Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Sant Ram & Ors. on 17 September, 2016
Case No.532191/2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (P C Act)-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI, DELHI.
Case No. 532191/2016
CBI Vs. Sant Ram & Ors.
RC No. 1(A)/94/CBI/ACU-IV/ND
CC No. 29/12
State through C.B.I.
Vs.
1.Sant Ram Badgujar (since deceased) .....(Accused No.1)
S/o late Sh. Nand Lal,
R/o T-65-B, Indira Colony, Narella-Delhi
2.R.C. Yadav (since deceased) ....(Accused No.2)
S/o Late Ram Pragat Yadav,
R/o House No.149, Mohalla Vijay Nagar,
Near R.G. Degree College,
Meerut (U.P.)
3.V.P. Yadav, ....(Accused No.3)
S/o Sheo Chand Yadav,
UDC Slum & JJ
Vikas Kuteer, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
R/o V& PO Chakarpur (Gurgaon) Haryana.
4.Anand Bihari Sharma ....(Accused No.4)
S/o Late Umadutt Sharma,
R/o 7-A, Gali No.1,
West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
5.Rakesh Kumar Gupta ....(Accused No.5)
S/o Late Damordar Prasad
R/o 5/42, Khicharipur Colony, Delhi.
6.Vijay Kumar Arora (since deceased) ....(Accused No.6)
S/o Sh. Dina Nath,
Patwari Nazul Section,
DDA Office, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
R/o C-28, Baba Banda Bahadur Society, Plot No.11/1,
Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 1 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
7.Karan Pal Mallick ....(Accused No.7)
S/o Sh. Charan Singh,
AFI, PPW/DDA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
8. Rajnish Kumar Singh ....(Accused No.8)
S/o Sh. Brijpal Singh,
AFI, Accounts Residential Land Building, DDA Office,
Vikas Sadan, Delhi.
R/o 9029/B/9 LIG, Kunj, New Delhi.
9. Surinder Kaur ....(Accused No.9)
AFI, O/o Dy. Director, (LM/EZ), DDA Office,
Vikas Kuteer, Delhi
R/o 64, New Lahore Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
10.Azad Singh (since deceased) ....(Accused No.10)
S/o Sobha Singh,
R/o 20/131, Kalyanpuri,Delhi.
Date of Institution : 14th November 1996
Judgment Reserved : 30th August 2016.
Judgment Delivered : 17th September 2016
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable U/s 120B r/w 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred in short as PC Act hereinafter) and other substantive offences. Sant Ram Badgujar (A-1), (since deceased), was Deputy Director in Slum and JJ Department, R.C. Yadav (A-2) (Since deceased), was Asstt. Director (East Zone) Slum and JJ Department, MCD. V.P. Yadav (A-3), UDC, Slum and JJ Department, MCD. Vijay Kumar Arora, (A-6), (Since deceased) was Patwari. Karan Pal Malik, (A-7), Rajneesh Kumar Singh (A-8) and Smt. Surender Kaur (A-
9) were working as Asstt. Field Officer, Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Apart from these public servants, Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4), Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) & Azad Singh (A-10) were private person, who were allegedly CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 2 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 involved in the offence.
2. Anand Bihari Sharma,(A-4), had lodged a complaint whereupon a FIR No.145/94 was registered at P.S. Kalyan Puri on 05.04.1994. Case was investigated by local police. Thereafter, on 30 th August 1994, CBI registered a Regular Case stated to be based on source information. FIR being investigated by local police was also taken over by the CBI. Accused persons allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of cheating Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by allotting plots in favour of 68 unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents. Allottees were allegedly falsely shown as evictees from different colonies holding demolition slips. A computer draw was held on 29th June, 1993 in respect of 322 demolition slip holders and 53 persons out of them were allegedly allotted plots and against demolition slips of which, many persons are stated to have already been allotted plots in other colonies. Forged demolition slips purported to be issued by the competent authority were utilized and used as genuine. As per the charge sheet, out of the 68 instances of allotment, investigation was restricted to 59 forged demolition slips. Two allotments were found genuine and record pertaining to seven allotments could not be traced.
3. Case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is that is that Keshav Ram (who was not charge sheeted), in his capacity as Deputy Director, Slums and JJ, Delhi put up a note on 16th February, 1993 before the Additional Commissioner, Slum and JJ, proposing allotment of plots to evictees from different JJ colonies on the basis of demolition slips earlier issued. Proposal was approved by the additional commissioner. During the relevant period, Sh. V.P. Yadav, (A-3) was working as dealing assistant handling the CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 3 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 matter of allotment of plots in Kondli put up a note dated 16 th April 1993, to the effect that according to Engineering Wing of the DDA, 385 plots were available and 300 demolition slips had been verified from the lists supplied by the concerned branch of DDA. It is alleged that amongst the demolition slips referred in the note, 59 names were included in the draw on the basis of forged and fabricated demolition slips, which had been verified. It is alleged that the fake list prepared having anti-dated signatures of (A-1), was utilized by V.P. Yadav (A-3) and document prepared were shown to be of 1987, during which period, Sant Ram (A-1) was not posted in the concerned zone and note was endorsed by R.C. Yadav (A-2), through Keshav Ram. Director raised certain queries and asked for the list of DS (demolition slip holders) along with the requisite proofs, whereupon Sh.V.P. Yadav (A-3), submitted list of DS holders together with fake lists signed by (A-1), as per note dated 3rd May, 1993 containing names of 325 persons duly signed by (A-1) and him. V.P. Yadav (A-2) vide note dated 5 th May, 1993 falsely recorded that he had checked individual files of DS holders and that list placed in the files was found to be correct and he recommended to hold the draw.
4. It is further the case of prosecution that Director (Slum and JJ) did not agree with the proposal of Sh. R.C. Yadav A-2 vide his noted dated 7 th May, 1993 and pointed out that genuineness of DS holder should be verified firstly from Land Protection Branch of DDA. In response, Sh. R.C. Yadav, A-2 again put up another note dated 18 th May, 1993 that 304 demolition slips had already been verified enclosing a list purportedly containing names of the verified demolition slips bearing signatures of R.C. Yadav (A-2) and V.P. Yadav (A-3). He indicated that 20 demolition slips (DS) were not verified. On 29 th CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 4 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 June, 1993 vide subsequent note, V.P. Yadav (A-3) indicated that the said 20 DS had been verified, which was endorsed by R.C. Yadav (A-2) despite their knowledge that 59 DS included in the list were forged. Based on the recommendation of A-2 and A-3, a computer draw was held in respect of 322 DS on 29th June, 1993. It is further the case of prosecution that Azad Singh, (A-
10) was known to one Pyare Lal (since deceased) who was a security assistant in DDA, Vikas Minar. Pyare Lal used to deal with the fake/forged DS and was a suspect in another case being investigated by Delhi Police. Sh. V.P. Yadav (A-
3) allegedly approached Azad Singh (A-10) and with his help arranged forged and fake DS. Sh. V.P. Yadav (A-3) affixed thumb impression on the back side of DS on behalf of evictees. (A-3) handed over 45 slips which were purportedly issued for the allotment of plots in Shahbad, Daulatpur area to Azad Singh (A-10) to be taken to Sant Ram Badgujar (A-1) for getting change of place of allotment. (A-1) changed the place of allotment as Kondli in his handwriting and noted "change allowed as per DLM's verbal order". The relevant anti-dated list which were typed in respect of those DS was also signed by (A-1) and marked to Assistant Director, Kalyanpuri. These endorsement were allegedly made in 1993 but endorsement and signature were anti-dated by (A-1) purported to be signed in 1987. It is alleged that for this work (A-3) paid Rs.1000/- to (A-1) through (A-10) for each slip.
5. It is also the case of prosecution that (A-1) in connivance with (A-3) falsely verified that the fake and forged DS were identified for allotment of plots at Pootkalan, Shahbad, Daulatpur and due to non availability of plots, the place of allotment on these DS had been changed to 'Kondli resettlement colonies'. Investigation revealed that (A-4) manipulated photographs which CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 5 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 were required to be submitted by the genuine DS holders alongwith the application accompanied with affidavits and proof of deposit of requisite fees in the bank. It is alleged that applications pertaining to forged DS numbers S- 4844, 4855, 4881, 4880, 4946 purportedly issued in the names of Sohan Singh, Ghasi Ram, Suleman, Bihari Lal and Smt. Sarla respectively and had filed 7 bank challans against deposit of Rs.3000/- to the bank against DS no. 4837, 4863, 4946, 4953, 4956, 4954, 4934 are found to have been prepared and filled in by (A-4) in his own handwriting.
6. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) allegedly prepared 11 applications pertaining to DS no. 4845, 4858, 4860, 4939, 4862, 4928, 4864, 4849, 4857, 4874, 4875 purportedly issued in favour of Yogesh, Dalip Singh, Gulshan, Ranjit Singh, Gulab Singh, Prem Nath, Kundan Lal, Rehman Khan, Jitender Pal, Mangal Ram and Changi Ram respectively and prepared 8 false affidavits of Yogesh, Moti Lal, Sadiq Ali, Gulshan, Gulab Singh, Haider Ali, Man Chand, and Prem Nath against DS no. 4845, 4837, 4851, 4860, 4862, 4935, 4839, 4929 by putting his thumb impression thereon. It is alleged that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) prepared 18 bank challans in his handwriting and deposited Rs.3000/- against forged DS no. 4860, 4939, 4862, 4935, 4839, 4928, 4931, 4849, 4857, 4952, 4866, 4874, 4949, 4844, 4855, 4881, 4948 and 4840 with the bank. 6 DS bearing no. 4836, 4875, 4962 to 4965 initially issued by the competent authority were allegedly canceled but the forged DS with the same numbers purportedly issued by the competent authority were utilized in favour of the alleged fake allottees. It is alleged that (A-4) prepared application on behalf of DS No. S-4963 and 4965 and deposited Rs.3,000/- with the bank and Sh. R.K. Gupta (A-5) prepared application in favour of DS CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 6 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 No. 4964 issued in the name of Khadak Singh and filed challan of Rs.3,000/- against DS No. S-4962.
7. Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora (A-6), Karan Pal Malik (A-7), Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) and Surinder Kaur (A-9) who were posted as Assistant Field Investigator in the office of Deputy Director, Land Protection (LP) Branch, DDA during 1987-88 were as per the charter of duties, supposed to prepare genuine DS after conducting survey and put up the same for signatures of the officer incharge. These four accused had initially prepared DS No. Z-4028, Z-4031, Z-4868 by A-6, Z-3745, 3772 by A-7, 3717 by A-8 and V-3280 by A-9 in the name of genuine allottees namely Karan Singh, Patras, Shriniwas, Jeewan, Phool Singh, Ram Murti and Kalyan respectively, who had been given possession of the plots. These four accused (A-6) to A-9 prepared forged demolition slips with same serial numbers and particulars in their own handwriting.
8. It is further the case of prosecution that V.P. Yadav (A-3) and Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) persuaded Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) to purchase few plots at the rate of Rs.4000/- for which they passed on photocopies of 4 DS and fake allotment letters were prepared by Sh. V.P. Yadav (A-3) and were signed by Sh. R.C Yadav (A-2). (A-4) approached one Dr. Rakesh Mohan Sharma for sale of four such plots through (A-3). Dr. Rakesh Mohan Sharma paid Rs.1.6 lacs to (A-3) and (A-4) in cash when no allotment could be made to Dr. Rakesh by (A-3) and (A-4), he approached (A-4) for refund of money whereupon (A-3) issued a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in favour of Dr. Rakesh Mohan Sharma towards part refund of the amount but the said cheque was dishonoured. It is thus, alleged that (A-1), (A-2), A-3 and (A-6) to A-9 used CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 7 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 corrupt and illegal means and by otherwise abusing their position as public servant caused pecuniary advantage either to themselves or to others and documents were forged by the accused persons and used as genuine.
9. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 14th November, 1996. Cognizance was taken against all the accused by the ld. Predecessor of this Court on 21 st January, 1997. Accused Sant Ram Badgujar (A-1) expired and the proceedings against him stood abated on 19.12.2001, before framing of charges. On 10 th September 2002, charges were framed against remaining accused persons (A-2 to A-9) u/s 120B r/w Section 420, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after to be referred as 'PC Act' in short) and substantive offence under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and substantive charge u/s 13 (2) of PC Act and public servants V.P. Yadav (A-3), Vijay Kumar Arora (A-6) , Karan Pal Malik (A-7), Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) & Surinder Kaur (A-9). Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, three accused persons namely R.C. Yadav (A-2), Vijay Kumar Arora (A-6) and Azad Singh (A-10) expired. Azad Singh (A-10) expired in the year 2011 and his death verification report was obtained. As per record, he was also known as Kewra Singh, which is mentioned in the death Certificate. His son Sandeep filed an affidavit stating that his father Azad Singh had expired, who was also known as Kewra Singh. Proceedings against R. C. Yadav (A-3) stood abated on 21 st August 2013. Proceedings against Vijay Kumar Arora (A-6) stood abated on 23 rd December 2010.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 8 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
Charges
10. Charges framed against the accused on 10th September 2002 are reproduced as under:-
"Firstly that you all with Sant Ram (Since dead) in the 1993 at Delhi, UP, Haryana and other places, agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act of cheating the MCD by allotting plots in favour of 68 unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents by falsely showing the alleged allotees as genuine evictees from different JJ colonies having genuine demolition slips for which a computer draw was held on 29.06.1993 in respect of 322 demolition slips holders for allotment of plots, 53 different persons had already been allotted plots in other colonies, but for the purpose of present draw the forged demolition slips with same nos. purportedly issued by the competent authorities were used as genuine in faovur of persons other than genuine demolition slips holders; in respect of eight cases concerning demolition slips plots had already been allotted to the genuine demolition slips holders; various documents were used as genuine knowing the same to be forged, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing the official position of you accused V.P. Yadav, Vijay Kumar Arora, Karan Pal Mallick, Rajnish Kumar Singh and Surinder Kaur as public servants and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120- B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and within my cognizance;
Secondly that you all in 1993 at above places cheated the MCD by dishonestly inducing it to allot plots in favour of 68 unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents by falsely showing the alleged allotees as the genuine evictees from different JJ colonies having genuine demolition slips inter-alia on which basis a computer draw was held on 29.06.1993 in respect of 322 demolition slips holders for allotment of plots, 53 persons had already been alloted plots in other colonies, but for the purpose of the present draw the forged demolition slips with same numbers, purportedly issued by the competent authority, were used as genuine in faovur of persons other than genuine demolition slips holders and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly that you all and during the aforesaid period in pursuance of said
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 9 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
criminal conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly got prepared the forged and fake demolition slips holders lists purported to be signed by the officer of DDA for the purpose of cheating by getting all numbers of plots in faovur and unauthorized person/non-existing persons and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 IPC and within my cognizance. Fourthly that you all during the aforesaid period and in furtherance of said conspiracy used forged and fake lists of demolition slip holders as genuine knowing that they were fake and forged and thereby you also committed an offence punishable u/s 471 IPC and within my cognizance. Fifthly that you V.P. Yadav, Vijay Kumar Arora, Karan Pal Mallick, Rajnish Kumar Singh and Smt. Surender Kaur, being public servants, A.D. Slums, JJ, MCD, UDC, Slums JJ MCD and Asstt. Field Investigator in the office of Dy. Director, L.P. Branch, DDA in furtherance of said conspiracy during the above said period or otherwise by abusing your position as such public servants committed criminal misconduct while discharging your official duties by corrupt or illegal means and obtained for yourselves and or other persons pecuniary advantage by allotments of plots in favour of the unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents i.e. demolition slips and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC act 1988, within my cognizance."
Prosecution Evidence
11. To establish accusation against the accused persons, prosecution examined 63 witnesses. Brief outline of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is as under:-
PW-1 Vishwa Mohan Bansal Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA granted sanction for prosecution of public servants V.P. Yadav (A3), Vijay Kumar Arora (A-6), Karan Pal Malik (A-7), Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) and Smt. Surender Kaur (A-9) vide sanction order Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Ishwar Chand Assistant Director, Vigilance, DDA, handed over documents to the CBI vide seizure memo dated 15.09.94 Ex.PW-2/A vide which documents (Ex.PW-2/A1 to A9) were seized.
PW-3 Ajay Gulati, LDC in the personal branch, DDA, dealing with the service record of class IV employees of DDA testified that Pyare Lal was working as security guard in CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 10 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 the DDA, who had expired on 6th July, 1991.
PW-4 R.D. Goyal, Assistant Director, Land Protection (LP-V) Branch, North Zone, Narela, DDA placed on record seizure memo dated 7thOctober, 1994 (Ex.PW-4/A), survey register (Ex.PW-4/B) of B.M. Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. PW-5 M.S. Sharma, Deputy Director, DDA, LP-V, East Zone, handed over documents to the CBI vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-5/A) and explained about the procedure followed and the record maintained in the demolition cell and that Surinder Kaur (A-9) was posted as Assistant Field Investigator in the East Zone. PW-6 Sh. S.G. Kapur, Officer, Union Bank of India, Shakarpur, Gurgaon in the year 1995 handed over documents mentioned in seizure memo dated 13th March, 1995 (Ex.PW-6/A) to R. Singh, DSP, CBI. Documents handed over by him were Account Opening form (Ex.PW-6/A1) of Ved Prakash Yadav, A/C No. 550 and Memorandum dated 20th December, 1993 regarding dis-honouring of cheque no. 0163469 in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Ex.PW-6/A2). Cheque is (Ex.PW-6/A3) PW-7 Rakesh Kumar, businessman. He placed on record four allotment slips (Ex.PW- 7/A1 to A4), photocopies of demolition slips (Ex.PW-7/A5 to A8), four 4th copy of the DDA Challans, (Ex.PW-7/A9 to A12) and receipt for deposit of Rs.3,000/- with DDA vide (Ex.PW-7/A13).
PW-8, S.P. Singh, Assistant DDA posted as Inspector, Vigilance in the office of Director (Vigilance), slum and JJ, MCD, handed over documents to the CBI vide three seizure memos (Ex.PW-8/A to C) on 13th , 14th and 15th September, 1994 respectively.
PW-9, Rakesh Mohan Sharma, medical practitioner testified that he met one property dealer in the office of Ashok Kumar, who offered to him to buy some demolition slips on deposit of Rs.3,000/- against each DS and he deposited Rs.12,000/- against four DS through his son Lalit Mohan Sharma at the bank located in DDA Office Vikas Minar. PW-9 was given four DS which were later on found as fake. This material witness had not supported the case of prosecution and was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor. PW-10 Shafiullahkhan Assistant Sub Inspector, P.S. Kalyan Puri. testified that FIR No. 145/94, P.S. Kalyan Puri, dated 5th April, 1994 was registered at P.S. Kalyan Puri, on the complaint of Sh. Anand Bihari Sharma and the case was assigned to him for investigation. Vide Seizure memos (Ex.PW-10/A to D), he had seized documents and arrested accused Ved Prakash Yadav.
PW-11 Vijender Singh Tomar, LDC in Slums and JJ Department, MCD at Vikas Kutir ITO assigned with the work of election of rent, premium, mutation, issuance of NOC, license and maintenance of dispatch register.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 11 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 PW-12 R.K. Gupta, Joint Director, LP Branch during the period 1987 to 1990 testified that his duties were to evict people occupying DDA land and give demolition slips to the people who were entitled for the same.
PW-13 Sh. K.L. Bhatia, Deputy Director, East Zone of DDA got a report and after checking about unauthorized occupation of DDA land, entries were made in the survey register and placed before the Commissioner (Land) through Director Land Management.
PW-14 Sh. G.K. Sharma, Asstt. Field Investigator, Narela from 1988 to 1994 testified that he procured Ex.PW-2/A9 i.e. demolition slip book No.4801 to 4900 and gave it to Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Director.
PW-15 Sh. Raj Kumar, Kanoongo, Patwari, NL North, DDA in Land Protection Branch of North Distt. testified that Demolition Slip Book Ex.PW-2/A5 was got issued by him from Administration Department and handed over to Sh. Ram Sharan, Asstt. Director. PW-16,Sh. Malkhan Singh, Notary Public in the year 1985 testified that affidavit of Satvir Singh, does not bear his signatures.
PW-17 Sh. Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, Notary Public prior to 1990 testified that affidavits Mark X-2 or X-24 do not bear his signatures and seal.
PW-18 Sh. S.K. Chaddha, Scientific Assistant in Finger Print Division placed on record his report Ex.PW-18/A, forwarding letter Ex.PW-18/B, specimen finger prints of Anand Behari Sharma Ex.PW-18/C; Rakesh Kumar Gupta Ex.PW-18/D and; Azad Singh Ex.PW-18/E and reasoning Ex.PW-18/F-1 to Ex.PW-18/F-9. PW-19 Sh. N.K. Aggarwal, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I, CFSL, placed on record his report as Ex.PW-19/A and forwarding letter as Ex.PW-19/B. PW-20 Sh. Gulab Chand Mittal, business man, testified that he purchased two plots bearing No.B-2/54 & B-2/55 from Sh. Naresh, through Power of Attorney, which were in the name of Satbir Singh and Kalyan Singh.
