are construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence, and never can be'. In the wider sense, these words will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence, committed in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed or purports to be performed. The right approach to the import of these words lies between these two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of Section 197(1), act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution under the said provision."
Use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty."
100. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first referred judgment also referred another case i.e. P. Arulswami v. State of Madras (1967) SCR 201 wherein the relevant portion of the judgment as referred therein was reproduced as under -
"... It is not therefore every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code; nor even every act done by him while he is CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 82 of 95 actually engaged in the performance of his official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. It is the quality of the act that is important and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties the protection contemplated by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be attracted. An offence may be entirely unconnected with the official duty as such or it may be committed within the scope of the official duty. Where it is unconnected with the official duty there can be no protection. It is only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it that the protection is claimable."
It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining ts applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may be necessary. But if the same officer commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty then the bar under Section 197 of the Code is not attracted."
101. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first referred judgment also referred the fourth judgment i.e. State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004 (8) SCC 40 wherein the relevant portion of the referred judgment was reproduced as under -
"7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 83 of 95 that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case."
102. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first referred judgment also referred the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 617 wherein the relevant portion of the referred judgment was reproduced as under -
"59. For the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary that they must act in their official capacity but even where public servants purport to act in their official capacity, the same would attract the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was so held by this Court in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das (2006) 4 SCC 584. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari AIR 1956 CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 84 of 95 SC 44 wherein it was held: (AIR pp. 48-49, para 17) "17. Slightly differing tests have been laid down in the decided cases to ascertain the scope and the meaning of the relevant words occurring in Section 197 of the Code, 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'. But the difference is only in language and not in substance.
The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197, unless the act complained of is an offence, the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits."
103. The other three rulings as mentioned above also support the case of the accused.
104. On the other hand, Ld. PP has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as K. Satwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal Nos. 124 to 129 of 54).
105. The relevant para of the said judgment is also reproduced as under-
"16. Under S. 197 no Court shall take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant who is removable from his office by the Governor- General-in-Council or a Provincial Government, save upon a sanction by one or the other as the case may be, when such offence is committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Henderson was charged with intentionally aiding the appellant in the commission of an offence punishable under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Coda by falsely stating as a fact in his reports that the appellant's claims were true and that statement had been made knowing all the while that the claims in question were false and fraudulent and that he had accordingly committed an offence under S. 420/109, Indian Penal Code. It appears to us to be clear that some "offences cannot by their very, nature be regarded as having been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. For instance, acceptance of a bribe, an CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 85 of 95 offence punishable under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, is one of them and the offence of cheating or abetment thereof is another. We have no hesitation in saying that where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, as such offences have no necessary connection between them and the performance of the duties of a public servant, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offences (vide Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, 1955-1 SCR 1802: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 309). The act of cheating or abetment thereof has no reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the public servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty (vide Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Rhari, 1955-2 SCR 925: ((S) AIR 1956 SC 44), It was urged, however, that in the present case the act of Henderson in certifying the appellant's the claims as true was an official act because it was his duty either to certify or not to certify the claim as true and that if he falsely certified the claim as true he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is, however, to be remembered that Henderson was not prosecuted for any offence concerning his act of certification. He was prosecuted for abetting the appellant to cheat. We are firmly of the opinion that Henderson's offence was not one committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Such being the position the provisions of S. 197 of the Code are inapplicable even if Henderson be regarded as a public servant who was removable from his office by the Governor-General-in-Council or a Provincial Government."
106. The ruling as given by Ld. PP could support his case, but the facts in the cited judgment and in the present are different. In the cited case, the accused aided the co-accused in taking huge pecuniary advantage, but in the case in hand, the prosecution has failed even to prove that any person took any CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 86 of 95 monetary benefit or advantage out of the alleged acts. Or the present accused or even any other accused took bribe or any pecuniary benefit from any other person. Or any authority or person got wrongful gain or suffered wrongful loss.
107. In view of the above discussion and the rulings given by both the parties, the Court has to conclude that sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C to prosecute the present accused (A-4) for the offences pertaining to IPC, was required and without the sanction, the present accused could not be prosecuted.
108. As it has been held by the Court that sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C was necessary to prosecute the present accused for the offences punishable under IPC, and, therefore, the accused could not be tried for those offences.
109. The accused is accordingly acquitted of all the charges as leveled against him for the offences in respect of Indian Penal Code.
110. Now, comes the question for offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
111. In respect of the present accused, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW-8 Sh. Suresh Kumar Saini, PW-11 Sh. Prithvi Raj Saini, PW-27 Sh. Narender Singh Tanwar, PW-37 Sh. Kumb Karan Gupta and PW-43 Sh. Satya Pal Gupta.