PW-21 Sh. J.P. Govil, Dy. Director Central Establishment and Coordination since 1989 to 1996-97 was served with a notice Ex.P;W-21/A, issued by Sh. Kesho Ram, Dy. Director (II) Slum & JJ, requesting him to attend the computer draw regarding allotment of plots in Kondli on 29.06.1993 at 10.30am. PW-22 Sh. K.R. Pant, Field Investigator in the office of Planning Wing of DDA, testified that in the year 1992-93 demolition programme was carried out in B and M Block of Shalimar Bagh and he had issued demolition slips.
PW-23 Sh. B.B. Sharma s/o Late Sh. Suraj Mal Sharma was not in a position to make his submission as he was suffering from brain haemmorhage. PW-24 Sh. Girraj Singh attended computer draw on 29.06.1993. He identified signatures of Sh. Keshav Ram on note sheet No.32N and 33 N. CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 12 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 PW-25 Sh. Ram Saran, Assistant Director, Land and Protection Branch, identified survey Register Ex.PW-4/B relating to Jhuggies at B.N. Block, shalimar Bagh. PW-26 Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Accountant, Slum and JJ department of MCD In the year 1991 testified that R.C. Yadav (A-2) and Ved Prakash Yadav (A-3) were posted as assistant director and UDC and were dealing with the work of files relating to the allotment of plots to the DS holders in Kondli area.
PW-27 Sh. Krishan Lal, Joint Director-1, Slum &JJ Department, East Zone-A, DDA /MCD, Kalyanpuri testified that he never dealt with the files pertaining to plots of Kondli area.
PW-28 Sh. K.S. Verma, was not fully examined on the request of PP for CBI as the documents cited in the statement of witness were not available. PW-29 Sh. Shiv Rai, Peon in the Ministry of Finance testified that he had purchased plot No. D-148, New Kondli, New Delhi for Rs. 45,000- from one Mr. Jeewan. PW-30 Sh. Radhey Shyam, broker in the cloth market testified that he had no conversation with Rakesh Kumar Gupta regarding purchase of any plot at Kondli. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-31 Sh. Sunil Kumar Rastogi had purchased plot bearing No.D-1/85 in Kondli area, through Sh. Jagdamba Property Dealer and Phool Singh was original allottee of the said plot.
PW-32 Sh. Rajbir Singh, farmer testified that he had purchased plot No.B-2/9, Kondli for Rs.70,000/- from Sh. Patras. He was cross examined by the prosecutor. PW-32-A Sh. Manish Sharma deposed that accused Sh. Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) was his Maternal uncle and residing at Laxmi Nagar. This witness was cross-examined by learned Prosecutor and deposed that his statement was not recorded by CBI. PW-33 Sh. Lalit Mohan Sharma denied the case of prosecution. This witness was cross-examined by learned Prosecutor and deposed that his statement was not recorded by CBI.
PW-34 SH. O.P. Yadav, Dy. Director, Squatter Upgradation and Resettlement (SUR) testified that he did not conduct any survey in the year 1995. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-35 Sh. Ramesh Chand, Field Investigator, Planning & NCR, DDA, Vikas Minar in April, 1995 testified that he had never prepared any demolition slip and failed to identify anything written on these slips. This witness was cross-examined by the Prosecutor.
PW-36. Sh. Debashsiish Nag, Press Manager, DDA testified that demolition slips specified by him did not match with their respective counterfoils contained in slip books Ex. PW2/A-9.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 13 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 PW-37 R.S. Pandey, Chief Manager, Central Bank of India testified that Rs.3,000/- against challan No. 005190, 005191, 005257,005258 were deposed in his bank on 8th April, 1993 in the name of Govardhan, Kherchu, Bhikhu and Durjan, in DDA Account and anyone could deposit the amount.
PW-38 Sh. Brijesh Chaurasia. Stamp vendor testified that stamp papers Ex.PW-25/T, 25/R, 25/X-X-1 and 25/X-6 bear the seal of his name.
PW-39 Sh. A.K. Chaturvedi, Director, Slum and JJ, MCD testified that R.C. Yadav (A-2) and V.P. Yadav (A-3) were worked as Assistant Director and UDC respectively in East Zone, Kalyanpuri, Slum and JJ Department and none of allottees were allotted any plot & MCD was benefitted. He was cross examined by the prosecutor. PW-40 Sh.B.D. Suneja, Assistant Director, Slum and JJ testified that during his tenure accused V.P. Yadav and Sh. S.K. Duggal were dealing hand in his office at Kalyan Puri. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-41, Mahender, Jhuggi Dweller residing in the Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster situated at B & M Block, Shalimar Bagh testified that his jhuggi was demolished in the mid of 1987. PW-42 Sh. Sripat, Jhuggi dweller in B& M Block who was issued demolition slip no. S- 4859 Ex. PW42/A. PW-43 Sh. Laxmi Prasad, Jhuggi dweller was issued demolition slip no. S-4858 Ex. PW43/A. PW-44 Sh. Bahadur, Jhuggi dweller was issued demolition slip no. S-4860 Ex. PW44/A. PW-45 Sh. Kishori, testified that his Jhuggi in Shalimar Bagh was demolished in the month of May 1987. He was cross examined by the prosecutor. PW-46 Sh. Kalu Ram received demolition slip no. 4948 dt. 23.5.87 Ex.PW46/A. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-47 Shri Krishna received demolition slip no. 4879 dt. 23.5.87 Ex. PW47/A. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-48 Shri Nand Ram received demolition slip no. 4931 dt. 23.5.87 Ex. PW48/A (D-
83). He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-49 Shri Babu Lal, testified that his Jhuggi in Shalimar Bagh was demolished in year 1987 but till date no plot was allotted to him. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-50 Smt. Mulia, testified that his jhuggi in Shalimar Bagh was demolished in year 1987 and till date no plot was allotted to him.
PW-51 Shri Shiv Nath Singh Tyagi, Asstt. Field Investigator, Land Protection Branch, East Zone of DDA testified that Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajneesh (A-8) were the Asstt. Field Investigators and several demolitions took place during his tenure as CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 14 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Asstt. Field Investigator.
PW-52 Shri Maya Deen, Mukhiya residing in Jhuggi at B.M.Purvi, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi since 1980, removed on 22.05.1987.
PW-53 Shri SS Walia, Ex. Joint Director, DDA, posted in the co-ordination branch of six zones of the DDA i.e. East, West, Central, North, South etc stated that demolition slip issue register used to be in the custody of Record Keeper. This witness was cross- examined by ld.Prosecutor.
PW-54 Shri Satinder Kumar Dubey, LDC, Kalyanpuri. looking after license fees and administration Kalyanpuri testified that he had never worked with VP Yadav. He was cross examined by the prosecutor.
PW-55 Shri Ratan Pal, Peon, DDA did not support the case of prosecution and was cross-examined by learned prosecutor.
PW-56 Shri Purshottam Mehta, grocery shop owner testified that he had taken a house in plot no B-2/6, New Kondli, which had taken through S.K.Property dealers for Rs. 85,000/-. This witness was cross-examined by learned prosecutor. PW-57 Shri Anil Kumar, did not support the case of prosecution and was cross- examined by learned prosecutor. He was cross examined by the prosecutor. PW-58 Shri Maheshwari, testified that after demolition of his jhuggi, slip was given to him and when he shifted to Shahabad Dairy, slip was stolen when he went for his daughter's marriage.
PW-59 Shri Bal Kishan, Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station Tuglaka Road, New Delhi identified his signature. He has seen copy of DD No. 18A dated 10.02.1995 PS T Road New Delhi on which he identified the signatures.
PW-60 Shri R. Singh, SP/CBI, IO investigated the case since 30th August 1994. He collected documents from the concerned departments and examined witnesses. PW- 60 obtained specimen signatures of suspected accused persons and sent the same for expert opinion. He placed on record copy of FIR No. 145/94, PS Kalyanpuri and RC of this case. He prepared seizure memos Ex.PW-8/A to 8/C, Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-60/A, Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-5/A & Ex.PW-6/A and charge-sheet Ex.PW-60/H. PW-61 Sh. Jagdev Singh, Stenographer in Slum & JJ department, identified his signatures on specimen sheets Ex.PW-60/1 to 30 and stated that IO was his controlling officer.
PW-62 Sh. NC Joshi, Field investigation L & M Branch, DDA, East Zone placed on record specimen signatures of Smt. Surinder Kaur Ex.PW-62/A but denied having taken in his presence.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 15 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
Statement of Accused
12. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of surviving accused was recorded. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, V.P. Yadav (A-3) admitted that he was working as UDC in Slum & JJ Department since 1991. A-3 denied that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy and stated that he did not know any other co-accused. A-3 submitted that he has no knowledge about the procedure of DDA at Land and Protection Branch with respect of issuance of demolition slips. V.P. Yadav (A-3) admitted that he had while working as the then Dealing Assistance were dealing with the allotment of plots in Kondli Area he put up a note dated 16.04.1993, portion C to C of Ex.PW24/B in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78), that according to Engineering Wing of DDA, 385 plots are available for allotment to the various demolition slip holders at re-settlement area Kondli. A-4 denied that he had falsely mentioned in Note Ex.PW-24/B (Portion C to C) that 300 demolition slips have been verified from the list supplied by the Land & Protection Branch of DDA and sought approval of allotment by fixing a date of draw and that no list was supplied by Land & Protection Branch of DDA. V.P. Yadav (A-3) denied that R.C. Yadav (A-2) (since deceased) submitted a list containing names of 325 demolition slip holders along with his note dated 03.05.1993 in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78) and the said fake list was signed by A-4 & A-2. A-4 stated that the list was supplied by the Land and Protection Department which was kept in his almirah and he was given the key of the almirah after given work of Kondli area. A-4 stated that he had discharged his duties honestly, sincerely to the entire satisfaction of his senior officer-Assistant Director, Deputy Director and his entire service record of 36 years has been quite unblemished and no vigilance department CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 16 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 inquiry is pending against him till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012. V.P. Yadav (A-3) admitted that his duty was to verify the demolition slips and he had verified the same with the list supplied by Land & Protection Branch (LPB), DDA which was received through proper channel. V.P. Yadav (A-3) stated that it was not his duty to verify the genuineness of the list supplied by LPB, if received, through proper channel. This list was already received before he took the charge of Kondli resettlement colony. He verified the demolition slips with the list which was already received before he took the charge. V.P. Yadav (A-3) stated that there has never been act of dishonesty on his part and he had performed his duty honestly, sincerely and diligently and had always complied the directions of his immediate Officer, like Assistant Director and Dy. Director as an UDC, who is lowest rank employee in the administration.
13. In his statement Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) denied that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy and stated that he did not know other co- accused except Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) denied that he had prepared applications on behalf of demolition slip no. S-4963 and S- 4965 and filled in bank challan for depositing Rs. 3000/- with the bank. Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) stated that R K Gupta (A-5) did not prepare application against forged slips S-4964 in the name of Sh. Kharakh Singh and filled challan for deposit of Rs. 3000/- with bank against forged slip S-4962 Ex. PW- 25/X-17 & X-18 (D-73) in his presence. Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) stated that he was posted with Sh. Ashok Kumar, Counselor of Kalyanpuri area and used to write the applications and fill up the forms as and when directed by Sh. Ashok Kumar. A-4 stated that he was a victim in this case and had lodged an CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 17 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 FIR Ex. PW-10/A for cheating against V.P. Yadav at P.S. Kalyanpuri, wherein IO assured that there were many complaints against those people i.e. Rakesh Gupta and V.P. Yadav and that his money would be recovered and returned to him.
14. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-
5) denied that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy and stated that he did not know any other co-accused. A-5 stated that he had not prepared 11 applications against alleged forged demolition slips in the name of Sh. Yogesh, Sh. Dilip Singh, Sh. Gulshan, Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sh. Gulab Singh, Sh. Prem Nath, Sh, Kundan Lal, Sh. Rehman Khan, Sh. Jitender Pal, Sh. Mange Ram and Sh. Changi Ram and 8 false affidavits against alleged forged demolition slips by putting his thumb impression thereon. A-5 denied that his specimen writing/signature are S-54 to S-84 were taken. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) stated that he is an innocent in the entire case and never allured anybody or conspired with any of the accused persons in the allotment of the said plots or preparing any documents. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) stated that co-accused stated against him falsely to save himself and he did not know any of the accused persons prior to this case. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) stated that he is doing his business for the last so many years so there was no occasion for him to do these type of acts and there is no evidence on record to show that he have committed any of the offence and he had been implicated falsely in this case.
15. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) denied that he was Patwari. He denied that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy and stated that he did not know any other co-accused and had CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 18 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 never done the survey. Karan Pal Malik (A-7) stated that he was never posted in Slum and JJ Department. A-7 denied the case of prosecution and stated that it was a false case against him and he has been involved falsely in the present case. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC accused Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) denied that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co- accused and he stated that he did not any other accused. He admitted that he had worked as Patwari/Assistant Field Investigator under PW-13 K.L. Bhatia in East Zone of DDA. A-8 stated that the demolition slips were filled up only by Patwari and not by Assistant Field Investigator. He stated that he had never worked in Slum & JJ Department and had no knowledge about the sanction being granted by Sh. Vishwa Mohan Bansal. A-8 admitted that as per procedure the demolition slips were required to be issued by the DDA to the genuine evictees of JJ Colonies and on the basis of the said demolition slips, plots were required to be alloted by the DDA to those demolition slip holders, after proper verification and getting required fees, whenever and where-ever the plots were available. A-8 denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. A-8 stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. A-8 stated that he was posted in Planning Department in DDA and while posted in Land Protection Branch, DDA, his job was to arrange labour for the demolition work and had no concern with issuing demolition slips to the evictees of JJ colonies. Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) stated that he had not prepared any demolition slip and had not done anything wrong or against law.
16. In her Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused Surinder Kaur (A-9), denied that she had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. A-9 CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 19 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 stated that she was not posted in the Project Office, Narela from 1988 to 1990 and she was posted in North Zone, Land and Protection Branch of DDA. A-9 stated that it was duty of the Land Protection Branch, North in which she was posted as Assistant Field Investigator to conduct site inspection and remove encroachment from DDA land, but she had never gone for any site inspection or for removal of encroachment from DDA land. A-9 stated that she was never posted at Shalimar Bagh area. A-9 stated that it is a false case against her and have been involved falsely in the present case.
Defence evidence
17. To establish that defence version is probable, accused examined one witnesses. DW-1 Sh.Subhash Chand Gupta, hand-writing expert who filed his report & opinion Ex.DW-1/A & DW-1/B. DW-1 opined that questioned handwritings and specimen handwritings were written by different person and questioned thumb impression and specimen thumb impression did not tally because their ridge characteristics and formation and sequence of ridges were different.
18. On conclusion of defence evidence, this court heard submissions advanced by Sh. Vijay Kumar Dogra, Learned Public Prosecutor & Sh. S.C. Vats, Learned Counsel appearing for accused V.P. Yadav (A-3). Sh. Yogesh Verma, Ld Counsel appearing for Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5). Sh. M.P.Singh and Sh.Rahul Singh, Ld Counsels appearing for Karan Pal Malik (A-7) & Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8). Sh.Dharmender Rana, Ld counsel for Surinder Kaur (A-9) and scrutinized the records carefully.
Arguments advanced
19. Sh. Vijay Kumar Dogra, Ld. PP submitted that V.P. Yadav (A-3) was CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 20 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 working as UDC in slum and JJ Department since since 1991 and was looking after allotment of plots to the evictees of Kondli resettlement area. R.C. Yadav (since expired) was working as Assistant Director in the same department. Sh. Keshav Ram, working as Dy. Director, Slum & JJ, Delhi put up a note dated 16.02.1993, Ex.PW24/A in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78) to Addl. Commissioner Slum & JJ to the effect that 300 cases were pending for allotment of plots to the evictees of different JJ Colonies who were eligible for allotment of plots being the demolition slip holders. The said note/ proposal of Sh. Keshav Ram was approved by the Addl. Commissioner. It is submitted that V.P. Yadav put up a note dated 16.04.1993, portion C to C of Ex.PW24/B in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78), to the effect that according to Engineering Wing of DDA, 385 plots are available for allotment to the various DS holders at re-settlement area Kondli. It is submitted that Sh. V.P. Yadav in the said note Ex.PW-24/B had falsely verified that 300 DS from the list supplied by the Land & Protection Branch of DDA and sought approval of allotment by fixing a date of draw. It is argued that evidence on record shows that no list was supplied by Land & Protection Branch of DDA and co-accused Sant Ram (A-1) prepared a fake list having antedated signature thereon including list of 59 non-eligible allottees and the said fake list was used by Sh. V.P. Yadav in support of his note dated 16.04.1993. It is submitted that evidence shows that another fake list prepared by accused Sant Ram, wherein names of the 59 persons were not genuine and were different from the persons to whom the genuine slip were issued when the demolition took place and on the said note, Director Slum concerned, raised queries and asked for the list of DS holders along with proof. Vide note dated 03.05.1993, R.C. Yadav (A-3)(since deceased) CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 21 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 submitted a list containing names of 325 DS holders and said list was signed by R.C. Yadav & V.P. Yadav.
20. Ld Prosecutor pointed out that V.P. Yadav falsely recorded in the note dated 05.05.1993 that he had checked the individual files of DS holders and list of said DS holders were placed in the file, which was found to be correct and recommended to hold the draw. Whereupon Director did not agree with note/proposal and required that genuineness of demolition slip holders should be verified first from Land Protection Branch of DDA Main vide his note dated 07.05.1993 Ex.PW24/B in file Ex.PW11/G. V.P. Yadav again put up a note dated 18.05.1993 on Ex.PW24/B in file Ex.PW11/G that 304 demolition slips had already been verified and remaining 20 have not been verified and thereafter, vide note dated 29.06.1993 R.C. Yadav (A-2) (since deceased) put up a note in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78) that remaining 20 demolition slip had been verified and V.P. Yadav (A-3) endorsed the said note and on recommendation, a computer draw was held as per note Ex.PW-21/B in file Ex.PW11/G (D-78). It is submitted that out of 322 demolition slips 45 DS bearing no. S-4832, 4835, 4837, 4839, 4840, 4843 to 4846, 4849 to 4851, 4853, 4855, 4856 to 4866, 4869 to 4874, 4876, 4877, 4879 to 4882, 4928, 4931, 4935, 4939, 4946 4948, 4949 and 4953 were in the name of fictitious persons other then genuine DS holders for the year 1987-88 against demolition of their jhuggies from B.M. Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is submitted that genuine DS holders had neither applied nor had got allotment against the DS which were in their possession. Prosecution examined PW-41 Sh. Mahender, PW-42 Sh. Sripat, PW-43 Sh. Laxmi Prasad,PW-46 Sh. Kalu Ram,PW-47 Sh. Krishna, PW-48 Sh. Nand Ram, PW-49 Sh. Babu Lal, PW-50 Smt. Mulia. All these witnesses CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 22 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 testified that their jhuggies located in B.M. Block Shalimar Bhag were demolished by the DDA and DS were issued to them. They were shifted to the camp at Shahbad Daulatpura temporarily along with other jhuggi dwellers and placed on record carbon copy of DS. On behalf of prosecution, it is argued that accused Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) had prepared 5 applications out of 45 against four demolition slips bearing no. S-4844 Ex. PW-25/X-47 (D-58), 4855 Ex. PW-25/X-1 (D-62), 4881 Ex. PW-25/X-7 (D-65), 4880 Ex. PW-25/X-45 (D57) and 4946 Ex. PW-25/J (D-67) in the name of Sh. Sohan Singh, Ghasi Ram, Suleman, Bihari Lal and Smt. Sarla.
21. It is submitted that Sh. R K Gupta (A-5) prepared 11 applications in his writing against the forged demolition slip nos. S-4845 Ex. PW-25/X-75 & X-76 (D-38), 4858 Ex. PW-25/X-71 & X-72 (D-40), 4860 Ex. PW-25/X-67 & X-68 (D-
42), 4939 Ex. PW-25/G & H (D-61), 4862 Ex. PW-25/X-61 & X-62 (D-44), 4928 Ex. PW-25/A & B (D-54), 4864 Ex. PW-25/X-21 & X-22 (D-75), 4849 Ex. PW- 25/M & N (D-68), 4857 Ex. PW-25/X-55 & X-56 (D-64), 4874 Ex. PW-25/X-41 & X-43 (D-52) and 4875 Ex. PW-25/X-15 & X-16 (D-71) in the name of Sh. Yogesh, Sh. Dilip Singh, Sh. Gulshan, Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sh. Gulab Singh, Sh. Prem Nath, Sh, Kundan Lal, Sh. Rehman Khan, Sh. Jitender Pal, Sh. Mange Ram and Sh. Changi Ram and Sh. R K Gupta also prepared 8 false affidavits against forged demolition slips no. 4845 Ex. PW-25/X-75 & X-76 (D-38), 4837 Ex. PW-25/X-27 & X-28 (D-36), 4851 Ex. PW-25/X-73 & X-74 (D-39), 4860 Ex. PW-25/X-67 & X-68 (D-42), 4862 Ex. PW-25/X-61 & X-62 (D-44), 4935 Ex. PW- 25/C & D (D-60), 4839 Ex. PW-25/G & H (D-61) and 4929 by putting his thumb impression their on.
22. On behalf of CBI, Ld Prosecutor submitted that remaining accused Late CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 23 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora, Karan Pal Malik, Rajnesh Kumar Singh and Smt. Surinder Kaur working as Asst. Field Investigators in the office of Dy. Director Land Protection Branch, DDA during 1987-88 had initially prepared forged demolition slips. Three slips were prepared by Accused Vijay Kumar Arora), two by accused Karan Pal Malik, one by Rajnish Kumar Singh and by accused Smt. Surinder Kaur in the name of S/s. Karan Singh, Patras, Sri Niwas, Jeewan, Phool Singh, Ram Murthi and Kalyan respectively, who had already taken the possession of alloted plots. It is further submitted that steps were taken to sell the plots by V.P. Yadav along with Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who had met PW- 7 Sh. Rakesh Kumar and persuaded him to purchase some plots of JJ Colony Kondli at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each and four DS were handed over to PW-7 Rakesh Kumar and Rs.40,000/- were received by him.
23. Per contra, Sh. S.C. Vats, learned counsel appearing for V.P. Yadav (A-3) submitted that Investigating Officer did not make any sincere efforts to bring on records any draft scheme for the resettlement and any notification from the Urban Development Ministry under which the entire land of NCR is regulated because the entire land in the NCR is regulated and controlled by the Urban Development Ministry exercised through Lt. Governor of Delhi who is the Administrator under Article 239 AA of the Constitution of India and on Lt. Governor is thus competent to make any notification with respect to any resettlement Scheme. It is submitted that I.O. who happens to be DSP/ SP did not make any efforts to find out rule/regulation, norms and procedure to carry out the object of any resettlement scheme, because in delhi the Land Department falls under the Urban Development Ministry of the Centre Govt. and DDA comes under the Urban Development Ministry, to avoid any judicial CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 24 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 scrutiny as to the appointment of Officers, their entire duties, responsibilities to carry out the purpose and object of the scheme by officials of DDA. Thus, material and relevant documents have not been placed on records including Demolition Book Register and who was controlling Authority of the Demolition Book for the issuance of Demolition Book, is produced to show that prosecution has failed to establish its case and Sh. Vats, Ld counsel drew attention of the court toward relevant portion of the testimony of several PWs to which this court shall advert during discussion of evidence.
24. Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Ld counsel appearing on behalf of accused Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) submitted that none of the prosecution witness has testified against him. It is submitted that only PW-7 Rakesh Kumar and PW-9 Rakesh Mohan Sharma have falsely spoken as regards Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4). Ld counsel drew attention of the court towards deposition of PW-7 Rakesh Kumar who in the cross-examination, stated that he knew one Anand Bihari residing at Laxmi Nagar who used to come at his shop to purchase cloth since 1991. PW-7 denied that Anand Bihari had shown him documents of any plot. PW7 denied that in the year 1993, Anand Bihari came to him or told that one V.P. Yadav who was his close friend arranged some plot in Kondli at very low cost or that he might purchase from him. Although PW7 admitted, that Anand Bihari had come to his house and Ved Prakash Yadav was with him and he introduced (PW-7) to V.P. Yadav (A-3) but stated that he had come to give some money to him. PW7 denied the suggestion that documents handed over by him to CBI vide Ex.PW-7/A were given to him by Anand Bihari. PW-7 denied that after 3-4 days, Ved Prakash and Anand Bihari had handed over to him four photographs, demolition slips and informed him that rest of the CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 25 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 documents including allotment slips will be given within 3 to 4 days.
25. Ld counsel for submitted that PW-9, who was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor for the CBI stated that he knew Anand Bihari who was PA to Dr. Ashok Kumar residing at Laxmi Nagar. Except that, he denied all suggestions put to him by the Ld. Prosecutor as regards Anand Bihari Sharma. PW-9 testified that he had requested A-4 to return his money as he was in trouble due to continuous pressure from borrowers and that Sh. Anand Bihari gave him cheques for Rs.25,000/- issued and signed by Ved Prakash Yadav but when he deposited said cheque was dishonoured by the bank and he had not stated this fact to the police.
26. Learned counsel submitted that since the specimen handwriting of the accused had not been proved, therefore comparison of the specimen handwriting with the questioned handwriting by the expert (PW-19) is of no consequence and the prosecution could not make use of the said opinion against the accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that no other witness had uttered anything against Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) as regards his alleged role in the conspiracy. It is submitted that prosecution has failed to establish that accused had received or handed over any document to any person with any authority or paid or received any consideration or he dishonestly induced any person to deliver any money or property to him and there is nothing on record to show that Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) had forwarded or prepared any fake demolition slips prepared or signed by officers of DDA or used forged document as genuine. Learned defence counsel submitted that only incriminating evidence can be put to the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and admittedly, no witness deposed that Anand CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 26 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Bihari Sharma (A-4) had given specimen writing/signatures on 7 sheets S-128 to 134 and PW-61 deposed about only Ex.PW-61/52 and 61/53 i.e. S.130-131 and that legal position is well settled that accused has to be given opportunity only to respond to the incriminating evidence emerged against him and allegations as per the charge-sheet charges or vague question can not be put to him and if there is no incriminating evidence on record, answer given by the accused to vague question could not be utilized against him.
27. Sh. Yogesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) submitted that the case set-up by the prosecution was false and infact, prosecution witnesses themselves deposed before this court that the computer draw (29.6.1993) wherein the alleged fake demolition slips were used was cancelled and no loss was ever caused to the DDA. PW-39, Sh. A.K.Chaturvedi (Director Slum and JJ) categorically admitted that no applicant was given any plot in lieu of the demolition slip in this case despite the fact that they had submitted all documents and fee of Rs. 6,000/- by the applicants before draw of lots. PW 39 admitted that none of the successful allottees actually got any plot nor any benefit. PW-39 admitted that MCD was benefited by deposit of Rs. 6,000/- by each applicant and there is no question of cheating DDA. It is urged that this fact should have been mentioned by the IO in the charge-sheet and the non-divulgence of this fact in the charge-sheet shows that the case as set up by the prosecution from the very beginning was not true and investigation was not fair.
28. Ld counsel submitted that what transpires from the charge sheet is, that as per the case of the prosecution itself, alleged conspiracy started after the note dated 16.2.93 was put up by the Keshav Ram to the effect that 300 CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 27 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 cases were pending for allotment of plot to different JJ Allottees. Hence, conspiracy if at all, could have started only after 16.2.1993, meaning thereby that alleged forged documents (Demolition Slips) must have been prepared only after 16.2.1993 or near about. At page 5 of the charge sheet, case of the prosecution is that the alleged forged Demolition Slips were supplied by one PYARA LAL, charge sheet notes that "investigation revealed that Shri Azad Singh (A-10) was known to one Shri Pyara Lal (Now dead) who was working as security assistant in DDA, Vikas Minar Since 1987. Shri Pyara Lal used to deal with fake / forged demolition slips and against him Delhi Police had also investigated a case regarding supply of fake demolition slips to certain persons in 1987. Shri V.P. Yadav (A-3) approached Shri Azad Singh (A-10) and asked him to arrange the fake demolition slips to him on payment. Accordingly Shri Azad Singh (A-10), collected the fake and forged demolition slips which are subject matter of the present investigation from Shri Pyara Lal and passed on to Shri V.P.Yadav (A-3) at a cost ranging from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per slip".
29. Case set-up by the prosecution shows that the alleged forged demolition slips were procured on or around 16.2.1993 from Sh. Pyara Lal. It is submitted that the case of prosecution falls flat in the light of the statement of Sh. Ajay Gulati UDC, PW3 who deposed that "one Pyara Lal working as Security Guard in DDA office under W.D.V, DDA office at Vikas Minar as per record had expired on 6.7.1991.", thus Pyare Lal could not supply demolition slips for a draw for which a note was allegedly put up only on 16.2.1993. Even PW-55 Ratan Pal totally negated the story of prosecution regarding alleged Pyara Lal and his alleged supply of demolition slips. It is argued that there is CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 28 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 fallacy in the prosecution case, which goes to the root of the case and demolishes it, as allotment of plots was allegedly got done on the basis of fake and forged demolition slips, which in total numbered around 68 out of 322 and thereby DDA was cheated and out of 68 forged demolition slips 53 persons having genuine demolition slips were already allotted plots in other colonies. PW-37 (R.S.Pandey/Chief Manager) and PW-40 (B.D.Suneja/Asst. Director) admitted that the most of Rs. 3,000/- prescribed by DDA, could be deposited on behalf of the allottee by any of his representative and it is not necessary that allottee should himself deposit or sign the challan). Even PW 40 stated that "Most of the Jhuggi Dwellers were illiterate persons and they used to get such papers prepared from other persons including some property dealers who are acquainted with the procedures". Hence, even if someone else had deposited the challan etc, then per-se it does not amounts to violation of any law. It is urged that as regards alleged forged documents or demolition slips, a document can be said to be forged when it is shown that there is an original / genuine one for the same and the forged one is copied and prepared on its basis or; When the maker of the original / genuine one after looking at the forged one says that same is not prepared or written by him or; When it is shown that the person who has prepared / written / signed the fake / forged has impersonated some one or that he has tried to forged the signature / writing of some other person; and that person is examined in the court and says that same is not prepared / written or signed by him. Debashish Nag PW-36 in his statement before the CBI U/S 161 had stated that he had not seen any difference between the counter file and the original but in the court, he attempted to change his version.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 29 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016
30. None of the private persons who were allegedly having genuine demolition slips and examined as PW brought or produced any alleged genuine demolition slips. It is difficult to belive that all persons who were neither part of draw and who were not allotted any plot, could misplace their original demolition slips and their cross-examination reveals that they did not had any ration card or any other document to show that they were the original allottee. It is argued that case of the CBI looses its further sheen in the light of the deposition of PW-51, who fails to recognize signature and handwriting or the alleged counter foils. He stated that "On seeing demolition slips bearing No. 3701 to 3800, I cannot state that as to who has issued them, nor can I identify the signatures thereon on any of them. Alleged counter foils of alleged genuine demolition slip remains shrouded in mystery and unproved and there is no original or genuine demolition slip for comparison with alleged forged demolition slip.
31. Sh. M.P. Singh, Ld counsel appearing for Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) submitted that the allegations against Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) were that they had forged certain demolition slips. As per allegations, accused K.P. Malik (A-7) had forged demolition slip no. 3745 in respect of Jeevan S/o Lal Man having alleged handwriting/signatures at point Q407 & Q408, and demolition slip no. 3772 in respect of Phool Singh having alleged hand-writing/signatures at point Q418 & Q419 (Mark E3 & E4). Similarly, Rajneesh (A-8) allegedly forged demolition slip no. 3717 having alleged hand-writing/signatures at point Q401 & Q402 (Mark E2). As per the case of prosecution, originals of demolition slip pertaining to Phool Singh is (Ex.PW-13/C) and Jeewan (Ex.PW-13/F)(D-11 & D-
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 30 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016
15). And original of demolition slip 3717 pertaining to Ram Murti is (Ex.PW- 13/D)(D-12). It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no evidence to prove that the questioned writing on documents Mark E3 and E4 were in the hand-writing of Karan Pal Malik (A-7) or of Rajneesh (A-8). Sh. M.P. Singh, Ld counsel urged that PW-13 Sh. K.L. Bhatia has proved that the slips Ex.PW- 13/C, D & F bears his signatures but in his cross-examination, he stated that these slips were not in the hand-writing of accused K.P.Malik or Rajneesh Kumar. This witness has proved that the alleged forged slips Mark E2 was not in the hand-writing of accused Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). Similarly, PW-51 Shiv Nath Singh Tyagi examined by prosecution for proving the handwriting of both the above accused persons has not supported the prosecution. He after seeing the demolition slips no. Z-1/3745, 3771 and 3772, he did not recognize any signature thereon. He neither identified nor proved handwriting of accused persons on Mark E-2, E-3, E-4 or Ex.PW-13/C, D & F. It is urged that prosecution marked Ex.PW-13/C & F allegedly containing admitted writing of Karan Pal Malik (A-7) as A-5 & A-8 on demolition slip no. 3745 and A-4 & A-7 on demolition slip no. 3772 and infact none of these documents is admitted writing of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7). On Ex.PW-13/D having mark A-3 & A- 6 as the admitted writing/signatures of accused Rajneesh Kumar was not in the handwriting of Rajneesh Kumar (A-8).
32. It is submitted that Jagdev Singh (PW-61) has nowhere stated that Karan Pal Malik or Rajneesh had given their specimen handwriting in his presence. PW-61 admitted that whenever he signed the specimen sheets of different persons of this case, he was not shown any proof of identity of different persons. It is argued that there is no reliable on record to prove that CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 31 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 accused Karan Pal Malik or Rajneesh had given their specimen handwriting in the presence of PW-61 or to prove that both the above said accused persons or any other accused person had obtained or accepted any illegal gratification or pecuniary advantage from anyone or in any manner they had abused their official position as a public servant.
33. In this case, alleged original demolition slip and the alleged forged demolition slip both were in the name of same person and the plots had been allotted and possession was given to the persons named in the alleged original demolition slips and If both the alleged original and alleged forged pertain to the same person, Ld counsel wondered as to what benefit could have been given to anyone else. Investigating officer R.Singh (PW-60), had admitted in the cross-examination conducted by me on behalf of A-7 & A-8 that the case was earlier registered by Delhi Police on the complaint of DDA but subsequently of their own, CBI took the investigation without there being any request or transfer order of the investigation to it. IO was not able to tell the name of the DIG who allegedly ordered investigation by CBI. He admitted that Jeevan, Phool Singh and Ram Murti are the original allottees and the possession of the alternate plots were given to them. IO Sh. R. Singh, DSP has admitted that he do not recall whether A-7 & A-8 had ever worked with the Slum & JJ Department nor do he recall that whether he had investigated that aspect and stated if he had conducted investigation in this regard, the same would be mentioned in the case diary. However, on perusal of the case diary he was not been able to locate therein whether he conducted any investigation in relation to the fact if A-7 & A-8 working in the Slum & JJ Department or not. As regards specimen handwriting, IO stated that he had CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 32 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 taken specimen handwriting of all the accused persons but he had not proved his signatures thereon.
34. It was urged that opinion of the handwriting expert is based on the documents which are not proved and which cannot be taken as admitted writings of accused. More so, it is an opinion only and handwriting expert is not a witness of fact, regarding which there is evidence of PW-13 Sh. K.L. Bhatia, specifically stated that Ex.PW-13/C, D & F and documents marked E-2, E-3 & E-4 were not in the handwriting of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). It is submitted that PW-1 Sh. Vishwa Mohan Bansal has granted sanction without application of mind. He has admitted in cross- examination that a draft sanction order was received alongwith this report of the SP. He further admitted that no statement recorded by CBI during investigation was received by him. He did not see any canceled or forged demolition slip. He did not see CBI investigation file. So without seeing all these documents, he could not have applied his mind to the facts of this case and merely granted sanction on the asking of CBI.
35. It is pointed out that PW-35 Sh. Ramesh Chand has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile. He only proved that K.P. Malik and Rajneesh were posted as field investigator. He was shown demolition slips Z- 1/3745, Z-1/3772 and Z-1/3717 but he stated that he could not identify anything written on the slips. Sh. M.P. Singh pointed out from record that B.D. Suneja (PW-40) has admitted that he never remain posted in the land protection branch section and was not at all aware of the procedure being followed there. He did not know who were the officers posted in the land protection branch. So he had not stated anything incriminating as regards A-7 CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 33 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 & A-8. It is submitted that PW-54 S.K. Dubay too has uttered anything incriminating against A-7 & A-8 and he had not supported the prosecution. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove that both the accused persons have committed any offence as alleged. There is no evidence to show that they have entered into any criminal conspiracy.
36. Sh. Dharmender Rana, Ld counsel appearing for Surinder Kaur (A-9), submitted that there is not evidence on record against Surender Kaur (A-9) to establish her complexity in the commission of offence. It is submitted that as per the case of prosecution Surender Kaur (A-9) is involved for demolition slip D3280. It is submitted that this demolition slip was alloted to one Kalyan Singh who has not been examined by the Prosecution or cited by the investigative agency. It is submitted that in his deposition R. Singh IO has deposed that Karan Singh, Patra, Sriniwas, Phool Singh, Ram Murti and Kalyan have been cited as witness as per the charge sheet. It is submitted that IO PW-60 could not tell whether he has joined these witnesses during investigation or not and it was was he who had conducted investigation since registration of the FIR. It is submitted that prosecution witnesses have testified that Plot had been allotted to Kalyan Singh and there was no wrong full loss to Kalyan S|ingh and wrongful gain to Surender Kaur (A-9). IO testified that qua Surender Kaur (A-9) allotment against the demolition slip had already been made and was on record. On asking in the cross-examination PW-60 could not recall whether he investigated the Zone in which Surender Kaur (A-9) was working during the period 1989-1993 and he could not say whether she had never worked in the Zone in which counterfoil of the demolition were placed on record after issuance of demolition slips placed back and PW-62 has CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 34 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 not proved case of prosecution and falsified IO/PW-60.
37. It is submitted that apart from the testimony of PW-62 no other witness has uttered and no incriminating evidence has come on record against Surender Kaur (A-9). PW-12 R.K. Gupta testified that demolition slip No.3280 issued in the name of Kalyan Singh S/o Sh.Narain does not bear his signatures and signatures of his assistant director namely G.K. Sharma PW-14. It is submitted that Ram Saran PW-25 has not spoken anything as regards demolition slip No.3082. PW-40 testified that the allotment letter Ex.PW-40/H bearing his signatures and copy of original letter was given to allottee and he identified his signatures on the demolition slip Ex.PW-40/H4. Legal position
38. Cardinal principle always kept in view in our system of administration of justice in a criminal case, is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relives itself of that burden, the Court cannot record a finding of the guilty of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is, not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Court has to test the evidence for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst the witnesses.
39. At the outset, before adverting to discussion of evidence, relevant CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 35 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 position of law may be noted. Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as under:-
"Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) An illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof Explanation: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design:-
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
40. Section 120-A IPC adumbrated thereon Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act gives the legislative provisions applicable to conspiracy and its proof. An agreement, concert or league is the crux, of the offence. Conspiracy requires an act (actus reas) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). From the definition of conspiracy in Section 120-A, it is evident that the agreement constitutes the act and the intention to achieve unlawful object constitutes the mental state. All conspirators are liable for the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy besides being liable for committing an offence of conspiracy itself.
41. In a decision reported as State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 36 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Thapa & Ors1. Our Supreme Court observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge, but the law require something more. It is well settled that the offence of conspiracy requires some physical manifestation of agreement. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. The relative acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents cannot be allowed to enter the judicial verdict. The court must thus be strictly on its guard. Four fundamental requirements for proving conspiracy by way of circumstantial evidence are well known i.e. (I.) That the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established; (II.) That all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (III). That the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (IV). That the circumstances should, by a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved; In State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu 2, it was observed that "A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is well settled that the abuse of position, in order to come within the mischief of Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, must necessarily be dishonest and prosecution must also prove affirmatively that by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position, the accused obtained any pecuniary advantage for 1 (1996) 4 SCC 659
2. AIR 2005 SC 3820 CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 37 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 himself or for some other person.
42. Section 415 IPC defines offence of cheating and necessary ingredients of Section 415 IPC are deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused and delivery of property as a result of deception or inducement. As per Section 420 IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Offence of cheating requires essential element of deception as well as fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused. Guilty intention is gist of offence of cheating. In order to constitute offence punishable under section 420 of the I.P.C., intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered and forgery as defined under section 463 of the I.P.C. requires that making of any false document must be with intent to cause damage or injury or with intent to commit fraud. Under section 464 of the I.P.C., making of a false document for the purpose of forgery must be with dishonest or fraudulent intention. Joint reading of section 463 & 464 IPC indicates that words used like fraudulently, dishonestly and intention to commit fraud, refer to the 'mens rea' which is an essential ingredient for proving offence of forgery and also, Section 471 of the I.P.C., providing for punishment for the offence of using of forged document as genuine, postulates that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was a forged document and also that accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly. User of a forged document dishonestly or fraudulently shall arise only when accused uses the document with intention of causing wrongful gain to himself CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 38 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 or wrongful loss to anyone. Dishonestly as defined in Section 24 IPC demands doing of anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Similarly the word fraudulently as noted in Section 25 IPC states that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
Discussion of Evidence
43. On the touchstone of legal position noted above, now this court shall advert to facts-in-issue and material evidence on record. On analysing charges, in nutshell points which emerge for determination in this case are:-
Whether in 1993 there existed a meeting of mind or concert between all the accused to do or cause to be done an illegal act of cheating the MCD.
Whether in the year 1993, plots were alloted in favour of unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents by falsely showing the alleged allottees as genuine evictees from different JJ Colonies, having genuine Demolition slips (DS)?
Whether forged DS with the same numbers purportedly issued by the competent authorities were used by any of the accused as genuine in favour of persons other than genuine DS holders.
Whether in the computer draw allegedly held on 29th June 1993, in respect of 322 DS holders for allotment of plots, 53 persons had already been allotted plots in other colonies?
Whether in 1993 any of accused persons dishonestly induced any person or MCD to allot plots in favour of 68 unauthorized persons on the basis of forged documents and thereby cheated the MCD?
Whether any of accused persons forged any demolition slip or Demolition Slip Holder's List purported to be signed by Official of DDA?