112. According to PW-8, no society including Sugam Vihar CGHS ever functioned from his address 839F, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, Delhi.
113. PW-11 Sh. Prathvi Raj Saini deposed on the lines of PW-8. He also deposed that no person by the name of Sh.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 87 of 95Mahender Singh visited his mentioned address.
114. PW-27 Sh. Narender Singh Tanwar identified the signature of accused Mahender Singh on the inspection report dated 28.03.2000 Ex. PW25/F. This witness also identified the signatures of accused Mahender Singh on physical verification reports regarding resignations of certain members of the society.
115. PW-37 Sh. Kumbh Karan Gupta denied signatures of his mother late Smt. Biriji Devi on certain documents pertaining to the society. This witness also deposed that no official from the RCS office ever visited his house for any purpose including verification of membership of any society.
116. PW-43 Sh. Satya Pal Gupta denied signature of his mother late Smt. Sukhdevi on certain documents relating to the society, by stating that her mother was illiterate and she never used to sign and only used to put her thumb impression.
117. By examining these witnesses, the prosecution wished to prove that the present accused prepared a false report without visiting the address of the society and without verifying the members of the society and thus committed the alleged offences u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
118. The gist of the said provisions is that the accused must commit criminal misconduct and by corrupt and illegal means, he must obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or advantage.
119. As far as the first part of committing criminal misconduct is concerned, the reports of the accused can be said to be incorrect, but it cannot be said that the reports were CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 88 of 95 prepared by the accused having criminal mind or by a criminal act. Criminality on the part of the accused would have been proved if the prosecution had proved that the accused took any monetary benefit or advantage for preparing the reports. The Court should not presume that the preparation of the relevant reports by the accused was a criminal misconduct only for the reason that the reports had discrepancies or were incorrect. The prosecution was supposed to prove something more in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reports were prepared by the accused, having criminal mind or act.
120. Now, comes the second part of committing the act or offence in sub section (d) of section 13 of the act. In terms of the provision, the prosecution was supposed to prove that the accused must have obtained some valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person by corrupt or illegal means. Again, the Court cannot presume that if the accused had prepared the wrong reports, he prepared them by corrupt or illegal means and obtained some pecuniary advantage. The prosecution ought to have bring on record some additional evidence to show that for doing the alleged acts, the accused took pecuniary advantage or valuable thing for himself or for any other person, but the prosecution has failed to prove the same.
121. In view of the above discussion, to the mind of the Court, the accused should be given benefit of doubt.
122. The accused is accordingly acquitted of the charges as leveled against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 89 of 95Accused Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7)
123. Accused Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-7) was charged that during the year 1997-2000 at Delhi, he dishonestly and fraudulently induced or attempted to induce the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi for getting revived the society and approved the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS, on the basis of false and forged documents, for getting land from the DDA at subsidized rates and committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
124. He was further charged that during the relevant period, he fraudulently and dishonestly in order to cheat the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi, prepared false audit reports and committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC.
125. He was further charged that during the said period, he used the forged audit reports prepared by him for getting revived the society and consequently for getting land from DDA at subsidized rates and committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
126. The accused (A-7) was further jointly charged that he alongwith other co-accused persons, was party to a criminal conspiracy, by having agreed to cheat or attempt to cheat the office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi and Delhi Development Authority by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing it to receive and approve the freeze list of 90 members of Sugam Vihar CGHS on the basis of false and forged documents for getting land from DDA at a subsidized rate. Further, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, he submitted a false audit report dated 08.06.1998 containing number of discrepancies and CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 90 of 95 the same were submitted by him without audit in the account of Sugam Vihar CGHS and committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
127. The gist of the charges as framed against the present accused (A-7) is that he prepared false audit reports without verifying the authenticity of the members of the society and his audit reports were used in the attempt for getting a land allotted to the society.
128. It was also alleged by the Ld. Public Prosecutor during his arguments that the accused (A-7) prepared his audit reports without visiting the office of the society, which was not even in existence and violated the rule 84 (3) of the Delhi Co- operative Societies Rules, 1973. It was also argued that by Ld. Public Prosecutor that in the audit reports, names and signatures of certain office bearers of the society are appearing, whereas, the fact is that all the signatures of the office bearers are forged.
129. According to the prosecution itself, the present accused (A-7) can be said to have committed the alleged offences in order to achieve the illegal object only by two ways i.e. by making the false audit reports without visiting the registered office of the society and due to the fact that in his audit reports, forged signatures of certain office bearers of the society are there.
130. As far as the first part is concerned, Ld. Public Prosecutor has pointed out sub rule 5 of rule 84 of the Delhi Co- operative Societies Rules, 1973 (the actual rule which the Ld. PP wished to point out is in fact sub rule 3 of rule 84), which says that the audit of a co-operative society shall be conducted in the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 91 of 95 registered office of the society.
131. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for this accused (A-
7) contented that sub-section 5 of section 53 of the Delhi Co- operative Societies Act, 1972 empowers an auditor to summon and examine any record pertaining to the society, at any place including his own office and the auditor need not visit the registered office of the society.
132. To the mind of the Court, it is not at all important whether the auditor visited the registered office of the society or not. The important aspect is whether the act of the auditor for not visiting the registered office of the society falls in the category of any offence. The Court is of the view that even if, as per rules, the auditor was supposed to visit the registered office of the society for conducting the audit, but such act of the auditor does not amount to any offence at all. The said act of the auditor may be just a violation of the rules and the consequences thereof could be dealt with by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in terms of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
133. The second aspect of the contentions of the Ld. Public Prosecutor is that the signatures of certain office bearers of the society on all the audit reports were forged and it was the duty of the auditor to check and verify the same.
134. The Court agrees with this contention of the Ld. PP that the auditor was supposed to check the veracity of the documents regarding which he was making his report and this was certainly lapse on the part of the auditor i.e. the accused (A-
7), but now again the question is whether the said negligence or dereliction on the part of the auditor can be said to be an offence CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 92 of 95 as charged against him.
135. To prove the fact that the audit reports as prepared by the present accused (A-7) bear forged signatures of the office bearers of the society, the prosecution examined a few witnesses and according to their deposition, the signatures shown to be of the office bearers of the society, were not in fact the signatures of the office bearers.
136. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-23 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta who deposed that after becoming member of the society, he also became Treasurer of the society and the signatures on the audit reports from 1986- 87 to 1996-97 (D-46 to D-56) in his name, are not his signatures.
137. PW-24 Sh. Sunil Goel deposed that his father Sh. Prem Chand Goel was a member of Sugam Vihar CGHS and also remained Secretary of the society. He further deposed that his father passed away on 28.10.1998 and was suffering with an eye ailment due to diabetes. Further, his father was unable to read and write properly since 1993 and the audit reports do not contain the signatures of his father and someone has forged the same.
138. The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW-43 Sh. Satya Pal Gupta who deposed that he became member of the society in the year 1983 and was elected as President in the first meeting of the society. He denied signatures in his name on the audit reports for the period 1986-87 to 1996-97 (D-46 to D-
56).
139. Although, the witnesses as relied upon by the prosecution have deposed that the signatures in the name of the CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 93 of 95 office bearers of the society on the audit reports were forged and it was the duty of the auditor to check and verify the names and signatures of the office bearers, the said act of the auditor i.e. present accused (A-7) cannot be said to be an offence as charged against him.
140. The accused (A-7) could be held liable for committing the alleged offences only when it was proved by the prosecution that he himself forged the signatures of the office bearers of the society on the audit reports as prepared by him, but this is not the case of the prosecution.
141. Now, comes the question of joint charge of committing the alleged offences in pursuance of criminal conspiracy.
142. As already discussed, the only evidence against the present accused (A-7) is regarding preparation of false audit reports. The prosecution was supposed to prove that the accused (A-7) prepared the audit reports in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and for proving the same, the prosecution must have had more material or evidence against the accused. In order to prove the criminal conspiracy, the prosecution could have examined any witness who would have said that the present accused was in contact with any other accused persons or aiding them to achieve the object of allotment of the land, but the prosecution has not examined any such witness. The prosecution could also show that the present accused took any undue monetary benefit from the other accused persons or from any other person for deliberately preparing the false audit reports, but again, none of the prosecution witnesses has shown and proved CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 94 of 95 the same. Further, the prosecution has also not even shown that the present accused, his relative or any of his known persons was member of the society or had any connection with the society so as to take any benefit out of the alleged acts of the accused persons or out of the alleged conspiracy.
143. As already discussed, the only witnesses which according to the prosecution support its case are PW-23, PW-24 and PW-43, who have made their deposition only with regard to the fact that the signatures of certain office bearers of the society on the audit reports were false. The evidence brought on record by these three witnesses is not sufficient to prove that the present accused (A-7) prepared his audit reports in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. The Court cannot presume that if the audit reports bear the forged signatures of certain office bearers of the society and are false, they must have been made by the present accused (A-7) in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy.
144. The material or the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove that the present accused did the alleged acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy
145. In view of the discussed facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
146. The accused is, accordingly, acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
SAMEER Digitally signed by SAMEER BAJPAI BAJPAI Date: 2023.08.17 16:00:51 +0530 Announced in Open Court today i.e. 17.08.2023 (Samer Bajpai) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-14 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi CBI Case No. 146/19 CBI vs. Ramesh Lal Etc. (Sugam Vihar CGHS) Page 95 of 95