Whether any of the accused used the forged documents as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe that the said documents were fake and forged?
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 39 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
Whether prosecution has proved guilty intention or fraud or dishonesty on the part
of any of accused?
Whether (A-3), (A-7), (A-8) & (A-9) in furtherance of the conspiracy or otherwise by
corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position obtained for themselves or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by allotment of plots in favour of unauthorized persons?
Issuance of demolition slips
44. At a glance of the points, it is clear that facts in issue are overlapping. There is inter linkage amongst points for determination noted above and number of witnesses is large and evidence is longish, but to understand the issues, evidence on record adduced by the witnesses has to be gone into in detail. First question addressed by this court was whether in the year 1993 all the accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and for the purpose of computer draw scheduled to be held on 29 th June 1993, for allotment of plots to the jhuggi dwellers (whose jhuggis were demolished and who were dislocated) a list of 322 demolition slip holders was prepared which included 53 persons who had already been allotted plots in other colonies & whether plots were alloted in favour of 68 unauthorized persons on the basis of forged demolition slips or other documents, by falsely showing allottees as having genuine Demolition slips (DS) and answer of which was in the negative.
45. In this context, to begin with, procedure followed by the concerned department of DDA & MCD for allotment of plot, for issuance of demolition slips for relocation of the Jhuggi dwellers residing in JJ Clusters as deposed by prosecution witnesses may be discussed. M.S.Sharma (PW-5) Deputy Director in DDA, LP-V, East Zone in his deposition, stated that (Land Protection-V) LPV Zone comprised mainly two cells i.e. Revenue Cell and Demolition Cell.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 40 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Demolition cell comprised of one Assistant Director, one Field Investigator, four or five Assistant Field Investigators and baildars. Main function of this cell was to carry out the demolition program as fixed from time to time under the orders of the competent authority. Assistant Field Investigator were required to prepare proposals for demolition as per orders available in the relevant file which were submitted to the Deputy Director and to Competent Authority for approval before those were executed. Assistant Field investigators were included in the survey team as and when required to conduct the survey of old JJ Clusters and other Kachha Pucca constructions under the existing/relevant policies/guidelines, to identify the eligible JJ Clusters for their re-location, if any, with reference to the contemplate, ration cards and token plates issued by the Food & Civil Supply Department for the purpose of issuing ration cards and survey report was required to be entered in the survey register.
46. In his deposition, Sh. R.K. Gupta (PW-12) Joint Director in the Land Protection branch stated that as joint director, his duties were to evict the people occupying the DDA Land and give demolition slips to the people entitled for the same. Demolition slips were signed by him and his assistant director Sh. Ram Sharan (PW-25). As regards procedure for issuance of demolition slip, PW-12 stated that on getting report about unauthorized occupation of DDA land, they used to send their team to conduct survey. Team used to check the people occupying DDA land and period for which they were in occupation of DDA Land by seeing their ration cards. A report was submitted by the field staff and entries were made in the survey register. The report and register were then placed before Commissioner (Land) through CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 41 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Director, Land Management. After getting orders for demolitions, they used to check out program for demolition in consultation with the local police. After getting police aid, they used to carry out demolition. PW-12 stated that his field staff used to give demolitions slips to eligible persons, whose names were entered in survey register and who were having ration cards with them. Demolition slips were filled up by lower staff like patwari and Assistant Field Investigator. On the basis of demolition slips, evicted persons used to come to DDA for alternate plots.
47. On seeing demolition slip no. 4868 in the name of Shriniwas, demolition slip no. 3280 of Kalyan, office copy of DS No. 4028 of Karan Singh and office copy of DS No. 4031 pertaining to Patras, (Ex.PW-12/X1 to Ex.PW-12/X4), PW- 12 stated that those were not signed by him or by his Assistant Director. Thereafter, PW-12 testified that all these four slips pertained to East Zone where he had never worked. Sh.K.L. Bhatia (PW-13) posted as Dy. Director in the East Zone DDA stated that there were Assistant Directors and Patwaris working under him including Rajneesh and K.P. Malik and many others. PW-13 reiterated procedure of issuance of demolition slips outlined by PW-12. He identified his signatures on Ex.PW-13/C on DS No. 3772 pertaining to Phool Singh, Ex.PW-13/D on DS No. 3717 pertaining to Ram Murti, Ex.PW-13/E on DS No. 3703 pertaining to Satbir and Ex. PW-13/F on DS No. 3745 pertaining to Jeewan. He saw Ex.PW-2/A6, A7 and A9, issued to East Zone and these were given to Assistant Field Investigators/Field Investigators. After seeing the aforesaid four DS, PW-13 stated that those demolition slips does not bear his signatures and these four slips were marked as Mark E1 to E4. K.L. Bhatia during cross-examination deposed that he could identify hand-writing of CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 42 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) and state that EX.PW- 13/C, EXPW-13/D & Ex.PW-13/F are not in the handwriting of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) or Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8). After seeing Mark E3 & E4 he stated that the same are not in hand-writing of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7).
48. PW-13 testified that Survey Registers were written by the field staff and that physical identification was done on the basis of ration card or voters card and the identification was mentioned in the Survey Register. PW-13 testified that demolition slip books were received by the field staff from the head office and they remained under the control of field staff. PW-13 stated that after completion of the demolition slip book, it was kept in the Nazarat Section, Record Room of the head office, DDA and only record available in their Zone was the register in which entries had been made. PW-13 was shown survey register (Ex.PW-13/A) pertaining to Harijan Basti, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II and Jhilmil Industrial Area. Survey register of the concerned area produced on record was only Ex.PW-4/B pertaining to the alleged Jhuggi dwellers located in B & M Block, Shalimar Bagh near Prabhu Dyal School and which were shifted to Shahbad Daulat Dairy to whom demolition slips were issued.
49. In his deposition, A.K. Chaturvedi (PW-39) Director Slum & JJ, MCD stated that draw of plots was held on the basis of procedure which required prior survey of the area by the staff of slum & JJ department done on the basis of demolition slips issued to the affected persons whose property was demolished. Before considering draw of plots, list of the persons who had got the demolition slips was verified from concerned branch of DDA from where the demolition slips were issued. Proposal was put up by the Dy. Director to him for approval of Addl. Commissioner Slum & JJ for holding draw of plots.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 43 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 The final allotment letters were issued after obtaining details on proforma with an affidavit and deposit slip contained name of the person whose property was demolished and the site/location of the demolition.
50. Satinder Kumar Dubey (PW-54) posted as field surveyor and as LDC in Kalyanpuri in his deposition, stated that he had never worked with V.P.Yadav (A-3) and he did not know when he was posted there at Kalyanpuri and had not seen document dealt with by V.P.Yadav. He stated that when persons who had demolition slips with them came, an entry of the same was made and there identity was established through photographs and ration cards and they were produced before Assistant Director. Demolition slips were deposited by those persons and an entry was made and individual allotment file for each person which was maintained in the office. Demolition slip, ration card and receipt of the deposit of money and affidavit of terms and conditions were placed in the file and then, it was known as the allotment file. He was shown several files and after seeing the file pertaining to Phool Singh, DS No. Z- 1/3772 (D-17A), he stated that he had not dealt with the same and there had been no allotment in the said case. After he was shown other files pertaining to the said person, PW-54 stated that he did not recognize anything in the file. PW-54 stated that it was not possible that two DS with same number and same name were used, as one DS could be issued only to one person but since he had not dealt with both these files Ex.PW-40/D & Mark 54/A, he could not say which of the DS were correctly issued. PW-54 could not recognize signature or the name of the dealing hand in relation to both the files. As regards file pertaining to one Karan Singh having DS No. Z-1/4028, he stated that there were two allotment letters and that he could not say anything CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 44 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 about the file (D-19) on which the same number was mentioned and it was mentioned in the noting sheet "due to stay, change allowed".
51. Testimony of PW54 as regards other files pertaining to Shriniwas, Ram Murti and Satbir, is on the same lines. He identified signatures of B.D.Suneja (examined as PW-40). PW-54 further stated that he had not worked with A.K. Chaturvedi, Director and could not identify signatures of Sant Ram Badgujar, Dy Director (A-1). PW-54 stated that he did not know Anand Bihari Sharma (A-
4). This witness, who was cross examined by the Ld Prosecutor and confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he could not recognize any processing or signatures in the files having been made by V.P. Yadav (A-3) in the files pertaining to Phool Singh or Jeewan. PW-54 stated that he had never worked with A-3 and denied the suggestion given by Ld Prosecutor that due to departmental bias, he was falsely not identifying signature of V.P. Yadav. On asking, PW-54 stated that he was not shown any circular to indicate that powers of Dy Director were delegated to Assistant Director. PW-54 categorically testified that demolition slips were issued by Dy. Director and he admitted that R.C. Yadav had never been Assistant Director of Kalyanpuri Zone with him. PW-54 stated that Engineering Department hands over the possession after identification of a person and no record of Engineering Department for identification of allottees to whom possession was handed over was shown to him. During cross examination, on asking, he stated that there was no photograph on any demolition slip.
52. Ashok Kumar Tyagi (PW-26) LDC in Slum & JJ Department (MCD) testified that B.D. Suneja (PW-40) and R.C. Yadav (A-2)(since deceased) were Assistant Director and Keshav Ram was Dy. Director. He knew V.P. Yadav (A-3) UDC CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 45 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 looking after the work of Kondli area dealing with the allotment of plot and Vijender Singh was looking after diary and dispatch. PW-26 deposed that on 27th May 1993, Keshav Ram Dy Director alongwith Sh. Giri Raj Singh (PW-24) and R.P. Yadav (A-2) visited Kalyanpuri Office and directed Vijender Singh Tomar (PW-11) to close the diary register on the same day and ordered not to accept any DS for Kondli area. PW-26 testified that he could not identify signatures of Ved Prakash, R.C. Yadav and Keshav Ram and that he had put his initials in token of, receiving certain documents in the diary register (Ex.PW-11/A) of Slum & JJ department during the period 2nd January 1992 to 24th May 1993. PW-26 testified that he had directed to collect the initial premium of Rs.3,000/- from demolition slip holders against a receipt and all the dealing assistants of East Zone A were issued G-8 books for collection of license fee premium. He collected initial premium of Rs.3,000/- from different demolition slip holders under receipt, after getting it verified from Ved Prakash Yadav. PW-26 deposed that he was holder of the list of demolition slip holders with their detail and during those days Deputy Director Sh. Keshav Ram had directed all the dealing hands to attend the office on week days to prepare the documents pertaining to draw and he did not know as to who had prepared the list. PW-26 during cross examination stated that he did not know who was competent to issue demolition slip or competent authority to had draw and he had no knowledge regarding Kondli area. In his deposition, PW-40 B.D. Suneja posted as Assistant Director, Slum & JJ during period February 1988 to August 1991 stated that S.K. Dubey (examined as PW-54) as well as V.P. Yadav (A-3) were dealing hand in his office. After seeing file, he spoke about the name of the allottee, note sheet portion, allotment letter and CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 46 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 issuance of demolition slips to several allottees, signed by him as well as S.K. Dubey (PW-54) LDC.
53. In his deposition, PW-40 stated that few notings which are noted below were put up by the dealing assistant Mr. Yadav whose full name he could not recollect. Details of the demolition slips and allottees given by him are noted in the tabulated form as under:-
S Allottee's DS No. & Ex. D.No. Noting Portion & Allotment Letter (signed by) No. Name (Signed by) signed by 1 Ram Murti 3717 D-12 Ex.PW-40/A1 (PW-40 Ex.40/A2 (PW-40 & thumb Ex.PW-13/D & PW-54) impression of allottee) (PW-40) 2 Satbir 3703 D-13 Ex.PW-40/B (PW-40 Ex.40/B1 (PW-40 & thumb Ex.PW-13/E & PW-54) impression of allottee) (PW-40) 3 Jeewan Z/13745 D-15 Ex.PW-40/C-2 Ex.40/C (PW-40 & thumb Ex.PW-13/F (Mr.Yadav & PW-40) impression of allottee) (PW-40) 4 Phool Singh 13772 D-11 Ex.PW-40/D-1 (Mr. Ex.40/D-3 (PW-40 & thumb Ex.PW-13/C (PW- Yadav & PW-40) impression of allottee)
40) 5 Shriniwas Z/4868 D-16 Ex.PW-40/E-1 (PW- Ex.40/E-2 (PW-40 & thumb Ex.PW-40/E-3 40 & PW54) impression of allottee) (PW-40) 6 Patras Z/1/4031 D-10 Ex.PW-40/F1 (PW-40 Ex.PW-40/F3 (PW-40 & Ex.PW-40/F-4 & name of dealing thumb impression of (PW-40) assistant not clear) allottee) 7 Karan Singh Z-1/4028 D-14 Ex.PW-40/G-1 & G-2 Ex.40/G-3 & G-4 (PW-40 & Ex.PW-40/G1 (PW-40 & PW-54) thumb impression of (PW-40) allottee) 8 Kalyan 3280 D-9 Ex.PW-40/H-1 (PW- Ex.PW-40/H-2 (PW-40) Ex.PW-40/H-4 40 & name of (PW-40) dealing assistant not clear) PW-25 Sh. Ram Saran working as Assistant Director in Land and Protection Branch, DDA, North, while stating about the procedure of issuance of demolition slip testified that demolition slips were procured from Central Zone where Sant Ram (A-1) used to look after the work. PW-25 deposed that at the time of demolition work, DS were issued to unauthorized encroachers and then, after seeking instructions from the Government issued from time to CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 47 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 time alternative arrangements were made to allot the land to the encorachers in whose favour DS was issued. PW-25 identified signatures of Sant Ram (A-1) on demolition slips (Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/X) in the relevant files Ex.PW-
25/X1 to Ex.PW-25/X76 at encircled portion red. These files pertained to Kasturi Ram, Paramjeet Singh, Sarla, Girish Pal, Chattarpal, Bandgi Ram, Sukhbir (Ex.PW-25/Q), Kamlesh (Ex.PW-25/S), Karam Chand (Ex.PW-25/Q), Dheeraj (Ex.PW-25/W), Ramdin (Ex.PW-25/X13), Chandgi Ram, (Ex.PW- 25/X15), Surat Ram (Ex.PW-25/X17), Santoo (Ex.PW-25/X37), Khanak Singh (Ex.PW-25/X21), Sarojini (Ex.PW-25/X23), Mam Chand (Ex.PW-25/X25), Moti Lal (Ex.PW-25/X27), Devi Lal (Ex.PW-25/X29), Pratap Chand (Ex.PW-25/X31), Ram Kali (Ex.PW-25/X33), Phoolwati (Ex.PW-25/X35), Premwati (Ex.PW- 25/X39), Mangai Ram (Ex.PW-25/X41), Satnam Singh (Ex.PW-25/X43), Bihari Lal (Ex.PW-25/X45), Kulwant (Ex.PW-25/X46), Sohan Singh (Ex.PW-25/X47), Rehman Khan (Ex.PW-25/X49), Shashi Ram (Ex.PW-25/X51), Kabul Singh (Ex.PW-25/X53), Jitender Pal (Ex.PW-25/X55), Suleman (Ex.PW-25/X57), Kundan Lal (Ex.PW-25/X59), Gulab Singh (Ex.PW-25/X61), Govind Ram (Ex.PW- 25/X63), Satpal (Ex.PW-25/X65), Gulshan (Ex.PW-25/X67), Laxman Dass (Ex.PW-25/X69), Dalip (Ex.PW-25/X71), Sadiq Ali (Ex.PW-25/X73), Yogesh (Ex.PW-25/X75).
After seeing the counterfoil of demolition slip book (Ex.PW-2/A1), PW-25 stated that demolition slips no. 4832, 4835, 4837, 4839, 4840, 4843, 4844, 4845, 4846, 4849 and 4851 were genuine slips issued under his signatures but he denied his signatures on original DS No. 4836 (Ex.PW-25/X13) and stated that somebody had forged the signatures. Similarly, he stated that signatures on Ex.PW-25/X15, Ex.PW-25/X17, Ex.PW-25/X19, Ex.PW-25/X21 & CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 48 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Ex.PW-25/X23 were not his general signatures and somebody had forged the same. After seeing the counterfoil book (Ex.PW-2/A2) bearing no. 4928, 4931, 4935, 4939, 4946, 4948, 4949 & 4952, he could not say if those bear his signatures or not. PW-25 Ram Saran stated that demolition slip no. 4962, 4963, 4964 & 4965 were canceled and DS No.4962 & 4963 were not signed by any officer. PW-25 testified that Sant Ram was working at central zone and B & M Block Shalimar Bagh was not in his jurisdiction and the 'change' which he had mentioned in the individual folder could not be done by him and he was not authorized to make any such change. Thereafter, PW-25 made general statement that his signatures appearing on other individual folder shown to him on previous dates did not bear his signatures and were forged by someone. During cross-examination, PW-25 testified that Sant Ram (A-1) was having the demolition slip book. There were five branches and Sant Ram (A-1) used to issue the demolition slip as he was having the custody of demolition slip books. He deposed that demolition slip were issued by the Dy. Director of the concerned zone, who used to visit the spot at the time of demolition. PW-25 stated that CBI had never obtained his specimen signatures on separate sheet and thereafter, stated that CBI had obtained 12 signatures on separate sheets.
Evidence on record shows that demolition slips were issued by the LPB of the DDA and A-3 was working as UDC in the Slum & JJ in 1994. During cross examination, PW-60/IO admitted that the demolitions slips were issued in this case by the Land and Protection Department of the DDA and demolitions action was also carried out by the Land and Protection Department of the DDA. There is nothing on record to show that A-3 had worked in land and CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 49 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Protection Branch (LPB). PW-60/IO could not recall, whether he seized the list containing names of persons and particulars of demolition slips issued to the persons whose Jhuggies were demolished. After issuance of demolition slips, the person whom the demolition slips are issued, was to file an application for allotment of substituted plot alongwith documents i.e. proof of residence, affidavit and a bank challan indicating deposit of Rs.3,000/-, which was dealt with by the Slum & JJ Department of the MCD and its particulars was compared by the Slum & J.J. Department of MCD with the list supplied by LPB of DDA and in the event of their being any instructions from the officers or further verification, the same was also conducted. IO could not tell whether he seized the record of any previous allotment. On asking, PW-60 stated that he did not recall the number of application filed in this case for allotment of land against demolition slip. He further stated that he did not recall whether total amount deposited by all applicants in this case with DDA was Rs.19,32,000/-. He stated that he did not know even after seeing list of document whether the list of allottees claimed to be genuine was on record or not. To a specific question, he admitted that draw was cancelled. PW-60/IO admitted that that he conducted the investigation in this case from the registration of the FIR till the filing of the charge sheet. He did not recall whether there was written circular or written notification of the DDA in relation to such procedure collected by him or seen by him during investigation. PW-60 could not say whether there was no such written procedure of the DDA in the relevant time in relation to allotment of plots in lieu of demolition slip. During cross examination, he admitted that there was no photograph affixed on the demolition slip. To sum up, this court find that it CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 50 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 stands established that demolition slips (DS) were issued by Land & Protection Branch of DDA and there was no photograph on any DS. No details of alleged general allottee out of 322 excluding 68 or their details in the survey register has been conclusively proved by the prosecution. It is not proved that Sant Ram (A-1) issued any DS wrongfully or fraudulently or wrongfully allowed 'change' from any other place.
Verification of the list of DS Holder There are allegations that A-3 had put up note and A-2 endorsed the same and list was verified by A-3. In this regard, PW-26 deposed that Mr. Keshav Ram, Dy. Director had directed all the dealings hands to assist Sh. Ved Prakash Yadav as he was over burdened and draw of plots was to be held and he did not know as to who had prepared the list. Vijender Singh Tomar (PW-
11) LDC, Slum & JJ, MCD, who was assigned with the work of maintaining dispatch register stated that Ved Prakash (A-3) was also with him in the said department and R.C. Yadav (A-2) and Ved Prakash Yadav (A-3) were looking after Zone of Seelampur and Kalyanpuri-J. After seeing diary register of Kalyanpuri Zone, PW-11 stated that diary was maintained by him since 1990 onwards upto 24.5.93 bearing Sl. No. 880. Thereafter, same was closed as per verbal order of A.D. (East Zone), Slum and JJ in presence of Shri RC Yadav (A-3). Entry at Sl. No. 881 was not in his hand writing and was written after closure order. It was Kashav Ram, who had taken away the diary register Ex. PW11/A (D-77), with him and encircled portion Ex. PW11/B was in his handwriting. Closure order was given by Asstt. Director Sh. R.C. Yadav (A-2) and was signed by him at point-B. PW-11 stated that the handwriting in CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 51 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 encircled portion red Ex. PW11/D was not his. PW-11 stated that survey reports were received from field investigator and file (Ex. PW11/G) contained the list of allotment of plots numbers and their parties name from S. Nos. 1 to 200 prepared in respect of concerned Blocks of Kondli area and that one person was entitled for only one demolition slip. PW-11 stated about the duty of Ved Prakash Yadav accused to check the names of the depositor, from the computerized list and verify his demolition slip.
PW-11 further deposed that 324 names came in the draw held long ago as per computerized list for allotment of plots. After seeing Ex. PW2/A1, Ex.PW2/A-2, Ex.PW2/A-6, Ex. PW2/A7 and Ex. PW2/A9, he stated that those were of his department. He was shown bank challan forms Ex.PW11/H1 to Ex.PW11/H18 (D-114), and letter written by one Lakhi, diary No. 666 having a note that letter entered in the list on 14.6.93 was signed by V.P Yadav on 14.6.93 and allotment letter issued in favour of Bhupat Kumar, issued by Asstt. Director, East Zone, Kalyanpuri Ex.PW 11/I. In cross examination, PW-11 Sh.Vijender Singh Tomar, stated that he had not dealt with the files Ex.PW- 11/C and Ex.PW-11/F and had not prepared the index or done the paging of the said files. He stated that there were no specific duties assigned to each person in his department and he had not worked in the department at the time of issuance of demolition slips and could not identify who had issued those slips. PW-11 stated that no survey register was maintained by them and after 1976, the possession slips were not issued to any allottee by their department. Allotment possession letters were issued but no copies of possession letters were shown to the witness and Keshav Ram had got prepared the list for allotment manually for the purpose of draw from the CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 52 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 staff. PW-11 testified that the manual draw was held at Kalyanpuri but it was cancelled and a computer draw was also held after the manual draw but action on that was pending. He could not say if A.K. Chaturvedi, Director cancelled the compute draw and he did not record any public complaint against VP Yadav in the diary register."
It has emerged in the testimony of Vijender Singh Tomar (PW-11) that a computerized list was prepared according to the entries in the dispatch register (Ex.PW-11/A) which pertained to EZA, DDA, Slum JJ-2, Kalyanpuri w.e.f. 2nd January 1992 till 27th March 1993 containing 881 entries and diary register was ordered to be closed as per the verbal order of AD, EZA, S & JJ on 27th May 1993 and PW-11 who was maintaining the diary was ordered to open the new register and not to accept any application/DS for the Kondli till further orders. (Ex.PW-11/G) was stated to be containing details of the list of allotment prepared in respect of concerned blocks of Kondli area. PW-11 saw computer list Ex. PW11/E having 15 pages and stated that computerized list bears signatures of R.C Yadav (A-3), Shri Keso Ram, Shri Giri Raj Singh (PW-
24), Shri GP Govil (PW-21). As per PW-11, duty of verification of demolition slips and plots was of dealing hand and at that time Sh. Ved Prakash was dealing hand. He saw verification report and demolition slips file of his office contained in the file (Ex. PW11/F) (D-79) and other office file in respect of survey of vacant plots. PW-11 admitted that demolition slips were controlled by the Assistant Director concerned of the Zone and demolition slips were issued by the land and protection branch of DDA and no record was seized by the CBI from him. PW-11 deposed that sanctioning authority for issuance of demolition slip was Director or Dy Director of Land Protection Branch.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 53 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
Field investigators and surveys
Deposition of field investigators who conducted survey may now be
noted to understand as to how DS were issued and which DS were issued by them. PW-34 O.P. Yadav, Dy. Director, Squatter Upgradation and Resettlement (SUR) did not support case of prosecution and testified that he did not conduct any survey in the year 1995 and no IO of the CBI made any personal inquiries from him at any stage and I.O. did not make any queries from him in relation to DS. PW-34 testified that there was no allotment of any kind against the DS mentioned in Note Ex.PW-34/A. During cross-examination by Ld Prosecutor, he testified that he had worked in the department against the leave vacancy and that IO did not make any queries from him in relation to the demolition slips as mentioned at points Y to Y-1 i.e. for a total of 46 jhuggi dwellers in Mark PW 34/1. He could not recognize signatures at point A on Mark PW-34/2. PW-34 further testified in his cross-examination by Ld Prosecutor, that portion A6 to A7 is blue ink was his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A8 on Ex.PW-34/A and he confirmed that there was no allotment of any kind against the demolition slips mentioned in this note and he gave this response to the Dy Director, Vigilance of the DDA. PW-35 Sh.Ramesh Chand, working as field investigator stated that he had not prepared any demolition slip. He was shown certain demolition slips no. Z-1/3745, Z-1/3772, Z-1/3717 & Z-1/3703, but PW-35 could not identify anything written on those slips. He merely stated that K.P. Malik (A-7) and Rajneesh (A-8) were posted as field investigator in the Zone. On seeing counterfoils of the demolition slips Z-1/3700 to Z-1/3800, he could not identify CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 54 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 anything on those slips. This witness has not supported the prosecution version and was cross examined by the Ld Prosecutor. He denied the suggestions given to him by the Ld Prosecutor. PW-35 denied that he was deliberately suppressing the truth. PW-22, K.R. Pant, another field investigator working in office of planning wing DDA, testified that Sh. S.S. Tyagi (PW-51) was working as Dy Director and Ram Sharan (PW-25) was working as Assistant Director in the zone and that during his tenure, demolition program was carried out in B & M Block of Shalimar Bagh and he had issued the demolition slips under the instructions of Dy. Director S.S. Tyagi. After seeing demolition slip no. 4850 to 4900, he stated that those DS were prepared by him and bear his signatures. Similarly, after seeing demolition slip book (Ex.PW-2/A2), he identified S.No 4901 to 4913 in his handwriting and stated that DS No. 4907 was canceled by him and endorsement was made to that effect.
PW-22 stated that demolition slips were issued on the basis of survey register (Ex.PW-4/B) from S.No. 2 to 63. PW-22, thereafter, clarified that receipt no. 4851 in demolition slip book did not bear his signature. After seeing file (Ex.PW-22/A), PW-22 stated that file pertaining to DS No 4850 was neither prepared by him nor it bear his signature and he could not say anything about the genuineness of the receipt. After seeing file pertaining to 4882 (in file Ex.PW-22/B) Mark X2, he stated that he had prepared the same, but strangely he could not say if the said receipt Mark X2 was genuine or not. PW-2 stated that receipt no. 4852 kept in demolition slip book no Ex.PW-2/A1 was prepared by him as per survey register and the receipt Mark X1 was not as per record as it was bearing name of Dheeraj whereas as per the register CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 55 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 and demolition slip prepared by him it was in the name of Munia. The testimony of this witness is incoherent and contradictory. In cross examination, he admitted that demolition slip book was never issued to any staff including field investigation without the orders of Dy. Director. PW-22 admitted that Survey register Ex.PW-4/B was not maintained by him. He admitted that entries in the survey register were not in his handwriting. They got the owner of the respective Jhuggi identified with the help of ration card and election card. He admitted that he did not verify the genuineness of the ration card. He stated that it was his official duty to prepare the demolition slip as per the record.
PW-22 admitted that he had given statement to IO that he was not competent to issue any such demolition slip. He admitted that as field investigator, he did not issue any demolition book. He volunteered that the Dy Director was with him and therefore, the demolition book was with him. PW-22 stated that file (Ex.PW-22/A & Ex.PW-22/B) were never in his custody nor those were seized between 1986-1987. After seeing thumb impression on survey register, PW-22 testified that those thumb impression were not endorsed with respect to left thumb impression or right thumb impression. He admitted that the survey register was in handwriting of several officials. He admitted that he was not authorized to sign the demolition slip, which was prerogative of Dy Director. He testified that he had no document with him showing authorization to sign on the demolition slip, but stated that it was, however, done under the verbal instruction of Dy. Director.
PW-14 G.K. Sharma, Assistant Field Investigator (AFI) in his deposition
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 56 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
stated that that he procured (Ex.PW-2/A9) i.e. demolition slip book No.4801 to 4900 and gave it to Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Director. After seeing DS No. S-4832, S-4835, S-4837, S-4839, S-4840, S-4843, S-4844, S-4845, S-4849 & S-4851, PW-14 deposed that those are purported to be issued by Sh. Ram Sharan, the then Assistant Director and signatures of Sh.Ram Sharan on these slips do not appear to be genuine. After seeing DS No. Z1-4031, Z1-4028 and Z1-4868, PW-14 stated that they have been purported to be issued by R.K. Gupta the then Joint Director, DDA and he was not certain if these appear to bear signatures of R.K. Gupta.
PW-51, Shiv Nath Singh Tyagi, Field Investigator during July 1984 to April 1990 testified that Karan Pal Malik and Rajneesh were the Asstt. Field Investigators at that time and several demolitions took place during his tenure as Asstt. Field Investigator. He deposed that Ramesh Chand was the Field Investigator and K.L. Bhatia was Dy Director and his duties at that time were making arrangements for the Bulldozers and labourers for demolition of unauthorized construction. PW-51 testified that demolition slips were given to eligible Jhuggi Dwellers and several demolitions took place during his tenure as AFI but he did not recall as to where the demolition took place during his tenure. He stated that as far as he recalled, he had not prepared any demolition slip and he could not recognize any signatures on the demolition slip. He saw DS No. 3701 to 3800 and deposed that he could not state as to who has issued them nor he could identify the signatures thereon. He testified that he will not be able to identify the signatures of his senior K.L. Bhatia due to lapse of time. PW-51 was cross examined by Ld PP during which he denied that he gave any statement to CBI and was confronted with portion A to A-1 of CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 57 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Ex.PW-51/DA. He saw DS No. Z-1/3745, Z-1/3772, Z-1/3717 & Z-1/3703 and stated that he had not been shown these demolition slips by the CBI earlier and did not recognize any signatures thereon. PW-51 testified that he had not made any statement to CBI that signatures purportedly of K.L. Bhatia on the demolition slips appear to be forged or that land had already been alloted to other persons in relation to these demolition slips. PW-51 denied that in connivance with the accused persons, he had testified falsely. It has emerged on record that PW-24, Giriraj Singh, Dy. Director, Night Shelter as well as J.P. Govil (PW-21) Dy Director (Central) Establishment and Coordination had received notices Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-21/A for participating in the computer draw of plots in Kondli scheduled to be held on 29th June 1993 from Keshav Ram, Dy Director II, Slum & JJ and they apart from R.C. Yadav (A-2) Assistant Director East Zone, were the members of computer draw committee. They identified their signatures on the note sheet of File (Ex.PW-11/G)(Page 45/N), Ex.PW-21/B bearing signatures of J.P. Govil (PW-21) at point A, of Giriraj Singh (PW-24) at point B and of Keshav Ram (who was suspect in the FIR) at point C, R.C. Yadav (A-2)(since deceased) at point D. PW-21 and PW-24 identified their signatures on the computer draw list Ex.PW- 11/E (running into 15 pages). PW-21 testified that all other members of the committee had signed the list (Ex.PW-11/E) at point A, B & C. PW-24 identified signature of Kesho Ram in the note sheet 32N, 33N, 34N, 40N, 41N & 43N. PW-24 testified that Kesho Ram was the Incharge of the Section had furnished the list of eligible demolition slip holder together with the particulars and availability of the plots. In cross examination, PW-24 testified that there were two list of candidates, List I was about eligible candidates and the second list CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 58 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 consisted of successful candidates which was prepared after the computer draw. PW-24 stated that he had not seen Ist list that was submitted by Sh. Keshav Ram, Dy Director and the other list of successful candidates was signed by him. He admitted that page no.44 and Page no. 45 of the file Ex.PW-11/G were two different pages reverse of which were pasted together. He admitted that Keshav Ram never worked with him. On asking, PW-24 testifed that he could not deny that list was always prepared after verification of the evictees.
PW-40 B.D. Suneja was shown the file D-79 pertaining to the demolition slip (Ex.PW-11/F)(D-79) stated to have been prepared by DDA, Slum & JJ (East Zone). PW-40 stated that he had sent a forwarding letter (Ex.PW-40/H5) under his signatures pertaining to verification of DS No. Z1-3485 of Leela Dhar Sharma whereby he had requested office of Assistant Director (EZA) DDA Kalyanpuri to send the list of Shriniwas for verification of demolition slip. He was shown the list of DS holder at page no. 103 to 107 pertaining to Jhuggis removed from Nehru Place and shifted to Kondli. On asking, PW-40 testified that he could not tell the name of signatory who had prepared the said list Mark PW-40/1. He was also shown other list issued on 15th June 1987 placed at Page No. 42 & 43 {bearing signatures of official who had signed the same at point A, A1 & A2 (Q-616, 618 & 620)} of the said file Ex.PW-11/F (D-79). On asking, PW-40 could not tell the name of official who had signed the same. He stated that the list did not bear official seal of the signatory. The said list was Mark PW-40/2. PW-40 was also shown the list dated 18th August 1987 (Mark PW-40/3) bearing signatures of the official at point A (Mark Q-622). PW-40 could not tell the name of the official who signed the same and stated that list CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 59 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 did not bear signatures and the official seal of the signatory. On the top of the list it was mentioned that "following D/S holders has been allowed to change by the DLM from Shahbad Daulatpur to Kondli as there were erded from Shaliar Bagh B.M. Block". PW-40 testified that these two list pertaining to demolition slip holders who had been allowed to change by the DLM's order from Shahbad Daulatur to Kondli as they were ordered from Shalimar Bagh, BM, Block. PW-40 could not clarify whether those lists were there in the file during his tenure as AD, as there was no marking by him. Indisputably, PW-40 remained Assistant Director from 1988 to August 1991 and list dated 15th June 1987 and 18th August 1987 (Mark PW-40/2 & 3) are dated prior to his tenure.
During his examination, PW-40 was shown letter (Ex.PW-40/H-6) bearing his initials at point A and that of Sh. K.L. Bhatia at point B, the then Dy Director (E) LPB, DDA. He was shown letter (Ex.PW-40/H-7) written by him marked to Dy. Director, LB dated 24th January 1989 bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor on the ground that he was not identifying signatures of Sant Ram Badgujar (A-1) as stated by him to the IO. In cross examination by Ld Prosecutor, he stated that he could not recollect if he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that list of DS dated 15th June 1987 and 18th August 1987 placed in verification file bear signatures of Sant Ram Badgujar (A-1) the then Dy. Director, LPB, DDA. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying signatures of Sant Ram Badgujar on the list Mark PW-40/2 and PW-40/3 to save him and others. In cross examination, PW-40 on asking about the procedure adopted and prevalent in the DDA during the relevant time for verification of CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 60 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 demolition slip stated that demolition slips were got verified through Land Protection Branch (LPB) Section and Dy. Director used to head LPB and in the year 1988, K.L. Bhatia was Dy. Director (East Zone).
Sh. Suneja, in his deposition stated that he could not tell the designation of inspector and the list regarding the demolition slips used to be received from LPB section. He admitted that there used to be separate Dy. Director for LPB section. He deposed that they used to received demolition slips submitted by the allottees, thereafter concerned Dy. Director was sent a letter to verify the same and thereafter, they used to receive plots from Engineering Department and on that basis they used to allot the plot. On asking, PW-40 deposed that the procedure that was adopted for the allotment was on the basis of seniority and 'first come first serve basis' and no draw used to be conducted for the allotment. He deposed that Ex.PW-40/A-1 was not in his hand-writing but in the hand-writing of dealing assistant Sh. S.K. Dubey who was working under him and his duties were to verify the demolition slips for the purpose of allotment and to visit the site for physical verification of unauthorized construction in the areas/colonies. PW-40 deposed that Sh. S.K. Dubey used to verify the demolition slip on the basis of list and also by the holder of the demolition slip, if he was physically present in the office. After seeing PW-40/A-2, PW-40 deposed that it was filled up in the hand-writing of the dealing assistant Sh. S.K. Dubey. PW-40 deposed that he could not tell whether the original of Ex.PW-40/A-2 was shown to him at the time of recording of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-40 denied that he deposed falsely to save his subordinate Sh. S.K. Dubey. He denied that if liability had been fixed on Sh. S.K. Dubey, then even he himself would have CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 61 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 been implicated in the case.
In cross examination by defence counsel, PW-40 deposed that most of the jhuggi dwellers were illiterate persons and they used to get such papers prepared from other persons including some property dealers who were acquainted with the procedures. After seeing file Mark X in respect of Satbir S/o Kalicharan, PW-40 stated that application form was not in the hand of allottee, who had put his thumb impression. He deposed that affidavit which was already prescribed by the DDA in English was also required to be submitted that the said evicte used to get the same prepared from such outside persons after due verification. PW-40 stated that demolition slips do not bear photograph of the evictee and only bears name and father's name of the evictee and it also does not bear any identity of the jhuggi no. etc. He deposed that the challan for the purpose of depositing requisite fee was required to be in the name of the person, in whose name demolition slip was issued, although it might be filled in by any person who may also put the signature etc. and copy of the challan was required to be submitted alongwith demolition slip for the purpose of allotment. PW-40 deposed that in the demolition slip, there was no reference of any ration card no. for the purpose of identity and the said documents were thereafter verified by the office and name of the area in which plot was to be alloted was mentioned by the office on the demolition slip itself. He further deposed that on the receipt of aforesaid documents, office note was recorded by the dealing assistant and signed by competent officer and thereafter, demolition slip was issued for the purpose of allotment of plot.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 62 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
After seeing document Ex.PW-11/F from page 102 to 107, PW-40
deposed that it does not contain demolition slip no. S-4860. PW-40 deposed that LPB department which was issuing the demolition slip used to send the list of all demolition slips and list used to be verified in the said section and if it was found correct, verification report was given by the clerk concerned and on this verification report, further action was taken. He further deposed that he never ever remained posted in the LPB section and he was not aware of the procedure which were prevalent or adopted in the said section regarding allotment against demolition. He also did not know who were the officers and other staff posted in the said LPB section at the relevant time. In his deposition, PW-26 Ashok Kumar Tyagi, LDC, who was shown the list Mark PW- 26/X (D-80). After seeing the same, he stated that he could not say as to who had prepared the said list and the same was not prepared by him. He did not know who had prepared the list.
PW-39, A.K. Chaturvedi, Director, during cross-examination admitted that DS were verified form the list sent by the land and protection department of DDA and that the said list of Land and Protection Department was received in his department of Slum & JJ and that DS of this case were verified by his department from the said list received from DDA. PW-39 admitted that DS were verified by his department from the said list received from DDA and that the verification report submitted by his subordinate officer to him was assumed to be correct and that he believed the said verification report and proceeded further. PW-39 deposed that verification report was put up to him through Keshav Ram who was Dy. Director at that time and the date 27.05.1993 for draw of plots was approved by Additional Commissioner MCD CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 63 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 and the date was recommended by him on the basis of proposal put up to him by Asstt. Director and Dy. Director and he could not admit or deny that there was nothing wrong before draw of lots. S.K. Dubey (PW-54) clarified in his deposition that list of demolition slip used to be sent by Land Protection Branch and the verification used to be conducted on the basis of the list of demolition slips sent by the land protection branch.
To clarify the position obtaining on record, it is pertinent to note a specific instance. It has emerged in the testimony of PW-40 B.D. Suneja that D-16 pertaining to Shriniwas Mark PW-40/E was placed on record which also emerged in the testimony of PW-54 S.K. Dubey. Note sheet portion (Ex.PW- 40/E1), allottment letter (Ex.PW-40/E2) and demolition slip (Ex.PW-40/E3) which pertains to Shriniwas and demolition slip no. Z-7/4868 is dated 14th June 1998 purported to be issued by Dy. Director, R.K. Gupta of Land Protection Branch, DDA. In this connection PW-22 K.R. Panth, Field Investigator testified that demolition program was carried out in D & M Block, Shalimar Bagh and he had issued demolition slip. He identified his signatures on the demolition slip no. 4850 to 4900 except demilition slip no. 4151 ad in his handwriting. Thus, demolition slip no. 4868 was prepared by PW-22 and signed by PW-40. PW-40 B.D. Suneja, Assistant Director admitted his signatures thereon and the said demolition slip which was earlier marked as PW-36/32 in the deposition and Ex.PW-2/A9 contains the counterfoil no. 4868 of demolition slip Mark PW-36/33. As per the deposition of witnesses, demolition slip no. 4868 was issued in the name of 'Shriniwas' and was prepared as per the surveys conducted by the field investigators. Survey register which was referred by the witnesses and CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 64 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 produced on record as Ex.PW-4/B (D-135) was handed over to CBI by R.D. Goel (PW-4), Assistant Director, Land Protection V Branch, North Zone, DDA, Narela vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A dated 7th October 1994 having pages 1 to 50. R.K. Gupta (PW-12) testified that as Joint Director, his duties were to evict the people occupying DDA land and give demolition slips to people who were entitled for the same and demolition slips were signed by him and his Asstt. Director. His field staff like Patwari, Assistant Field Investigator who used to give demolition slips to eligible persons, their names were entered in survey register and who were having ration cards with them and the demolition slips were filled by lower staff like patwari and Asstt. Field Investigators. On getting a report about unauthorized occupation of DDA land, the same was then placed before Commissioner (Land) through Director, Land Management.
After seeing demolition slip no. 4868, file no. (443)88/LP/M in the name of one Shri Niwas s/o Shri Mangtu, PW-12 stated that same did not bear his signature and signature of his Asstt. Director. Studied scrutiny of the material on record, demolition slips and survey register shows that demolition slips are not issued as per the survey register which is stated to be the basis of issuance of demolition slips. At page no. 16 at S. No.18 in survey register (Ex.PW-4/B) name of Bhagwan Dass S/o Lalli having RC No. 154420, DS number as 4868 is noted whereas aforenoted record pertaining to DS No. 4868 pertained to Shrinawas. It indicates that the record maintained in the survey register does not tally with the aforementioned record pertaining to demolition slip claimed to be the genuine record and stated to be prepared and issued by prosecution witnesses referred above. List Mark 26/X has CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 65 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 neither been exhibited nor proved. PW-26 had not prepared it and he could not say who prepared it. Therefore, the said list cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution. In the present case, no report prepared by the field staff stated to have been prepared by the team after checking the people occupying the DDA land and seeing their ration cards which was allegedly prepared and placed before the Commissioner, Land, forming the basis of issuance of demolition slips to the genuine Jhuggi Dwellers (who were dislocated) has been placed or proved on record. To sum up, no authentic or genuine list of demolition slip holder containing 322 names is proved and the fact as to who were those 68 or 59 fake persons or such forge demolition slips has been proved by the prosecution, in accordance or on the basis of surveys and field investigation.
Demolition Issue Register.
Scrutiny of evidence shows that demolition issue register was a very important and relevant document which has not been placed or proved on record by the prosecution. S.S. Walia (PW-53), Dy Director, DDA in his deposition stated that demolition slip issue register used to be in the custody of record keeper and the issue register used to be issued by South and Central Zone and when the demolition book was issued, the entry would be made in the issue register of the concerned person. PW-53 testified that used demolition slip book used to come to the coordination branch. He was shown (Ex.PW-4/B) D-135, (Ex.PW-13/B) D-88, (Ex.PW-13/A) D-89 (Survey Registers) and (Ex.PW-11/A) D-77 (Diary register) but he could not tell who maintained the said registers. PW-53 was confronted by Ld Prosecutor with his previous CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 66 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 statement. During his cross examination conducted by the prosecutor, he stated that there was no Demolition Slip Issue Register or no Demolition Book Issue Register was filed by the CBI as per list of documents filed by the CBI in this case. To ascertain true and correct position, Investigative Agency was required to seize Demolition Slip Issue Register. No justification is furnished by the prosecution as to why Demolition slip Issue Register was not seized and placed or proved on record of this case. PW-15, Raj Kumar Kanungo, Patwari, NL North, DDA in Land Protection Branch of North Distt. testified that Demolition Slip Book Ex.PW-2/A5 was got issued by him from Administration Department and handed over to Sh. Ram Sharan, Asstt. Director. PW-8 stated that only Land Protection Department of the DDA issued demolition book. PW- 25 stated that Sant Ram Badgurjar (A-1)(since deceased) was having the demolition slip book and demolition slips were issued by the Deputy Director of the concerned zone. PW-22 admitted that demolition slip was an auditable document and its record showing receipt issued to the staff and return is kept in the record after its use. He admitted that demolition slip book is never issued to any staff including the field investigator without the order of the Senior Officer of the Rank of Deputy Director. PW-22 admitted that no register was seized by the CBI with respect to Demolition Slip Book Register and Demolition Slip Issue Register which were material and vital document for scrutiny of the Court for the search of truth.
Factum of Printing of original DS not established Moreover, prosecution failed to establish time and place of printing of original demolition slips. PW-36, Debashish Nag, Press Manager, DDA Press CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 67 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 was examined by the prosecution, who testified that there was no specific procedure prescribed or laid by the DDA pertaining to the printing of stationary in DDA Press. Marking of press identity was generally done at the last page or in one corner of the forms/receipt book etc. PW-36 testified that since his joining in 1987 and till 1995, no demolition slip were printed under his supervision and he was not aware whether prior to his joining, demolition slips were printed in the DDA Press or not. Debashish Nag PW-36 testified that in his statement before the CBI U/S 161 Cr.P.C recorded by IO, it was wrongly typed that he had compared counterfoils and demolition slips and did not see any difference in printing. PW-36 was shown DS No. Z1/3703 (Ex.PW-36/28), DS No. Z1/3717 (Ex.PW-15/D), DS No. Z1/4028 (Ex.PW-36/29), DS No. Z1/3745 (Ex.PW-36/30), DS No. Z1/3772 (Ex.PW-36/31) & DS No. Z1/4868 (Ex.PW- 36/32). He testified that demolition slips do not match with their respective counterfoils contained in slip books (Ex.PW-2/A-2) Counterfoil No. 3703 (Mark E-1), counterfoil no. 3717 (Mark E-2), counterfoil no. 3772 (Mark E-4), Ex.PW- 2/A-9 contained counterfoil No. 4868 of demolition slip (Mark PW-36/33). PW- 36 admitted that in his statement recorded by IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-36/DA) was read over to him and he had admitted to be correct and volunteered that word 'No' mentioned in sentence "I find no difference in printing between each other" might have been overheard or not heard. There seems to be improvement on his part and in view of his admission, his explanation regarding recording of his statement incorrectly by IO is not acceptable. PW- 36 admitted that he was shown only 38 files regarding which his statement was recorded. In cross-examination, PW-36 testified that he had no knowledge as to where the demolition slips were got printed before 11 th November 1987.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 68 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 He admitted that all the demolition slips i.e. 4028, 4031 and 4868 were issued before 11th November 1987. PW-36 could not tell when the books of these slips were got printed and by whom and to which specific officer these books were issued. He could not tell on which date these books were issued to an officer for use. He could not tell as to from which press and on which date the books containing counterfoil shown to him in the court, were got printed. He could not say as to during which interval such demolition slips were got printed by DDA. He could not tell as to how many demolition books were used in a year by DDA. PW-36 testified that counterfoil shown to him in the court were not handed over by him to CBI and its original copy was not shown to him by CBI.
Testimonies of Jhuggi Dwellers Prosecution had examined 13 witnesses who are stated to be Jhuggi Dwellers and were shifted from B & M Block, Shalimar Bagh-II, Shahbad, Daulatpur to substantiate allegations. These witnesses are PW-41 Mahender, PW-42 Shripath, PW-43 Laxmi Prasad, PW-44 Bahadur, PW-45 Kishore, PW-46 Kalu Ram, PW-47 Krishna, PW-48 Nand Ram, PW-49 Babu Lal, PW-50 Mulia, PW-52 Maya Deen. In their deposition, these PWs had stated that they had not obtained any alternative plot. PW-58, Shri Maheshwari, testified that after demolition of his jhuggi a slip was given to him and then he shifted to Shahabad Dairy, which was stolen when he went for his daughter's marriage. PW-58 testified that Chote Lal, Laxman, Mayyadin (Pradhan) also used to live at Shalimar Bagh and that he had put up his Jhuggi at Shahabad Dairy and there were about 10000/15000 persons residing at Shahabad Dairy. PW-58 CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 69 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 deposed that none of the persons residing at Shahabad Dairy got plot from the DDA. PW-58 testified that he had never applied for the DDA even before fire in his Jhuggi.
In his deposition, PW-52 Maya Deen stated that he had been residing in a Jhuggi at B.M.Purvi, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi since 1980 and there were about 250/275 Jhuggis, which were removed on 22.05.1987 by DDA officers. PW-52 stated that he was removed from the jhuggi by Mr. Ram Saran. Jankia, Jai Ram, Jamuna Das, Sripat, Bahadur, Ram Krishan, Din Dayal, Bittu, Balram Ram Swaroop were the persons residing in the jhuggi near his jhuggi. After jhuggies were demolished, they were sent to Sahbad Dairy. PW-2 testified that there was neither any plot nor any arrangement for stay there at Sahbad Dairy and they all filed a case in High Court of Delhi, bearing case no. 30/87. PW-52 stated that he had never heard the names of persons Sukhbir, Motilal, Mamchand, Bihari Lal, Devi Lal, Sohan Singh, Yogesh, Rishi Ram, Rehman Khan, Dheeraj, Sadiq Ali, Karam Chand, Ghasi Ram, Kabul Singh, Jitender Pal, Dalip, Lakshman Das, Gulshan, Satpal, Gulab Singh, Govind Rao, Kundal Lal, Pratap Chand, Ram Kali, Ramji Lal, Phoolwati, Kulwant, Surajbhan, Mangai Ram, Dhyan Chand, Jagdish, Satnam Singh, Arun Kumar, Suleman, Murarilal, Premnath, Kastori Lal, Haider Ali, Paramjeet Singh, Sarla, Girishpal, Charitrapal, Bandgi Ram, Ramdeen, Surat Ram, Chandgi Ram, Sarojini and Santu. As per PW-52, these persons were not residing in the jhuggies where he had been residing and no person named as Durga Ram was residing there. PW-52 stated that he got a plot in lieu of the place where his jhuggi was demolished. Pursuant to the orders from the Court at Patiala House. The photocopy of his demolition slip Mark 52/A was produced by him.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 70 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
It is noteworthy that PW-52 Maya Deen who is stated to be the Mukhiya
by other PWs appears to have received the demolition slip of several Jhuggi dwellers and it is not clear what procedure or method was followed by him in applying for obtaining plots from DDA. PW-52 has given names of certain persons who are stated to be not residing in the Jhuggi Cluster but no such persons have been cited as PWs nor it is shown that their statements were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the IO. PW-40 has placed on record list Ex.PW-40/3 (which is stated to be the list of demolition slip holder who were stated to have been allowed to 'change' by the DLMS from Shahbad Daulatpur to Kondly as there were erded from Shalimar Bagh, B.M. Block). Perusal of the said list showed the names of Sohan Singh S/o Surat Singh, Ghashi Ram S/o Mool Chand, Yogesh S/o Chama Lal, Sulyman S/o Abdul, Rehman Khan S/o Saleem Khan, Dheeraj S/o Ram Khilari, Ram Kali S/o Kishan Chand, Sadik Ali S/o Nasibuddin, Murri Lal S/o Laxmi Chand, Gulab Singh S/o Abhay Lal, Ramdin S/o Lalu Ram, Jagdish S/o Brij Lal, Mangy Ram S/o Hardyal Singh, Moti Lal S/o Ram Prasad, Kebal Singh S/o Karan Singh, Kulwant S/o Raghbir Singh, Kundan Lal S/o Ram Milan, Gushan S/o Pyare Lal, Jitender Pal S/o Nand Ram, Bihari Lal S/o Bankay Lal and Mam Chand S/o Raja Ram It my be noted that these are the persons who were stated by PW-52 Mayadin as not residing in the said Jhuggi Cluster. Thus, this court finds that testimony of Mayadin does not helps case of prosecution in any manner but shows that several Jhuggi Dwellers who were allowed to change from one place to another were also issued demolition slips were included in the list of demolition slip holder for allotment of plots.
Prosecution witnesses namely PW-42 Shripath, PW-43 Laxmi Prasad,
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 71 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
PW-48 Nand Ram, PW-49 Babu Lal, in their deposition stated that they had applied for alternative plot through one Maya Deen and that they were illiterate and demolition Slip was given by them to Maya Deen. PW-48 Nand Ram also stated that all the Jhuggi Dwellers at Shalimar Bagh had handed over demolition slip to Maya Deen (PW-52) alongwith Ration Card for obtaining alternative plots from the DDA and Maya Deen had told them that he had been in contact with DDA official for getting plot but so far they had not been allotted any plot. On asking, PW-8 was not aware if Maya Deen had applied for allotment of plot on their behalf and stated that Maya Deen had assured them that he would get them the plot although he had not informed about any specific site of plot for them and that he had not deposited any amount with DDA for allotment of plot. In their examination in chief, few other afore noted witnesses merely stated that the contents of photocopies of demolition slip (Ex.PW-41/A of Mahinder, Ex.PW-42/A of Shripath, Ex.PW-43/A of Laxmi Prasad, Ex.PW-44/A of Bahadur) were same which were handed over to them. This response and exhibiting the carbon copy of demolition slip was objected to by the Ld defence counsel at the time of recording of their statement. Legal position is well settled that a document does not stands proved by merely exhibiting it. A document has to be proved in accordance with Indian Evidence Act, by the person who is the executant thereof or is a witness to the document or had seen signing or writing the executant apart from the expert evidence.
By merely stating that the contents of a document are same would not suffice and prove a document. Primary evidence is to be produced and a satisfactory explanation has to be furnished for not producing primary CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 72 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 evidence. Original and alleged genuine document has to be produced before the court for its comparison with the alleged forged document. None of these witnesses had produced original demolition slip actually received by them or handed over to them by the DDA. These witnesses admitted that the demolition slips e.g. (Ex.PW-41/A, Ex.PW-42/A) etc were not bearing their signatures and were not carrying their photographs. PW-45 Kishore, PW-6 Kalu Ram, PW-47 Krishna, PW-48 Nand Ram, PW-49 Babu Lal & PW-50 Mulia have not supported the case of prosecution. They were cross examined by Ld Prosecutor of State. All of them stated that CBI had not recorded their statement. PW-45 testified that no demolition slip was given to him by the DDA. PW-46 Kalu Ram & PW-47 Krishna stated in their deposition that they had never applied for plot with the DDA. Thus, testimony of these PWs also fails to substantiate case of prosecution that allotment of plots was got done on the basis of forged demolition slips, numbering around 68 out of 322 and that out of 68 forged demolition slips, 53 persons were having genuine demolition slips and were already allotted plots in other colonies who were so called genuine 53 persons has not been conclusively established by the prosecution and genuine demolition slips of those 53 persons are not been proved on court record.
Role of Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) not established CBI had registered a regular case on 30th August 1994 on the basis of source information and took over the investigation of FIR No. 145/94, PS Kalyanpuri which was registered on 5th April 1994 at the instance of Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4), who was complainant in said FIR and was charge-sheeted CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 73 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 as A-4 in the present case. PW-10 ASI Shafikhullah Khan had investigated the case but neither case file which was seized by IO in this case nor proceedings or that case/result have seen light of the day. On asking, how and why A-4 who was complainant in FIR No. 145/94 became accused in this case has not been clarified by the prosecution. PW-20 Gulab Chand Mittal, in his deposition stated that he had purchased two plots bearing No.B-2/54 & B-2/55 from one Sh.Naresh, through Power of Attorney, which were in the name of Satbir Singh and Kalyan Singh. PW-32, Rajbir Singh testified that he had purchased plot no. B-2/9, situated in Kondli in the year 1991-92 for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/- and seller of the said plot was one Sh. Patras. PW-32 deposed that did not know how the above said plot was allotted to Patras. He met Sh. Patras when he purchased the plot, but did not know anything more about Patras. In cross-examination by Ld Prosecutor, PW-32 stated that he had not stated that the plot had been allotted to Patras on the basis of demolition slip No.Z-1/4031 dated 21.6.87. Other witness Sh.Manish Sharma (PW-32-A) deposed that accused Sh. Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) was his Maternal uncle residing at Laxmi Nagar. This witness was cross-examined by learned Prosecutor who deposed that his statement was not recorded by CBI. PW-32A denied that Anand Bihari Sharma came in the beginning of 1993 or brought about 40-50 negatives and asked him to develop their positives for two copies each. Manish Sharma admitted that neither the photograph prints nor negatives were seen by him. PW-9 was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor for the CBI wherein PW-9 stated that he knew Anand Bihari who was PA to Dr. Ashok Kumar residing at Laxmi Nagar. Except that he has denied all the suggestions put to him as regards Anand Bihari Sharma by the Ld Prosecutor.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 74 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 He was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-9/A). PW-9 testified that he had conveyed his feelings to Anand Bihari and requested him to return his money as he was in trouble due to continue pressure from borrowers. He stated that Sh. Anand Bihari gave him cheques for Rs.25,000/- issued and signed by Ved Prakash Yadav but said cheque was dishonoured by the bank when he deposited and he had not stated so to the police. He denied on being confronted with portion of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-7 Rakesh Kumar stated that he knew one Anand Bihari who was residing at Laxmi Nagar and he used to come at his shop to purchase cloth since 1991. He identified Anand Bihari in the court, but he denied that Anand Bihari had shown him documents of the plot. PW-7 stated that he did not remember whether in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-7/DA), he had told that he knew Anand Bihari since 1997-98 or he had told CBI that Anand Bihari was staying at J-12A, Budh Vihar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. In response to suggestion, PW7 denied that in the year 1993, Anand Bihari came to him and told that one V.P. Yadav who was his close friend arranged some plot in Kondli at a very low cost and he might purchase from him. PW7 admitted that Anand Bihari had come to his house and Ved Prakash Yadav was with him and he introduced (PW-7) to V.P. Yadav (A-3) but added that he had come to give some money to him. PW7 denied the suggestion that documents handed over by him to CBI vide Ex.PW-7/A were given to him by Anand Bihari. PW-7 denied the suggestion that after 3-4 days, Ved Prakash and Anand Bihari had come to his house at Laxmi Nagar and handed over to him four photographs, demolition slips and informed him that rest of the documents including allotment slips will be given within 3 to 4 days.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 75 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
PW-7 Rakesh Kumar admitted that Anand Behari had come to his house
and Ved Prakash Yadav was with him and he introduced him to V.P Yadav. He denied that after 3-4 days, Ved Parkash Yadav and Anand Behari Sharma came to his hosue at Laxmi Nagar and handed over to him 4 photocopies of demolition slips and informed him that rest of the documents including the allotment slips will be given to him within 3-4 days and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from portion E to E. PW-7 also denied that after a week, Anand behari and V.P. Yadav again came to his residence and handed over to him four numbers of allotment letters in respect of allotment of plot no. 3, 4 & 5 in Block-B-11, at Kondli and confronted with statement Ex.PW- 7/DA from portion F to F. PW-7 admitted that allotment letters Ex.PW-7/A1 to A-4 and demolition slips (Ex.PW-7/A5 to A8 and bank challans Ex.PW-7/A9 to A12 and authority receipts Ex.PW-7/A13 do not bear his name anywhere. He denied that he agreed to purchase the plots, because they were at low cost. PW-7 denied that since he had not been given any plot, so he insisted Anand Behari to return his money Rs.1,60,000/- and also denied that he visited the residence of Anand Behari Sharma many times to return his money and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from portion G to G. PW-7 denied that once Anand Behari insisted him to hand over the allotment letters, bank challan, another document to Ved Parkash, which were needed for draw, but he got suspicion on his version and refused to hand over these documents to them and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from portion H to H. PW-7 denied that in his statement made to CBI, he never mentioned the name of Rakesh Kumar Gupta anywhere in his statement.
PW-57 Anil Kumar, deposed that it was not within his knowledge that there CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 76 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 was any transaction or deal or talk between his brother in law R.M. Sharma and Anand Bihari Sharma for purchase of any plot. PW-57 testified that he had not heard name of V.P. Yadav and had not gone with his brother in law R.M. Sharma in relation to purchase any plot anywhere. PW-57 who was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor deposed that he did not make the statement (Mark PW-57/1) to the CBI Officer, read over to him. He testified that he was not aware whether Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) had ever met his brother in law at the shop. PW-57 denied the suggestion given to him by Ld Prosecutor that he stated to CBI that Anand Bihari Sharma had said that he would get a plot for his brother in law in the re-settlement area at Kondli. Hand-writing expert & Role of A-4, A-7, A-8 & A-9 Sh. S. K. Chadha, PW-18, Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II (Finger Print) CFSL has placed on record is report Ex 18/A. PW-18 has opined that question fingerprints marked Q.5A, Q.10, Q, 16 A , Q.27, Q.101, Q.163, Q.167, Q.179, Q.184, Q.187, Q.277, Q315, Q.342 and Q.347 are identical with the specimen right thumb impression of Rakesh Kumar Gupta marked here as RTS. 97 on the slip marked S 97 (Matching ridge characteristics have been found in the relative positions in these prints. According to PW-18 this forms the basis of the opinion that these prints are identical. Questioned fingerprints marked Q.221 and Q.307 are identical with the specimen left thumb impression of Rakesh Kumar Gupta marked hereas LTS. 97 on the slip marked S. 97 (Matching ridge characteristics have been found in their relative positions in these prints. This forms the basis of the opinion that these prints are identical. As regards other question fingerprints, he opined that they do not contain sufficient number of clear ridge characteristics for comparison. PW-18 placed on CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 77 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 record speciman finger prints of the accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Anand Bihari Sharma as Ex. PW-18/C and PW-18/D. The prints as per Ex. PW- 18/C and PW-18/D were taken by A. D Sah as mentioned on the prints. A. D. Sah was not examined by the Prosecution. There is no witness in whose presence, those prints were taken. Thus, the fact that the finger prints Ex. PW-18/C and PW-18/D were of accused Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Anand Bihari Sharma has not been established.
Sh. N. K. Aggarwal, PW-19, Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II (documents) CFSL has placed on record is report Ex 19/A. The compared handwriting of the writter of specimen writings with the questioned English writing, initials/signature mentioned in the report Ex. PW-19/A. Perusal of the testimony of PW-61 Jag Dev Singh shows that the specimens signatures/handwriting of accused was placed on record by him. Ex. PW-61/1 to Ex. PW61/30 are stated to be specimen writing of Rakesh Kumar Gupta which are S-54 to S-84 and were allegedly witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Thereafter, Ex. PW-61/31 to Ex. PW61/43 are stated to be specimen writing of Sant Ram Badgujar which are S-6 to S-18 and were allegedly witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Ex. PW-61/44 to Ex. PW61/51 are stated to be specimen writing for V. P. Yadav which are S-25 to S-32 and were allegedly witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Ex. PW-61/52 to Ex. PW61/53 are stated to be specimen writing of Anand Bihari Sharma which are S-130 and S-134 and were allegedly witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Ex. PW-61/54 and Ex. PW61/55 are stated to be specimen writing of Karan Pal Malik which are S-141 and S-142 and were allegedly witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Ex. PW-61/56, PW-61/57 and Ex. PW61/59 are stated to be specimen writing of Rajnish Kumar Singh which are S-137, S-138 and S-140 and were allegedly CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 78 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 witness by PW-61 Jag Dev Singh. Ex. PW-62/A are stated to be specimen writing of Ms. Surinder Kaur which are S-135 and were allegedly witness by PW-62 N. C Joshi. This court finds that in view of the testimony of PW-61 & 62 discussed at length in the following paragraphs, prosecution has failed to establish that specimen writing and signatures actually pertain to the afore noted accused and therefore, the opinion of the expert is not of much use and does not furthers, case of prosecution. As per the case of prosecution, accused Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora, Karan Pal Malik, Rajnesh Kumar Singh and Smt. Surinder Kaur working as Asst. Field Investigators in the office of Dy. Director Land Protection Branch, DDA during 1987-88 had initially had prepared demolition slips. Three slips were prepared by Accused Vijay Kumar Arora), two by accused Karan Pal Malik, one by Rajnish Kumar Singh and by accused Smt. Surinder Kaur and that the said demolition slips were in the name of Karan Singh, Patras, Sri Niwas, Jeewan, Phool Singh, Ram Murthi and Kalyan respectively, who had allegedly taken the possession of alloted plots and that these accused persons prepared forged demolition slips.
Allegations against Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8), AFI were that they forged certain demolition slips. As per allegations, accused K.P. Malik (A-7) forged demolition slip no. 3745 in respect of Jeevan S/o Lal Man having alleged handwriting/signatures at point Q407 & Q408, demolition slip no. 3772 in respect of Phool Singh having alleged hand-writing/signatures at point Q418 & Q419 (Mark E3 & E4). Similarly, Rajneesh (A-8) allegedly forged demolition slip no. 3717 of Ram Murti having alleged hand-
writing/signatures at point Q401 & Q402 (Mark E2). As per the case of
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 79 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
prosecution, originals of demolition slip pertaining to Phool Singh was (Ex.PW- 13/C), Jeewan (Ex.PW-13/F) and original of demolition slip 3717 pertaining to Ram Murti was (Ex.PW-13/D)(D-12). It is not established conclusively beyond reasonable doubts that questioned writing Q-407, Q-408, Q-418 & Q-419 on documents Mark E3 and E4 were in the hand-writing of Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and questioned writing Q-401, Q-402 on documents Mark E2 were in the hand-writing of Rajneesh (A-8) and admitted handwriting of the accused persons were collected to be sent for comparison to the handwriting expert. In examination in chief, Sh. K.L. Bhatia (PW-13) stated that the slips Ex.PW-13/C, D & F bear his signatures but in cross-examination, he clearly stated that these slips were not in the hand-writing of accused K.P.Malik or Rajneesh Kumar. This witness has further disproved case of prosecution that alleged forged slips Mark E2 was in the hand-writing of accused Rajneesh Kumar (A-8) or documents Mark E-3 & E-4 (alleged forged demolition slips) were in the handwriting of accused K.P. Malik (A-7). Neither the alleged original nor the alleged forged demolition slips were proved to be in the handwriting of accused K.P. Malik (A-7) or Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). PW-19 gave opinion regarding Handwriting of Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4)on 7th July 2009 and 7th October 2010 on the application against the demolition slips. As per prosecution specimen handwriting S-128 to S-134 of Anand Bihari Sharma (A-
4) were compared with question handwriting to prove that specimen signatures were of the accused persons including Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4). The court finds merit in the contention of Ld counsel that evidence of Subhash Chand Gupta examined as DW-1, casted doubt on the version of PW-18 and that material in hand for furnishing opinion by the PW-18 and 19 was CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 80 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 insufficient and opinion given by the hand-writing expert was not acceptable. It is noteworthy that admittedly PW-61 Jagdev Singh who was working as stenographer, slum and JJ department, who has not established that neither Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) nor any other accused put his specimen and handwriting in his presence, secondly, PW-61 had not identified any of the accused including Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) in the court as the persons whose specimen signatures were allegedly taken in his presence and it is important to note that PW-61 in the cross-examination admitted that he used to sign specimen hand-writing at the instance of the IO as he was his controlling officer. PW-61 used to sign specimen sheet at the instructions of IO as a witness and whenever he signed the specimen, he was not shown any proof of identity of any person. According to PW-61, his statement was not recorded by the IO in the present case. PW-61 testified that he had no knowledge whether he was called in some proceedings by R.Singh, particularly in this case, when he was posted in the CBI. PW-61 has not specified date on which his signatures were obtained on the alleged specimen handwriting. IO stated about specimen handwriting in his deposition but no date is specified on the alleged specimen handwriting when the alleged specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused persons were allegedly obtained by the IO.
Thus, Jagdev Singh (PW-61) in whose presence, specimen handwriting of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Rajneesh Kumar (A-8) has been allegedly taken has not proved specimen handwriting S-141 & S-142 as the specimen handwriting of accused Karan Pal Malik and specimen handwriting S-137 to S-
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 81 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 140 as the specimen handwriting of Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). He nowhere stated that Karan Pal Malik or Rajneesh had given their specimen handwriting in his presence. He only proved his signatures on the specimen sheets (Ex.PW-61/54 to 59). This witness can not be considered as an independent witness, who himself admitted that he was posted in diverted capacity in CBI from December 1994 and was attached with Sh. R.Singh, Deputy SP/IO of the case. He admitted that he did not remember that when he signed those sheets. PW- 61 has admitted that he used to sign the statement and sheets at the instance of IO as a witness and R. Singh/IO was his controlling officer. He admitted that whenever he signed the specimen sheets of different persons of this case, he was not shown any proof of identity of different persons. This court finds that there is no satisfactory & cogent evidence to establish that accused Karan Pal Malik or Rajneesh had given their specimen handwriting in the presence of PW-61.
PW-60 R. Singh who made a bald statement that he obtained the specimen signatures of accused persons and sent the same for expert opinion. PW-60 stated that he obtained specimen writing of Surender Kaur in the presence of witness M.C. Joshi and the portion encircled with blue pencil and bearing Mark S-135 & S-136 and on Ex.PW-62/A was written by Surender Kaur (A-9) his his presence, but in the cross-examination he testified that the said document S-135 and 136 did not bear his signatures. PW-62 testified that specimen signatures of Ex.PW62/A were not put by Surender Kaur (A-9) in his presence. PW-62 was cross-examined by learned prosecutor by the CBI, but during the said cross-examination he testified that he could not identify the signatures of Surender Kaur (A-9) at point B on PW-62/A. PW-62 M.C. Joshi, CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 82 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 alleged witness to the specimen signatures of Surinder Kaur (A-9), at point B on Ex.PW-62/A, PW-62 stated that his submissions was not recorded by the CBI. PW-62 has not supported case of prosecution. He was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor and clearly denied in response to his suggestion that Surinder Kaur (A-9), had given her specimen writing in his presence or thereafter, he had signed (Ex.PW-62/A). Thus, no independent witness to the specimen signature or finger print of the accused has proved the same. Prosecution did not get accused persons physically identified from the witnesses PW-61 or 62 to the specimen signature. Witnesses only read the names from the alleged specimen signatures and did not identify accused in the court, nor any question was put by the prosecution to them as to whether they could identify persons in the court, whose alleged specimen signatures or hand-writing or thumb impression was taken by CBI. Therefore, expert opinion of Sh. Chadha (PW-18) from CFSL and Sh. N.K.Agarwal (PW-19) (CFSL) cannot be utilized by the court to base conviction of accused. This court finds that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to prove that specimen signature or finger print/thumb impression of accused were ever taken.
It is pertinent to note that only incriminating evidence was required to be put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, no witness has deposed that Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) had given specimen writing/signatures on 7 sheets S-128 to 134. PW-61 deposed about only Ex.PW-61/52 and 61/53 i.e. S.130- 131 legal position is well settled that accused has to be given opportunity to respond to only against the incriminating evidence which has emerged against him. Allegations as per the charge-sheet or charges are not legal evidence and if there is no incriminating evidence on record, answer given by CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 83 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 the accused to a vague question or question not based on incriminating evidence can not be utilized against him.
Shiv Nath Singh Tyagi (PW-51) who was examined by prosecution for proving the handwriting of these accused persons has not supported the prosecution. He had seen demolition slips no. Z-1/3745, 3771 and 3772 but did not recognize any signature thereon. PW-51 stated that he had not been shown the demolition slips during the course of investigation and had not made any statement to CBI. PW-51 has also not identified handwriting of both these accused persons on Mark E-2, E-3, E-4 or Ex.PW-13/C, D & F. Prosecution marked Ex.PW-13/C & F allegedly containing the admitted writing of Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and marked the same as A-5 & A-8 on demolition slip no. 3745 and A-4 & A-7 on demolition slip no. 3772 but none of these documents is proved to be the admitted writing of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7). PW-13 proved that those were not the handwriting of Karan Pal Malik (A-7). Similarly, prosecution marked A-3 & A-6 on Ex.PW-13/D as the admitted writing/signatures of accused Rajneesh Kumar (A-8) but PW-13 proved that it was not in the handwriting of Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). During investigation, no admitted handwriting of these accused persons were collected, for seding them for comparison to the handwriting expert. Handwriting expert in his report Ex.PW-19/A stated that questioned handwriting Mark Q-407, Q-408, Q- 418, Q-419 on document Mark E3 & E4 pertained to accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) and Mark Q-401 & Q-402 pertained to accused Rajneesh Kumar (A-8) on document Mark E2. These documents are not proved during the course of trial and both accused persons denied their alleged specimen handwriting and also writings on Ex.PW-13/C, D & F. CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 84 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Opinion of the handwriting expert is based on the documents which are not proved or which cannot be taken as admitted writings. Moreover, it is an opinion and the handwriting expert is not a witness of fact viz-a-viz there is evidence of PW-13 Sh. K.L. Bhatia, who specifically stated that Ex.PW-13/C, D & F and documents marked E-2, E-3 & E-4 were not in the handwriting of accused Karan Pal Malik (A-7) & Rajneesh Kumar (A-8). Opinion of the hand- writing expert is a weak evidence and can only be corroborative in nature. Conviction of the accused persons cannot be based only on the basis of mere opinion of the handwriting expert and in the instant case, there is evidence of PW-13 K.L. Bhatia which is totally contrary to the report of the handwriting expert and PW Bhatia was not declared hostile by the prosecution and was a relied upon witness of the prosecution, whose testimony cannot be discarded. This court is in agreement with the view of Ld counsels that since the specimen handwriting of the accused had not been proved, therefore the comparison of the specimen handwriting with the question handwriting by the expert PW-19 is of no consequence and the prosecution could not make use of the said opinion against the accused persons. Moreover, PW-56 Purshottam Mehta, who was examined by the prosecution has not supported the case of prosecution. He had stated that he has taken house in plot no. 132/6, New Kondli, through S.K. Property Dealer for Rs.85,000/-. He could not tell who was the owner of the plot from whom he had purchased the house in 1994 and that perhaps owner of the plot was one Kapil Dev Rawat. He stated that he had been given affidavit of one Karan Singh S/o Bhankar Singh alongwith documents. He could not recall he was given document (Mark 56/1), Affidavit (Mark 56/2), Yellow Slip (Mark X-3), Demolition Slip No. 4028. PW-56 stated CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 85 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 that he had sold the house and had been produced documents and had not retained any copy of the said document. He was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor. He was not aware and could not tell whether Karan Singh (A-7) had given him documents i.e. Power of Attorney, Bill Challan and Demolition Slip to Chander Pal. He stated that Chander Pal had given documents to one Kapil Dev Rawat. No other witness uttered anything against (A-4), A-7, A-8 & A-9 and against their alleged role in the conspiracy. Prosecution has failed to establish that accused had received or hand over any document to any person with any authority or paid any consideration or received or he dishonestly induced any person to deliver any money or property to him. There is no sufficient & satisfactory evidnece on record to show that Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) had forwarded or A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 prepared any fake demolition slips prepared or signed by officers of DDA or used forged document as genuine. To sum up, this court finds that prosecution has failed to establish alleged role of A-7, A-8 & A-9.
Role of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) As per case of prosecution, steps were taken to sell the plots to V.P. Yadav along with Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who had met PW-7 Sh. Rakesh Kumar and persuaded him to purchase some plots of JJ Colony Kondli at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each and four DS were handed over to PW-7 Rakesh Kumar and Rs.40,000/- were received by him. Further more, Shri R.K.Gupta (A-5) had allegedly prepared applications in his writing against forged Demolition Slips No. 4345, 4858, 4860, 4939, 4862, 4928, 4864, 4849, 4857, 4874, 4875, purportedly issued in favour of, Sh. Yougesh, Sh. Dalip Singh, Sh. Gulshan, Sh.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 86 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Paramjit Singh, Sh. Gulab Singh, Sh. Prem Nath., Sh. Kundan Lal, Sh. Rehman Khan, Sh. Jigender Pal, Sh. Nangai Ram, Sh. Changi Ram and prepared false affidavits against demolition ship No's. 4845, 4837, 4851, 4860, 4862, 4935, 4839, 4929, by putting his thumb impression thereon. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) had also allegedly prepared Bank Challans in his writings and deposited Rs. 3,000/- against forged demolition slip No. 4860, 4939, 4862, 4935, 4839, 4928, 4931, 4849, 4857, 4952, 4866, 4874, 4949, 4844, 4855, 4881, 4948, 4840. It was further alleged in the charge sheet that the accused forged affidavit in respect of Sh. Yogesh (S-4845), Moti Lal (4837), Sadiq Ali (4851) Gulshan (4860), Gulab Singh (4862), Hyder Ali (4935) mam Chand (4839) and Prem Nath (4928). As per charges, R.K. Gupta was a party to conspiracy in Allotment of plots done on the basis of alleged fake and forged demolition slips, which in total numbered around 68 out of 322 and that out of 68 forged demolition slips 53 persons having genuine demolition slips were already allotted plots in other colonies and thereby DDA was cheated. PW-29, Shiv Rai's statement is relevant. He deposed that he purchased plot No. D-148, New Kondli, New Delhi for Rs. 45,000- from one Mr. Jeewan. He testified that Radhey Shyam Gupta (PW-30) & Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-
5) were known to him. He had no conversation with Rakesh Kumar Gupta regarding purchase of any plot at Kondli. According to PW-29, he had lent Rs.40,000/- in cash to Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5). He did not know accused Ved Prakash Yadav (A-3). PW-29 has not supported the case of prosecution. During cross examination by Ld Prosecutor, PW-29 testified that he had not stated to CBI that Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) had told him in March 1993 that some plots at Kondli were being sold at cheap rates and which could be CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 87 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 arranged from his friends. PW-29 categorically denied that he had stated to CBI that Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) had told him to purchase plot at Kondli and that they would get fair income. He admitted that he had given Rs.40,000/- to Rajnish Kumar Singh (A-8) but it was not given after withdrawing from Chit Fund. As regard role of A-5, PW-7 Rakesh Kumar placed on record four allotment slips (Ex.PW-7/A1 to A4), four photocopies of demolition slips (Ex.PW-7/A5 to A8), four 4th copy of the DDA Challans, (Ex.PW-7/A9 to A12) and receipt for deposit of Rs.3,000/- with DDA vide (Ex.PW-7/A13). PW-7 Rakesh Kumar in his deposition stated that in the Year 1993-94, accused Ved Prakash Yadav and Rakesh Gupta came to him and told that they were the Officer of DDA and having plots for selling. They showed him the demolitions slips and some bank challans and other documents relating to JJ Colony Kondli and had given him documents of four plots and received Rs.40,000/- for each plot from him. PW-7 stated that they had not given him the possession of the said plots on the pretext that some complaints have been made in DDA for the said plots. He handed over the documents to the IO through seizure memo Ex. PW7/A (D-91) which are four allotment slips Ex.PW7/A1to A4 (D-92), four photocopies of demolition slips Ex. Ex. PW7/A5 to A8 (D-93), four 4th copy of DDA challans Ex. PW7/A9 to A12 and receipt for deposit of Rs. 3000/- Ex. PW7/A13 (D-95). In his cross-examination, PW-7 was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-7/DA) PW-7 testified that he had told that he was doing business of cloth commission agent having its office at 584, Gali Chanteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He did not remember whether in his statement he had told that he knew Anand Behari Sharma since 1997-98 and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 88 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 portion B to B. He deposed that he did not know that he also told the CBI that Anand B ehari Sharma was staying at J-12A Buddi Vihar, Kakshmi Nagar, Delhi and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from portion C to C. PW-7 denied that in the year 1993, Anand Behari came to him and told that one Ved Parkash Yadav, who was a close friend of him is arranging some plots in Kondli at a very low cost and he may purchase the necessary papers from him or informed that in a very short period, same plots could be sold at a very higher rates to others as such he told him to show him the papers alongwith DDA officials to convince his version and confronted with statement Ex.PW-7/DA from portion D to D. Perusal of Statement of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (PW-7) (Ex.PW-7/DA) recorded by the CBI u/s 161 Cr.P.C. shows that this witness had not named A-5 nor stated that he ever had any dealing with him, rather, he had named Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4), who was his relative. Strangely, although PW-7 resiled from his statement given to CBI, but prosecutor did not confront him with his previous statement rather this role was played by defence counsel of other accused. This fact makes statement of this witness unreliable and unworthy of credence. His deposition is improvement and different from his previous statement given to the CBI u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, his testimony cannot be pressed into service by prosecution. R.S.Pandey (PW-37), Chief Manager and B.D.Suneja (PW-40), Asst. Director stated that Jhuggi Dwellers were illiterate persons, who used to get such papers prepared from other persons including some property dealers who are acquainted with the procedures. It is true that even if someone else deposits challan in the bank, then per-se, it would not amounts to violation of any law. This court is in CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 89 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 agreement with the submission advanced by Ld defence counsel that a document can be said to be forged when it is shown that there is an original or genuine one for the same and the forged one is copied and prepared on its basis or when the maker of the original or genuine documents, after seeing at the forged one proved that same is not prepared or written by him or when it is shown that the person who prepared or written or signed the forged has impersonated some one or that he tried to forge the signature or writing of some other person; and that person also comes to the court as a witness and says that it was not prepared or written or signed by him. Alleged genuine demolition slips were not seized or taken into custody by CBI. Now adverting to other relevant witness PW-9, Rakesh Mohan Sharma, medical practitioner testified that he met one property dealer in the office of Ashok Kumar, who offered to him to buy some demolition slips on deposit of Rs.3,000/- against each DS and he deposited Rs.12,000/- against four DS through his son Lalit Mohan Sharma at the bank located in DDA Office Vikas Minar. PW-9 was given four DS which were later on found as fake. He was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement. PW-9 testified that he had met some property dealer in the Office of Ashok Kumar. Property dealer who offered to him that he should buy some demolition slips. He deposited Rs.12000/- against four demolition slips through his son Sh. Lalit Mohan Sharma at the bank located in DDA office at Vikas Minar. He was given four demolition slips. Later on, he found that demolition slips were fake and the property dealers have been arrested. PW-9 deposed that he knew accused Ved Prakash Yadav, who is married in his village and he had taken Rs. 25,000/- from him for someone else. Later on, he CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 90 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 gave him a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- to return his money. PW-9 deposited cheque (Ex.PW-6/A) in his bank, but it was dishonoured two to three times. PW-9 was cross examined by the Ld Prosecutor, who denied that he was doing the business of property dealer or stated to CBI that Rakesh Kumar Gupta was doing the business of property dealing. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A where it was so recorded. PW-9 denied that Anand Behari Sharma had informed him that number of plots were going to be allotted shortly in Kondli resettlement area at a very cheap rate and if he could arrange money, he could allot some plots from V.P. Yadav and confronted with portion B to B of statement Ex.PW9/A where it is so recorded. PW-9 denied that due to purchase of some plots, he arranged an amount of Rs.1.6 lacs mostly taking loan on interest and handed over to Anand Behari Sharma. He denied that Anand Behari Sharma also requested him to provide his car to visit Slum & JJ officer Kalyanpuri as well as at the residence of V.P. Yadav, Shakarpur. He denied that he asked his son to accompany Anand Bihari Sharma as and when needed alongwith his car and after paying the money, Anand Behari was frequently visiting him or assuring him that a draw is going to be held shortly in which the plots would be allotted to various persons and confronted with portion E to E of statement Ex.PW9/A where it is so recorded. In his deposition, PW-9 denied that when there was no news about the allotment till June 1993, he inquired from Anand Behari Sharma about the delay in the allotment and he informed him that A K Baturvedi, Director is creating some problems and had ordered for verification of the demolition slips included in the draw. PW-9 denied that since he had taken loan on CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 91 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 interest from various persons, they started pressing him to refund the money with interest. He conveyed his feelings to Anand behari and requested him to get return his money, he was in trouble due to continued pressure from borrowers and at last Anand Behari Sharma gave him a cheque for Rs.25,000/- issued and signed by V.P.Yadav but this cheque was dishonoured and confronted with portion of his statement (Ex.PW9/A) where it was so recorded.
Next relevant witness was PW-30, Sh. Radhey Shyam, a broker in the cloth market who testified that he had no conversation with Rakesh Kumar Gupta regarding purchase of any plot at Kondli and he had lent Rs.40,000/- in cash to Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5), who returned the cash of Rs.40,000/- to him at the time of marriage of his daughter. PW-30 testified that he had not stated to CBI in his statement that Rakesh Kumar Gupta had told him in March, 1993 that some plots at Kondli were being sold at cheap rates and which can be arranged from one of his friends. PW-30 denied that Rakesh Kumar Gupta had told him to purchase plot at Kondli as it was being sold at cheap rates. He denied that he had stated to CBI in his statement that Rakesh Kumar Gupta had told him that if they both purchase some plot at Kondli and they would get fair income. He admitted that he had given Rs.40,000/- to Rakesh Kumar Gupta bit it was not given after withdrawing from Chit fund. PW-30 deposed that he had not stated to CBI that Rakesh Kumar Gupta had handed over this amount of Rs.40,000/- to accused Ved Prakash Yadav who was working as employee in Slum & JJ at Kalyanpuri. He denied that he had handed over Rs.1,20,000/- in all to Rakesh Kumar Gupta to purchase 4 plots at Kondli. PW-30 deposed that he had not stated to CBI in his statement that CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 92 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Rakesh Kumar Gupta had taken the relevant documents regarding purchase of plot from Ved Prakash Yadav. He testified that he had not stated to CBI that they were not given the possession of four plots despite making full payment. PW-30 testified that he had not stated to CBI in his statement that Rakesh Kumar Gupta remained in constant touch with Ved Prakash Yadav and despite that he did not return the money handed over to him. He testified that he had not stated to CBI that the cash of Rs.1,60,000/- given to Ved Prakash Yadav through Rakesh Kumar Gupta belonged to him. PW-30 was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-30/A).
Moving further, PW-33, Lalit Mohan Sharma testified that he knew Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) as he was friend of his father and used to reside at Block 5 Kichripur. He deposed that he do not know why Anand Bihari Sharma had come to his father's clinic and he had heard the name of V.P. Yadav and Yadav's wife belonged to his father's vilalge. He stated that his father rakesh Mohan Sharma had introduced him to V.P. Yadav (A-3) as being his Phupha from his village. He testified that his father had made some persons give money to A-3 V.P. Yadav, who had given a cheque which had been dishonoured and he went to house of V.P. Yadav once. PW-33 was cross examined by Ld Prosecutor during which, he denied that he went to CBI Office and also denied that his statement was recorded by CBI. PW-33 was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the IO and he deposed that he did not make the statement portions A-A1 to F-F1 of (Mark PW-33/2) to CBI. PW-33 testified that he had no knowledge of any talks between Anand Bihari Sharma and V.P. Yadav in relation to any plot.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 93 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
PW-33 denied that he had testified falsely in order to aid the accused
persons. He denied that he had stated to CBI that V.P. Yadav (A-3) was staying at Chakarpur, Gurgaon. PW-33 denied that he went with Anand Bihari Sharma to Central Bank of India near Vikas Sadar where he asked him to fill up 2-3 bank challans for deposit of Rs.3000/- with DDA nor he had filled any bank challans there. PW-33 denied that V.P. Yadav had taken a loan and thereafter, V.P. Yadav had given a cheque which was dishonoured and he did not recall the amount of the cheque and then he went to his maternal uncle once to the house of V.P. Yadav and after some days V.P. Yadav had given the money at his house to his father. PW-33 denied that V.P. Yadav had not taken any loan from his father and denied that his father had given any money to V.P. Yadav for purchase of plots and rather his father had given money to V.P. Yadav as a loan. PW-33 denied that V.P. Yadav had given a cheque to his father and volunteered that he had already stated that cheque had been dishonoured, however, he could not state as he did not identify whether Ex.PW-6/A-3 (D-97) is that cheque or not. He denied that he went with Anand Bihari Sharma to the hosue of V.P. Yadav. He did not know that amount of money was returned by V.P. Yadav to his father and PW-33 denied that he had testified falsely in order to assist the accused persons.
PW-37 R.S. Pandey, Chief Manager, Central Bank of India testified that Rs.3,000/- were deposited in his bank in DDA Account on 8th April, 1993 against challans No. 005190 (Ex.PW-7/A-9), 005191 (Ex.PW-7/A-10), 005257 (Ex.PW-7/A-11) & 005258 (Ex.PW-7/A-12) in the name of Govardhan, Kherchu, Bhikhu and Durjan. On asking, PW-37 admitted that amount of Rs.3000/- prescribed by DDA could be deposited on behalf of allottee by any of his CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 94 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 representative and it was not necessary that allottee should himself deposit or sign the challan. He testified that Bank was not concerned as to under what particular head i.e. premium, license fee, interest, penalty etc money was being deposited. In view of this, even if any amount was deposited by any of the accused no. 4 or 5, vide challans, it will not make them liable. On appreciation of evidence on record as a whole, this court finds that the testimony of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (PW-7), Rakesh Mohan Sharma (PW-9), Radhey Shyam (PW-30) and Lalit Mohan Sharma (PW-33) does not supports the prosecution version regarding sale or purchase of plots on the basis of photocopies/forged demolition slips or receipt of amount by any of the accused as a sale consideration or Rs.1.6 lakh by Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) or returning Rs.25,000/- by V.P. Yadav (A-3) towards part payment of sale cosideration of plots allotted to evictees.
Testimony of Notary Public and Stamp Vendor Malkhan Singh (PW-16), advocate and Notary Public on seeing affidavit (Mark X-1) of Satvir Singh of village Kondli (Z-1/3703) denied his signatures. PW-16 testified that affidavit was not attested by him and did not bear his seal. He testified that he did not visit CBI office, neither his register was seized by CBI nor his signatures were taken. He testified that his seal was not seized by CBI nor any specimen of seal was taken. Similarly, Dushyant Kumar Tyagi (PW-17), Notary Public, on seeing affidavit of Moti Lal (Mark X-2) testified that it did not bear his signatures. PW-17, similarly after seeing other affidavits of namely Yogesh (Mark X-3), Sadiq Ali (Mark X4), Dalip (Mark X5), Laxman Dass (Mark X6), Chandgi Ram (Mark-X7), Gulshan (Mark X-8), Satpal CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 95 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 (Mark X9), Satnam Singh (Mark X10), Gulab Singh (Mark X11), Kundan Lal (Mark X-12), Ram Kali (Mark X-13), Phool Wati (Mark X-14), Balwant Singh (Mark X-15), Premwati (Mark X-16), Mangai Ram (Mark X-17), Rahman Khan (Mark X-18), Kabul Singh (Mark X-19), Jitender Pal (Mark X-20), Partap Chand (Mark X-21, Bandagi Ram (Mark X-22), Ram Din (Mark X-23) and Govind Ram (Mark X-24), PW-17 denied his signatures thereon. In cross examination, PW- 17 deposed that he used to mark stamp on affidavit but his specimen signatures were not obtained by CBI and his seal, register as well as seal impression were not seized by CBI. Thus, notary public who were examined as PWs by prosecution and denied their signatures, but neither the registers maintained by the notary public were seized by the IO nor specimen signatures of Notary PW-16 & PW-17 were obtained. PW-38 Brijesh Chaurasia deposed that stamp paper contained in file (Ex.PW-25/T) was sold to Kamlesh, stamp paper contained in file (Ex.PW-25/R) was sold to Sukhbir, Stamp paper contained in File (Ex.PW25/X-1) was sold to Khushi Ram and stamp paper contained in file (Ex.PW-25/X-6) was sold to Dhan Singh. PW-36 testified that sale register was not with him as the same was deposited in DC Office, Shamnath Marg, Delhi. No sale register was seized by IO or proved on record to establish sale of stamp paper. Non production of registers maintained by Notary and stamp vender and not obtaining their specimen signatures and specimen of stamp by the IO for obtaining opinion of expert will lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the case of prosecution. Original Prosecution Version as set out in the charge-sheet not established As per the case of prosecution set out in the charge-sheet, Keshav Ram, CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 96 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 Dy. Director, Slum & JJ had put up a note on 16th February 1993 before the additional commissioner, Slum & JJ proposing allotment of plots to evictees from different JJ Colony on the basis of demolition slips issued earlier. Perusal of Note dated 16th April 1993 shows that it was prepared by V.P. Yadav, Dealing Assistant, pursuant to notes dated 16th February 1993 (Ex.PW-24/A) and 13th April 1993 (Ex.PW-24/B) of Keshav Ram, Dy Director (II), Slum & JJ. Note dated 16th April 1993 shows as well as prosecution witnesses have stated that demolition slips were verified by the LP Branch DDA main. Note dated 27th April 1993 of V.P. Yadav also shows that DDA main issued the demolition slips to evictees and forwarded the list of such cases to Slum & JJ department. Note dated 5th May 1931 of Additional Director records that list of DS holders which were supplied by LP Branch, DDA (Main) duly verified. Now, as regard role of Pyarelal set out in the charge sheet, testimony of PW-55 Shri Ratan Pal is relevant. PW-55 testified that from 1976 till 1984, till he was transferred to Vikas Sadan was in contact with Pyare Lal and Pyare Lal did not introduce him to any Sardar and he did not know Jaswant Singh. He testified that Pyarelal did not introduce him to any person. He deposed that it was his child's birthday when his neighbour had come and Pyarelal did not attend that party and no person gave him any demolition slip. PW-55 was cross-examined by learned prosecutor and confronted with his statement U/S 161 CR.P.C (EX.PW-55/DA). PW-55 deposed that CBI did not make any inquiries from him and he denied that CBI recorded his statement. He deposed that Pyarelal never came to his house. PW-55 testified that he knew Pyarelal as he had worked with him and on asking, he denied, that he knew Jaswant Singh. PW-55 testified that no inquiries were made from him about demolition slips.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 97 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 He did not identify any of the accused persons in the court. On scrutiny of material on record, this court finds that original prosecution version as set out in the charge-sheet has not been established by the prosecution. No pecuniary loss to MCD or pecuniary advantage to any accused proved On asking, PW-60/IO R. Singh could not tell whether he seized records from the Slum & JJ Department qua deposit of the payment of Rs.3,000/- by each applicant with the payment slip directly. He could not say whether as per investigation conducted by him, it was indicated that there was no wrongful loss and no wrongful gain to any person in this case. PW-60 IO adm itted that there was no allotment of land/plot made in this case to any applicant. In this regard, PW-5, M.S. Sharma, Dy Director, DDA, LP-V, East Zone in his deposition stated that during his tenure in department, no alternative plot was allotted to the JJ dwellers. PW-26 Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Accountant, Slum & JJ Department, MCD in his deposition stated that after draw which took place in the year 1993, it was found that draw was irregular and defective and subsequently draw was canceled. PW-39 admitted that he had never seen R.C. Yadav (A-2) (since deceased) personally writing or making any endorsement on the documents referred to him. PW-27, Sh. Krishan Lal, Joint Director-1, Slum &JJ Department, East Zone-A, DDA /MCD, Kalyanpuri testified that he never dealt with the files pertaining to plots of Kondli area and there was no system to draw to allot plots to the demolition slip holders. He could not tell if there was any draw to allot plots to the demolition slip holders. Girraj Singh (PW-24) during cross-examination deposed that he was not aware if the successful candidates were issued allotment letters or not and CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 98 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 that he was also not aware whether the list Ex.PW-11/E was later on cancelled and computer draw was conducted on the approval of Addl. Commissioner whose name he did not know. Sh. Vijender Singh Tomar (PW-
11) during cross examination, admitted to the effect that "the manual draw was held at Kalyanpuri but it was cancelled. A computer draw was also held after the manual draw but action on that was still pending". He deposed that he cannot say if he had cancelled the compute draw and did not record any public complaint against V.P Yadav (A-3) in the diary register. PW 24 deposed that the computer draw was conducted on the approval of Addl. Commissioner whose name he did not know. PW-21 deposed that he was not informed about the cancellation of the computer draw and in this case, both manual draw and computer draw were cancelled as deposed by several PWs. PW-39, A.K. Chaturvedi, Director, Slum & JJ, MCD admitted that allotment letters were not sent to the successful allottees after discussion with the Commissioner MCD in pursuance of his note dated 27.07.1993 and that no applicant was given any plot in lieu of the demolition slip in this case. PW-39 admitted that none of the successful allottees actually got any plot nor any benefit and that MCD was benefited by deposit of Rs.6,000/- by each applicant. This court finds that no wrongful loss to MCD or no wrongful gain to any accused or any other person has been established nor any act of dishonesty on the part of any accused is proved by prosecution. There is no incriminating evidence on record to indicate or to prove that any accused had obtained or accepted any illegal gratification or pecuniary advantage from anyone or in any manner had abused their official position as a public servant.
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 99 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
Conclusions
To conclude, this court finds that prosecution has failed to establish that
alleged conspiracy started after the note dated 16 th February 1993 was put. No meeting of mind or agreement between accused persons in 1993 has been established. Prosecution has failed to establish existence of conspiracy between accused persons (A-1) to (A-10) and even between any two or more of these accused. Case of the prosecution that alleged forged Demolition Slips were supplied by one Pyare Lal and Shri Azad Singh (A-10) was known to him or used to deal with forged demolition slips or V.P. Yadav (A-3) approached Azad Singh (A-10) and asked him to arrange fake demolition slips to him on payment or Azad Singh (A-10), collected forged demolition slips from Shri Pyare Lal and passed on to Shri V.P.Yadav (A-3) at a cost ranging from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per slip has not been established at all. Pyare Lal had expired on 6th July 1991 as per record. A dead man could not supply any demolition slip for a draw for which note was put up on 16 th February 1993. PW-55 Ratan Pal clearly falsified prosecution version regarding alleged role of Pyare Lal and supply of demolition slips. It has not been established that Pyare Lal used to deal with the forged demolition slips or V.P. Yadav (A-3) had approached Azad Singh and with his held arranged forged and fake DS. Material on record shows that several lists were prepared by different persons and the correspondence between the Land Protection Branch, East Zone and other Zones and between Assistant Director, Slum & JJ, Kalyanpuri shows that letters and responses were written by Assistant Director (EZA), Kalyanpuri asking Dy. Director Land Protection Branch (LPB) of the concerned CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 100 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 zone to verify the demolition slips in individual cases and of several listed persons/DS holders/claimants from time to time during 1988-89 regarding demolition carried out at different places. Those letters were replied and responded to by K.L. Bhatia (PW-13), Dy Director (E)/LPB/DDA as well as Sant Ram (A-1), Dy Director (S)/LPB/DDA. None of the persons who were allegedly having genuine demolition slips and examined as prosecution witnesses namely PW-41 to 50 and others produced any alleged genuine demolition slips. Prosecution witnesses namely S.N.S.Tyagi (PW-51) and Ram Saran (PW-
25), on showing specific demolition slips, could not state that as to who has issued them, nor could they identify their signatures on any of them. Counter foils of alleged genuine DS remained unproved and there is no original/genuine DS for comparison. PW-11 Sh. Vijender Singh Tomar testified that sanctioning authority for issuing the demolition slips was Director or Deputy Director of Land Protection Branch. PW-12 who was Joint Director in Protection Branch stated that demolition slips were signed by him and his Assistant Director. It clearly emerges from evidence on record that demolition slips were issued and verified by LP branch of DDA.
There is nothing on record to establish which accused induced MCD to deliver any property or valuable security to anyone. Admittedly, plots had not been allotted pursuant to draw held on 29 th June, 1993. No authentic list containing 322 demolition slip holder has been proved on record. No list of demolition slip holders to establish that 53 persons had already been allotted alternative plots in other colonies is proved or that out of the 322 demolition slips, 59 names were included in the draw on the basis of forged and fabricated slips. It has not been proved as to who had prepared the fake list CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 101 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 having ante dated signatures of Sant Ram (A-1) or that endorsement and signatures of A-3 thereon. It has not been proved that for this work A-3 paid Rs.1000/- to A-1 through A-10 for each slip. It has not been established that V.P. Yadav (A-3) had the knowledge that the demolition slips were forged and he utilized them as genuine. There is no satisfactory material on record to show that vide 5th September 1993, V.P. Yadav (A-3) or any other accused fraudulently changed individual files of DS holders or certificate with the list placed in the file. It has emerged on record that demolition slip used to be got verified by the dealing hand including V.P. Yadav and DD, (EZA) from Land Protection Branch, DDA and there is no satisfactory and sufficient incriminating evidence on record to prove that R.S.Yadav (A-2)(since deceased) had endorsed verification of demolition slips or that he had knowledge or reasons to believe that 59 names in the list were forged. Discussion of evidence clearly shows that admittedly specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused persons are not proved and moreover, opinion of the hand-writing expert is a weak evidence and is can only be corroborative in nature. Conviction of the accused persons cannot be based only on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert and in the instant case, there is evidence of PW-13 K.L. Bhatia contrary to the report of the handwriting expert, who was not declared hostile and was a relied upon witness of the prosecution.
It has been established that Rs. 3,000/- prescribed by DDA, could be deposited on behalf of the allottee by any of his representative and it is not necessary that allottee should himself deposit or sign the challan. It has emerged on record that most of JJ dwellers were illiterate persons and used to CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 102 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 get their paper including applications and affidavits prepared from other persons including property dealers. None of Jhuggi Dwellers who had been examined produced genuine DS issued to them. According to many of these PWs, they had handed over their DS to the Mukhiya or misplaced. It is strange that none of original DS holder examined as PW produced their genuine demolition slip. All such persons who were neither part of draw nor were not allotted any plot lost their original demolition slips and admittedly, demolition slips did not bear any identity of Jhuggi or photograph of concerned person. Their cross-examination indicates that they had not produced any ration card or any other document to conclusively establish that they were the persons, who were original demolition slip holders. It has not been proved that V.P. Yadav (A-3) and Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4) persuaded Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) to purchase few plots at the rate of Rs.4000/- for which they passed on photocopies of 4 DS and fake allotment letters were prepared by Sh. V.P. Yadav (A-3) or Sh. R.C Yadav (A-2).
Prosecution has further failed to prove that V.P. Yadav (A-3) handed over 45 slips which were purportedly issued for the allotment of plots in Shahbad, Daulatpur or relevant anti-dated list typed in respect of those DS were signed by (A-1) and marked to Assistant Director, Kalyanpuri or endorsement & signature were anti-dated by (A-1) purported to be signed in 1987. It has not been proved that for this work, V.P. Yadav (A-3) paid Rs.1000/- to Sant Ram (A-
1) through Azad Singh (A-10) for each slip. Prosecution has failed to prove that (A-1) in connivance with (A-3) falsely verified that forged DS identified for allotment of plots at Pootkalan, Shahbad, Daulatpur and due to non availability of plots, the place of allotment on these DS had been changed to CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 103 out of 105 Case No.532191/2016 'Kondli resettlement colonies'. It is not proved that (A-4) manipulated photographs required to be submitted by the genuine DS holders alongwith the application accompanied with affidavits and proof of deposit of requisite fees in the bank. Factum of forgery of demolition slips has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and it has also not been established that forged demolition slips were used as genuine by any of the accused. Allegations that Sh. V.P. Yadav (A-3) had passed on four fake allotment letters duly prepared by him and signed by Sh. R.C. Yadav (A-2), the then Assistant Director of Kalyanpuri to Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5) and collected an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- or Sh.V.P. Yadav (A-3) also collected an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from one Dr. Rakesh Sharma (PW-9) of Kitchripur with an assurance to arrange him four plots in Kondli against the forged demolition slips which however was not done and he returned an amount of Rs.25,000/- to Dr. Rakesh Sharma (PW-9) through cheque as a part payment is not proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubts. PW-39, Sh. A.K.Chaturvedi, Director (Slum and JJ) categorically admitted that no applicant was given any plot in lieu of the demolition slip in this case despite the fact they had submitted all documents and fee of Rs. 6,000/- by the applicants before draw of lots. Admittedly, none of the successful allottees actually got any plot nor any benefit and MCD was benefited by deposit of Rs. 6,000/- by each of applicant. Draw was cancelled and no one got any plot and rather the DDA earned about Rs. 6,000/- per case, no wrongful loss to DDA & no wrongful gain to any accused is proved. Then where is the question of cheating DDA.
Last but not the least, there is no evidence on record to show that any
CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 104 out of 105
Case No.532191/2016
pecuniary advantage was caused to any of the accused by the alleged acts or to any other person or on their behalf. There is no incriminating evidence on record to establish the fact that the accused had abused their position as public servant in discharge of their duties or had used corrupt or illegal means. Thus, allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9 has not been established by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. On appreciation of the entirety of material on record, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish that during the year 1993 accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to do any illegal act to cheat the MCD. Neither any forgery nor any loss to the MCD or any other authority is proved by the prosecution. This court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish charges u/s 120B or u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC or 13(1)d r/w 13(2) P C Act beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In the result, accused persons namely V.P. Yadav (A-3), Anand Bihari Sharma (A-4), Rakesh Kumar Gupta (A-5), Karan Pal Malik (A-7), Rajneesh Kumar Singh (A-8) and Smt. Surender Kaur (A-9) are hereby acquitted of the charges against them in this case. Accused persons shall furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each as required U/S 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in the (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) open court on 17th September 2016 Special Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06 Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CBI Vs.Sant Ram Badgujar & Ors. 105 out of 105